All I can think of is Laura taliking about Wannabe's.
Laura may have dropped a PM about this coin, but would never say so, and I wouldn't blame them. It's a perfect illustration to the unaware of the benefit of the consortium discussion. There are just so few natural coincidences. JMO
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>All I can think of is Laura taliking about Wannabe's.
Laura may have dropped a PM about this coin, but would never say so, and I wouldn't blame them. It's a perfect illustration to the unaware of the benefit of the consortium discussion. There are just so few natural coincidences. JMO >>
Well ... after mulling this over for a while, I have come to the conclusion that I just need to refrain from buying high end coins for a while. I am a relatively new collector. However, I have taken a strong run at this hobby and have put forth a great deal of time and effort educating myself: I read just about every piece of literature available, I comb through auction records daily, I read most threads here and on NGC, I go to large and small shows and look through the coins on every table, I have spent many hours at Heritage and Superior tables reviewing auction coins, I associate with and seek the advice of reputable dealers and experts in their series ... what more can a new collector with a passion for the hobby do??? And still, I would have been fooled by that coin, as I am sure that many numismatists with MUCH more experience than I have been. Unfortunately, the solution for me at this point is to keep my future purchases in the lower dollar range as the gamble at the higher levels is just too great. You know what they say ... don't gamble what you can't afford to lose ...
<< <i>Well ... after mulling this over for a while, I have come to the conclusion that I just need to refrain from buying high end coins for a while. I am a relatively new collector. However, I have taken a strong run at this hobby and have put forth a great deal of time and effort educating myself: I read just about every piece of literature available, I comb through auction records daily, I read most threads here and on NGC, I go to large and small shows and look through the coins on every table, I have spent many hours at Heritage and Superior tables reviewing auction coins, I associate with and seek the advice of reputable dealers and experts in their series ... what more can a new collector with a passion for the hobby do??? And still, I would have been fooled by that coin, as I am sure that many numismatists with MUCH more experience than I have been. Unfortunately, the solution for me at this point is to keep my future purchases in the lower dollar range as the gamble at the higher levels is just too great. You know what they say ... don't gamble what you can't afford to lose ...
>>
I'm exactly in Fletcher's position except I have not yet spent a lot of time reviewing auction coins, but I spend lots and lots of time trying to educate myself.
I was definitely fooled by this coin and totally now know I don't need to buy these high end coins.
This really takes the wind out of the sail so to speak on my early dollar search.
This thread has turned out to be rather interesting. >>
And coincidentally fitting in quite nicely with the current hot topic? Proves the need for the consortium? Do exceptions make the rule nowadays? How would the consortium, which should exist if someone wants to do it, have dealt with this coin? Was this thread designed to make a point, as well as make a certain dealer look bad? Probably not.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Absolutely not. I just posted to a similar thread ATS so I'll post it here as well...
I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you?
It depends on what the consortium does with coins when they look at them. If it's just "sticker" or "no sticker", this coin will stay in this holder and will still get sold as a 61. The sticker would only give a premium above the typical 61.
Absolutely not. I just posted to a similar thread ATS so I'll post it here as well...
I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
It's not about the babysitting. It's about the disincentive to ruin a nice coin for more money. If all of the "good coins" were stickered and the "bad coins" were not stickered, someone might think twice about taking a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it.
Absolutely not. I just posted to a similar thread ATS so I'll post it here as well...
I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
It's not about the babysitting. It's about the disincentive to ruin a nice coin for more money. If all of the "good coins" were stickered and the "bad coins" were not stickered, someone might think twice about take a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it. >>
The thread apparently started innocently enough. What it has morphed into is a huge lesson on how inexpert most dealers are. My biggest numismatic booboo was in trusting a number grade which was actually UNDERgraded. In all my years of coin dealing, the MOST expertise concerned itself into knowing whom to trust for PAYMENTS or shipping consistency or some form of credit rating on different dealers. You lived or died on payment or shipping promises. Back in "raw" days, coins traded by eye appeal alone. Premium or discount pricing followed the APPEARANCE of the coin. Even if doctored. Slabs have further degraded the expertise of all collectors and dealers. Regardless of their statements to the contrary. And the CAC is a step back to ...raw. They are going to render decisions THROUGH the plastic of existing coins even though there is a lot of information only available to seeing the surface....raw. But it will again go back to how the coin LOOKS. In the plastic. The past couple weeks should discourage about sebenty jillion potential coin buyers. Except from change or the mint. But it will go down as a historic period in coins.
<< <i>I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
<< <i>I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
That is simply a ridiculous statement ... >>
It's a valid statement, though one many won't agree with. How you view it comes down to accessibility of the market for educated collectors vs accessibility and protection for collectors who don't wish to educate themselves in the hobby and/or feux-investment market they're participating in though.
The consortium looks at this coin and does not put a sticker on it (hypothetical). Does that mean it's not worth MS61 money? Now the coin is sold without a sticker as MS61. Wouldn't someone buying such an expensive coin want to see a sticker? since the consortium wouldn't sticker it maybe they need a sticker that says they wouldn't sticker it. Since coin dealers are basically honest the coin would trade with a no sticker sticker.
The consortium would have protected Adrian (assuming he bought the coin). JMO This coin is a bad example for another reason. The holder jump is too large. A stickered AU-50 is worth less than an unstickered MS61. JMO
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public.
<< <i>It's a valid statement, though one many won't agree with. How you view it comes down to accessibility of the market for educated collectors vs accessibility and protection for collectors who don't wish to educate themselves in the hobby and/or feux-investment market they're participating in though. >>
I disagree. Obviously, I am speaking about collectors who do take the time and put forth the effort to educate themselves and are still occasionally fooled. You are referring to "collectors who don't wish to educate themselves in the hobby."
What makes you think the CAC wouldn't sticker this coin?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>It's not about the babysitting. It's about the disincentive to ruin a nice coin for more money. If all of the "good coins" were stickered and the "bad coins" were not stickered, someone might think twice about taking a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it. >>
The most powerful disincentive could be documentation, if CAC provides it. Collectors will benefit when there are more ha.com style archives out there.
<< <i>I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
That is simply a ridiculous statement ... >>
It's not at all. Fletcher you say you've done all this reasearch and study yet you couldn't tell that dollar is a POS. That simply tells me you didn't do enough research and study concerning that series of coin. Learn what you need to know and don't look for someone else to tell you what you should think.
<< <i>What makes you think the CAC wouldn't sticker this coin? >>
If they did, they would be hurting their own cause and would quickly go away. Sure, they will make mistakes, as people do. But if this is the kind of coin that routinely gets stickered, I'll be the first to say that we, as collectors, have no use for them.
Unless the CAC is going to TESTIFY in grade guarantee cases or Identify UNDERGRADED coins with advice to resubmit (instead of just stickering it as "premium")
<< <i>What makes anyone think a stickered AU-50 is worth as much as a holdered MS61? >>
Who said it is?
As I said earlier in the thread, if a dealer buys the coin for $33k out of the auction and gets it stickered, maybe he can sell it for $40k, a healthy profit. In the case, an individual bought it, someone doctored it, and Lord knows how many hands it passed through and who did what to it until it ended up in the N61 holder. Now, sellers are fishing for a wealthy collector to pay $90k for it.
<< <i>It's not about the babysitting. It's about the disincentive to ruin a nice coin for more money. If all of the "good coins" were stickered and the "bad coins" were not stickered, someone might think twice about take a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it. >>
How would the consortium have protected this coin?
Is it worth more in an accurately graded AU55-AU58 Holder with a sticker or worth more as a lighten coin in an MS-61 holder?
If your answer is the MS61 then the consortium's seal of approval wouldn't have saved this coin.
But if NGC would have graded it accurately to begin with, the profit motive would have been taken out the coin and the crack-out guy might think twice about taking that gamble again. (And the auction price of $30K+ would have been appropriate)
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public. >>
Yes, but many people "did" assume that we owned the coin. Just clearing that up.
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public. >>
Yes, but many people "did" assume that we owned the coin. Just clearing that up. >>
To be frank, whether ARC owns the coin or not, offering it for sale, under the circumstances, reflects poorly on ARC. I have nothing against ARC (in fact, I like the principals), but this is my opinion. Other dealers do the same, and when they do, it reflects poorly on them, too.
<< <i>Are MS61 coins now permitted to have wear? >>
Thank you. That's the first thing I noticed. That being said, it's an incredible coin no matter what the little piece of paper says but it doesn't look MS to me.
<< <i>But if NGC would have graded it accurately to begin with, the profit motive would have been taken out the coin and the crack-out guy might think twice about taking that gamble again. (And the auction price of $30K+ would have been appropriate) >>
NGC's loose grading is responsible for this, along with thousands of other examples that have been cracked/NCS'ed/dipped/upgraded at the expense of collectors
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i>But if NGC would have graded it accurately to begin with, the profit motive would have been taken out the coin and the crack-out guy might think twice about taking that gamble again. >>
NGC didn't grade it the first time. It was in a PCGS holder.
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public. >>
Yes, but many people "did" assume that we owned the coin. Just clearing that up. >>
To be frank, whether ARC owns the coin or not, offering it for sale, under the circumstances, reflects poorly on ARC. I have nothing against ARC (in fact, I like the principals), but this is my opinion. Other dealers do the same, and when they do, it reflects poorly on them, too. >>
If you have a business that works closely with consignors and consignments, you really have to do your best to accurately describe new coins that come in while keeping in mind that the consignor is reading the description as well. I thought I accurately imaged and described the coin. If you wanted to consign a coin to me that I had a different (negative) opinion of the quality of the coin than you did, would you want me to rant on and on about that in the description or mention it in an accurate description that also boasted the coin's better qualities? I'm simply doing the best I can do accurately describe all coins we offer. Would you turn away a higher grade flowing hair dollar if someone wanted to consign it to you?
The coin is what it is. It may have looked like a better deal in the PCGS AU50 holder but it's now in an NGC MS61 holder. Was it undergraded as an AU50? I personally think so. Is it overgraded as an MS61? Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder? Base your opinions not on what's printed on the label in the holder but of the actual coin itself. If you don't agree with what NGC assigned to it, then it's probably more than you would want to spend for that particular coin. If that's the case, then you've made a decision to not pursue this coin. No big deal.
Bottom line is that ARC, along with every other coin dealer out there, is in business to make money and that will always be their underlying motivation. Arguing otherwise would be silly, as would a collector assuming otherwise. If you buy a $200 toilet plunger from a high end department store, are they responsible for your decision?
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public. >>
Yes, but many people "did" assume that we owned the coin. Just clearing that up. >>
<< <i>Bottom line is that ARC, along with every other coin dealer out there, is in business to make money and that will always be their underlying motivation. Arguing otherwise would be silly, as would a collector assuming otherwise. If you buy a $200 toilet plunger from a high end department store, are they responsible for your decision?
WRONG. The problem is that by acting as a dealer, particularly as a retail dealer, you take on the responsibility to not mislead the less knowledgeable. If you do not want this responsibilty, then stick to wholesale trading, or put a black box warning on the front page of your retail website that says "We work as seller representatives. If you are a buyer, we will say anything we can to take your money. If you make a mistake, hey, it's your fault for trusting us." >>
I didn't try to mislead anyone. If you assume this then you are sorely mistaken. I accurately imaged and described the coin.
<< <i>Bottom line is that ARC, along with every other coin dealer out there, is in business to make money and that will always be their underlying motivation. Arguing otherwise would be silly, as would a collector assuming otherwise. If you buy a $200 toilet plunger from a high end department store, are they responsible for your decision?
WRONG. The problem is that by acting as a dealer, particularly as a retail dealer, you take on the responsibility to not mislead the less knowledgeable. If you do not want this responsibilty, then stick to wholesale trading, or put a black box warning on the front page of your retail website that says "We work as seller representatives. If you are a buyer, we will say anything we can to take your money. If you make a mistake, hey, it's your fault for trusting us." >>
I didn't try to mislead anyone. If you assume this then you are sorely mistaken. I accurately imaged and described the coin. >>
Then answer the question. Is the coin a consignment or not?
<< <i><< But if NGC would have graded it accurately to begin with, the profit motive would have been taken out the coin and the crack-out guy might think twice about taking that gamble again. >> >>
<< <i>NGC didn't grade it the first time. It was in a PCGS holder. >>
<< <i>Russ, NCNE >>
You know what I meant.
Or maybe you didn't??
I should have said if NGC had graded it correctly. Is that better??
<< <i>Bottom line is that ARC, along with every other coin dealer out there, is in business to make money and that will always be their underlying motivation. Arguing otherwise would be silly, as would a collector assuming otherwise. If you buy a $200 toilet plunger from a high end department store, are they responsible for your decision?
WRONG. The problem is that by acting as a dealer, particularly as a retail dealer, you take on the responsibility to not mislead the less knowledgeable. If you do not want this responsibilty, then stick to wholesale trading, or put a black box warning on the front page of your retail website that says "We work as seller representatives. If you are a buyer, we will say anything we can to take your money. If you make a mistake, hey, it's your fault for trusting us." >>
I didn't try to mislead anyone. If you assume this then you are sorely mistaken. I accurately imaged and described the coin. >>
Then answer the question. Is the coin a consignment or not? >>
Yes it is. I stated that in my first post to this thread.
Brandon states it's "no Big Deal" if you don't want the coin because you're not in line with it , and I can see the point. But I think the story line of this most informative and elevated thread is that, at some level in self policing this hobby, voices will stand up to say that it is a big deal. This proves that we've grown beyond being 10 year old kids popping shiny nickels into a folder with Dad on a windy Saturday afternoon. And it's been done here with respect and intelligence. My favorite thread ever.
We're all born MS70. I'm about a Fine 15 right now.
Comments
<< <i>Ouch this one is going to be stuck in inventory for a while.
Awesome coin though!! >>
They have another coin in inventory that I have been watching for well over 8 months ..so inventory turns aren't at the top of their list
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
<< <i>do u think anaconda did not do the same research russ did before
buying that coin? >>
I'd guess he purchased the coin at a show where he didn't have the luxury of searching the Heritage archives before making the buying decision.
Russ, NCNE
Laura may have dropped a PM about this coin, but would never say so, and I wouldn't blame them. It's a perfect illustration to the unaware of the benefit of the consortium discussion. There are just so few natural coincidences. JMO
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>All I can think of is Laura taliking about Wannabe's.
Laura may have dropped a PM about this coin, but would never say so, and I wouldn't blame them. It's a perfect illustration to the unaware of the benefit of the consortium discussion. There are just so few natural coincidences. JMO >>
To who, Dizzy?
This thread has turned out to be rather interesting.
<< <i>This thread has turned out to be rather interesting. >>
<< <i>Well ... after mulling this over for a while, I have come to the conclusion that I just need to refrain from buying high end coins for a while. I am a relatively new collector. However, I have taken a strong run at this hobby and have put forth a great deal of time and effort educating myself: I read just about every piece of literature available, I comb through auction records daily, I read most threads here and on NGC, I go to large and small shows and look through the coins on every table, I have spent many hours at Heritage and Superior tables reviewing auction coins, I associate with and seek the advice of reputable dealers and experts in their series ... what more can a new collector with a passion for the hobby do??? And still, I would have been fooled by that coin, as I am sure that many numismatists with MUCH more experience than I have been. Unfortunately, the solution for me at this point is to keep my future purchases in the lower dollar range as the gamble at the higher levels is just too great. You know what they say ... don't gamble what you can't afford to lose ...
I'm exactly in Fletcher's position except I have not yet spent a lot of time reviewing auction coins, but I spend lots and lots of time trying to educate myself.
I was definitely fooled by this coin and totally now know I don't need to buy these high end coins.
This really takes the wind out of the sail so to speak on my early dollar search.
<< <i>That upgrade is the crackout guys dream.
This thread has turned out to be rather interesting. >>
And coincidentally fitting in quite nicely with the current hot topic? Proves the need for the consortium? Do exceptions make the rule nowadays? How would the consortium, which should exist if someone wants to do it, have dealt with this coin? Was this thread designed to make a point, as well as make a certain dealer look bad? Probably not.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Proves the need for the consortium? >>
Absolutely not. I just posted to a similar thread ATS so I'll post it here as well...
I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you?
<< <i>
<< <i>Proves the need for the consortium? >>
Absolutely not. I just posted to a similar thread ATS so I'll post it here as well...
I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
It's not about the babysitting. It's about the disincentive to ruin a nice coin for more money. If all of the "good coins" were stickered and the "bad coins" were not stickered, someone might think twice about taking a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Proves the need for the consortium? >>
Absolutely not. I just posted to a similar thread ATS so I'll post it here as well...
I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
It's not about the babysitting. It's about the disincentive to ruin a nice coin for more money. If all of the "good coins" were stickered and the "bad coins" were not stickered, someone might think twice about take a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it. >>
Bingo!
In all my years of coin dealing, the MOST expertise concerned itself into knowing whom to trust for PAYMENTS or shipping consistency or some form of credit rating on different dealers. You lived or died on payment or shipping promises.
Back in "raw" days, coins traded by eye appeal alone. Premium or discount pricing followed the APPEARANCE of the coin. Even if doctored.
Slabs have further degraded the expertise of all collectors and dealers. Regardless of their statements to the contrary.
And the CAC is a step back to ...raw.
They are going to render decisions THROUGH the plastic of existing coins even though there is a lot of information only available to seeing the surface....raw.
But it will again go back to how the coin LOOKS. In the plastic.
The past couple weeks should discourage about sebenty jillion potential coin buyers.
Except from change or the mint.
But it will go down as a historic period in coins.
<< <i>I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
That is simply a ridiculous statement ...
1. Everyone is assuming we "own" the coin.
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
That is simply a ridiculous statement ... >>
It's a valid statement, though one many won't agree with. How you view it comes down to accessibility of the market for educated collectors vs accessibility and protection for collectors who don't wish to educate themselves in the hobby and/or feux-investment market they're participating in though.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Nice thread.
1. Everyone is assuming we "own" the coin.
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public.
<< <i>It's a valid statement, though one many won't agree with. How you view it comes down to accessibility of the market for educated collectors vs accessibility and protection for collectors who don't wish to educate themselves in the hobby and/or feux-investment market they're participating in though. >>
I disagree. Obviously, I am speaking about collectors who do take the time and put forth the effort to educate themselves and are still occasionally fooled. You are referring to "collectors who don't wish to educate themselves in the hobby."
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>It's not about the babysitting. It's about the disincentive to ruin a nice coin for more money. If all of the "good coins" were stickered and the "bad coins" were not stickered, someone might think twice about taking a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it. >>
The most powerful disincentive could be documentation, if CAC provides it. Collectors will benefit when there are more ha.com style archives out there.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see this as a reason collectors need the "consortium". Enough already with the babysitter mentality. You want to know enough about coins so that you can avoid the pitfalls of the industry? Then learn about the damn coins! Why expect someone else to protect you? >>
That is simply a ridiculous statement ... >>
It's not at all. Fletcher you say you've done all this reasearch and study yet you couldn't tell that dollar is a POS. That simply tells me you didn't do enough research and study concerning that series of coin. Learn what you need to know and don't look for someone else to tell you what you should think.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>What makes you think the CAC wouldn't sticker this coin? >>
If they did, they would be hurting their own cause and would quickly go away. Sure, they will make mistakes, as people do. But if this is the kind of coin that routinely gets stickered, I'll be the first to say that we, as collectors, have no use for them.
or
Identify UNDERGRADED coins with advice to resubmit (instead of just stickering it as "premium")
it will not serve a purpose for the collector.
<< <i>Unless the CAC is going to TESTIFY in grade guarantee cases >>
Who is to say a TPG would honor their opinion as a non-interested party in such a dispuit?
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
<< <i>What makes you think the CAC wouldn't sticker this coin? >>
I don't think they would sticker it....along with about 7/10's of the coins in the market.
<< <i>What makes anyone think a stickered AU-50 is worth as much as a holdered MS61? >>
Who said it is?
As I said earlier in the thread, if a dealer buys the coin for $33k out of the auction and gets it stickered, maybe he can sell it for $40k, a healthy profit. In the case, an individual bought it, someone doctored it, and Lord knows how many hands it passed through and who did what to it until it ended up in the N61 holder. Now, sellers are fishing for a wealthy collector to pay $90k for it.
<< <i>It's not about the babysitting. It's about the disincentive to ruin a nice coin for more money. If all of the "good coins" were stickered and the "bad coins" were not stickered, someone might think twice about take a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it. >>
How would the consortium have protected this coin?
Is it worth more in an accurately graded AU55-AU58 Holder with a sticker or worth more as a lighten coin in an MS-61 holder?
If your answer is the MS61 then the consortium's seal of approval wouldn't have saved this coin.
But if NGC would have graded it accurately to begin with, the profit motive would have been taken out the coin and the crack-out guy might think twice about taking that gamble again. (And the auction price of $30K+ would have been appropriate)
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice thread.
1. Everyone is assuming we "own" the coin.
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public. >>
Yes, but many people "did" assume that we owned the coin. Just clearing that up.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice thread.
1. Everyone is assuming we "own" the coin.
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public. >>
Yes, but many people "did" assume that we owned the coin. Just clearing that up. >>
To be frank, whether ARC owns the coin or not, offering it for sale, under the circumstances, reflects poorly on ARC. I have nothing against ARC (in fact, I like the principals), but this is my opinion. Other dealers do the same, and when they do, it reflects poorly on them, too.
my god man, are you serious?
or did you mean, Cladiator, that it's not MS61 and therefore a POS "in that holder"?
I think that's quite a lovely coin and agree with CCU's AU53 estimate.
I don't even have an example of this type but myself, don't think any coins are pieces of shlt, since they are made of metal and not excrement
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>that dollar is a POS
my god man, are you serious?
or did you mean, Cladiator, that it's not MS61 and therefore a POS "in that holder"? >>
Sorry, you are correct. My mind got ahead of my fingers.
<< <i>Are MS61 coins now permitted to have wear? >>
Thank you. That's the first thing I noticed. That being said, it's an incredible coin no matter what the little piece of paper says but it doesn't look MS to me.
<< <i>But if NGC would have graded it accurately to begin with, the profit motive would have been taken out the coin and the crack-out guy might think twice about taking that gamble again. (And the auction price of $30K+ would have been appropriate) >>
NGC's loose grading is responsible for this, along with thousands of other examples that have been cracked/NCS'ed/dipped/upgraded at the expense of collectors
<< <i>But if NGC would have graded it accurately to begin with, the profit motive would have been taken out the coin and the crack-out guy might think twice about taking that gamble again. >>
NGC didn't grade it the first time. It was in a PCGS holder.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice thread.
1. Everyone is assuming we "own" the coin.
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public. >>
Yes, but many people "did" assume that we owned the coin. Just clearing that up. >>
To be frank, whether ARC owns the coin or not, offering it for sale, under the circumstances, reflects poorly on ARC. I have nothing against ARC (in fact, I like the principals), but this is my opinion. Other dealers do the same, and when they do, it reflects poorly on them, too. >>
If you have a business that works closely with consignors and consignments, you really have to do your best to accurately describe new coins that come in while keeping in mind that the consignor is reading the description as well. I thought I accurately imaged and described the coin. If you wanted to consign a coin to me that I had a different (negative) opinion of the quality of the coin than you did, would you want me to rant on and on about that in the description or mention it in an accurate description that also boasted the coin's better qualities? I'm simply doing the best I can do accurately describe all coins we offer. Would you turn away a higher grade flowing hair dollar if someone wanted to consign it to you?
The coin is what it is. It may have looked like a better deal in the PCGS AU50 holder but it's now in an NGC MS61 holder. Was it undergraded as an AU50? I personally think so. Is it overgraded as an MS61? Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder? Base your opinions not on what's printed on the label in the holder but of the actual coin itself. If you don't agree with what NGC assigned to it, then it's probably more than you would want to spend for that particular coin. If that's the case, then you've made a decision to not pursue this coin. No big deal.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice thread.
1. Everyone is assuming we "own" the coin.
2. It's no surprise that the coin once appeared in a PCGS AU50 holder. I thought I summed it up well in the first paragraph of my description. >>
For the record, I did not assume that you owned the coin. It could just as easily been a consignment coin, as many expensive coins in many dealers retail inventory invariably are. The consignment route is also a known pathway for the coin docs to get their material to the marketplace, without showing their face to the retail public. >>
Yes, but many people "did" assume that we owned the coin. Just clearing that up. >>
Are thier assumptions correct?
<< <i>Bottom line is that ARC, along with every other coin dealer out there, is in business to make money and that will always be their underlying motivation. Arguing otherwise would be silly, as would a collector assuming otherwise. If you buy a $200 toilet plunger from a high end department store, are they responsible for your decision?
WRONG. The problem is that by acting as a dealer, particularly as a retail dealer, you take on the responsibility to not mislead the less knowledgeable. If you do not want this responsibilty, then stick to wholesale trading, or put a black box warning on the front page of your retail website that says "We work as seller representatives. If you are a buyer, we will say anything we can to take your money. If you make a mistake, hey, it's your fault for trusting us." >>
I didn't try to mislead anyone. If you assume this then you are sorely mistaken. I accurately imaged and described the coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bottom line is that ARC, along with every other coin dealer out there, is in business to make money and that will always be their underlying motivation. Arguing otherwise would be silly, as would a collector assuming otherwise. If you buy a $200 toilet plunger from a high end department store, are they responsible for your decision?
WRONG. The problem is that by acting as a dealer, particularly as a retail dealer, you take on the responsibility to not mislead the less knowledgeable. If you do not want this responsibilty, then stick to wholesale trading, or put a black box warning on the front page of your retail website that says "We work as seller representatives. If you are a buyer, we will say anything we can to take your money. If you make a mistake, hey, it's your fault for trusting us." >>
I didn't try to mislead anyone. If you assume this then you are sorely mistaken. I accurately imaged and described the coin. >>
Then answer the question. Is the coin a consignment or not?
<< <i><< But if NGC would have graded it accurately to begin with, the profit motive would have been taken out the coin and the crack-out guy might think twice about taking that gamble again. >> >>
<< <i>NGC didn't grade it the first time. It was in a PCGS holder. >>
<< <i>Russ, NCNE >>
You know what I meant.
Or maybe you didn't??
I should have said if NGC had graded it correctly. Is that better??
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bottom line is that ARC, along with every other coin dealer out there, is in business to make money and that will always be their underlying motivation. Arguing otherwise would be silly, as would a collector assuming otherwise. If you buy a $200 toilet plunger from a high end department store, are they responsible for your decision?
WRONG. The problem is that by acting as a dealer, particularly as a retail dealer, you take on the responsibility to not mislead the less knowledgeable. If you do not want this responsibilty, then stick to wholesale trading, or put a black box warning on the front page of your retail website that says "We work as seller representatives. If you are a buyer, we will say anything we can to take your money. If you make a mistake, hey, it's your fault for trusting us." >>
I didn't try to mislead anyone. If you assume this then you are sorely mistaken. I accurately imaged and described the coin. >>
Then answer the question. Is the coin a consignment or not? >>
Yes it is. I stated that in my first post to this thread.
Brandon states it's "no Big Deal" if you don't want the coin because you're not in line with it , and I can see the point. But I think the story line of this most informative and elevated thread is that, at some level in self policing this hobby, voices will stand up to say that it is a big deal. This proves that we've grown beyond being 10 year old kids popping shiny nickels into a folder with Dad on a windy Saturday afternoon. And it's been done here with respect and intelligence. My favorite thread ever.