The registry was started as a marketing ploy and its turned out to be very successful for them. You'd have be extremely naive to believe otherwise. It encourages collectors to build sets thus providing an impetus to use their grading service, to buy coins graded by them and to encourage others to do so. It's a little ingenuous to not to realize that and to criticize a collector who uses it as a marketing ploy too. Why exactly do you think PCGS allows agents to list sets here for their clients, again its to encourage them to market their brand. This isn't good thing or a bad thing, its the way it is. If they don't make money then this site wouldn't even be here.
Because someone makes money off the registry doesn't make it less pure. If you weren't making money you wouldn't be buying coins, submitting them for grades, etc. In other words its a business.
Well said Irish Mike...the Registry is all about money! It is an excellent marketing and money making ploy, exploiting the human nature to compete. However, allowing a dealer, any dealer, to take coins in inventory and list them as a Registry set just takes the wind out of the sails of all the little, regular Joe, collectors out there. They simply cannot compete.
In this particular case I'm not sure exactly how I feel as this was not the case. From what I gather this is a very real set put together by a collector who had enough class not to post it at the last minute, thereby knocking out that category's top set.
Whoever fails to see the Registry as a means to market one's collection is either totally naiive or blind! The Registry is for everyone and I suppose, should NOT exclude dealers. Hey...if you have the coins - list them!
"This thread just beat out my thread last year, let's get yours to 200,....."
OK, lets keep it going!
I have always felt it was the intent that was questionable. Yes, Heritage amended the description to keep the set 'legal', by that time everyone knew why the set was there.
Once again lets look at what the registry rules say..... The PCGS Set Registry is to be used to list collections of coins and is not to be used to sell coins. Listing a coin(s) with the intent to sell it and/or pricing a coin(s) in the registry will not be accepted.
How can anyone argue that is was not the intent?
BJ wrote, "On the other hand, we do not allow anyone to say that the set is for sale or to list prices within the the Registry website.
What about intent?
BJ also wrote, "The collector, who assembled the set, is justifiably proud of his accomplishment and just like many of you, wants to display his set for all to see and enjoy."
BUT here's what Laura wrote.....For the record, I was a major part of building the JFS set .....I can tell you this, he is a VERY private individual who NEVER built his sets with the intention of them being in any registry......If his set was not for sale, it would NOT be registered.
Again the intent was to sell the coin.
Does BJ think that JFS all of a sudden had a change of heart, that he now wanted to show us all his great collection & sell it at the same time and let Heritage do it.
I have nothing but admoration at JFS for creating this set.....yes it is the #1 set, that is undisputable, it is the actions of auction houses that bypass the rules that bothers me. This is a personal opinion & don't expect you all, or even most to agree, but answer this one question.....was it Heritage's intent in registering this set to sell it as the #1 registry set?
One last point, isn't Heritage also auctioning off Larry's (PQpeace) Morgans? I don't see them pushing his set...is it because it's not #1?
>>If the dealer already owns it, then the set doesn't exist. >You make absolutely no sense with that statement. That goes to the heart of the problem. It's pretty simple, I don't consider dealer's inventory to be a collection.
>>> The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules.< >>Yes, because PCGS "clarified" the rules by which I mean to say that they've said the rules don't matter and anything goes. >Great interpertation of what PCGS said. Again this is partly where the problem lies... envy, jealousy. >Your replies to my comments go to the heart of my point, which is, it sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. I'm sorry my adherance to the posted rules of the registry bothers you so. I'm not sure it can be called 'sour grapes' when I have no vested interest in the commemorative registry.
>The fact is"the set exhists" and a collector owns it. Do you know that for a fact or are you just spouting off.
>Furthermore, even if a dealer owned it, "the set would still exhist". If a dealer did own it, then the issue would be whether it should be >allowed to be listed in the PCGS Registry (not whether it exhisted), which IMO should be allowed. Must we turn a blind eye to a better >set because of something so petty? It wouldn't be a set, it's called inventory. When I register my set, which I've acquired over the course of years one by one, I want to compare with other collectors. I have no interest in looking at a snapshot of some company's inventory.
Anyway this is probably outside the scope of this conversation because it sounds like this set is still owned by the original collector. I would be interested in hearing PCGS's view on the registry and dealer inventory though.
I'm not sure what point your making, but does being a dealer disqualify one from being a collector? Do you intend to own every coin you purchased forever or will you sell some of them someday? Isn't a dealer someone who sells coins? Should the registry be open to sets or just to sets collected by someone who doesn't sell coins? I mean where do you draw the line? In the end does any of this really matter, a set is a set.
Seems like there is Back Peddling through this discussion. Hmmm.... whats new.
Just Face It !! The Set was put into the Registry for only one reason and ONLY one reason. To Generate more bids which translates to more money for the owner and auction house. I still say that if the owner would have Registered the Set everything would have been Kool. Thats not the case.
Personally I think the Set would have stood on its own Merits without being here. Auction wise.
Hey Ken, what if a friend of yours found out you were into collecting and told you that he had a complete set of mercury dimes handed down through his family and wanted to sell them to maximize his return on them. Much to your surprise after viewing them you find out that this set is one of the nicest full-band set of mercs you had ever seen. You immediately suggest that to maximize their value that he have them graded by PCGS. 2 months later he calls you to inform you that they have been returned to him, all slabbed. You rush over and after doing some calculations you discover that his set would currently rank #1 on this Registry. Now you know he wants to maximize his return so would you advice him to register the set or not before he sells them. Remember he is a friend who came to you for advice on maximizing his return and you agreed ahead of time to help him do that, as I know you would being the good guy you are.
Edited to add: If he agreed to have it pedigreed "Fairlaneman" would that change your opinion?
Heritage should not of listed it. They should have made JFS do it himself, THEN REFERENCE IT IN THE AUCTION CATALOG/ADVERTISEMENTS. But, he may still change his mind on selling it. Nothing guaranteed. But if that is not a plug advertisement from Heritage on the intent to sell, than KISS is not a rock band.
IrishMike - Good example. It is not often I totally agree with you And, I am confident if we totally agree on something 100%- WE ARE RIGHT!
To be frank - I'll go a step further. I had no problem whatsoever with Heritage announcing in the Registry comments that the set was to be soon sold at public auction as well. Yes, BJ asked that they edit that out (and I will surely not do it either), but, I personally saw nothing wrong with that either. In fact, for a typical collector- much could be accomplished if he/she had the opportunity to advertise a set was available for sale. A collector could state in the Registry set - "In 30 days, this set goes off to Heritage if it is not sold". I suspect some collectors would be able to get sets sold by themselves and save all the selling commissions that way. Wearing the "dealer hat", I think collectors have "shot themselves in the foot" continuing to press for the rules which made Heritage edit their comments. The typical average collector just lost the ability to use the Registry to assist in selling his/her set easily without having to include a 3rd party in the process (whether it be a dealer, coin auction company, ebay, etc.). Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
A week ago I might have told my friend to register the set. I might have told him to let the set be registered for a month or so between the time he put it up and the time he contacted an auction house to have it sold. I wouldn't have told him to put the auction house's email address in the description because I thought that would be advertising its sale and a no-no.
Now that the rules have been clarified and I understand exactly what is allowed I would do the same as JFS.
Yes I would advise Him to register the set but I would not do it for him. That is the point I am stuck on. Certainly the set that we are talking about here needs to be in the Registry because it is the Finest known at this time. The way it got ther disturbs me. Not that much though.
Oh Yea..... on those Mercs. I would do my best to weasel them from the guy, friend or No friend. Certainly at a reasonable price....
<< <i>The typical average collector just lost the ability to use the Registry to assist in selling his/her set easily without having to include a 3rd party in the process (whether it be a dealer, coin auction company, ebay, etc.). >>
<< The typical average collector just lost the ability to use the Registry to assist in selling his/her set easily without having to include a 3rd party in the process (whether it be a dealer, coin auction company, ebay, etc.). >>
Was this a loss or gain for registry set paticipants ????
< The typical average collector just lost the ability to use the Registry to assist in selling his/her set easily without having to include a 3rd party in the process (whether it be a dealer, coin auction company, ebay, etc.). >
<<IMHO, this is key to this discussion. >>
RC, and Gang,
Seems we all can't stay away from this thread !
I really don't believe this statement is key at all. First, the "Typical Average Collector" doesn't put million dollar sets together. The "typical average collector" puts together the best set possible; the vast majority of "typical average collectors" will never have the ability to match this set.
Second, the "typical average collector" will never have collections of this magnitude so no respectable auction house or dealer would want to "represent" them anyway, so the "typical average collector" never really lost anything anyway. If it's not a big money set, the responses I've always heard were "Yeah, send them to us and we'll throw them in one of our weekly events."
I think the key here is that we all have to dwell less on the competitive part of collecting. Folks are going to build number 1 sets like this gentleman did. And one day we, like this gentleman, or our families are going to sell them. That's all part of it. I would love to accomplish even half of what he did but it's just not in the cards (or paycheck!) at this point in my life.
As I stated in an earlier reply, the "typical average collector" that must compete should focus on the Current Sets and not on the All-Time Finest. Even then, there will be some deeper pockets that keep you off the front page for a long time. You also might get lucky and they won't list them until they're ready to sell!
I'm not sure if you disagree or agree. If it became "business as usual" to put up reg. sets before they were sold (if they haven't been presented in public before) then, the "typical average collector" coulda/shoulda been able to do the same. Since we, collectively, have poo-poo'd this particular effort, bringing it to the forefront, we (typical average collectors), perhaps HAVE lost the ability to compete with the "biggies". jmho
Actually I neither agree or disagree as it doesn't really matter!
<< <i>we (typical average collectors), perhaps HAVE lost the ability to compete with the "biggies". >>
It doesn't matter because in reality, the average collector can not compete - period. How can my $1k compete with another's $25k? It's apple and oranges. Whether the gentleman had and built the set over many years does not diminish the fact that he did accomplish it. Listed or not, it still existed. Besides the marketing factor involved (and you can either like or dislike that), the only other thing affected is the fact that there is a new #1 set and everyone else went down a notch. And for the "typical average collector" with a competitive streak, that's a spot they can never reach or attain; I think that's where the real pain is. (Hint for competitors: Watch the Current List - you'll go back up when that set sells).
I guess my bottom line is that the "typical average collector" would never reap the same benefits of selling from the Registry Sets regardless. I don't begrudge anyone that can buy coins of that magnitude - I certainly would if I could! We are all collectors, and one day sellers. We each collect within our own limitations and we should be happy with that and enjoy the effort. We will probably never have that ATF Set. So us selling from the Registry Set pages like this fine set just doesn't matter. At least it isn't worth all the time we've spent here discussing it! Regards, Dave
Currently, there is much competition between coin auction companies, and the competition is getting tougher and tougher. The only place the auction houses have to turn, to increase volume (other than different markets entirely), is to go to "the average collector". It is not "given", in my mind, that a "smaller" vs. "larger" collector/collection will have much of a difference in the near future, as we see the auction companies' margins narrrow. (Again, jmho)
<< <i>It doesn't matter because in reality, the average collector can not compete - period. How can my $1k compete with another's $25k? >>
With most sets, this is true - but not all. There are still some opportunities in a few sets for the average joe to compete near the top with relatively little money.
But even in those sets (moderns mostly), the auctions houses aren't really there yet. I hear you RC, and understand, but I think it will still be a little ways down the road before the auctions houses give any serious attention to post-1964 coins (except for the varieties of course). If we can all just hang in there for another 20-30 years, then maybe we can revisit this subject! Shoot, maybe then these modern sets will be worth seven figures!
There are still some opportunities in a few sets for the average joe to compete near the top with relatively little money.
Russ, my response to that is how near the top, & relative to what? With PCGS grading more & more PR70 coins & super high MS coins small & medium(?) sized collectors are falling further behind. I don't consider myself a small collector, but I can't justify spending $500 up on an IKE to stay in the top 20! Or break away from the pak in the proof SAE crowd by purchasing a PR70DCAM. Those that can & do will say that's just sour grapes.....no, I'm just making a point to Russ' reply, an average joe is falling further and further behind as TOP POPs are created.....no sour grapes (envy, of course!), just facts IMO.
Once again getting to the purpose of this thread, BJ has explained what was meant by intent. Can we aree that this is the root cause of this confusion? It is for me. As I suspect we will continue to see trend rise, what would the possibilty be to have the rules clarified to state that no mention of prices or the fact that the coins are or may be for sale can appear on the registry. Intent is up for interpretation IMO, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion, and since BJ may not always be at PCGS, the next admin may have a different though on the subject.
The typical average collector just lost the ability to use the Registry to assist in selling his/her set easily without having to include a 3rd party in the process (whether it be a dealer, coin auction company, ebay, etc.).
Was this a loss or gain for registry set paticipants ????
Zerbe: I would think it was a loss for the multitude of typical average collectors out there. Let's face it, the "big boys" have access to all sorts of avenues/opportunities to sell their complete sets - heck, just look at the set at issue here and the super effort the President of the largest coin auction company in the country put in to market this collection, including an announcement on the US Coin Forum. Would the "typical" #30 or #40 set of Commems received this much attention?
Consider the typical collector with a registry set with, say, $5,000 in coins in it. That collector built the collection over many years, one coin at a time. It is now time to sell. That collector will likely receive 95% of hammer in a major auction, whereas the coins sell for 115% of hammer including buyers premium. The typical collector has paid $1,000 to sell a $5,000 coin collection in this hypothetical (typical deal). On the other hand, if the collector had the right to simply announce in his comment section of the Registry Set (in a tasteful manner) that it was available for sale - there is a chance he could have easily sold it for $5,000, netting an additional $1,000 before sending it off to auction for a third party to assist in the sale.
IMHO, collectors accomplished little here by getting BJ to ask Heritage to edit their original comments announcing the sale of the set. Indeed, they may have lost the ability to do the same thing in a tasteful manner. Funny thing is if the major dealers or auction companies had petitioned PCGS to prohibit collectors from announcing that a particular registry set was available for sale in the comment section - I suspect there would have been a mutiny among collectors! You know the old saying about being careful what you wish for
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Are we to understand that you believe the Registry Sets should be turned in to a shopping cart of sorts? Instead of, or in addition to enjoying other collector's efforts, we should be able to shop for those sets that might be for sale?
I've never roamed through the Registry with the intent to look for coins or sets for sale. However I've received e-mails from others that were selling their sets outright without mentioning them in the set's comments. I've also seen them on the BST board. What more does the small time collector need?
Not knowing what the PCGS IT infrastructure is, I'm not sure they would want it to become another eBay/auction house type web site. I think the current structure of showing sets in the Registry and selling and talking about them in the forums adequate for the typical collector. Frankly, I like the separation and enjoy looking at all the wonderful items you have for sale on your sites! Take care, Dave
Dave: Re - "shopping carts" - It is suggested that is exactly what is happening more and more anyway with major dealers, auction houses, etc. listing sets in connection with their sale. So, a tasteful comment by a collector that his set is available - I see no harm personally, although I respect BJ's decision that it is presently taboo.
I remember a discussion many years ago on these forums concerning the Registry. Someone commented that the Registry should be like attending a family reunion with everyone passing around the family photos and enjoying one another's pictures in a loving atmosphere. That is certainly a wonderful idea. But, the reality is the Registry is also big business as well and I see the "handwriting on the wall" that it is only going to get bigger. My 2 cents is that it is unfortunate that the average collector can not announce that a particular set is available for sale - and I know this may not be the majority position right now and I am certainly not attacking the thoughtful analysis that went into PCGS' decision to have such a rule.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I am lost here, and do not want to wade through all of this, but there are people here who think we should turn the Registry Listings into a used car lot?
If someone owns a set and wants to sell it, they can list it on these boards or in an auction on their own (and have links to the set. This has been done many times). Why would you want to list it in the set itself? I know of one person who did, and PCGS took care of the problem right away. Placing for sale ads in the registry really destroys all that is good about it.
Can anyone tell me how listing "for sale" in the registry can be considered a good thing? I can certainly see it from the pimp point of view, but not from the collector view (which is the view the registry is for).
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Mitch, I haven't seen that many people saying "I don't want people selling their coins from their registry description". I believe a lot of the complaints are just that some people think someone is getting away with something that they themselves couldn't do. That's all I'm interested in, that the wording of the rules match with what the big guys can get away with which matches what the little guys can get away with.
> Intent is up for interpretation IMO, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion, and since BJ may not always be at PCGS, the > next admin may have a different though on the subject. Ajia, I've thought the same thing which is why I think the wording should be changed. Having the email address of the president of the largest coin dealer in America in the description tells me the set is for sale in a way I couldn't do. Maybe they should just list specifically what you can and cannot do:
No links to websites that sell or auction coins No listings of times/dates/places that these coins will be sold No saying the coins are for sale
Not that I'm against any of these things I just want it to be fair and easy to understand. (not that I don't understand exactly what is allowed today but I'm sure we'll have the same discussion in 6 months with new people )
<< <i>No links to websites that sell or auction coins No listings of times/dates/places that these coins will be sold No saying the coins are for sale >>
Perfect! That makes sense!
dbldie55 questioned whether the Registry listing should look like a "car lot". No it shouldn't!
Over the past couple of years the coin market has taken off. Collectors/investors have bought and sold coins, making lots of money. The Registry has become a marketing tool to help sell great coins/sets. I don't have a problem with a dealer listing a set for a client or themselves. What I don't like is the billboard look. Anyone should be allowed to Register. No one should be allowed to put up a billboard.
Will PCGS allow this in their Registry? I certainly hope not. I think considerable thought should be given to take immediate action to draft rules that address the problem. I'm not sure the current rules are strong and detailed enough. KHayse's suggestions should be incorporated into the current rules to further define what is acceptable and what isn't.
Comments
Because someone makes money off the registry doesn't make it less pure. If you weren't making money you wouldn't be buying coins, submitting them for grades, etc. In other words its a business.
just takes the wind out of the sails of all the little, regular Joe, collectors out there. They simply cannot compete.
In this particular case I'm not sure exactly how I feel as this was not the case. From what I gather this is a very real set put together by a collector who had enough class not to post it at the last minute, thereby knocking out that category's top set.
Whoever fails to see the Registry as a means to market one's collection is either totally naiive or blind!
The Registry is for everyone and I suppose, should NOT exclude dealers. Hey...if you have the coins - list them!
Now define the word SPHINCTER for us.
<< <i>Now define the word SPHINCTER for us. >>
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Now define the word SPHINCTER for us. >>
That slim fast really does work!
Here's a lil joke for your wee lil brain Mano.
Remember the Little Rascals?
Ok here we go Mano....
The little girl I forget her name, we'll just call her Sally, was in class with Buckwheat, the teacher said to Sally, Sally can you spell Dictate?
Yes teacher D I C T A T E....
(teacher)Good Sally, Now Buckwheat, can you use dictate in a sentence?
Yeah teetcher (buckwheat style) Hey Sally, how my DICTATE!?
Let's have a little fun and collect some coins.
OK someone wants to post their number 1 and sell it.
Let them sell the #1 set someone else will buy it then they can bashed like the rest of us...
Isnt this fun?
Hey Russiepooh,
This thread just beat out my thread last year, let's get yours to 200, after all you're the #1 pompous ass here.
Damn I just went down to #3 what do I have to do to get to #1 oh nooooo!
<< <i>Glad you did why do people take things so serious around here. >>
And he's worried about spelling?
OK, lets keep it going!
I have always felt it was the intent that was questionable. Yes, Heritage amended the description to keep the set 'legal', by that time everyone knew why the set was there.
Once again lets look at what the registry rules say.....
The PCGS Set Registry is to be used to list collections of coins and is not to be used to sell coins. Listing a coin(s) with the intent to sell it and/or pricing a coin(s) in the registry will not be accepted.
How can anyone argue that is was not the intent?
BJ wrote, "On the other hand, we do not allow anyone to say that the set is for sale or to list prices within the the Registry website.
What about intent?
BJ also wrote, "The collector, who assembled the set, is justifiably proud of his accomplishment and just like many of you, wants to display his set for all to see and enjoy."
BUT here's what Laura wrote.....For the record, I was a major part of building the JFS set .....I can tell you this, he is a VERY private individual who NEVER built his sets with the intention of them being in any registry......If his set was not for sale, it would NOT be registered.
Again the intent was to sell the coin.
Does BJ think that JFS all of a sudden had a change of heart, that he now wanted to show us all his great collection & sell it at the same time and let Heritage do it.
I have nothing but admoration at JFS for creating this set.....yes it is the #1 set, that is undisputable, it is the actions of auction houses that bypass the rules that bothers me.
This is a personal opinion & don't expect you all, or even most to agree, but answer this one question.....was it Heritage's intent in registering this set to sell it as the #1 registry set?
One last point, isn't Heritage also auctioning off Larry's (PQpeace) Morgans? I don't see them pushing his set...is it because it's not #1?
Great post.
Michael
I check it every day to see what's next!!
Any more jokes MrPlatinum???
<< <i>This is THE most entertaining thread I've ever read in the Registry Forum
I check it every day to see what's next!!
Any more jokes MrPlatinum??? >>
It's obvious to even the casual observer that this set is for sale, and it was listed to give it more exposure.
<< <i>"On the other hand, we do not allow anyone to say that the set is for sale or to list prices within the the Registry website."
It's obvious to even the casual observer that this set is for sale, and it was listed to give it more exposure. >>
and?
>You make absolutely no sense with that statement. That goes to the heart of the problem.
It's pretty simple, I don't consider dealer's inventory to be a collection.
>>> The set still exhists and has been registered according to the Registry rules.<
>>Yes, because PCGS "clarified" the rules by which I mean to say that they've said the rules don't matter and anything goes.
>Great interpertation of what PCGS said. Again this is partly where the problem lies... envy, jealousy.
>Your replies to my comments go to the heart of my point, which is, it sounds like a bunch of sour grapes.
I'm sorry my adherance to the posted rules of the registry bothers you so. I'm not sure it can be called 'sour grapes' when I
have no vested interest in the commemorative registry.
>The fact is"the set exhists" and a collector owns it.
Do you know that for a fact or are you just spouting off.
>Furthermore, even if a dealer owned it, "the set would still exhist". If a dealer did own it, then the issue would be whether it should be >allowed to be listed in the PCGS Registry (not whether it exhisted), which IMO should be allowed. Must we turn a blind eye to a better >set because of something so petty?
It wouldn't be a set, it's called inventory. When I register my set, which I've acquired over the course of years one by one, I want to
compare with other collectors. I have no interest in looking at a snapshot of some company's inventory.
Anyway this is probably outside the scope of this conversation because it sounds like this set is still owned by the original
collector. I would be interested in hearing PCGS's view on the registry and dealer inventory though.
-KHayse
I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the day someone doesn't try to post "what you really meant".
<< <i>But they removed their auction date and they are not linking from the Registry to any website. >>
Which was the reason for the thread in the first place. No sales pitch, no problem.
Russ, NCNE
Just Face It !! The Set was put into the Registry for only one reason and ONLY one reason. To Generate more bids which translates to more money for the owner and auction house. I still say that if the owner would have Registered the Set everything would have been Kool. Thats not the case.
Personally I think the Set would have stood on its own Merits without being here. Auction wise.
Edited to add: If he agreed to have it pedigreed "Fairlaneman" would that change your opinion?
To be frank - I'll go a step further. I had no problem whatsoever with Heritage announcing in the Registry comments that the set was to be soon sold at public auction as well. Yes, BJ asked that they edit that out (and I will surely not do it either), but, I personally saw nothing wrong with that either. In fact, for a typical collector- much could be accomplished if he/she had the opportunity to advertise a set was available for sale. A collector could state in the Registry set - "In 30 days, this set goes off to Heritage if it is not sold". I suspect some collectors would be able to get sets sold by themselves and save all the selling commissions that way. Wearing the "dealer hat", I think collectors have "shot themselves in the foot" continuing to press for the rules which made Heritage edit their comments. The typical average collector just lost the ability to use the Registry to assist in selling his/her set easily without having to include a 3rd party in the process (whether it be a dealer, coin auction company, ebay, etc.). Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
I'd like to answer your question.
A week ago I might have told my friend to register the set. I might have told him to let the set be registered for a month or so
between the time he put it up and the time he contacted an auction house to have it sold. I wouldn't have told him to
put the auction house's email address in the description because I thought that would be advertising its sale and a no-no.
Now that the rules have been clarified and I understand exactly what is allowed I would do the same as JFS.
-KHayse
Yes I would advise Him to register the set but I would not do it for him. That is the point I am stuck on. Certainly the set that we are talking about here needs to be in the Registry because it is the Finest known at this time. The way it got ther disturbs me. Not that much though.
Oh Yea..... on those Mercs. I would do my best to weasel them from the guy, friend or No friend. Certainly at a reasonable price....
Ken
<< <i>The typical average collector just lost the ability to use the Registry to assist in selling his/her set easily without having to include a 3rd party in the process (whether it be a dealer, coin auction company, ebay, etc.). >>
IMHO, this is key to this discussion.
Might as well push this thread to 200.
<< The typical average collector just lost the ability to use the Registry to assist in selling his/her set easily without having to include a 3rd party in the process (whether it be a dealer, coin auction company, ebay, etc.). >>
Was this a loss or gain for registry set paticipants ????
<<IMHO, this is key to this discussion. >>
RC, and Gang,
Seems we all can't stay away from this thread
I really don't believe this statement is key at all. First, the "Typical Average Collector" doesn't put million dollar sets together. The "typical average collector" puts together the best set possible; the vast majority of "typical average collectors" will never have the ability to match this set.
Second, the "typical average collector" will never have collections of this magnitude so no respectable auction house or dealer would want to "represent" them anyway, so the "typical average collector" never really lost anything anyway. If it's not a big money set, the responses I've always heard were "Yeah, send them to us and we'll throw them in one of our weekly events."
I think the key here is that we all have to dwell less on the competitive part of collecting. Folks are going to build number 1 sets like this gentleman did. And one day we, like this gentleman, or our families are going to sell them. That's all part of it. I would love to accomplish even half of what he did but it's just not in the cards (or paycheck!) at this point in my life.
As I stated in an earlier reply, the "typical average collector" that must compete should focus on the Current Sets and not on the All-Time Finest. Even then, there will be some deeper pockets that keep you off the front page for a long time. You also might get lucky and they won't list them until they're ready to sell!
Have Fun Folks! Dave
poo-poo'd this particular effort, bringing it to the forefront, we (typical average collectors), perhaps HAVE lost the ability to compete with the "biggies". jmho
+1
Actually I neither agree or disagree as it doesn't really matter!
<< <i>we (typical average collectors), perhaps HAVE lost the ability to compete with the "biggies". >>
It doesn't matter because in reality, the average collector can not compete - period. How can my $1k compete with another's $25k? It's apple and oranges. Whether the gentleman had and built the set over many years does not diminish the fact that he did accomplish it. Listed or not, it still existed. Besides the marketing factor involved (and you can either like or dislike that), the only other thing affected is the fact that there is a new #1 set and everyone else went down a notch. And for the "typical average collector" with a competitive streak, that's a spot they can never reach or attain; I think that's where the real pain is. (Hint for competitors: Watch the Current List - you'll go back up when that set sells).
I guess my bottom line is that the "typical average collector" would never reap the same benefits of selling from the Registry Sets regardless. I don't begrudge anyone that can buy coins of that magnitude - I certainly would if I could! We are all collectors, and one day sellers. We each collect within our own limitations and we should be happy with that and enjoy the effort. We will probably never have that ATF Set. So us selling from the Registry Set pages like this fine set just doesn't matter. At least it isn't worth all the time we've spent here discussing it! Regards, Dave
<< <i>It doesn't matter because in reality, the average collector can not compete - period. How can my $1k compete with another's $25k? >>
With most sets, this is true - but not all. There are still some opportunities in a few sets for the average joe to compete near the top with relatively little money.
Russ, NCNE
That's why those are the only sets I'm in
But even in those sets (moderns mostly), the auctions houses aren't really there yet. I hear you RC, and understand, but I think it will still be a little ways down the road before the auctions houses give any serious attention to post-1964 coins (except for the varieties of course). If we can all just hang in there for another 20-30 years, then maybe we can revisit this subject! Shoot, maybe then these modern sets will be worth seven figures!
Good night folks, it's late here in Brazil! Dave
Russ, my response to that is how near the top, & relative to what?
With PCGS grading more & more PR70 coins & super high MS coins small & medium(?) sized collectors are falling further behind.
I don't consider myself a small collector, but I can't justify spending $500 up on an IKE to stay in the top 20!
Or break away from the pak in the proof SAE crowd by purchasing a PR70DCAM.
Those that can & do will say that's just sour grapes.....no, I'm just making a point to Russ' reply, an average joe is falling further and further behind as TOP POPs are created.....no sour grapes (envy, of course!), just facts IMO.
Once again getting to the purpose of this thread, BJ has explained what was meant by intent.
Can we aree that this is the root cause of this confusion? It is for me. As I suspect we will continue to see trend rise, what would the possibilty be to have the rules clarified to state that no mention of prices or the fact that the coins are or may be for sale can appear on the registry.
Intent is up for interpretation IMO, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion, and since BJ may not always be at PCGS, the next admin may have a different though on the subject.
Was this a loss or gain for registry set paticipants ????
Zerbe: I would think it was a loss for the multitude of typical average collectors out there. Let's face it, the "big boys" have access to all sorts of avenues/opportunities to sell their complete sets - heck, just look at the set at issue here and the super effort the President of the largest coin auction company in the country put in to market this collection, including an announcement on the US Coin Forum. Would the "typical" #30 or #40 set of Commems received this much attention?
Consider the typical collector with a registry set with, say, $5,000 in coins in it. That collector built the collection over many years, one coin at a time. It is now time to sell. That collector will likely receive 95% of hammer in a major auction, whereas the coins sell for 115% of hammer including buyers premium. The typical collector has paid $1,000 to sell a $5,000 coin collection in this hypothetical (typical deal). On the other hand, if the collector had the right to simply announce in his comment section of the Registry Set (in a tasteful manner) that it was available for sale - there is a chance he could have easily sold it for $5,000, netting an additional $1,000 before sending it off to auction for a third party to assist in the sale.
IMHO, collectors accomplished little here by getting BJ to ask Heritage to edit their original comments announcing the sale of the set. Indeed, they may have lost the ability to do the same thing in a tasteful manner. Funny thing is if the major dealers or auction companies had petitioned PCGS to prohibit collectors from announcing that a particular registry set was available for sale in the comment section - I suspect there would have been a mutiny among collectors! You know the old saying about being careful what you wish for
Wondercoin
Don
peacockcoins
Are we to understand that you believe the Registry Sets should be turned in to a shopping cart of sorts? Instead of, or in addition to enjoying other collector's efforts, we should be able to shop for those sets that might be for sale?
I've never roamed through the Registry with the intent to look for coins or sets for sale. However I've received e-mails from others that were selling their sets outright without mentioning them in the set's comments. I've also seen them on the BST board. What more does the small time collector need?
Not knowing what the PCGS IT infrastructure is, I'm not sure they would want it to become another eBay/auction house type web site. I think the current structure of showing sets in the Registry and selling and talking about them in the forums adequate for the typical collector. Frankly, I like the separation and enjoy looking at all the wonderful items you have for sale on your sites! Take care, Dave
I remember a discussion many years ago on these forums concerning the Registry. Someone commented that the Registry should be like attending a family reunion with everyone passing around the family photos and enjoying one another's pictures in a loving atmosphere. That is certainly a wonderful idea. But, the reality is the Registry is also big business as well and I see the "handwriting on the wall" that it is only going to get bigger. My 2 cents is that it is unfortunate that the average collector can not announce that a particular set is available for sale - and I know this may not be the majority position right now and I am certainly not attacking the thoughtful analysis that went into PCGS' decision to have such a rule.
Wondercoin
If someone owns a set and wants to sell it, they can list it on these boards or in an auction on their own (and have links to the set. This has been done many times). Why would you want to list it in the set itself? I know of one person who did, and PCGS took care of the problem right away. Placing for sale ads in the registry really destroys all that is good about it.
Can anyone tell me how listing "for sale" in the registry can be considered a good thing? I can certainly see it from the pimp point of view, but not from the collector view (which is the view the registry is for).
I haven't seen that many people saying "I don't want people selling their coins from their registry description".
I believe a lot of the complaints are just that some people think someone is getting away with something that they themselves
couldn't do. That's all I'm interested in, that the wording of the rules match with what the big guys can get away with which
matches what the little guys can get away with.
> Intent is up for interpretation IMO, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion, and since BJ may not always be at PCGS, the
> next admin may have a different though on the subject.
Ajia,
I've thought the same thing which is why I think the wording should be changed. Having the email address of the president of
the largest coin dealer in America in the description tells me the set is for sale in a way I couldn't do. Maybe they should just
list specifically what you can and cannot do:
No links to websites that sell or auction coins
No listings of times/dates/places that these coins will be sold
No saying the coins are for sale
Not that I'm against any of these things I just want it to be fair and easy to understand. (not that I don't understand
exactly what is allowed today but I'm sure we'll have the same discussion in 6 months with new people
-KHayse
<< <i>No links to websites that sell or auction coins
No listings of times/dates/places that these coins will be sold
No saying the coins are for sale >>
Perfect! That makes sense!
dbldie55 questioned whether the Registry listing should look like a "car lot". No it shouldn't!
Over the past couple of years the coin market has taken off. Collectors/investors have bought and sold coins, making lots of money. The Registry has become a marketing tool to help sell great coins/sets. I don't have a problem with a dealer listing a set for a client or themselves. What I don't like is the billboard look. Anyone should be allowed to Register. No one should be allowed to put up a billboard.
Will PCGS allow this in their Registry? I certainly hope not. I think considerable thought should be given to take immediate action to draft rules that address the problem. I'm not sure the current rules are strong and detailed enough. KHayse's suggestions should be incorporated into the current rules to further define what is acceptable and what isn't.