Options
Why You Buy the Coin and NOT the Holder... A Story of Plastic vs. Coin from Baltimore
airplanenut
Posts: 22,726 ✭✭✭✭✭
My home base for most of the Baltimore show was the Island Coins table, which was being shared with Ron Sirna (Newmismatist). He allowed me to look at tons of incredible coins and kept drilling in the idea of buying the coin and not the holder. His ideals were most clearly shown Saturday morning, when the following story took place as I was sitting at the table...
A man came up to the table, asking Ron if he was interested in an 1864 Proof IHC graded PR66RB. Ron said he'd check the coin against what he had to see if he needed the piece. It was priced at $5k. Ron proceeded to pull out his coin, a 65RB (possibly BN, I don't remember), and showed the man, saying that he didn't need the 66RB. The man took Ron's coin and took out his glass, scouring the coin. At one point, he looked up and said, "but your coin has a mark on it right here [he pointed]!" Ron said, yes, but just look at the coin... my coin is so much nicer.
At this point, I didn't know which coin was which, or even seen the grades on the pieces, but I had seen what had transpired. Ron took both coins and asked me which one was nicer. I first took the 66RB. A ho-hum coin at best--woodgrain toning and mirrors so bad that I would have called it MS with a quick glance. I then took Ron's coin. The second I put it in the light, colors (greens and more) glowed off the coin. The pop created by the exceptionally deep mirrors was incredible. Without a doubt in my mind, I said Ron's coin was much, much nicer. Then the man said to me, "but his coin has a mark!" Because I knew the man was now out of his mind trying to prove that his coin was nicer, I responded, "Mark? There's a mark? Can someone give me a loupe? I think I need a loupe to try and see the mark!" Of course, I did that just to emphasize a point. And yes, under magnification, there was, in fact, a mark... A MARK. Big deal. I can live with a mark. In fact, later, I told Ron to put another mark on the opposite rim, to make the coin symmetrical--it would still be much nicer. Oh, and the two coins were about equally priced, with Ron's coin being a bit more expensive.
So, the guy took is coin and left. Ron and I were shaking our heads. That man collected plastic. His coin was unattractive, and looked like a lock downgrade (not that I'd like it any more if it were in a 65 holder... it just had no pizazz at all). On the other hand, Ron's coin looks to be at least a point and a half (technically speaking only) higher than the man's coin, and is extraordinarily attractive. Even if it were a technical 64, it would have one without question. So there was a clear lesson here. One man bought plastic. Ron bought a coin. And even though Ron's plastic wasn't as nice as the other guy's, Ron's coin wins hands down. So, as they say, buy the coin, not the holder. You'll be glad you did.
Jeremy
A man came up to the table, asking Ron if he was interested in an 1864 Proof IHC graded PR66RB. Ron said he'd check the coin against what he had to see if he needed the piece. It was priced at $5k. Ron proceeded to pull out his coin, a 65RB (possibly BN, I don't remember), and showed the man, saying that he didn't need the 66RB. The man took Ron's coin and took out his glass, scouring the coin. At one point, he looked up and said, "but your coin has a mark on it right here [he pointed]!" Ron said, yes, but just look at the coin... my coin is so much nicer.
At this point, I didn't know which coin was which, or even seen the grades on the pieces, but I had seen what had transpired. Ron took both coins and asked me which one was nicer. I first took the 66RB. A ho-hum coin at best--woodgrain toning and mirrors so bad that I would have called it MS with a quick glance. I then took Ron's coin. The second I put it in the light, colors (greens and more) glowed off the coin. The pop created by the exceptionally deep mirrors was incredible. Without a doubt in my mind, I said Ron's coin was much, much nicer. Then the man said to me, "but his coin has a mark!" Because I knew the man was now out of his mind trying to prove that his coin was nicer, I responded, "Mark? There's a mark? Can someone give me a loupe? I think I need a loupe to try and see the mark!" Of course, I did that just to emphasize a point. And yes, under magnification, there was, in fact, a mark... A MARK. Big deal. I can live with a mark. In fact, later, I told Ron to put another mark on the opposite rim, to make the coin symmetrical--it would still be much nicer. Oh, and the two coins were about equally priced, with Ron's coin being a bit more expensive.
So, the guy took is coin and left. Ron and I were shaking our heads. That man collected plastic. His coin was unattractive, and looked like a lock downgrade (not that I'd like it any more if it were in a 65 holder... it just had no pizazz at all). On the other hand, Ron's coin looks to be at least a point and a half (technically speaking only) higher than the man's coin, and is extraordinarily attractive. Even if it were a technical 64, it would have one without question. So there was a clear lesson here. One man bought plastic. Ron bought a coin. And even though Ron's plastic wasn't as nice as the other guy's, Ron's coin wins hands down. So, as they say, buy the coin, not the holder. You'll be glad you did.
Jeremy
JK Coin Photography - eBay Consignments | High Quality Photos | LOW Prices | 20% of Consignment Proceeds Go to Pancreatic Cancer Research
0
Comments
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Looking for alot of crap.
Yoi! I would have quite a few nickels.
<< <i>So there was a clear lesson here. One man bought plastic. Ron bought a coin. And even though Ron's plastic wasn't as nice as the other guy's, Ron's coin wins hands down. So, as they say, buy the coin, not the holder. You'll be glad you did.
Jeremy
>>
This should be what pop's into everyones head before they buy a coin. "Great" story Jeremy!
Many Indian Head cent aficionados will not buy high grade coins with marks, especially if they are on the cheek or rim. The dings seem to become a psychological thorn in their minds. I buy for eye appeal, but even a small mark in the wrong place can ruin a coin for me. The value of a coin with a mark or ding and otherwise good eye appeal vs. an unattractive but technically OK coin can be difficult to resolve.
How many have posted here about that "great coin", except for the little ding that eats at them?
Just an one person's observation.
<< <i>i agree with mark. the mans coin may have been a better technicaly pleasing example and thus deserving of a higher grade. eye appeal does not deserve a higher plastic grade. see legends site for that! >>
Technically, I don't believe his coin was any better. A small mark that needs a loupe to be seen is micrograding as Mark said. But to use that simple fact to say that his coin was nicer is ludicrous.
<< <i>Some/many collectors are too focused on marks or other imperfections and micro-grade, while ignoring the positive attributes (such as eye-appeal) of a coin. >>
This may be true, while on the flip side and I been saying this for some time...... Some/many DEALERS that tell us collectors
we're micro-grading and need to "see the forest through the trees"...... when they are buying they all of a sudden become
hard-core old time technical graders and out comes the big loupe. Then they proceed to tear the coin apart for marks. And ALSO what holder it's in and
the "flavor" of holder.
I have run into the same thing many times on proof cameos. Some sellers just don't understand that there are wide variations within the cameo and deep cameo designations. When sellers want top dollar for a coin that barely made cameo, I just walk away. They likely sell to some newb that doesn't know any better.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
The issue really relates to proper grading in my opinion. First both coins merited an MS66, but I see why one might get knocked at point for the tick 50% of the time. The first one had mininal eye appeal and color but stood out for it's lovely strike and clean surfaces. The second was even better struck, had blast Pl fields, tremendous and strong eye appealing luster gleeming through some attractive light toning.
The question from my non-expert Morgan Collector eyes was why was the luster and deep clean reflectivity not given equal weighting to the one edge tick better surfaces of the competing example?? Technically both luster and tiny marks are supposed to be major factors in grading aren't they??
I seriously think 9 of 10 people would pick the MS-65 example here on the PCGS boards if both examples could be imaged--based on eye appeal---even at the same cost. But eye appeal WAS NOT the issue--And I don't think it should impact technical grade--only price.
As a younger collector-- Jeremy has hit a major problem with grading and the Registry Sets. I fully understand that some collectors look for perfection in terms of surface preservation, others, oddly enough, look at strike carefully (Mr. Q. David Bowers for example). The point I think was to view an entire coin in terms of all the grading components and then the overall "look" of a coin you might buy. My problem isn't with the different viewponts, it's with the grading services weighing marks over strike and luster in arriving at the grade--
IN THIS CASE THEY MISSED THE FOREST FOR THE TREES--just my 2 cents on the subject
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Well, everyone has to right to like whatever it is that they like in a coin. It is not necessarily buying the plastic. Some people, as has been said before me, might just want a clean coin. They may be color blind or just not care about color on a coin. That does not mean that they should be derided or pushed aside as if they are of no importance, just because they dont like what you and your friend like. A good coin dealer will try to accomodate everyone's likes and dislikes, as long as there is money to be made. JMHO. >>
If Ron's coin were identical in color, there still would have been no comparison--tops, one tick was the difference between the coins mark-wise, and in terms of the mirrors, as I said, one had none, and the other had deep, watery mirrors. His choice to prefer one coin over the other is fine--but that won't convince anyone that his coin was in fact nicer, technically or otherwise. That said, I firmly agree with Ron--one coin is in a coffin holder, one coin deserves a nice upgrade.
<< <i>
<< <i>The other coin is the type of coin that will sell at auction at substantially less than sheet - maybe even less than the next grade down >>
I think not - there is no "sheet" for that coin/issue in that grade.
Mark is correct there is no "Greysheet" for an 1864 PR66RB IHC - there is a Greysheet price for an 1864 Proof 65RB and it has been consistently at $2700/$3000 for a fairly long time. So one has to do a little research in order to figure out what PF66RBs are worth - but suffice it to say they OUGHT to be worth MORE than a PF65RB - I'm pretty sure the coin we're discussing is lot 5462 that sold at Heritage in May 2004 (in a relatively "Good" coin market) for $2700 hammer, $3105 with the 15% buyers commision - which means that the consignor of that coin received $2700 or LESS for his 1864 Bronze PF66RB coin - which is PF65RB grey-sheet bid (or less) for a coin that should sell for 50% to 100% MORE than the next lower grade. (Note - I didn't write the cert number down when I saw it in Baltimore, but it had the same look as the Heritage lot that I mentioned)
I have notes on the coin whcih I have referenced in the Heritage auction from when I saw it last year (again - I'm not 100% sure it's the exact same coin) - I graded the Heritage coin PF65RB with a minus - meaning no eye-appeal. I had no interest in that coin, but if it were not selling on the floor the maximum I would have bid would be $2000/2200 for that coin (which is $2300 to $2530 with the juice) as it is not worth more than that UNLESS it's needed to add points to a registry set - Bluntly stated - it's a coin that was worth approximately Grey-sheet bid for a PF65RB to any knowledgeable dealer no matter what the paper insert said.
What I do know for a fact is the $5000 asking price for the coin i was shown in Baltimore was substantially more than I would pay for that coin (- if I would buy it at all) and it was not as nice as the coin I own in a lower "paper" grade. If the technical attributes of that coin render it a PF66RB, the market value for the sale of that coin may be diiferent to many who try and put together a nice collection of Proof IHCs. JMHO
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Good story Jeremy!
I wasn't there, but if the "holier than thou" attitude was given towards the collector, then he likely lashed out instinctively.
2 sides to every story as is mentioned a lot on here and, while the word is true ("buy the coin, not the plastic"), we don't know delivery of the message, etc.
Now, I would love to see the coins. I have come to look nicely toned IHCs
That said, there are people who will take one that is more mark free than others that have a certain look to them. You and Ron likely had a lot more chances to see a wide variety of them than the collector did, as has been noted.
Anyway, the message is clear and most have heard it.....buy the coin, not the plastic. But, by the same token, in a sight unseen world, it is most likely the other coin would get a higher price based on the plastic.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>But, by the same token, in a sight unseen world, it is most likely the other coin would get a higher price based on the plastic. >>
Perhaps only if listed without a picture or description online. Were Ron to sell the coin, he would be crazy not to have it in a case or an auction that would have lot viewing, as the people who could appreciate the coin for all its worth would bid accordingly.
<< <i>
<< <i>But, by the same token, in a sight unseen world, it is most likely the other coin would get a higher price based on the plastic. >>
Perhaps only if listed without a picture or description online. Were Ron to sell the coin, he would be crazy not to have it in a case or an auction that would have lot viewing, as the people who could appreciate the coin for all its worth would bid accordingly. >>
Yep, but he is also a dealer, right? Or a very knowledgable collector, right?
I have met Ron in FUN'05 and he is smart enough to do that. He also has knowledge and ability not everyone does.
I would still bet that, sight UNSEEN, as I stated, the other one would get a higher price.
Now, sight seen....well, I know he has nice coins and would get a good price for his.
I still say that a lot in how the person reacted may be due to how the message was delivered.
As you said, you were sitting back there WITH Ron. It isn't like the person expected you to be impartial, right???
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>As you said, you were sitting back there WITH Ron. It isn't like the person expected you to be impartial, right??? >>
I was sitting at the table, not behind it. That said, I hadn't seen either coin when they were both handed to me. Grades covered, very, very few would disagree with the sentiments I gave for my choice on which coin was nicer.
1864 PF65RB IHC
Here's what my coin looks like - except the coin is even nicer in hand - it has very deep watery mirrors and the colors a even more vibrent - I picked this up from Brian Wagner at the SF ANA and it is an exceptionally nice coin - Under-graded in my opinion (in contrast to many of the over-graded IHCs I see at auction). Brian has an exceptionally good eye for Proof IHCs, one of the few dealers who specialize in IHCs. 1864 Bronze Proofs are rare - there are several very nice ones available - the Coin in my Registry set was a PR64RD Deep Cameo - the 1st Bronze deep cameo ever slabbed by PCGS - (It no longer exists as after it was sold at auction it was cracked out and "up-graded" to an NGC Pr65RD Cameo - I'm not sure that going from a 64RD Deep Cam to a 65RD Cam is really an ungrade, but that's what happened). I've owned a half dozen 1864s in the past several years - Several Proof Reds, the Red Deep cameo and I currently have a real PF66RB, one of the first slabbed - in a PCGS old green Holder, plus the one shown above - The coin above probably has the BEST over-all eye-appeal of all the one's that I've owned, but that Red Deep cameo was also a WOW coin - which I always felt was under-graded (and so did the dealer who bought it and upgraded it!).
It's probably unfair to compare the coin I have with the PF66RB coin because it really looks better than most 1864's that I've seen. It also is a strong Cameo - but PCGS ONLY grades RD coins cameo, So many beautiful RB and BN Cameos are not designated cameo even when the Cameo is strikingly obvious.
Here's an example of a RB Cameo and the 1864 is almost as nicely Cameo'd as this 1897:
Someone mentioned about buying a proof IHC sight-unseen (or a PF66RB being worth more than a PF65RB sight un-seen) - That is a receipe for dissaster. While it may be possible to buy certain coins (for example: common date MS64 Morgans - or similar type coins where buying an over-graded coin is only a $10 mistake), buying coins for a collection sight un-seen will only result in having a collection that doesn't deserve to be seen. If someone as a collector can't take the time to look at the coins he's buying for his collection, he is sure to end up with a collection of over-graded coins.
I once bought an 1898 PCGS PF66RD IHC in an Auction that I had not personally looked at - When I got the coin, I immediatley knew that that coin did not belong in my collection as a PF RED coin - It was flat out Red Brown and I had at least a dozen RBs that were Redder than the coin I had bought without seeing it in hand. I sent the coin to PCGS with an example of 1 of my RBs that was considerably redder than the PCGS designated coin - THey promptly "downgraded" the RD coin to RB and sent me a check for the difference - I have never bought another sight unseen IHC since that experience, and would not - Unless it was "sight unseen" from Brian Wagner, Rick Snow or Dave Schweitz - dealers who know IHCs and and whose experience & ability to grade IHCs is eminately reliable.
As for Jeremy "lording" it over anyone with many years of collecting expereince, that's not the case at all - Jeremy is a fine young numismatist who enjoys coins and asked to look at the Proof IHCs I had with me at Baltimore (most of which were not even for sale) - He looked at all of them, asked a lot of questions and after a considerable time of his looking at these coins I suggested that Jeremy pick the ones that he thought had the most eye-appeal or were PQ for the assigned grade, which he did. We then went over those coins to see WHY he selected the ones that he had picked. We discussed orange peel surfaces - Cameos, (Jeremy picked many of the non-red Cameos) and I explained that PCGS would NOT designate any non-red coin as a cameo, but NGC would. I asked Jeremy to image several of the nicer coins and he took them home and took pictures for me (The 1897 above is one of those). About the time that Jeremy had asked me about every question anyone could possibly ask about Proof IHCs a gentleman stopped by and wanted to know if I would be interested in an 1864 PF66RB IHC - I said yes and asked to see the coin - He showed it to me and as a comparison I took my 65RB and put them side by side - THe rest of the story is as Jeremy posted above and I said very little to the Gentleman across the table except I asked what he wanted for his coin. THere was no argument, no dissing his coin, but when the Gentleman told Jeremy that he liked his coin better and my coin had a mark (which doesn't really apppear in the image) Jeremy mentioned that he thought the lower grade coin looked MUCH nicer than the higher grade coin and he explained WHY it looked better. I said very little during the entire time other than I declined to purchase the PF66RB at the price quoted to me. I did not indicate that the gentleman's coin was a problem coin - I simply said I was not interested in buying the coin at the price quoted and that I liked my "lower" grade coin better.
My observation is that Jeremy will do well at MIT -
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Part of the problem is grading proof coins is more sujective than with mint state coins.
I wonder if this collector was primarily a mint state collector.
Too bad for him that he didn't take the opportunity to learn that the mark he found on newmismatist's coin was important if he had been able to spot it with the naked eye or if it was the defining difference between an PR66 and PR67 as opposed to a PR65 versus PR66.
Yes, newmismatist, I agree with your observation and will further state that MIT is very lucky to have airplanenut on board!
Nice proof coin as well.
<< <i>Yes, newmismatist, I agree with your observation and will further state that MIT is very lucky to have airplanenut on board!
Nice proof coin as well. >>
Thanks Oreville Which proof did you like better? THe 1897 or the 1864? THey are both very high end coins, but they have totally different looks. My preference is the 1897 - but only by a whisker - it has a very dramatic Cameo and in fact it should be designated as a deep or ultra cameo, but that's only because I've see all of the RD deep/Ultra bronze cameos and the 97 is a deep a cameo as any of the RDs that I have seen or owned. The 1864 is really neat as it has great toning - sort of a lime green but not as dramatic a green as the 1885 that I posted on the TCCS boards.
As for Jeremy, he has a keen mind and I felt like I was being quizzed by a student - I taught Law school classes for 3 years after I graduated from Law School and Jeremy is the type of student I would have enjoyed having in any class I taught - He's sharp, he absorbs what is explained, he's able to use the information and he can reach his own conclusions based on his actual experience combined with any theoretical information that he learns from others. I did not tell Jeremy any answers to his questions - I asked him to figure out the answers by using his skills and judgments based on what he was looking at. As I said - Jeremy will do well at MIT
He did give the gentleman one very good piece of advice: "Look at the Coin" - something that was ignored as he was more intent on proving his coin was the better coin. Reminded me of the saying "Can't see the forest because all the trees are in the way".
I don't know whether the other person was a collector or a dealer - At every show I attend there are always vest pocket dealers who both buy and sell, and I didn't ask. It would make no difference to me as if he had a nice coin and I liked it, I would gladly buy it if we reached a price that was mutually agreeable - particularly as 1864 is a very low mintage coin and nice proofs are hard to come by and worth (at least to me) more than sheet prices. I didn't bother to look at the PF66RB with a glass as it lacked the nice proof surfaces that I look for and had clearly reached its maximum possible grade level, there was no reason to study it in depth. It would fit nicely in a Registry set that was based on the numbers on the insert as it would get lots of "points", but it wouldn't look quite as good in a colection of nice Proof IHCs, and that's the criteria I use to buy coins.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
For those of you that want to have trust in your dealers grading rather than a TPG that is fine, but the benefit of the TPG’S is to narrow the screw job. Why do most of the big auction houses send their large consignments to the TPG’S? So there can be a meeting of the minds on the technical grades for both the buyers and the sellers. If what you want is the highest end of the scale in any grade, and are willing to pay way over current published market for your coins, dealers like Laura are there to help you, but raw coin collectors spending big money on coins are taking big risks with their investment capital.
“I strongly believe that just about ANY coin graded 65 or higher, should be so classic and dynamic in technical and eye appeal qualifications that you SHOULD be able to buy it sightUNSEEN.
“If you don't believe me about how many ugly or "bad" coins there are in holders, go to ANY major show.”
Great line.
billy
The Plastic War (Thanks to Russ for hosting this one)
<< <i>What the TPG’S do is technical grading, and only in the case of NGC and their STAR program do they look for direct eye appeal. Most collectors believe that there is a very tight grading range for every coin, this is just not true. A coin that is technically correct for an MS 65 will get that grade regardless of missing cartwheel glimmer, toning etc. it might be dog ugly but it is technically correct. Some MS 65’s have no visible bag marks and some do, and if anyone here thinks that dealers don’t get bigger money for “eye appeal” MS coins rather than run of the mill coins then they are asleep at the wheel. >>
I must agree and disagree. Yes, some coins in gem holders are ugly. But, to be fair, grade is made up of strike, marks, lustre, and eye appeal (and wear on circ. coins). Even a technical grade depends on eye appeal--sometimes those ugly 65s have the surfaces of a 66, and sometimes, they're just ugly coins.
That said, here's another example of buying the coin and not the holder... in May, I purchased an 1893 Barber quarter graded MS63 by NGC. The coin is a technical MS65, except for an old staple scratch on the neck that, while visible, was clearly made early-on, as it has toned just like the rest of the coin, and is a bit camouflaged (and not at all fresh, exposing new metal). I bought the coin not because it was a 63 (glad it was, since I couldn't afford a 65), but because it is original and has a great look to it. So yes, there's a scratch, but that doesn't mean the coin can't be enjoyed for what it is. And besides, it's far more appealing than a dipped MS64 or 65.
Jeremy