Could we, as collectors, have softened the blow of RYK’s Folly™, and is it time for a numismatic cou
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
The topic of this thread surrounds a thread that RYK posted yesterday, in which he admitted, like a man, that he got Stacks’ed™. Because he is a seasoned collector and should have known better, his numismatic spanking will heretofore be referred to as RYK’s Folly™.
For those of you who are not playing along at home, RYK bid on a coin in an auction over the internet, and did not have a representative view the coin in person first. He subsequently won the coin. Although the coin was inexpensive, RYK alleges that the coin was hairlined when he finally saw it in person, and the picture on the internet was taken at a judicious angle.
Although the thread was supposedly about whether the auction firm should have disclosed the hairlines, that was actually a red-herring. The real issue was whether this coin will be able to be holdered in PCGS plastic, and the coin is on its way to its potential numismatic encasement as we speak.
The thread generated many responses. The vast majority of the responses (including mine), were outraged at the fact that this coin may have a chance at not being holdered. Everyone knows that every coin should be in a plastic slab.
But as I thought further about this, I got a numismatic epiphany. Rather than viewing this situation as RYK’s Folly™, perhaps we should focus on what really happened here-- he bought a coin that may have some slight hairlines when held at a contortionist’s angle, and it may not be worthy enough to be put in plastic. Because the revolution in numismatics happened 25+ years ago with the advent of slabs, perhaps it is time that we have a numismatic counter-revolution, and start to buy and enjoy coins for what they are, regardless of whether they are slabbable. In this instance, RYK has a very nice looking coin, that may have some slight hairlines from an ancient cleaning. Rather than being outraged and focusing on the fact that the coin might not slab, we should focus on the coin itself and how it looks.
Would anyone else’s reaction to RYK’s Folly™ been different if he did not post the thread, but simply submitted the coin to PCGS, got it certified and graded, and then posted that he bought a raw coin at an auction and got it slabbed? I think that our reactions would be completely different. The only change would be that we would not be focusing on slight hairlines and base our entire opinion and outrage on the “slabbing versus bodybag” issue.
Is it time for a numismatic counter-revolution, where we focus less on slabs, and more on the coins themselves? Additionally, the whole issue of slight hairline disclosure versus nondisclosure (which was a red-herring in the original thread) would not even come up, if our primary focus and goal was not slabbing every coin in existence.
What do you think?
For those of you who are not playing along at home, RYK bid on a coin in an auction over the internet, and did not have a representative view the coin in person first. He subsequently won the coin. Although the coin was inexpensive, RYK alleges that the coin was hairlined when he finally saw it in person, and the picture on the internet was taken at a judicious angle.
Although the thread was supposedly about whether the auction firm should have disclosed the hairlines, that was actually a red-herring. The real issue was whether this coin will be able to be holdered in PCGS plastic, and the coin is on its way to its potential numismatic encasement as we speak.
The thread generated many responses. The vast majority of the responses (including mine), were outraged at the fact that this coin may have a chance at not being holdered. Everyone knows that every coin should be in a plastic slab.
But as I thought further about this, I got a numismatic epiphany. Rather than viewing this situation as RYK’s Folly™, perhaps we should focus on what really happened here-- he bought a coin that may have some slight hairlines when held at a contortionist’s angle, and it may not be worthy enough to be put in plastic. Because the revolution in numismatics happened 25+ years ago with the advent of slabs, perhaps it is time that we have a numismatic counter-revolution, and start to buy and enjoy coins for what they are, regardless of whether they are slabbable. In this instance, RYK has a very nice looking coin, that may have some slight hairlines from an ancient cleaning. Rather than being outraged and focusing on the fact that the coin might not slab, we should focus on the coin itself and how it looks.
Would anyone else’s reaction to RYK’s Folly™ been different if he did not post the thread, but simply submitted the coin to PCGS, got it certified and graded, and then posted that he bought a raw coin at an auction and got it slabbed? I think that our reactions would be completely different. The only change would be that we would not be focusing on slight hairlines and base our entire opinion and outrage on the “slabbing versus bodybag” issue.
Is it time for a numismatic counter-revolution, where we focus less on slabs, and more on the coins themselves? Additionally, the whole issue of slight hairline disclosure versus nondisclosure (which was a red-herring in the original thread) would not even come up, if our primary focus and goal was not slabbing every coin in existence.
What do you think?
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
The coin was a decent looking piece from the 1830's, so why can't we enjoy it for what it is? Back when I was collecting Honduras (alright, these have nothing to do with the real world) I never, ever bought one because I thought it would slab, I bought them because I enjoyed them.
I once had a somewhat snooty collector turn down a (slabbed) AU-58 Turban Head gold piece because it was less than Uncirculated, and thereby beneath him. The piece was gorgeous, but he could not enjoy it.
TD
My replies were based on that and that alone. Not once did I ridicule or berate the OP.
Bottom line is simply: IMO, sellers should describe the coin HONESTLY
Steve
I thought the point of RYK's post was that he succumbed to the temptation of bidding on a coin based solely on an image and auction description. He ended up with a coin that he doesn't like -- and it's not a "keeper" for him -- regardless of whether or not it slabs.
But I'm all for revolution! What's the TPG equivalent of Boston Harbor or the Bastille?
The coin in question did not suffer from any terrible abuse and seems fine to me.
I certainly support the notion that people look at the coins for what they are. They were used as money and some of them picked up some faults along the way.
If you do not personally like the coin, then by all means, do not buy it, but don't eliminate it from consideration based on whether or not someone else likes the coin.
Happy collecting all!!!
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Yesterday I posted pics of a seated half I bought for my clipped type set. I know the word "rare" is overused, but in this case it applies - the coin is a one year type, in a high circulated grade, with pleasing original surfaces, and a rim clip. Oh, and a bunch of light scratches in the obverse field that would keep it out of most TPG slabs. I would need to have my head examined if I let those scratches prevent me from adding the coin to my collection.
Anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time has heard the mantra "buy the coin, not the slab" repeated ad nauseum. The concept applies whether the coin is in a slab now, or used to be in one, or might be in one again, or has no chance of ever being in one. You're still buying the coin.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Is it time for a numismatic counter-revolution, where we focus less on slabs, and more on the coins themselves? Additionally, the whole issue of slight hairline disclosure versus nondisclosure (which was a red-herring in the original thread) would not even come up, if our primary focus and goal was not slabbing every coin in existence.
What do you think? >>
HERESY!! HERESY I SAY! Burn Him at the stake!
BTW I don't appreciate you misappropriating the theme of my registry set ONE THREE'S FOLLY©®™ You are hereby given notice to cease and desist in your use of the term "RYK's Folly". I beat you to the punch in trademarking foolishness! And don't try the old submarine patent trick either, I was an idiot long before RYK.
her·e·sy /ˈhɛrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[her-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sies.
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc
Proud Participant in Operation "Stone Holey" August 7, 2008
<< <i>Although the thread was supposedly about whether the auction firm should have disclosed the hairlines, that was actually a red-herring. The real issue was whether this coin will be able to be holdered in PCGS plastic >>
I consider myself to be of average intelligence, but if what you say is true, then I must admit that I completely missed the 'Real Issue™' in yesterday's thread.
I would only add that the notion of whether or not a coin 'will be able to be holdered' is both fleeting and dynamic. I would posit that if it were submitted 63 times for grading, it may holder in only 49 of those attempts.
And even in those theoretical 14 failures, I would still consider it to be a decent looking circulated example of a really old coin which someone else, upon viewing it raw, might very well think "hmmm, I bet I could get that thing to holder".
What was the question again?
For starters, anyone who is buying coins should always concentrate on the coins themselves. If you don't agree with the grade on the holder don't buy it, most collectors do this anyway so there would be no need for a "revolution" if common sense were the order of the day.
In referenced to being :"Stacks’ed™" this wound was self inflicted. Really folks, regardless of what auction house it was bidding on a raw coin on the internet without having someone look at it is not a prudent way to buy coins.
How exactly is the lack of due diligence of an interent bidder the fault of Stack's?
And...
Since this mistake was obviously the buyers fault was it really needed to come on here and slam Stacks? The bottom line is it's the buyers responsibility to check a raw coin.
Bottom line is simply: IMO, sellers should describe the coin HONESTLY
That's the problem about buying "sight-seen in picture over the internet" coins. If it's raw, from a reputable auction house, it's pretty much 99.999% genuine always, BUT the appearance of the coin in the pictures might be constrewed, whether or not on purpose, as in the RYK Folly........
Usually, people would rather purchase a slabbed coin to avoid the legwork of travling to an auction house or hiring some trusted dealer to do the looking for you..........slabs have made us lazy, I guess......
Look how much faith people put in these things.......check the prices of the 69/70 20th Anniv. ASE's for example............
Who knows if RYK's coin will slab???........but I betcha there are plenty of other hairlined coins in slabs. Heck, there are AT coins in slabs.
I agree that there needs to be less of a dependence on slabs, and more studying up on grading yourself. But this day and age, like most everything else, why not take the easy way out???
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
<< <i>I consider myself to be of average intelligence, but if what you say is true, then I must admit that I completely missed the 'Real Issue™' in yesterday's thread. >>
Same here.
It's not a fanaticism with plastic as much as wanting to trust a major player to be more forthright. Of course I am assuming the coin is as described.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I've yet to experience RYK’s Folly™ myself but I promise if and when I do I'll refer to it appropriately.
1. To prove it's genuine.
2. To protect it from further damage.
3. To assign a reasonable, market acceptable grade so the POS who sold it to you as a "AU58" won't claim it's "net F tooled" on the buy back.
4. To make the coin market acceptable.
There is a slight downside - you can't enjoy the edge, but for most coins, that's not an issue.
In this day and age, why would you buy a coin OUT of a slab?? Even if it looks good to you, odds are that the previous owner or services noticed a problem that you missed and the next buyer will discount the coin heavily becasue of it. Why take that risk?
Count me out of the counter-revolution. I like slabs for practical resons and I STILL enjoy the coins.
I'm also with CCU - what was the question??
2. Slabbed coins are clearly more sellable than raw coins.
3. Most raw coins that are for sale are raw because they are not slabable.
4. There are thousands of coins available for sale at any moment in time.
Why would I ever buy a raw coin? (Okay an early copper wonder-coin I'll make an exception for.)
Who is John Galt?
<< <i>"Is it time for a numismatic counter-revolution, where we focus less on slabs, and more on the coins themselves?"
For starters, anyone who is buying coins should always concentrate on the coins themselves. If you don't agree with the grade on the holder don't buy it, most collectors do this anyway so there would be no need for a "revolution" if common sense were the order of the day.
In referenced to being :"Stacks’ed™" this wound was self inflicted. Really folks, regardless of what auction house it was bidding on a raw coin on the internet without having someone look at it is not a prudent way to buy coins.
How exactly is the lack of due diligence of an interent bidder the fault of Stack's?
And...
Since this mistake was obviously the buyers fault was it really needed to come on here and slam Stacks? The bottom line is it's the buyers responsibility to check a raw coin. >>
There is also a responsibility for an auction house to have full disclosure, IMO.
So if the coin had hairlines, they should have said so.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
"The Villain"
Shiba Rescue Organization
A Shiba Inu is a terrible thing to waste!
1. I recognized the risks of what I was doing, and even if the coin were worthless, which it is not, I would not be significantly harmed.
2. I have seen far, far worse coins in PCGS and NGC holders, including a huge hoard of NCS'ed classic head $5's on the bourse of the FUN show.
3. My impatience and fear of losing out was the cause of my folly.
4. Hopefully, others will learn something about this, at my (relatively small) expense.
5. The lesson to not bid on coins in auction without first-hand (or trusted agent) inspection applies, whether the coin is raw or slabbed. There are coins in PCGS holders that can give you third degree burns if purchased sight-unseen.
<< <i>TextThere are 4 good reasons to slab a coin. >>
I agree, and totally understand RYK's point, as always, buyer beware. All of us have made similiar mistakes, we try to learn from them and go on.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
With respect to the others' comments - I like the plastic for the four points raised. Most of don't want to admit it but generally we won't be the ones to sell most of our collection. Our heirs will and the plastic does provide them (and you) some protection against scammers.
I think many have forgotten the "coin and not the holder" mantra....
RYK is unhappy with the coin and regrets not having someone whose assessment he trusts view the coin and advise him about something the pictures didn't show. i think all the "judicious angle" and "contortionist’s angle" remarks are total crap since RYK saw the hairlines clearly enough, just as a dealer/fellow collector representing him would have seen them. that's the "Real Issue" along with the fact of non-disclosure in the description, not the holdering by whatever company.
the coin may or may not be certified, but a few things came through loud and clear; RYK was dissatisfied with the coin and saw the hairlines easily, expressing regret towards his lack of help and dismay at the lack of disclosure in the description.
My first auction experience with B&M in 1976 I returned an entire shipment of overgraded and overdescribed coins. They (letter signed by QDB himself) suggested I never bid again sight unseen on their auctions. I complied, and did not bid with them again until 1988. About 8 years ago I made a mistake and bid on some common ch/gem BU gold (photos available) from Stacks that were described as having wonderful colors, or perfect surfaces, etc. They were anything but and I returned a number of the coins, also realizing they would never allow me to do so again. You get at most one shot like that, and that's only if you already have a good track record in bidding on their sales OR you are one of those rare first time newbies that took the coins to a knowledgeable dealer who then told you that you were hosed. Descriptions should at least be in the ball park and I do hold the seller accountable to be at least reasonable. Unfortunately auction houses don't always believe that. I would submit that of all the raw coins purchased sight unseen from a major auction, that 90% or more immediately put the owners into a 20-50% loss position.
Counter-revolution? Hardly. This has been going on since the first auction existed and will continue.
It is very difficult to sell raw coins with any problems for what they are worth. To those that feel otherwise, my only thoughts are that you have not actively tried to sell coins before. The slab does allow much greater liquidity. Trying to sell a problem coin that is slabbed is hard enough, doing so when it's raw is very difficult. If you have such a coin you probably know it already as no matter how many shows you bring the coin to, it never sells. 30 years ago I had a cleaned 1875-cc quarter in AU55 grade. The fuzzy cleaned surfaces never really bothered me that much, nor did the obviously long but light scratch on the obverse. I always valued it as an AU. Tough date too. Over the years I tried to sell the coin but no one would ever bite. After many years I eventually sold the coin for XF- money and was lucky to get out of it at a 30% loss from purchase price. It was a problem coin plain and simple, one I never should have bought. Our collections are often full of such dead-weight coins because they appear to offer "great" value at first. And we keep them because we cannot sell them or just won't accept a loss. That one came from a mail bid sale in the back of Coin World (a very prevalent source back in the 70's and 80's).
While anyone can sell a problem coin for 0-50% of it's value, the real trick is trying to get anywhere near 70-80%. Most buyers want to totally rip it to ensure they didn't underestimate the defects and lose money as well. Key dates are rare type coins may be an exception. Most collectors do not have the skills to assess the value of a significantly damaged coin. This is where the seasoned bourse dealer has an open field.
roadrunner