To what extent does the registry competition drive pricing for pre-1916 coins?

RYK

I recently read a DWN blog (here) in which the argument is made that registry competition overvalued the so-so 1876-S $10 in 55 and undervalued the nice(r) 1876-S $10 in 50. As a collector of 19th century gold, while I can see a "label buyer" paying more for the higher grade coin, I do not believe it has anything to do with the registry--just the inherently flawed quest to have what is perceived as the highest quality.

I expect that there is some registry competition in the ubiquitous Morgan dollar world, but I would be surprised if there was similar competition among bust half dime collectors or seated quarter collectors. Surprise me and tell me that I am mistaken.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

crypto79

We mostly all know each other in Trade dollars and I can tell you that we all know who ranks where indifferent of registry points. I personally have dropped in rank a few times in a few sets to get better coins that fit the narrative of my set.

The answer you point; I feel not on registries mostly needed on common 20th cen coins (and Morgan's) they have been the driver for meaningless strike designations like FB, FBL, FH and such. A complete set on 19th cen types is quickly becoming out of reach of the middle class.

BillJones

For type coins it really does not matter unless it involves the top population coins. To the me the heart of a type set really involves the types from the 1792 (half disme) to circa 1840 from the collectors' perspective. From the registry perspective the high grade late 19th century and to mid 20th century coins give you most bang for the buck so far as registry points go. To be specific, it is much more efficient from the registry point perspective to pay $30,000 for some early 20th century coins in MS-66 or 67, than to buy a 1796 quarter in VF-25. From that point of view the registry drives up the prices for those early 20th century coins, which what the people who run the registries intend to happen. Dealers can't make a living selling the classic early use coins in choice condition because there are not enough of them to sustain a business.

crypto79

<< <i>To be specific, it is much more efficient from the registry point perspective to pay $30,000 for some early 20th century coins in MS-66 or 67, than to buy a 1796 quarter in VF-25. From that point of view the registry drives up the prices for those early 20th century coins, which what the people who run the registries intend to happen. Dealers can't make a living selling the classic early use coins in choice condition because there are not enough of them to sustain a business. >>



This is a great point but I would like to add that is it logical too for the grading companies that have every reason to incentivize the weighted 20th issues to the registries as just as there are not enough gradable classic coins for all the dealer to stay afloat, I would imagine the TPG would see quite the dip in profits if they only had 18th and 19th cen coins to grade.

Zoins

<< <i>

<< <i>To be specific, it is much more efficient from the registry point perspective to pay $30,000 for some early 20th century coins in MS-66 or 67, than to buy a 1796 quarter in VF-25. From that point of view the registry drives up the prices for those early 20th century coins, which what the people who run the registries intend to happen. Dealers can't make a living selling the classic early use coins in choice condition because there are not enough of them to sustain a business. >>



This is a great point but I would like to add that is it logical too for the grading companies that have every reason to incentivize the weighted 20th issues to the registries as just as there are not enough gradable classic coins for all the dealer to stay afloat, I would imagine the TPG would see quite the dip in profits if they only had 18th and 19th cen coins to grade. >>



Interesting comments on Registry weightings, collector demand and pricing.

coinkat

This really is a great question and obviously there is no single answer and a review by denomination seems reasonable.

I would rather have lower graded coins that I like rather than higher grades that I am unable to tolerate.

Competition? That is the other guy's problem. Unfortunately, holders create a perception of quality that is not always well founded among collectors that seek originality

crypto79

<< <i>Unfortunately, holders create a perception of quality that is not always well founded among collectors that seek originality >>



Unfortunately, some purponents of originality also erogenously promote it to be the end-all definition of quality which it is but one of many attributes of varreing weights that define quality. There is also most assuredly is negative originality

Lakesammman

Haven't participated in registries for a few years, but can tell you that substandard red IHC's were bringing very strong prices in the mid-80's just for the grade/points.

It's a factor that can subtly cause you to bid/pay more strongly than you otherwise would.

Nic

I object to "just the inherently flawed quest" . Why?

K

coinkat

You mean proponents?

Originality is not the be all-end all definition of quality but it surely stands head and shoulders above dipped out unnatural looking crap that has been passed off under the cloak of "market acceptable"

Take a look at the 1810 Bust half in another thread trending here at the moment- the image of that coin is worth 10,000 words on the subject

RYK

<< <i>I object to "just the inherently flawed quest" . Why?

K >>


The quest is inherently flawed because what is perceived to be highest quality based on the numerical grade is not necessarily so.

coinkat

YUP...That about sums it up

crypto79

<< <i>You mean proponents?

Originality is not the be all-end all definition of quality but it surely stands head and shoulders above dipped out unnatural looking crap that has been passed off under the cloak of "market acceptable"

Take a look at the 1810 Bust half in another thread trending here at the moment- the image of that coin is worth 10,000 words on the subject >>



I thought that is what I thought I typed, these things happen when you do most of one's posts from a phone. That said you are harping on the extremes of both sides of common states of preservation. In reality most people don't really know what originality looks like and dirt and grim or almost never embraced (RYK excluded). What people really want us pleasing toning that isn't too out of line with the avg look of the series as not to raise doubts that is neither to dark or too uneven. The truth is quality is really a subjective combination of eye appeal and technical preservation with a smidge of lquidity thrown in based off the markets preferences. Many, many people don't get that and coins on the "dipped out crap" side of the scale are actually an easier sell then coins to fare gone into the "original side" ESP silver and copper where corrosion can go hand in hand with a lack of preservation. That is Preservation being antithetical to originality.

Nic

<< <i>

<< <i>I object to "just the inherently flawed quest" . Why?

K >>


The quest is inherently flawed because what is perceived to be highest quality based on the numerical grade is not necessarily so. >>



Thanks Rob. I now get what you are saying and agree with your addition of "based on numerical grading". Sorry I'm slow.

Seated quarters went through a registry competition you would not believe.

K

ranshdow

I recently uploaded my loot to the registry, and to my surprise found one of my sets in 4th place. I have a hard time believing rank would ever drive my purchase decisions, though.

CoinJunkie

<< <i>Unfortunately, some purponents of originality also erogenously promote it to be the end-all definition of quality which it is but one of many attributes of varreing weights that define quality. There is also most assuredly is negative originality >>


Can you try this one again when you're sober?

breakdown

Although it may have more effect in more widely-collected series like Morgan dollars, I don't underestimate the power of the registry on any series. There's a lot of competitive people that happen to be successful (or vice versa) and the registry gives them a scoreboard (as flawed as it may be).

As an analogy to running, think of the runners that are only interested in running with a stopwatch running, wanting to time every workout, as opposed to the runners who never wear a watch and aren't particularly interested in races. Or golf -- some guys keep score every single time they play, including how many putts they have and how many fairways they hit, etc. Other guys go out and play three balls on every hole and don't even give a thought to a scorecard.