Originally posted by: wondercoin PutTogether... One caveat to your analysis, which I think is otherwise fair. The position of the auction house regarding the use of credit cards up to $9,999 only for collectors has led me personally to not bid virtually at all over there for the coins over or under $10,000.
Fair enough. Credit cards certainly provide enough utility as a consumer and/or a business entity that a merchant's refusal to accept your card is a completely valid reason to do no business with them whatsoever. There have been plenty of times I've chosen not purchase something because the seller wouldn't take a credit card. It even bugs me when a restaurant won't take American Express, and I have to tender some other form of payment.
It sounds like you would agree though, that on an item over $10,000 - their refusal to accept your credit card puts you at no disadvantage, and that one couldn't argue the fairness of the transaction. It is the principle of the sub $10,000 policy that bothers you so much as to prevent you from participating in any transaction. (or 'virtually' any transaction).
I'm with you logically and ethically. Makes perfect sense.
Originally posted by: wondercoin And, even though is has been suggested that it might not even be permitted to exclude the use of a credit card from a particular profession, I do not intend to pursue it any further (or even discover if that is accurate).
Then why bring it up? You weren't the first to bring it up in the original conversation, but when it was brought up you replied in agreement that the policy might very well be in violation of GC's merchant agreement, and you raise the issue again here. If you don't intend to pursue it any further, or even to check the veracity of the claim in the first place......then why let it hang in the air at all? It is disingenuous to bring up a topic, let it sit there, and then claim it doesn't matter. It leaves the damaging hint of an accusation, without taking responsibility for such.
Here is a hyperbolic example: "Sure, some people might have said that Wondercoin engages in some potentially shady tactics, and I've previously agreed with them publicly, but I'm not going to pursue it (or even discover if that is accurate)"
Would you be find with someone making a statement like that about your business? I hope not. It is at best slightly rude, and at worst, somewhat reckless.
Originally posted by: wondercoin If the tables were turned and only dealers could use credit cards and not collectors, in my opinion it would likely be considered relevant to the discussion.
Maybe, but I doubt it. First, dealers (of all types) give each other favorable terms that aren't available to the public at large all the time. Wholesale prices, net 30 terms, financing, inventory swaps, etc. It is the nature retail business. Totally acceptable, normal, desirable - and shouldn't be news to anybody. One dealer offering another some sort of break, bonus, or special consideration that he wouldn't offer a retail customer is hardly discussion worthy.
Second, if those terms WERE deemed relevant to discussion - they would certainly best be discussed in a topic/thread/etc outside of one about a particular coin for sale.
What I will allow for (and what you may actually be referring to) is that a retail customer posting a mostly irrelevant complaint in the middle of a barely related topic is certainly more socially acceptable than one business taking issue with another. We are used to people ranting "Business XYZ blah blah blah" in a thread where Business XYZ is only casually mentioned. We generally accept that individuals can be petty, unforgiving, and sometimes just mean. It is so common as to be totally unremarkable.
I submit that the standard for known, respected professionals speaking about each other is, and should be, different. If I, as a mostly anonymous person on the internet, posted that I thought the practices of a certain physician were questionable - you would probably reflexively ignore what I had to say. No harm done. If you discovered that I myself was a well known and respected physician - your thoughts on my opinion would likely be quite different.
Originally posted by: wondercoin As always, just my two cents and again, I am perfectly fine with this thread concluding as it would have in its normal course anyway without my comments/ contributions on this issue or the issue of what the most expensive sale of a Kennedy was.
Now that you mention it, I found'most expensive sale of a Kennedy' thing completely apropos. As a tangent to the first point of the thread, it was relevant, interesting information. I had ZERO idea that a Kennedy had ever been sold for a price anywhere close to those figures. To be totally honest, the reason I clicked on this thread was that I don't know much about Kennedys, and thought it would be fun to read about the ultra high end of that particular market.
Originally posted by: wondercoinIn fact, you are posting your comment nearly two days after this thread essentially "ended".
I wasn't under the impression the thread had to 'end.' I thought (and think) the entirety of the thread was interesting, and (perhaps erroneously) that I might be able to add something relevant.
My last point: I don't personally know you or Ian Russell except by reputation. I don't have a dog in the 'fight,' and am not trying to be acrimonious. The discussion just happened to veer into a field in which I have some interest and an opinion.
edited to fix some punctuation, but I'm sure I still left some mistakes.
It's a slick looking coin, but it is a condition rarity of a variety. If a pop 1 becomes a pop 2, that can be a big hit in value.
Even though it's 52 years old, I'm reasonably certain there is at least another one out there somewhere. Probably still sealed sitting in somebody's attic.
As far as credit cards, HA has a $2500 limit which I hate since they are charging buyers 17.5% I think a 3% fee should be factored in.
Outside a primary residence, the only smart time to borrow money is a business investment.
A collector should never borrow money for a coin.
That being said, I try to use a credit card for every coin I buy. I get protection and perks between 2% - 5% and I always pay the balance each month to avoid interest charges.
Even though it's 52 years old, I'm reasonably certain there is at least another one out there somewhere. Probably still sealed sitting in somebody's attic.
the subjective grade of the coin in question aside, I don't believe the above statement reflects the experience of many searchers. as my father said ad nauseum as I was growing up, "it's possible but not probable" that another coin like this exists. too many of us have been searching for too long and the number of extant 1964 Proof Sets which haven't been looked at is increasingly shrinking. the trouble with your reasoning is that it pre-supposes any remaining sets are stored in a fashion which will protect the coins, a fact I don't find to be accurate. understandably there are sets which are held by collectors who don't know what they have but the longer they stay intact the higher the likelihood that they'll degrade. IF, and that's a very big IF, another PR69DCAM AH joins the pop numbers it will probably be a regrade of a PR68DCAM or a coin held by someone who knows what they have but haven't submitted yet.
I think if a collector or dealer regularly searches for Modern issues over an extended period of time they eventually reach a conclusion: even though the Mint issued many millions of a specific coin, that doesn't mean that they were able to strike them past a certain point in terms of quality. this is one of those coins.
Puttogether... You chose to resurrect this particular thread when there was another thread on the very subject also going at the very same time from a few days ago. So, it was clear to me that you wanted to address my issues raised a few days ago and not additional discussion on the coin itself. Fair enough. So, I briefly answered you as a courtesy. That's it ... I won't respond again, but feel free to PM me if you have a question about anything I have said to this point on this thread or any other thread on the boards.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
First, thank you for reconfirming the no credit cards from dealers policy. Again, when I am buying coins for my registry sets, I buy them strictly as a collector (some of the sets I have had personally for nearly 34 years now and still have 99% of the coins). I wish you reconsidered your policy especially when buyers are clearly wearing their "collector hat" in buying coins for coin series they collect. But, of course, you make the rules for your own auction house and I will respect them. And, yes, you have always been available for the lot viewing of any coins one wanted to see - thank you for that.
Regarding the sale of the top grade 1964 SMS half Dollar, the sale took place a few years ago in connection with the sale of a complete set of SMS 1964 coins (cent through half dollar) that had been marketed both privately and at auction before hand. I believe, the set failed to sell at the reserve at auction, but then sold privately shortly thereafter. As I recall, the record purchase price was announced in print in a few places, including possibly right here. I believe Coin World would have erred if they stating that MS68 coin set the record price for any Kennedy half dollar (I did not read the story so I do not know if they erred or not). It was very likely the record price for a regular issue Mint State Kennedy though.
If you would like the name of the dealer that sold the 1964 SMS coins for the record prices (who you are well acquainted with) just let me know. I also know the buyer of the coins (or at least his agent) and if you needed more information, I could also ask him if it would be OK for you to contact him. I believe you know him as well. But, the seller would probably be all you needed to speak with to confirm the roughly $65,000 sales price (if not even closer to $70,000 or so). Hope this helps.
Wondercoin
The key word is "auction record." We brokered the private sale of the finest known complete five-piece 1964 SMS set, all PCGS, to our client in 2013. The seller was David Schweitz, and the price was $151,200 including commissions. This is all in the public record and the press release.
The Kennedy half was the sole MS69 PCGS 1964 SMS example, a pop 1 coin which was at least half the value of the set (although the other coins were all top-pop or tied for top-pop as well). We issued a press release and this was all picked up by Coin World and Numismatic News, among other media. A copy of the press release is on our website.
Comments
PutTogether... One caveat to your analysis, which I think is otherwise fair. The position of the auction house regarding the use of credit cards up to $9,999 only for collectors has led me personally to not bid virtually at all over there for the coins over or under $10,000.
Fair enough. Credit cards certainly provide enough utility as a consumer and/or a business entity that a merchant's refusal to accept your card is a completely valid reason to do no business with them whatsoever. There have been plenty of times I've chosen not purchase something because the seller wouldn't take a credit card. It even bugs me when a restaurant won't take American Express, and I have to tender some other form of payment.
It sounds like you would agree though, that on an item over $10,000 - their refusal to accept your credit card puts you at no disadvantage, and that one couldn't argue the fairness of the transaction. It is the principle of the sub $10,000 policy that bothers you so much as to prevent you from participating in any transaction. (or 'virtually' any transaction).
I'm with you logically and ethically. Makes perfect sense.
And, even though is has been suggested that it might not even be permitted to exclude the use of a credit card from a particular profession, I do not intend to pursue it any further (or even discover if that is accurate).
Then why bring it up? You weren't the first to bring it up in the original conversation, but when it was brought up you replied in agreement that the policy might very well be in violation of GC's merchant agreement, and you raise the issue again here. If you don't intend to pursue it any further, or even to check the veracity of the claim in the first place......then why let it hang in the air at all? It is disingenuous to bring up a topic, let it sit there, and then claim it doesn't matter. It leaves the damaging hint of an accusation, without taking responsibility for such.
Here is a hyperbolic example: "Sure, some people might have said that Wondercoin engages in some potentially shady tactics, and I've previously agreed with them publicly, but I'm not going to pursue it (or even discover if that is accurate)"
Would you be find with someone making a statement like that about your business? I hope not. It is at best slightly rude, and at worst, somewhat reckless.
If the tables were turned and only dealers could use credit cards and not collectors, in my opinion it would likely be considered relevant to the discussion.
Maybe, but I doubt it. First, dealers (of all types) give each other favorable terms that aren't available to the public at large all the time. Wholesale prices, net 30 terms, financing, inventory swaps, etc. It is the nature retail business. Totally acceptable, normal, desirable - and shouldn't be news to anybody. One dealer offering another some sort of break, bonus, or special consideration that he wouldn't offer a retail customer is hardly discussion worthy.
Second, if those terms WERE deemed relevant to discussion - they would certainly best be discussed in a topic/thread/etc outside of one about a particular coin for sale.
What I will allow for (and what you may actually be referring to) is that a retail customer posting a mostly irrelevant complaint in the middle of a barely related topic is certainly more socially acceptable than one business taking issue with another. We are used to people ranting "Business XYZ blah blah blah" in a thread where Business XYZ is only casually mentioned. We generally accept that individuals can be petty, unforgiving, and sometimes just mean. It is so common as to be totally unremarkable.
I submit that the standard for known, respected professionals speaking about each other is, and should be, different. If I, as a mostly anonymous person on the internet, posted that I thought the practices of a certain physician were questionable - you would probably reflexively ignore what I had to say. No harm done. If you discovered that I myself was a well known and respected physician - your thoughts on my opinion would likely be quite different.
As always, just my two cents and again, I am perfectly fine with this thread concluding as it would have in its normal course anyway without my comments/ contributions on this issue or the issue of what the most expensive sale of a Kennedy was.
Now that you mention it, I found'most expensive sale of a Kennedy' thing completely apropos. As a tangent to the first point of the thread, it was relevant, interesting information. I had ZERO idea that a Kennedy had ever been sold for a price anywhere close to those figures. To be totally honest, the reason I clicked on this thread was that I don't know much about Kennedys, and thought it would be fun to read about the ultra high end of that particular market.
I wasn't under the impression the thread had to 'end.' I thought (and think) the entirety of the thread was interesting, and (perhaps erroneously) that I might be able to add something relevant.
My last point: I don't personally know you or Ian Russell except by reputation. I don't have a dog in the 'fight,' and am not trying to be acrimonious. The discussion just happened to veer into a field in which I have some interest and an opinion.
edited to fix some punctuation, but I'm sure I still left some mistakes.
If a pop 1 becomes a pop 2, that can be a big hit in value.
Even though it's 52 years old, I'm reasonably certain there is at least another one out there somewhere. Probably still sealed sitting in somebody's attic.
As far as credit cards, HA has a $2500 limit which I hate since they are charging buyers 17.5% I think a 3% fee should be factored in.
Outside a primary residence, the only smart time to borrow money is a business investment.
A collector should never borrow money for a coin.
That being said, I try to use a credit card for every coin I buy. I get protection and perks between 2% - 5% and I always pay the balance each month to avoid interest charges.
the subjective grade of the coin in question aside, I don't believe the above statement reflects the experience of many searchers. as my father said ad nauseum as I was growing up, "it's possible but not probable" that another coin like this exists. too many of us have been searching for too long and the number of extant 1964 Proof Sets which haven't been looked at is increasingly shrinking. the trouble with your reasoning is that it pre-supposes any remaining sets are stored in a fashion which will protect the coins, a fact I don't find to be accurate. understandably there are sets which are held by collectors who don't know what they have but the longer they stay intact the higher the likelihood that they'll degrade. IF, and that's a very big IF, another PR69DCAM AH joins the pop numbers it will probably be a regrade of a PR68DCAM or a coin held by someone who knows what they have but haven't submitted yet.
I think if a collector or dealer regularly searches for Modern issues over an extended period of time they eventually reach a conclusion: even though the Mint issued many millions of a specific coin, that doesn't mean that they were able to strike them past a certain point in terms of quality. this is one of those coins.
Wondercoin
First, thank you for reconfirming the no credit cards from dealers policy. Again, when I am buying coins for my registry sets, I buy them strictly as a collector (some of the sets I have had personally for nearly 34 years now and still have 99% of the coins). I wish you reconsidered your policy especially when buyers are clearly wearing their "collector hat" in buying coins for coin series they collect. But, of course, you make the rules for your own auction house and I will respect them. And, yes, you have always been available for the lot viewing of any coins one wanted to see - thank you for that.
Regarding the sale of the top grade 1964 SMS half Dollar, the sale took place a few years ago in connection with the sale of a complete set of SMS 1964 coins (cent through half dollar) that had been marketed both privately and at auction before hand. I believe, the set failed to sell at the reserve at auction, but then sold privately shortly thereafter. As I recall, the record purchase price was announced in print in a few places, including possibly right here. I believe Coin World would have erred if they stating that MS68 coin set the record price for any Kennedy half dollar (I did not read the story so I do not know if they erred or not). It was very likely the record price for a regular issue Mint State Kennedy though.
If you would like the name of the dealer that sold the 1964 SMS coins for the record prices (who you are well acquainted with) just let me know. I also know the buyer of the coins (or at least his agent) and if you needed more information, I could also ask him if it would be OK for you to contact him. I believe you know him as well. But, the seller would probably be all you needed to speak with to confirm the roughly $65,000 sales price (if not even closer to $70,000 or so). Hope this helps.
Wondercoin
The key word is "auction record." We brokered the private sale of the finest known complete five-piece 1964 SMS set, all PCGS, to our client in 2013. The seller was David Schweitz, and the price was $151,200 including commissions. This is all in the public record and the press release.
The Kennedy half was the sole MS69 PCGS 1964 SMS example, a pop 1 coin which was at least half the value of the set (although the other coins were all top-pop or tied for top-pop as well). We issued a press release and this was all picked up by Coin World and Numismatic News, among other media. A copy of the press release is on our website.
Best Regards,
George