If grading was that exacting of a science then there would be no reason to crack out and re-submit coins and PCGS would not have a re-consideration service.
If the Registry does not affect values at the high end then I cannot explain how a One Ounce $50 Gold Eagle bullion coin that graded MS70 sold at auction for $35,000 when an ungraded coin of the same year was bringing about $1,000.
Why do I see many CAC coins and a good amount of pcgs 67-68 coins without the wow eye appeal of some 65-66. Almost all 67-68 coins should have fantastic eye appeal for these grades and prices paid
Yes, it was. In the sense that there was no money. Activity was tribal not individual. Everyone was a hunter/ gatherer. Money didn't develop until relatively recently (3000 or so years ago) when civilization and specialization developed. In between, it was strictly a barter system.
@robbylu52 said:
Why do I see many CAC coins and a good amount of pcgs 67-68 coins without the wow eye appeal of some 65-66. Almost all 67-68 coins should have fantastic eye appeal for these grades and prices paid
Yes and no. Eye appeal is only part of the grade. Eye appeal is also subjective. If you like tinged coins then you will find greater eye appeal in a dinged up 65 than a mark free white 68.
And, for the record, the toned 65 might well sell for more than the white 68.
Find the humility to accept that you are not smarter than the market.
@robbylu52 said:
Why pay 10x the price for a ms 67 when you see no difference from a 66
People have said this for years. And you know what----the very top graded coins continue to do very well compared to the next grade level down. Human nature always will have people wanting the "best"
@robbylu52 said:
Why pay 10x the price for a ms 67 when you see no difference from a 66
People have said this for years. And you know what----the very top graded coins continue to do very well compared to the next grade level down. Human nature always will have people wanting the "best"
Except, there are many occasions when increased populations for "the very top graded coins" cause significant decreases in value, while the next grade level down examples are unaffected.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Interesting is that eye appeal doesn't directly impact the grade of the coin, but the desirability to the prospective purchaser... A coin of any said grade that is highly toned may not be desirable to a collector that is only interested in blast white.
@PwrHsePro said:
Interesting is that eye appeal doesn't directly impact the grade of the coin, but the desirability to the prospective purchaser... A coin of any said grade that is highly toned may not be desirable to a collector that is only interested in blast white.
Actually yes, eye appeal does impact the grade. I've seen it in the PCGS Videos when I recently stayed at the Holiday Inn. Often times the eye appeal pushes a coin to a +. A small difference in grade but a large difference in price.
Yes, it was. In the sense that there was no money. Activity was tribal not individual. Everyone was a hunter/ gatherer. Money didn't develop until relatively recently (3000 or so years ago) when civilization and specialization developed. In between, it was strictly a barter system.
Just think if you possessed fire! Then everything was free including the women Money for nothing and your chicks for free, lol.
@PwrHsePro said:
Interesting is that eye appeal doesn't directly impact the grade of the coin, but the desirability to the prospective purchaser... A coin of any said grade that is highly toned may not be desirable to a collector that is only interested in blast white.
Yes, it does. To not appreciate the role of eye appeal in the current grading approach by the major TPGs is to not understand grading in the current market.
Grading is subjective (no standards exist), with a small about of objectivity to direct current guidelines. Whenever there is subjectivity, opinion can influence decision making. Since eye appeal is a value based on opinion, it will influence the subjectivity of the coin's grade. Affect the subjectivity and you affect the grade.
A clear example is the TPG grading of "monster" toned Morgan dollars. Walk any major show and you will find "technical" MS-64 and MS-65 coins assigned grades above the technical grade because of eye appealing toning. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is immaterial as it is the current market.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The prices reflect what the market is willing to pay.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
@PwrHsePro said:
Interesting is that eye appeal doesn't directly impact the grade of the coin, but the desirability to the prospective purchaser... A coin of any said grade that is highly toned may not be desirable to a collector that is only interested in blast white.
Yes, it does. To not appreciate the role of eye appeal in the current grading approach by the major TPGs is to not understand grading in the current market.
Thats good to know, but curious as to how that can be quantified... maybe that's the wrong term... but all else the same, which would get the higher grade, an attractive heavily toned, an attractive blast white, an attractive normally toned, or an attractive untoned?
I would hope that they would all be graded 'the same' and the 'value' be the same, but the price realized based on what the purchaser desires.
@PwrHsePro said:
Interesting is that eye appeal doesn't directly impact the grade of the coin, but the desirability to the prospective purchaser... A coin of any said grade that is highly toned may not be desirable to a collector that is only interested in blast white.
Yes, it does. To not appreciate the role of eye appeal in the current grading approach by the major TPGs is to not understand grading in the current market.
Thats good to know, but curious as to how that can be quantified... maybe that's the wrong term... but all else the same, which would get the higher grade, an attractive heavily toned, an attractive blast white, an attractive normally toned, or an attractive untoned?
I would hope that they would all be graded 'the same' and the 'value' be the same, but the price realized based on what the purchaser desires.
Thats good to know, but curious as to how that can be quantified ...
It's subjective, without a standard or rubric. It's like trying to "quantify" or "standardize" the answer to the question, "How long is a piece of string?"
... but all else the same, which would get the higher grade, an attractive heavily toned, an attractive blast white, an attractive normally toned, or an attractive untoned?
The answer is yes.
I would hope that they would all be graded 'the same' and the 'value' be the same, but the price realized based on what the purchaser desires.
Hope is not a good strategy in numismatics.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
@PwrHsePro said:
I would hope that they would all be graded 'the same' and the 'value' be the same, but the price realized based on what the purchaser desires.
Grading is a way of determining the physical condition of a coin. Grades range from Poor (almost completely worn out) to Perfect Uncirculated (a coin with absolutely no wear and no flaws of any kind). Over 99.9% of all coins fall somewhere between these two extremes.
Uncirculated coins have different grades as well, depending on how carefully each coin was made, handled, and stored. Some uncirculated coins have heavy marks caused by contact with other coins during minting or storage. Other uncirculated coins are nearly free of such marks. The coin in the best state of preservation will almost always have the greatest value.
IMO, the grading companies should be focusing on grading and leave eye appeal to the market. I know it's not as simple as that, but ranking coins by how much wear or how many bagmarks they have is a way more objective exercise than ranking them by eye appeal. Take two coins in comparable states of preservation, one toned and one not toned. Depending on who you ask, both of them have better eye appeal and both of them don't. How do you factor that into a grade? You really can't, not in a way that makes sense for everybody.
I put together this graph that shows how many Morgan Dollars have been graded for each grade. If you add the two most common grades (MS63 and MS64), you will see that they represent about 66% of the population, which is close to what you would expect in a 68-95-97 distribution. While people do say coin grading is subjective, which it is, it still follows normal distribution, more or less.
@stownsin said:
I put together this graph that shows how many Morgan Dollars have been graded for each grade. If you add the two most common grades (MS63 and MS64), you will see that they represent about 66% of the population, which is close to what you would expect in a 68-95-97 distribution. While people do say coin grading is subjective, which it is, it still follows normal distribution, more or less.
The distribution of grades does not address the objective or subjective nature of grading. It shows the population (ignoring resubmissions) of grades assigned to coins along a spectrum.
To assess the distribution of a coin's grade, the same coin would need to be graded multiple times. In other words, the precision of the assigned grades would need to be measured (assuming the "real" grade is assigned accurately).
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Although eye appeal of course is subjective, if you divide collectors into those who are partial to toning and those who are less so, within each group, I suspect you would find quite a lot of agreement on eye appeal.
@robbylu52 said:
Why pay 10x the price for a ms 67 when you see no difference from a 66
People have said this for years. And you know what----the very top graded coins continue to do very well compared to the next grade level down. Human nature always will have people wanting the "best"
Except, there are many occasions when increased populations for "the very top graded coins" cause significant decreases in value, while the next grade level down examples are unaffected.
By definition "the very top graded coins" are top graded and if there are increased populations then they are no longer the "very top".
But I think Mark is talking about the type of situation where the population in 66/67/68 goes, for example, from 50/3/0 to 60/10/0. The 67s are still “very top” but they may be a lot less valuable.
@robbylu52 said:
Why pay 10x the price for a ms 67 when you see no difference from a 66
People have said this for years. And you know what----the very top graded coins continue to do very well compared to the next grade level down. Human nature always will have people wanting the "best"
Except, there are many occasions when increased populations for "the very top graded coins" cause significant decreases in value, while the next grade level down examples are unaffected.
By definition "the very top graded coins" are top graded and if there are increased populations then they are no longer the "very top".
If, due to changes in populations, either 1) there are more examples at the same "very top grade" or 2) what was once a "very top graded coin" no longer is, and as a result, the value drops, then the "very top graded coins" don't continue to do very well compared to the next grade level down.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Lazybones said:
The prices reflect what the market is willing to pay.
Of course. But many factors, including slabs, grades and fads, have a very real impact on supply and demand.
My comment was all inclusive. There are many factors that play into the value. But it still stands that, all things considered, it's the buying public that decides what constitutes value.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
@BillJones said:
To me such coins have to be truly outstanding for what they are. They have to really “reach out” to the experienced collector, not just for the technical grade but also with beauty and outstanding eye appeal. For me an average looking coin with a high grading number on the slab does not cut it.
And one more thing. Those coins are few and far between.
I agree. The only way, to me, an MS67 is worth a big premium from an MS66 is if the toning (color) is amazing.
@PwrHsePro said:
I would hope that they would all be graded 'the same' and the 'value' be the same, but the price realized based on what the purchaser desires.
Grading is a way of determining the physical condition of a coin. Grades range from Poor (almost completely worn out) to Perfect Uncirculated (a coin with absolutely no wear and no flaws of any kind). Over 99.9% of all coins fall somewhere between these two extremes.
Uncirculated coins have different grades as well, depending on how carefully each coin was made, handled, and stored. Some uncirculated coins have heavy marks caused by contact with other coins during minting or storage. Other uncirculated coins are nearly free of such marks. The coin in the best state of preservation will almost always have the greatest value.
IMO, the grading companies should be focusing on grading and leave eye appeal to the market. I know it's not as simple as that, but ranking coins by how much wear or how many bagmarks they have is a way more objective exercise than ranking them by eye appeal. Take two coins in comparable states of preservation, one toned and one not toned. Depending on who you ask, both of them have better eye appeal and both of them don't. How do you factor that into a grade? You really can't, not in a way that makes sense for everybody.
As far as I know, "the market" already does this. Last I checked, no one forces anyone to agree with anyone else's opinion of a coin's "grade" or "value"...
Lots of coins, I don't agree with the assigned grade or asking price.. guess what? I don't buy those. Other coins, I believe are fairly graded and priced, or even undergraded or under priced.
Those I do buy.
IMO, it's all working pretty well. It's nice to be able to opine on how we think things "should be", but it's very difficult to get other market participants to agree and comply.
@PwrHsePro said:
I would hope that they would all be graded 'the same' and the 'value' be the same, but the price realized based on what the purchaser desires.
Grading is a way of determining the physical condition of a coin. Grades range from Poor (almost completely worn out) to Perfect Uncirculated (a coin with absolutely no wear and no flaws of any kind). Over 99.9% of all coins fall somewhere between these two extremes.
Uncirculated coins have different grades as well, depending on how carefully each coin was made, handled, and stored. Some uncirculated coins have heavy marks caused by contact with other coins during minting or storage. Other uncirculated coins are nearly free of such marks. The coin in the best state of preservation will almost always have the greatest value.
IMO, the grading companies should be focusing on grading and leave eye appeal to the market. I know it's not as simple as that, but ranking coins by how much wear or how many bagmarks they have is a way more objective exercise than ranking them by eye appeal. Take two coins in comparable states of preservation, one toned and one not toned. Depending on who you ask, both of them have better eye appeal and both of them don't. How do you factor that into a grade? You really can't, not in a way that makes sense for everybody.
As far as I know, "the market" already does this. Last I checked, no one forces anyone to agree with anyone else's opinion of a coin's "grade" or "value"...
Lots of coins, I don't agree with the assigned grade or asking price.. guess what? I don't buy those. Other coins, I believe are fairly graded and priced, or even undergraded or under priced.
Those I do buy.
IMO, it's all working pretty well. It's nice to be able to opine on how we think things "should be", but it's very difficult to get other market participants to agree and comply.
Quite true.
Complaints to the contrary are just subjectivity. There is no reason why the market should ever cater to any individual's preference. No matter how smart you think you are, the market is smarter. It reflects the cumulative decision of thousands or millions of participants. If you don't like their "decision", then walk away. Maybe the market will come around to your way of thinking. Maybe it won't.
And as far as the prices of the very highest certified condition known examples of modern coins at the very tippy top of pyramidd with millions extant and thousands of one or two point lower, virtually identical coins? I personally don't want them at any price very much over melt or face value. I understand that some people do, and that's great! They probably won't be bidding on the 200 year old coins with a few hundred known in all conditions and I'm trying to find a nice Fine among a little pile that would fit in a shoebox.
@Baley said:
As far as I know, "the market" already does this. Last I checked, no one forces anyone to agree with anyone else's opinion of a coin's "grade" or "value"...
I believe you missed my point. I was talking about incorporating eye appeal into the grade. Doesn't matter what it is, not everybody will always agree. But as far as surface preservation/amount of wear goes, people can get close to agreeing. Jim says "MS63", Bob says "MS64". Even if he says "MS65", that's kinda close, anyway. When it comes to how toning affects eye appeal, however, it's often enough- Jim says "Love it" and Bob says "Hate it". Not even in the same ballpark.
So- does it really make sense to use a feature for grading that will never come close to being agreed upon?
I see your point, and reply that the graders who award the much-debated "eye appeal point" and/or "color bump" , and even "rarity bonus" forgiveness for minor problems that would bodybag more common coins, are employing expert consensus(and average, general market participant beliefs and behavior) that prefer evenness and symmetry, "naturalness-appearing", vividness and scarceness of certain colors, exceptionally sharp strikes, frosty, "coruscating" luster, etc., in addition to just wear and marks.
It's more of an overall appraisal this way. Once again, no one forces anyone to agree, but I do appreciate the expert opinions.
@stownsin said:
I put together this graph that shows how many Morgan Dollars have been graded for each grade. If you add the two most common grades (MS63 and MS64), you will see that they represent about 66% of the population, which is close to what you would expect in a 68-95-97 distribution. While people do say coin grading is subjective, which it is, it still follows normal distribution, more or less.
This is not untrue but it does not apply to all coins.
The best example is a '69 quarter. Most examples were MS-62/ 63 out the mint and MS-63 in mint sets. They fall off gradually to MS-67 but there is a small bubble at the top. I believe this was caused one or a few individuals each trying to make Gems or the off chance everyone involved did their jobs properly. Whatever caused it the curve is heavily skewed to the low end and very wide.
There are even some clads that would have double peaks if they were all graded. Some exist in a narrow range and others in a wide range. Most moderns will never be graded because they don't have sufficient value.
@CoinscratchFever said:
For the sake of actually having some coins on this thread and while there are a lot of professionals present I'll present these three for some opinions on toning and otherwise. I really don't think the OP will mind but, If I get crickets, no problem I'll just start another thread.
These three were recently graded at 67+
For the toner guys; Do you think these would grab a premium based on the toning or no? Furthermore, do you think the toning helped the grade?
As far as exaggerated pricing goes, don't worry they all missed by 1/2 a point.
Actually, I think those are a perfect example of "exaggerated pricing" due to TPGS's. 35 years ago, those are Gem coins that would cost no more than $10-$20 probably. Put them in a 67 holder and they are maybe $100.
@CoinscratchFever said:
For the sake of actually having some coins on this thread and while there are a lot of professionals present I'll present these three for some opinions on toning and otherwise. I really don't think the OP will mind but, If I get crickets, no problem I'll just start another thread.
These three were recently graded at 67+
For the toner guys; Do you think these would grab a premium based on the toning or no? Furthermore, do you think the toning helped the grade?
As far as exaggerated pricing goes, don't worry they all missed by 1/2 a point.
Actually, I think those are a perfect example of "exaggerated pricing" due to TPGS's. 35 years ago, those are Gem coins that would cost no more than $10-$20 probably. Put them in a 67 holder and they are maybe $100.
I’ve been encouraged to not hijack threads so I will start another one later.
Incidentally the price went from 350 to 650 on the quarter since it came back a few weeks ago. And I had absolutely nothing to do with that :-)
@CoinscratchFever said:
For the sake of actually having some coins on this thread and while there are a lot of professionals present I'll present these three for some opinions on toning and otherwise. I really don't think the OP will mind but, If I get crickets, no problem I'll just start another thread.
These three were recently graded at 67+
For the toner guys; Do you think these would grab a premium based on the toning or no? Furthermore, do you think the toning helped the grade?
As far as exaggerated pricing goes, don't worry they all missed by 1/2 a point.
Actually, I think those are a perfect example of "exaggerated pricing" due to TPGS's. 35 years ago, those are Gem coins that would cost no more than $10-$20 probably. Put them in a 67 holder and they are maybe $100.
I’ve been encouraged to not hijack threads so I will start another one later.
Incidentally the price went from 350 to 650 on the quarter since it came back a few weeks ago. And I had absolutely nothing to do with that :-)
Well, it was a 67+, wasn't it?
LOL.
I'm not sure I would have used the word "exaggerated" for pricing, although I get it. I'm a firm believer that the market is the market. But the slab era has definitely created "value" (exaggerated or not) for coins or other collectibles that get numbers.
This is true in lots of markets. Comic books are insane. Years ago when I did comic books, bronze age stuff was plentiful in mint condition. We all had boxes of the stuff that we put out for 25 cents to a buck at shows. You take those same COMMON (I can't overstate how plentiful they were) comics and get them in a CGC 9.6 or 9.8 holder and you are talking multiple hundreds of dollars.
That's why I say that anyone who says that slabs have not altered the top of the market aren't looking at the broad market. I would state with some confidence that truly rare, exceptional coins (1804 dollars, 1894-S dimes etc.) have not been inflated by the slab numbers. For those coins, they were known and noted. But what has happened to the price of high grade common coins is 99% due to TPGS's and registry sets. [IMHO]
It helps me to remember that coins don't actually have grades.
Think about it. It seems silly, almost, but it cleared up a bunch of stuff in my head when I figured this out.
They have a precise mass, diameter, age, denomination, design, number of hits, quality of strike, and degree of surface reflectivity. All of that is measurable, reproducible, and unarguable. But, collecting is an art. It's squishy-feely, and it's emotional. Die states figure in, as do common storage conditions, the "usual" look of such-and-such coin, die varieties, planchet quality, mint-made imperfections, and all the rest.
So, grading "standards" aren't really standards, they shift around at the collective whim of the market, and the best graders more-or-less do a pretty good job at consolidating ALL of this information into a single number. Not everyone agrees, and that's OK. Not everyone likes Picasso or Rembrandt, but the art market knows what it likes, at least it did briefly, at 3:23 PM last Tuesday.
You can like what you like, or collect what you collect, but you might be wise to at least learn about what the broader market thinks and values.
@jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Many collectors with the means to buy the higher end coin in MS68, may not be able to truly see the difference either, but when the coin is a low pop coin, they might just depend on the graders to actually see a difference. As said, it's all about a collector's goals/needs and the ability to pay up. At a much lower level of money, I have paid several times the going value for a truly stellar Buffalo Nickel, which just isn't available very often.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
This particular '51 25C in 67+ doubled in price at the very same time the MS68 dropped from 17.4 to 16K, so yes the 3 that do exist in MS68 took big hits. Furthermore the "Market" was only suggesting 9K with the most recent listed sell.
I don't know if even "You" can explain that one but I'm listening
I'm going to guess by saying what has already been said - Market? Supply & Demand doesn't fit because the pop is 45 for 67+ and only 3 in 68.
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
This particular '51 25C in 67+ doubled in price at the very same time the MS68 dropped from 17.4 to 16K, so yes the 3 that do exist in MS68 took big hits. Furthermore the "Market" was only suggesting 9K with the most recent listed sell.
I don't know if even "You" can explain that one but I'm listening
I'm going to guess by saying what has already been said - Market? Supply & Demand doesn't fit because the pop is 45 for 67+ and only 3 in 68.
This is how I’d explain it... We don’t know if any or all of the (three) 68’s really took hits, just because the price guide price dropped. Likewise, we don’t really know which, if any of the 67+‘S actually rose in value. Only the “market” knows and even then, usually not until the coins sell.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
This particular '51 25C in 67+ doubled in price at the very same time the MS68 dropped from 17.4 to 16K, so yes the 3 that do exist in MS68 took big hits. Furthermore the "Market" was only suggesting 9K with the most recent listed sell.
I don't know if even "You" can explain that one but I'm listening
I'm going to guess by saying what has already been said - Market? Supply & Demand doesn't fit because the pop is 45 for 67+ and only 3 in 68.
This is how I’d explain it... We don’t know if any or all of the (three) 68’s really took hits, just because the price guide price dropped. Likewise, we don’t really know which, if any of the 67+‘S actually rose in value. Only the “market” knows and even then, usually not until the coins sell.
Well there you go! That statement should be able to set straight the OP, myself, and many more. Sorry, I just assumed the Price guide was a direct derivative of past sales even though I disproved that in my own statement (9K). So then PCGS somehow comes up with these prices (past market maybe) but then are ultimately trumped by what says the market today.
It certainly will allow me to ask for more, doesn't mean I'll get it.
And if all that is true that means the OP is possibly agitated maybe just a little...
@Higashiyama said:
But I think Mark is talking about the type of situation where the population in 66/67/68 goes, for example, from 50/3/0 to 60/10/0. The 67s are still “very top” but they may be a lot less valuable.
I understood---just saying my point was the to> @MFeld said:
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
I can think of a couple examples (1912-s nickels) of this happening (and it's possible with any coin that a hoarde is found at any grade) but how often does it happen now where the very top of the census suddenly gets inflated? Especially with 19th cent or earlier coins
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
This particular '51 25C in 67+ doubled in price at the very same time the MS68 dropped from 17.4 to 16K, so yes the 3 that do exist in MS68 took big hits. Furthermore the "Market" was only suggesting 9K with the most recent listed sell.
I don't know if even "You" can explain that one but I'm listening
I'm going to guess by saying what has already been said - Market? Supply & Demand doesn't fit because the pop is 45 for 67+ and only 3 in 68.
This is how I’d explain it... We don’t know if any or all of the (three) 68’s really took hits, just because the price guide price dropped. Likewise, we don’t really know which, if any of the 67+‘S actually rose in value. Only the “market” knows and even then, usually not until the coins sell.
Well there you go! That statement should be able to set straight the OP, myself, and many more. Sorry, I just assumed the Price guide was a direct derivative of past sales even though I disproved that in my own statement (9K). So then PCGS somehow comes up with these prices (past market maybe) but then are ultimately trumped by what says the market today.
It certainly will allow me to ask for more, doesn't mean I'll get it.
And if all that is true that means the OP is possibly agitated maybe just a little...
Different guides derive prices from different places. Price guides are always more reliable for commodity coins because they trade frequently. If you have a pop 3 coin that trades once every 8 or 10 years, it is hard to determine value. This is especially true for modern stuff.
You can ask for more, but the price guide is just as likely to be too high rather than too low. The last sale might have been vastly out of whack and represent the passion of 2 individuals, one of whom has fulfilled his desire.
True story that I've told before from about 20 years back:
It had been more than a decade since an Una the Lion coin had hit the market. I knew a wealthy British Commonwealth buyer who desperately wanted one. Catalogue at the time was $12-$15,000. Well, one pops up. My friend paid $27,000 for that coin in a frenzied bidding war.
Fast forward a couple years and another one hits the market. That one sold for $22,000. Why? My friend wasn't bidding anymore. When the 3rd one came out a year or two after that, I don't think it even got to $20k.
Now imagine the same thing with a modern condition rarity 68. If you only have a handful of people who want it in the $10k range, dropping one out of the market could easily drop the price in half. And if your pop 3 becomes a pop 4 or, worse, your pop 3/0 becomes a 3/1, then look out below.
@Higashiyama said:
But I think Mark is talking about the type of situation where the population in 66/67/68 goes, for example, from 50/3/0 to 60/10/0. The 67s are still “very top” but they may be a lot less valuable.
I understood---just saying my point was the to> @MFeld said:
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
I can think of a couple examples (1912-s nickels) of this happening (and it's possible with any coin that a hoarde is found at any grade) but how often does it happen now where the very top of the census suddenly gets inflated? Especially with 19th cent or earlier coins
I agree that large changes in populations - whether in terms of actual numbers or percentages - are less likely for older coins. When I made my comment, I wasn’t even thinking of the appearance of hoards. But rather, I was speaking to grade-flation. And very few areas are immune from that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Higashiyama said:
But I think Mark is talking about the type of situation where the population in 66/67/68 goes, for example, from 50/3/0 to 60/10/0. The 67s are still “very top” but they may be a lot less valuable.
I understood---just saying my point was the to> @MFeld said:
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
I can think of a couple examples (1912-s nickels) of this happening (and it's possible with any coin that a hoarde is found at any grade) but how often does it happen now where the very top of the census suddenly gets inflated? Especially with 19th cent or earlier coins
I agree that large changes in populations - whether in terms of actual numbers or percentages - are less likely for older coins. When I made my comment, I wasn’t even thinking of the appearance of hoards. But rather, I was speaking to grade-flation. And very few areas are immune from that.
@Higashiyama said:
But I think Mark is talking about the type of situation where the population in 66/67/68 goes, for example, from 50/3/0 to 60/10/0. The 67s are still “very top” but they may be a lot less valuable.
I understood---just saying my point was the to> @MFeld said:
@CoinscratchFever said: @jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
I can think of a couple examples (1912-s nickels) of this happening (and it's possible with any coin that a hoarde is found at any grade) but how often does it happen now where the very top of the census suddenly gets inflated? Especially with 19th cent or earlier coins
I agree that large changes in populations - whether in terms of actual numbers or percentages - are less likely for older coins. When I made my comment, I wasn’t even thinking of the appearance of hoards. But rather, I was speaking to grade-flation. And very few areas are immune from that.
m not sure it even needs to be grade-flation. There are still a lot of nice raw coins out there. You just need one exceptional coin to re-enter the market after 50 years and find its way into a slab.
It wasn't US coins, but a local dealer/friend had to do an insurance appraisal of a very old collection of British coppers. 100% raw. Absolutely stunning. Pretty much complete back to the 17th/18th century with many proofs and multiple coins with original mintages under 100. Most of them gem UNCs.
The guy had started putting the collection together in the 50s and 60s. If and when that collection makes it to a major auction house, it is going to alter the populations significantly for multiple rare coins in the series.
Comments
Just a couple thoughts.
If grading was that exacting of a science then there would be no reason to crack out and re-submit coins and PCGS would not have a re-consideration service.
If the Registry does not affect values at the high end then I cannot explain how a One Ounce $50 Gold Eagle bullion coin that graded MS70 sold at auction for $35,000 when an ungraded coin of the same year was bringing about $1,000.
I believe Eye Appeal trumps Grade every time.
Why do I see many CAC coins and a good amount of pcgs 67-68 coins without the wow eye appeal of some 65-66. Almost all 67-68 coins should have fantastic eye appeal for these grades and prices paid
Yes, it was. In the sense that there was no money. Activity was tribal not individual. Everyone was a hunter/ gatherer. Money didn't develop until relatively recently (3000 or so years ago) when civilization and specialization developed. In between, it was strictly a barter system.
Yes and no. Eye appeal is only part of the grade. Eye appeal is also subjective. If you like tinged coins then you will find greater eye appeal in a dinged up 65 than a mark free white 68.
And, for the record, the toned 65 might well sell for more than the white 68.
Find the humility to accept that you are not smarter than the market.
People have said this for years. And you know what----the very top graded coins continue to do very well compared to the next grade level down. Human nature always will have people wanting the "best"
Except, there are many occasions when increased populations for "the very top graded coins" cause significant decreases in value, while the next grade level down examples are unaffected.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Whether I got $12 in a toned raw proof coin cut from mint packaging or $2K in a graded DMPL Morgan...
I have a short checklist.
First, is there value?
Second, eye appeal.
Third... Does it still have value when you factor pop reports, add grading fees, crossing, or reconsideration?
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Interesting is that eye appeal doesn't directly impact the grade of the coin, but the desirability to the prospective purchaser... A coin of any said grade that is highly toned may not be desirable to a collector that is only interested in blast white.
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
Actually yes, eye appeal does impact the grade. I've seen it in the PCGS Videos when I recently stayed at the Holiday Inn. Often times the eye appeal pushes a coin to a +. A small difference in grade but a large difference in price.
Just think if you possessed fire! Then everything was free including the women
Money for nothing and your chicks for free, lol.
Yes, it does. To not appreciate the role of eye appeal in the current grading approach by the major TPGs is to not understand grading in the current market.
Grading is subjective (no standards exist), with a small about of objectivity to direct current guidelines. Whenever there is subjectivity, opinion can influence decision making. Since eye appeal is a value based on opinion, it will influence the subjectivity of the coin's grade. Affect the subjectivity and you affect the grade.
A clear example is the TPG grading of "monster" toned Morgan dollars. Walk any major show and you will find "technical" MS-64 and MS-65 coins assigned grades above the technical grade because of eye appealing toning. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is immaterial as it is the current market.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
https://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UcNbPbu9u8
https://www.pcgs.com/news/eye-appeal
The prices reflect what the market is willing to pay.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
Thats good to know, but curious as to how that can be quantified... maybe that's the wrong term... but all else the same, which would get the higher grade, an attractive heavily toned, an attractive blast white, an attractive normally toned, or an attractive untoned?
I would hope that they would all be graded 'the same' and the 'value' be the same, but the price realized based on what the purchaser desires.
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
Thats good to know, but curious as to how that can be quantified ...
It's subjective, without a standard or rubric. It's like trying to "quantify" or "standardize" the answer to the question, "How long is a piece of string?"
... but all else the same, which would get the higher grade, an attractive heavily toned, an attractive blast white, an attractive normally toned, or an attractive untoned?
The answer is yes.
I would hope that they would all be graded 'the same' and the 'value' be the same, but the price realized based on what the purchaser desires.
Hope is not a good strategy in numismatics.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Of course. But many factors, including slabs, grades and fads, have a very real impact on supply and demand.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
From here:
https://www.pcgs.com/whatiscoingrading
What is Coin Grading?
Grading is a way of determining the physical condition of a coin. Grades range from Poor (almost completely worn out) to Perfect Uncirculated (a coin with absolutely no wear and no flaws of any kind). Over 99.9% of all coins fall somewhere between these two extremes.
Uncirculated coins have different grades as well, depending on how carefully each coin was made, handled, and stored. Some uncirculated coins have heavy marks caused by contact with other coins during minting or storage. Other uncirculated coins are nearly free of such marks. The coin in the best state of preservation will almost always have the greatest value.
IMO, the grading companies should be focusing on grading and leave eye appeal to the market. I know it's not as simple as that, but ranking coins by how much wear or how many bagmarks they have is a way more objective exercise than ranking them by eye appeal. Take two coins in comparable states of preservation, one toned and one not toned. Depending on who you ask, both of them have better eye appeal and both of them don't. How do you factor that into a grade? You really can't, not in a way that makes sense for everybody.
Dealer markups vary as well which can lead to some having exaggerated pricing!
I put together this graph that shows how many Morgan Dollars have been graded for each grade. If you add the two most common grades (MS63 and MS64), you will see that they represent about 66% of the population, which is close to what you would expect in a 68-95-97 distribution. While people do say coin grading is subjective, which it is, it still follows normal distribution, more or less.
The distribution of grades does not address the objective or subjective nature of grading. It shows the population (ignoring resubmissions) of grades assigned to coins along a spectrum.
To assess the distribution of a coin's grade, the same coin would need to be graded multiple times. In other words, the precision of the assigned grades would need to be measured (assuming the "real" grade is assigned accurately).
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Although eye appeal of course is subjective, if you divide collectors into those who are partial to toning and those who are less so, within each group, I suspect you would find quite a lot of agreement on eye appeal.
By definition "the very top graded coins" are top graded and if there are increased populations then they are no longer the "very top".
But I think Mark is talking about the type of situation where the population in 66/67/68 goes, for example, from 50/3/0 to 60/10/0. The 67s are still “very top” but they may be a lot less valuable.
If, due to changes in populations, either 1) there are more examples at the same "very top grade" or 2) what was once a "very top graded coin" no longer is, and as a result, the value drops, then the "very top graded coins" don't continue to do very well compared to the next grade level down.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My comment was all inclusive. There are many factors that play into the value. But it still stands that, all things considered, it's the buying public that decides what constitutes value.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
I agree. The only way, to me, an MS67 is worth a big premium from an MS66 is if the toning (color) is amazing.
As far as I know, "the market" already does this. Last I checked, no one forces anyone to agree with anyone else's opinion of a coin's "grade" or "value"...
Lots of coins, I don't agree with the assigned grade or asking price.. guess what? I don't buy those. Other coins, I believe are fairly graded and priced, or even undergraded or under priced.
Those I do buy.
IMO, it's all working pretty well. It's nice to be able to opine on how we think things "should be", but it's very difficult to get other market participants to agree and comply.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Quite true.
Complaints to the contrary are just subjectivity. There is no reason why the market should ever cater to any individual's preference. No matter how smart you think you are, the market is smarter. It reflects the cumulative decision of thousands or millions of participants. If you don't like their "decision", then walk away. Maybe the market will come around to your way of thinking. Maybe it won't.
And as far as the prices of the very highest certified condition known examples of modern coins at the very tippy top of pyramidd with millions extant and thousands of one or two point lower, virtually identical coins? I personally don't want them at any price very much over melt or face value. I understand that some people do, and that's great! They probably won't be bidding on the 200 year old coins with a few hundred known in all conditions and I'm trying to find a nice Fine among a little pile that would fit in a shoebox.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I believe you missed my point. I was talking about incorporating eye appeal into the grade. Doesn't matter what it is, not everybody will always agree. But as far as surface preservation/amount of wear goes, people can get close to agreeing. Jim says "MS63", Bob says "MS64". Even if he says "MS65", that's kinda close, anyway. When it comes to how toning affects eye appeal, however, it's often enough- Jim says "Love it" and Bob says "Hate it". Not even in the same ballpark.
So- does it really make sense to use a feature for grading that will never come close to being agreed upon?
I see your point, and reply that the graders who award the much-debated "eye appeal point" and/or "color bump" , and even "rarity bonus" forgiveness for minor problems that would bodybag more common coins, are employing expert consensus(and average, general market participant beliefs and behavior) that prefer evenness and symmetry, "naturalness-appearing", vividness and scarceness of certain colors, exceptionally sharp strikes, frosty, "coruscating" luster, etc., in addition to just wear and marks.
It's more of an overall appraisal this way. Once again, no one forces anyone to agree, but I do appreciate the expert opinions.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Catbert Good plan, I just thought those would be a good case study for where this thread had morphed too.
This is not untrue but it does not apply to all coins.
The best example is a '69 quarter. Most examples were MS-62/ 63 out the mint and MS-63 in mint sets. They fall off gradually to MS-67 but there is a small bubble at the top. I believe this was caused one or a few individuals each trying to make Gems or the off chance everyone involved did their jobs properly. Whatever caused it the curve is heavily skewed to the low end and very wide.
There are even some clads that would have double peaks if they were all graded. Some exist in a narrow range and others in a wide range. Most moderns will never be graded because they don't have sufficient value.
@CoinscratchFever - I suggest starting another thread so as to not hijack this one.
Actually, I think those are a perfect example of "exaggerated pricing" due to TPGS's. 35 years ago, those are Gem coins that would cost no more than $10-$20 probably. Put them in a 67 holder and they are maybe $100.
I’ve been encouraged to not hijack threads so I will start another one later.
Incidentally the price went from 350 to 650 on the quarter since it came back a few weeks ago. And I had absolutely nothing to do with that :-)
Well, it was a 67+, wasn't it?
LOL.
I'm not sure I would have used the word "exaggerated" for pricing, although I get it. I'm a firm believer that the market is the market. But the slab era has definitely created "value" (exaggerated or not) for coins or other collectibles that get numbers.
This is true in lots of markets. Comic books are insane. Years ago when I did comic books, bronze age stuff was plentiful in mint condition. We all had boxes of the stuff that we put out for 25 cents to a buck at shows. You take those same COMMON (I can't overstate how plentiful they were) comics and get them in a CGC 9.6 or 9.8 holder and you are talking multiple hundreds of dollars.
That's why I say that anyone who says that slabs have not altered the top of the market aren't looking at the broad market. I would state with some confidence that truly rare, exceptional coins (1804 dollars, 1894-S dimes etc.) have not been inflated by the slab numbers. For those coins, they were known and noted. But what has happened to the price of high grade common coins is 99% due to TPGS's and registry sets. [IMHO]
It helps me to remember that coins don't actually have grades.
Think about it. It seems silly, almost, but it cleared up a bunch of stuff in my head when I figured this out.
They have a precise mass, diameter, age, denomination, design, number of hits, quality of strike, and degree of surface reflectivity. All of that is measurable, reproducible, and unarguable. But, collecting is an art. It's squishy-feely, and it's emotional. Die states figure in, as do common storage conditions, the "usual" look of such-and-such coin, die varieties, planchet quality, mint-made imperfections, and all the rest.
So, grading "standards" aren't really standards, they shift around at the collective whim of the market, and the best graders more-or-less do a pretty good job at consolidating ALL of this information into a single number. Not everyone agrees, and that's OK. Not everyone likes Picasso or Rembrandt, but the art market knows what it likes, at least it did briefly, at 3:23 PM last Tuesday.
You can like what you like, or collect what you collect, but you might be wise to at least learn about what the broader market thinks and values.
@jmlanzaf Yes, it is 67+ And when the grade was emailed in early March the price guide was 350.00 last week lo and behold it is 650.00.
and who wouldn’t be if you have some of these just sitting around.
So yes I’m a big proponent of exaggerated prices
I suppose if you needed one to complete your set that you would not be too happy about it.
You also wouldn’t be very happy if you owned one, others were made and yours took a large hit in value.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Many collectors with the means to buy the higher end coin in MS68, may not be able to truly see the difference either, but when the coin is a low pop coin, they might just depend on the graders to actually see a difference. As said, it's all about a collector's goals/needs and the ability to pay up. At a much lower level of money, I have paid several times the going value for a truly stellar Buffalo Nickel, which just isn't available very often.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
This particular '51 25C in 67+ doubled in price at the very same time the MS68 dropped from 17.4 to 16K, so yes the 3 that do exist in MS68 took big hits. Furthermore the "Market" was only suggesting 9K with the most recent listed sell.
I don't know if even "You" can explain that one but I'm listening
I'm going to guess by saying what has already been said - Market? Supply & Demand doesn't fit because the pop is 45 for 67+ and only 3 in 68.
This is how I’d explain it... We don’t know if any or all of the (three) 68’s really took hits, just because the price guide price dropped. Likewise, we don’t really know which, if any of the 67+‘S actually rose in value. Only the “market” knows and even then, usually not until the coins sell.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well there you go! That statement should be able to set straight the OP, myself, and many more. Sorry, I just assumed the Price guide was a direct derivative of past sales even though I disproved that in my own statement (9K). So then PCGS somehow comes up with these prices (past market maybe) but then are ultimately trumped by what says the market today.
maybe just a little...
It certainly will allow me to ask for more, doesn't mean I'll get it.
And if all that is true that means the OP is possibly agitated
I'm not a "condition rarity" kind of collector in any way, in fact I look the other direction and just keep plugging away in my old school way.
I understood---just saying my point was the to> @MFeld said:
I can think of a couple examples (1912-s nickels) of this happening (and it's possible with any coin that a hoarde is found at any grade) but how often does it happen now where the very top of the census suddenly gets inflated? Especially with 19th cent or earlier coins
Different guides derive prices from different places. Price guides are always more reliable for commodity coins because they trade frequently. If you have a pop 3 coin that trades once every 8 or 10 years, it is hard to determine value. This is especially true for modern stuff.
You can ask for more, but the price guide is just as likely to be too high rather than too low. The last sale might have been vastly out of whack and represent the passion of 2 individuals, one of whom has fulfilled his desire.
True story that I've told before from about 20 years back:
It had been more than a decade since an Una the Lion coin had hit the market. I knew a wealthy British Commonwealth buyer who desperately wanted one. Catalogue at the time was $12-$15,000. Well, one pops up. My friend paid $27,000 for that coin in a frenzied bidding war.
Fast forward a couple years and another one hits the market. That one sold for $22,000. Why? My friend wasn't bidding anymore. When the 3rd one came out a year or two after that, I don't think it even got to $20k.
Now imagine the same thing with a modern condition rarity 68. If you only have a handful of people who want it in the $10k range, dropping one out of the market could easily drop the price in half. And if your pop 3 becomes a pop 4 or, worse, your pop 3/0 becomes a 3/1, then look out below.
I agree that large changes in populations - whether in terms of actual numbers or percentages - are less likely for older coins. When I made my comment, I wasn’t even thinking of the appearance of hoards. But rather, I was speaking to grade-flation. And very few areas are immune from that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
m not sure it even needs to be grade-flation. There are still a lot of nice raw coins out there. You just need one exceptional coin to re-enter the market after 50 years and find its way into a slab.
It wasn't US coins, but a local dealer/friend had to do an insurance appraisal of a very old collection of British coppers. 100% raw. Absolutely stunning. Pretty much complete back to the 17th/18th century with many proofs and multiple coins with original mintages under 100. Most of them gem UNCs.
The guy had started putting the collection together in the 50s and 60s. If and when that collection makes it to a major auction house, it is going to alter the populations significantly for multiple rare coins in the series.
jmlanzaf...
So you are saying it better to make them or wait to buy the 2nd, 3rd, 4th example...
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out