What is a PR65 1838-O half worth? Can’t remember the last gem example to sell. Well, historically near what a gem 1884 trade dollar has realized. And one of those sold recently for around $1M. So I’d assign a value of $800,000
@tradedollarnut said:
What is a PR65 1838-O half worth? Can’t remember the last gem example to sell. Well, historically near what a gem 1884 trade dollar has realized. And one of those sold recently for around $1M. So I’d assign a value of $800,000
😂😂😂 THIS is the logic that underpins high end coin valuations?!? Yikes
Imagine your reasoning being audited or you being deposed over this. It's such thin gruel.
@MasonG said:
The PCGS and CAC price guides appear to be free. How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
Hi - Interesting point. I guess you are saying that price guides for collectors are free so you can't complain if there are errors or bad assumptions. These publishers of 3rd party price guides may not be willing to invest more money into the price guides. Personally, I think that all of the services that publish price guides try their absolute best to get prices right and their interest is to give collectors and others the best available information to make the proper decisions. I would like publishers to provide collectors more transparency into how prices are developed and when prices are changed to understand why.
@MasonG said:
The PCGS and CAC price guides appear to be free. How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
Hi - Interesting point. I guess you are saying that price guides for collectors are free so you can't complain if there are errors or bad assumptions. These publishers of 3rd party price guides may not be willing to invest more money into the price guides. Personally, I think that all of the services that publish price guides try their absolute best to get prices right and their interest is to give collectors and others the best available information to make the proper decisions. I would like publishers to provide collectors more transparency into how prices are developed and when prices are changed to understand why.
I think GS/ @JohnF tries his absolute best to get pricing right. I've spoken with him and worked with him on trying to get pricing right for a very thinly traded type that I collect and he and his team were fantastic.
If you think PCGS is trying its absolute best to do ANYTHING right, particularly a free price guide, you haven't been paying attention.
@EastonCollection said:
Hi - Interesting point. I guess you are saying that price guides for collectors are free so you can't complain if there are errors or bad assumptions.
No, I'm not saying you can't complain.
@lermish said:
If you think PCGS is trying its absolute best to do ANYTHING right, particularly a free price guide, you haven't been paying attention.
I didn't say that, either. I did ask a couple of questions, though- does anybody have any thoughts on them:
How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
@MasonG said:
The PCGS and CAC price guides appear to be free. How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
Actually, Mark Ferguson was literally “A Man Ahead of His Time”. He did just as you suggest! Around 2016, he created and published monthly via subscription at a very reasonable price, a print “CAC Market Values”. He provided a somewhat narrow range for each entry, based on auction sales. I believe if there were no current/recent sales, he would look at recent sales of “similarly” valued dates. Yes, we could each do research and come up with similar results, but I found this to be a big time saver, and I subscribed right away. I even volunteered and wrote a few articles about collecting CAC stickered coins that he included. Each issue had a couple of interesting articles.
After a while, he also included a few values for plus grades, if he felt there was sufficient supporting data! Yes, he recognized that CAC says the CAC stickered plus coins are only solid at that whole grade, and they don’t say if it’s solid as a plus or not. But he also recognized “The Market” valued plus coins with stickers higher than whole grade coins with stickers.
As best as I recall, he ceased publication after three or four years, just shortly before the demand for CAC stickered coins grew significantly, like it is today. It has not always been this way. Years ago, the premium for CAC stickered coins over their non-stickered counterparts was not as great as it is today due to increased demand).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Peasantry said:
😂😂😂 THIS is the logic that underpins high end coin valuations?!? Yikes
If you don't have past sales to look at and you want an estimate of value, what else would you propose?
@Peasantry said:
Imagine your reasoning being audited or you being deposed over this. It's such thin gruel.
What's wrong with his reasoning? If past sales data is not there, it's not there. How does just throwing up your hands over it solve the problem?
Look to GAAP principles, auditing, appraising industry, prediction models, finance, big data, etc and develop a defensible standard for valuations with data and a thought process for determining value when there's little to no data. Software. A model. Something tangible.
Do NOT apply the same terminology to things based off data and those based off conjecture.
The main issue with his reasoning is that it's his. Is it written down anywhere? Replicatable? Generally accepted? What frequency does he update his number? Who approves changes to his logic? Are those changes transparent to the users and released at the speed of relevance? Is his logic consistently applied?
Oh my god, dude -I’m simply giving you an example of how one might value a coin that hasn’t been sold in recent times. Gather those estimates and a reasonable price guide could be created.
@EastonCollection said:
Hi - Interesting point. I guess you are saying that price guides for collectors are free so you can't complain if there are errors or bad assumptions. @lermish said:
If you think PCGS is trying its absolute best to do ANYTHING right, particularly a free price guide, you haven't been paying attention.
I didn't say that, either. I did ask a couple of questions, though- does anybody have any thoughts on them:
I was responding to @EastonCollection when he said: Personally, I think that all of the services that publish price guides try their absolute best to get prices right and their interest is to give collectors and others the best available information to make the proper decisions.
@Peasantry said:
The main issue with his reasoning is that it's his. Is it written down anywhere? Replicatable? Generally accepted? What frequency does he update his number? Who approves changes to his logic? Are those changes transparent to the users and released at the speed of relevance? Is his logic consistently applied?
Ok, then- ignore his reasoning. Nobody says you have to agree with it, or a price guide.
@MasonG said:
The PCGS and CAC price guides appear to be free. How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
You mean like Greysheet?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@MasonG said:
The PCGS and CAC price guides appear to be free. How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
You mean like Greysheet?
Yeah. Except there seems to be some dissatisfaction with their pricing opinions in some cases, too. So- it would have to be someone who does more in-depth research on pricing than Greysheet does. How much more would it cost for something like that? Are there enough people who would pay for it?
Just to be clear - My goal in this thread is not to bash anyone or any publisher of price guides. They do an excellent job and have great team of talented people working there. My goal is to prevent as many errors in the price guide, price coins truly based on what a willing buyer and seller will want to complete a transaction and when prices are changed provide the readers with some commentary as to why. Obviously, a 1884 trade dollar is impossible to price especially not knowing who is interested at the time its being offered. Lastly, even though each price service develops pricing using different financial models, they shouldn't be so far apart. Currently, many dealers and experienced collectors are making comments so they can't all be wrong. Again, all I am asking is to address these dealers and collectors concerns.
@EastonCollection said:
and when prices are changed provide the readers with some commentary as to why.
Honestly, not trying to give you a hard time here, but I took a quick look at an old Greysheet and there must be over a thousand price changes, plus and minus. Are they expected to provide commentary on them all?
@EastonCollection said:
Hi - Interesting point. I guess you are saying that price guides for collectors are free so you can't complain if there are errors or bad assumptions.
No, I'm not saying you can't complain.
@lermish said:
If you think PCGS is trying its absolute best to do ANYTHING right, particularly a free price guide, you haven't been paying attention.
I didn't say that, either. I did ask a couple of questions, though- does anybody have any thoughts on them:
How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
My guess is no. Plenty would stick to the free guides, a lot consider their own pricing superior to ANY guide and the rest complain about ANY guide
@MasonG said:
The PCGS and CAC price guides appear to be free. How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
You mean like Greysheet?
Yeah. Except there seems to be some dissatisfaction with their pricing opinions in some cases, too. So- it would have to be someone who does more in-depth research on pricing than Greysheet does. How much more would it cost for something like that? Are there enough people who would pay for it?
I just mention Greysheet because people are always complaining about the price. It is also probably the best guide out there, representing actual offers to buy on the exchange.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any guide to mvhdss@rit.edu what a coin will bring after 5 years out of the market. You can't analyze data that doesn't exist.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@EastonCollection said:
and when prices are changed provide the readers with some commentary as to why.
Honestly, not trying to give you a hard time here, but I took a quick look at an old Greysheet and there must be over a thousand price changes, plus and minus. Are they expected to provide commentary on them all?
Not only that, THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND. The OP still acts like a room full of experts are pricing every coin by hand. An algorithm crunches the numbers and spits out a price. You could then analyze it and say "the price dropped due to recent auction results in the database", but what does that tell you? And to your earlier point, how much is the OP willing to pay for a price guide that gives him useless commentary?
In the end, the coin hits the block and people then decide what they want to pay for it. If the guide is low, it sells for over. If the guide is high, it sells for under. The only price that ever matters is the sale price.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Not only that, THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND. The OP still acts like a room full of experts are pricing every coin by hand. An algorithm crunches the numbers and spits out a price. You could then analyze it and say "the price dropped due to recent auction results in the database", but what does that tell you? And to your earlier point, how much is the OP willing to pay for a price guide that gives him useless commentary?
This is inaccurate. John at GS, when presented with auction records, has made adjustments "by hand". I know this because he's talked about it on message boards and in video interviews.
Seated Half Society member #38
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress, running like a water color in the rain...."
Not only that, THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND. The OP still acts like a room full of experts are pricing every coin by hand. An algorithm crunches the numbers and spits out a price. You could then analyze it and say "the price dropped due to recent auction results in the database", but what does that tell you? And to your earlier point, how much is the OP willing to pay for a price guide that gives him useless commentary?
This is inaccurate. John at GS, when presented with auction records, has made adjustments "by hand". I know this because he's talked about it on message boards and in video interviews.
It IS accurate. They do make adjustments. But the vast majority of pricing is done by statistics. They make adjustments when necessary but 99% of pricing is algorithmic.
You really think they sit their and fill out the thousands of fields by hand?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Not only that, THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND. The OP still acts like a room full of experts are pricing every coin by hand. An algorithm crunches the numbers and spits out a price. You could then analyze it and say "the price dropped due to recent auction results in the database", but what does that tell you? And to your earlier point, how much is the OP willing to pay for a price guide that gives him useless commentary?
This is inaccurate. John at GS, when presented with auction records, has made adjustments "by hand". I know this because he's talked about it on message boards and in video interviews.
It IS accurate. They do make adjustments. But the vast majority of pricing is done by statistics. They make adjustments when necessary but 99% of pricing is algorithmic.
You really think they sit their and fill out the thousands of fields by hand?
So, you agree that your statement "THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND" is inaccurate. I never said that they adjust thousands by hand.
Seated Half Society member #38
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress, running like a water color in the rain...."
Not only that, THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND. The OP still acts like a room full of experts are pricing every coin by hand. An algorithm crunches the numbers and spits out a price. You could then analyze it and say "the price dropped due to recent auction results in the database", but what does that tell you? And to your earlier point, how much is the OP willing to pay for a price guide that gives him useless commentary?
This is inaccurate. John at GS, when presented with auction records, has made adjustments "by hand". I know this because he's talked about it on message boards and in video interviews.
It IS accurate. They do make adjustments. But the vast majority of pricing is done by statistics. They make adjustments when necessary but 99% of pricing is algorithmic.
You really think they sit their and fill out the thousands of fields by hand?
So, you agree that your statement "THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND" is inaccurate. I never said that they adjust thousands by hand.
No. I don't. You are pulling that out of context. There is not a "room full of experts...pricing every coin by hand" which is the context. By labeling my comment as inaccurate, the implication is that there is...
So, if we're grading comments, mine is 99% accurate and yours is 1%. 😁
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm just giving you a taste of your medicine. Having observed your comments over the years, you often have an exacting nature especially when you correct others that is, in my opinion, unnecessary. While I agree generally with the contributions you make on the board, this trait of yours is unflattering.
Seated Half Society member #38
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress, running like a water color in the rain...."
@Catbert said:
I'm just giving you a taste of your medicine. Having observed your comments over the years, you often have an exacting nature especially when you correct others that is, in my opinion, unnecessary. While I agree generally with the contributions you make on the board, this trait of yours is unflattering.
Scientists can be know-it-all jerks sometimes. I do it often, particularly over the past 10 years.
Comments
What is a PR65 1838-O half worth? Can’t remember the last gem example to sell. Well, historically near what a gem 1884 trade dollar has realized. And one of those sold recently for around $1M. So I’d assign a value of $800,000
😂😂😂 THIS is the logic that underpins high end coin valuations?!? Yikes
Imagine your reasoning being audited or you being deposed over this. It's such thin gruel.
Yawn
If you don't have past sales to look at and you want an estimate of value, what else would you propose?
What's wrong with his reasoning? If past sales data is not there, it's not there. How does just throwing up your hands over it solve the problem?
Hi - Interesting point. I guess you are saying that price guides for collectors are free so you can't complain if there are errors or bad assumptions. These publishers of 3rd party price guides may not be willing to invest more money into the price guides. Personally, I think that all of the services that publish price guides try their absolute best to get prices right and their interest is to give collectors and others the best available information to make the proper decisions. I would like publishers to provide collectors more transparency into how prices are developed and when prices are changed to understand why.
I think GS/ @JohnF tries his absolute best to get pricing right. I've spoken with him and worked with him on trying to get pricing right for a very thinly traded type that I collect and he and his team were fantastic.
If you think PCGS is trying its absolute best to do ANYTHING right, particularly a free price guide, you haven't been paying attention.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
No, I'm not saying you can't complain.
I didn't say that, either. I did ask a couple of questions, though- does anybody have any thoughts on them:
How much do you suppose people would be willing to pay for a guide that's more accurate? Do you suppose there'd be enough people willing to pay that someone would consider investing the time and resources to create such a price guide?
Actually, Mark Ferguson was literally “A Man Ahead of His Time”. He did just as you suggest! Around 2016, he created and published monthly via subscription at a very reasonable price, a print “CAC Market Values”. He provided a somewhat narrow range for each entry, based on auction sales. I believe if there were no current/recent sales, he would look at recent sales of “similarly” valued dates. Yes, we could each do research and come up with similar results, but I found this to be a big time saver, and I subscribed right away. I even volunteered and wrote a few articles about collecting CAC stickered coins that he included. Each issue had a couple of interesting articles.
After a while, he also included a few values for plus grades, if he felt there was sufficient supporting data! Yes, he recognized that CAC says the CAC stickered plus coins are only solid at that whole grade, and they don’t say if it’s solid as a plus or not. But he also recognized “The Market” valued plus coins with stickers higher than whole grade coins with stickers.
As best as I recall, he ceased publication after three or four years, just shortly before the demand for CAC stickered coins grew significantly, like it is today. It has not always been this way. Years ago, the premium for CAC stickered coins over their non-stickered counterparts was not as great as it is today due to increased demand).
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Look to GAAP principles, auditing, appraising industry, prediction models, finance, big data, etc and develop a defensible standard for valuations with data and a thought process for determining value when there's little to no data. Software. A model. Something tangible.
Do NOT apply the same terminology to things based off data and those based off conjecture.
The main issue with his reasoning is that it's his. Is it written down anywhere? Replicatable? Generally accepted? What frequency does he update his number? Who approves changes to his logic? Are those changes transparent to the users and released at the speed of relevance? Is his logic consistently applied?
Oh my god, dude -I’m simply giving you an example of how one might value a coin that hasn’t been sold in recent times. Gather those estimates and a reasonable price guide could be created.
I was responding to @EastonCollection when he said: Personally, I think that all of the services that publish price guides try their absolute best to get prices right and their interest is to give collectors and others the best available information to make the proper decisions.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Ok, then- ignore his reasoning. Nobody says you have to agree with it, or a price guide.
Sorry about that. Nested quotes, and all that...
You mean like Greysheet?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Yeah. Except there seems to be some dissatisfaction with their pricing opinions in some cases, too. So- it would have to be someone who does more in-depth research on pricing than Greysheet does. How much more would it cost for something like that? Are there enough people who would pay for it?
Just to be clear - My goal in this thread is not to bash anyone or any publisher of price guides. They do an excellent job and have great team of talented people working there. My goal is to prevent as many errors in the price guide, price coins truly based on what a willing buyer and seller will want to complete a transaction and when prices are changed provide the readers with some commentary as to why. Obviously, a 1884 trade dollar is impossible to price especially not knowing who is interested at the time its being offered. Lastly, even though each price service develops pricing using different financial models, they shouldn't be so far apart. Currently, many dealers and experienced collectors are making comments so they can't all be wrong. Again, all I am asking is to address these dealers and collectors concerns.
Honestly, not trying to give you a hard time here, but I took a quick look at an old Greysheet and there must be over a thousand price changes, plus and minus. Are they expected to provide commentary on them all?
My guess is no. Plenty would stick to the free guides, a lot consider their own pricing superior to ANY guide and the rest complain about ANY guide
I just mention Greysheet because people are always complaining about the price. It is also probably the best guide out there, representing actual offers to buy on the exchange.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any guide to mvhdss@rit.edu what a coin will bring after 5 years out of the market. You can't analyze data that doesn't exist.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Not only that, THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND. The OP still acts like a room full of experts are pricing every coin by hand. An algorithm crunches the numbers and spits out a price. You could then analyze it and say "the price dropped due to recent auction results in the database", but what does that tell you? And to your earlier point, how much is the OP willing to pay for a price guide that gives him useless commentary?
In the end, the coin hits the block and people then decide what they want to pay for it. If the guide is low, it sells for over. If the guide is high, it sells for under. The only price that ever matters is the sale price.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@tradedollarnut . I didn't even know you knew me. Maybe people will also notice me complaining about other things at home. james
This is inaccurate. John at GS, when presented with auction records, has made adjustments "by hand". I know this because he's talked about it on message boards and in video interviews.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
It IS accurate. They do make adjustments. But the vast majority of pricing is done by statistics. They make adjustments when necessary but 99% of pricing is algorithmic.
You really think they sit their and fill out the thousands of fields by hand?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
So, you agree that your statement "THEY DON'T CHANGE THEM BY HAND" is inaccurate. I never said that they adjust thousands by hand.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
No. I don't. You are pulling that out of context. There is not a "room full of experts...pricing every coin by hand" which is the context. By labeling my comment as inaccurate, the implication is that there is...
So, if we're grading comments, mine is 99% accurate and yours is 1%. 😁
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm just giving you a taste of your medicine. Having observed your comments over the years, you often have an exacting nature especially when you correct others that is, in my opinion, unnecessary. While I agree generally with the contributions you make on the board, this trait of yours is unflattering.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
Scientists can be know-it-all jerks sometimes. I do it often, particularly over the past 10 years.