This is what I was afraid of. You should look at this!

KurtHorn · October 15, 2005 6:50AM

This is exactly what I was afraid of when ANACS eliminated net grading. Take a look at this auction by Heritage. Fine details damaged. No indication in writing what the damage is. In the description quoting Greysheet price for a fine with no damage, and showing previous coins sold in Fine 12.
LET THE NEWBIE BLOOD FLOW!!!

Heritage Auction 1875-S Twenty Cent Piece Fine 12 Damaged

lordmarcovan · October 15, 2005 6:55AM

I like the ANACS move, personally. It's clear enough.

No indication in writing of what the damage is, but that too is clear enough when you look at the picture. And an old net-grade slab label would probably not have been much more descriptive. So what if Heritage didn't go into details about what kind of damage- the picture's there.

Any noob who's dumb enough not to read "damaged" on a label and pays full price deserves what he gets.

KurtHorn · October 15, 2005 6:58AM

Old label would have been something like Fine details Damaged Net Good 4. That's real damage. It would have pulled it down probably 4 grades. And, it doesn't bother you they are representing it as a Fine, for Fine money!!! AAAAaaaaaagh!

lordmarcovan · October 15, 2005 7:05AM

<< And, it doesn't bother you they are representing it as a Fine, for Fine money!!! >>

Who said anything about Fine money? Sure, they put the values for a regular Fine up there, but anybody knows that a damaged piece should not bring full Fine money.

I do see where you're comin' from, though. There should be a clause with all value guides that states the prices are for undamaged, uncleaned coins only.

Hobbyist · October 15, 2005 7:07AM

I do see a disconnect between the auction and their "Previous Prices from Heritage Auctions" section that is apparently a result of ANACS new grading method.

Most of the coins in the Previous Prices section are VF Details coins (which were net graded to Fine) whereas the auction is for a Fine Details coin.

KurtHorn · October 15, 2005 7:13AM

Stujoe, welcome to these boards!

This is much more fair:

Current auction of an ANACS Net graded coin

Lists prices for a coin with VF 20 grades (4 grades down due to the net grade) as opposed to EF 40 grades which run 3-4 times more.

mozeppa · October 15, 2005 7:16AM

hers yer damage...

keets · October 15, 2005 7:22AM

This is exactly what I was afraid of when ANACS eliminated net grading.

this is also a good case of what i commented about the change----the insert is less cluttered and it contains sufficient information for even a novice to make an informde assessment of the coin.

KurtHorn · October 15, 2005 7:30AM

Here would be the correct way to list these crappy slabs... Give them a grade of 0

Teletrade Details only graded ANACS Auction

1jester · October 15, 2005 7:35AM

Personally, I think it was a step in the wrong direction for ANACS to eliminate the net grading and not listing what the damage(s) is (are).

KurtHorn · October 15, 2005 10:52AM

<< Personally, I think it was a step in the wrong direction for ANACS to eliminate the net grading and not listing what the damage(s) is (are).

>>

It's even worse though for an auction house to list prices of the details grade as if the coin is worth the same money in spite of the damage. It's purposefully deceptive. This is from Heritage. I just can't wait till I see what goes on with Ebay...

I'm going to get some problem coins slabbed by ANACS soon. I can assure you I won't be putting them on Ebay listing the price of the coin in the details grade. It ought to be a violation of the ANA code of ethics.

MrEureka · October 15, 2005 11:18AM

I like the ANACS move, personally. It's clear enough.

I agree. I especially like that newbies can't be conned into believing that every "Net XF40" is worth XF40 money.

MrEureka · October 15, 2005 11:23AM

It's even worse though for an auction house to list prices of the details grade as if the coin is worth the same money in spite of the damage. It's purposefully deceptive.

There are no good price guides for damaged coins, and some price info is better than no price info.

Of course, more price info would be even better. So what price info would you want Heritage to add?

goose3 · October 15, 2005 11:26AM

What in the hell is the big deal here Kurt?

the coin is going for 63.00 at this point. 63.00 is probably close to G/VG money for the coin. I think I bought a solid Fine on ebay 2 or 3 years back that probably had an old cleaning for 90.00.

<< It's even worse though for an auction house to list prices of the details grade as if the coin is worth the same money in spite of the damage. It's purposefully deceptive. >>

WHAT? What grade would you like them quote a price for? XF? AG? Poor? AU? The coin has FINE details so why on earth would they quote anything other than FINE pricing for the coin? The pricing is shown for nothing more than a guide.

I ran across an 20.00 double eagle FE cent clash on Heritage a few weeks back that was being auctioned in FINE15. They were quoting prices for 1857 flyers in FINE which were 30.00 or so. THe coin was near 800.00. Is that deceptive?

<< It ought to be a violation of the ANA code of ethics. >>

HUH? Again.....in the scenario I've outlined....should that too be a violation in your world?

I think you, for whatever reason, have become obsessed with this policy change at ANACS and are going out of your way to try and find something to prove whatever your point might be in this case. As far as this auction, your statements are borderline ridiculous.

TomB · October 15, 2005 11:36AM

I really think this is a non-issue. The previous policy at ANACS would have listed this as "F12 Net VG10 Damaged" or something very close to that. This is a better system because now ANACS is not trying to determine the coin's value with their net grade; rather, they are simply giving the existing details.

RedTiger · October 15, 2005 11:59AM

Report the results with the coin going for full Fine price or more then thump the table. Right now it is a cry of "wolf" with only a harmless squirrel in the yard.

How many "newbies" are there registered with Heritage? 99.8% of collectors who have gotten that far can tell a damaged coin from a hole in their heads. If those two out of a 1000 bid the thing up, all I can say is "so sad too bad." A net grade might save those two, but that will only save their money for the no-name-overgraded-slab of the week club or shop-at-home investment grade coins or the some silver round replicas of rare coins at the price of the coin, or some other scammer junk out there.

veryfine · October 15, 2005 12:14PM

Isn't it better for the buyer to see the technical grade with the word DAMAGED on a coin holder, allowing us to determine what the net grade would be? Previously, a Fine-12 might be net graded to a VG-8, but many of us would only pay AG money for it. The new system is a plus for the uninformed buyer and expert collector as well.

MrEureka · October 15, 2005 12:28PM

A net grade might save those two, but that will only save their money for the no-name-overgraded-slab of the week club or shop-at-home investment grade coins or the some silver round replicas of rare coins at the price of the coin, or some other scammer junk out there.

Dead on!

Myqqy · October 15, 2005 12:43PM

This is a better system because now ANACS is not trying to determine the coin's value with their net grade; rather, they are simply giving the existing details.

I completely agree- anacs doesn't need to tell us what the coin is worth, just like pcgs doesn't need to market grade their coins. Let collectors decide the value....

Dabigkahuna · October 15, 2005 1:01PM

Just from a financial point of view, I think ANACS has made a big mistake to give up that niche of the market. Net grading was the one big thing that I liked about ANACS. That and varieties were their strength. Now that PCGS is starting to do VAM's where will that leave ANACS?

Rob,

I think you are giving to much credit to us newbies to know any better.

Larry
Dabigkahuna

1jester · October 15, 2005 5:35PM

I disagree that the net grade was an attempt at pricing the coin. It's an attempt at GRADING the coin, hence the name--net grade. Is every MS65 the same value?? NOT! Give me a break.

Also, I disagree that it's a good move for the industry or for ANACS or for collectors/buyers. The omission of the net grade leaves us with much less information to go on. How are we to determine how much damage exists?? This is particularly important in sight-unseen purchases, including Heritage auctions. Naturally, some will say that you must look at the coin yourself, in hand. I agree. However, failing that, how are we to determine the nature and extent of the damage? Once again, I reiterate my opinion: it's a step backwards and is not beneficial for the industry.

kieferscoins · October 16, 2005 3:09AM

<< It ought to be a violation of the ANA code of ethics. >>

HUH? Again.....in the scenario I've outlined....should that too be a violation in your world?

I think you, for whatever reason, have become obsessed with this policy change at ANACS and are going out of your way to try and find something to prove whatever your point might be in this case. As far as this auction, your statements are borderline ridiculous. >>

I totally agree with Goose3. If this is against ANA ethics contact the ANA and gripe to them. I think you are wrong here Kurt, and the more anti ANACS net grading threads you do the more it will hurt your point of view in changing peoples minds.

Its very simple....don't use ANACS. This is the way they are going to buisness and they are NOT hurting the market, beginning collectors or anyone.

Cameron Kiefer

TomB · October 16, 2005 4:53AM

<< I disagree that the net grade was an attempt at pricing the coin. It's an attempt at GRADING the coin, hence the name--net grade. Is every MS65 the same value?? NOT! Give me a break. >>

Actually, 1jester, I believe you are entirely wrong in your assumption and also in part of your interpretation of what I wrote.

To begin with, you rhetorically ask if every MS65 is of the same value, yet I never posted that non-net graded coins were graded as to assign value; I only posted that the net grade was trying to determine value. Also, net grading is clearly not an attempt to give a details grade and this is most obviously evident in the details grade that was always listed on the holder. You could most easily understand this by submitting two of the same coin, in identical condition, where one coin had a shallow staple scratch in the field and the other a hole punched through it. The coin with the shallow staple scratch would come back with the higher net grade every time because it would be less severely damaged.

If you do not believe me, you may check out the ANACS site, which states-

<< ANACS is the only major grading service to grade cleaned, corroded, damaged, repaired, and other problem coins. The details grade reflects the amount of remaining detail on the coin, balancing actual wear with remaining sharpness. The net grade deducts a given number of grading points from the details grade, depending on the severity of the coin's problems. >>

Notice that the details grade already gives the grade for remaining sharpness and that the net grade depends on the severity of the coin's problems. This is exactly what I was writing about.

Coinosaurus · October 16, 2005 6:35AM

The whole net grading idea was bogus to begin with. It is too hard to price damaged coins, every one is unique. I like the change.

1jester · October 16, 2005 6:41AM

"Notice that the details grade already gives the grade for remaining sharpness and that the net grade depends on the severity of the coin's problems. This is exactly what I was writing about." --TomB

I agree with you and at the same time don't see how that negates what I said. Net grading is an attempt to grade the coin, and not determine or establish a market value for it.

cho10 · October 16, 2005 6:41AM

<< I disagree that the net grade was an attempt at pricing the coin. It's an attempt at GRADING the coin, hence the name--net grade. Is every MS65 the same value?? NOT! Give me a break. Also, I disagree that it's a good move for the industry or for ANACS or for collectors/buyers. The omission of the net grade leaves us with much less information to go on. How are we to determine how much damage exists?? This is particularly important in sight-unseen purchases, including Heritage auctions. Naturally, some will say that you must look at the coin yourself, in hand. I agree. However, failing that, how are we to determine the nature and extent of the damage? Once again, I reiterate my opinion: it's a step backwards and is not beneficial for the industry.

>>

PerryHall · October 16, 2005 10:49AM

<< I disagree that the net grade was an attempt at pricing the coin. It's an attempt at GRADING the coin, hence the name--net grade. Is every MS65 the same value?? NOT! Give me a break.

Also, I disagree that it's a good move for the industry or for ANACS or for collectors/buyers. The omission of the net grade leaves us with much less information to go on. How are we to determine how much damage exists?? This is particularly important in sight-unseen purchases, including Heritage auctions. Naturally, some will say that you must look at the coin yourself, in hand. I agree. However, failing that, how are we to determine the nature and extent of the damage? Once again, I reiterate my opinion: it's a step backwards and is not beneficial for the industry.

>>

PerryHall · October 16, 2005 10:55AM

Also, its disingenuous for Heritage to sell a damaged coin and quote past auction results for the same coin in an undamaged state. How is this information even relevant to the coin being auctioned? Most of us know better but there are new collectors out there that may be mislead by this information.

This is what I was afraid of. You should look at this!

Comments

Leave a Comment