<< <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. >>
The sentiments above are exactly why I've sold most of my collection over the last year. Anyone who doesn't think fraud is rampant in this business is wearing rose-colored glasses. And no Consortium is going to make a difference. All the dealers know the players involved, yet are afraid to speak up.
The coin in question definitely looks NCS'd 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. >> >>
<< NGC didn't grade it the first time. It was in a PCGS holder. >>
<< 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> All the dealers know the players involved, yet are afraid to speak up. >>
This is absolutely true and absolutely the most confounding issue I have encountered in this hobby so far. And, it was proven once again to me yesterday by a VERY well respected dealer via pm. I truly do not understand why the numismatic brotherhood will not out the offenders. I am starting to believe that all of this "we have to clean up the hobby" hyperbole on the part of the dealers is a bunch of crap designed to prevent the FTC or some other governing body from interfering in what is presently a self-policing (and I use that term loosely) industry.
Fletcher, imo it's kinda like with the police and the blue wall of silence. The thing is sometimes things are pointed out on this board but most take it as being negative. "Or, so and so is a nice person and I've had nice pleasant deals with so and so." And some folks refuse to either listen, or comprehend what is really going on out there. Glad to see you're going to open your eyes. Please talk to our friend Dizzy on this subject.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
<< <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. >>
Hold on! Wasn't the whole purpose of TPG's to protect less knowledgable collectors from problem and overgraded coins? Now we need a "consortium" to protect us from the TPG's? Before long, we'll need yet another layer of protection from the consortium that is protecting us from the TPG's that is protecting us from doctors and dealers. When will the insanity end!
<< <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. >>
Hold on! Wasn't the whole purpose of TPG's to protect less knowledgable collectors from problem and overgraded coins? Now we need a "consortium" to protect us from the TPG's? Before long, we'll need yet another layer of protection from the consortium that is protecting us from the TPG's that is protecting us from doctors and dealers. When will the insanity end! >>
When will the insanity end? So long as the stakes are high and the profit motive is everpresent, probably never.
I'm back in this hobby so new to this again, but for me this has been the best thread ever. Great, great learning tool for someone like me.
Adrian, I love the coins on your site. I check your site each day, but I now have to admit I am over my head trying to determine value for "high end" coins. I literally do not know who to trust to assist me making these decisions. I have been told here over and over to have a trusted dealer help you look the coin over, especially if it is expensive.
What could someone like me do in this case had I expressed an interest in this coin?
As an added aside, is the other 1795 Flowing Hair $1 NGC MS61 owned by you or is it also a consignment from the same consignor?
What?? No big deal, it's just a worked on AU which upgraded to an MS-61 and is now being offered for $90,000.00+, almost 3x the money from what it previously sold for.
Now that you kow the history of this particular coin will you pull the listing from your web-site/inventory?
<< <i> All the dealers know the players involved, yet are afraid to speak up. >>
This is absolutely true and absolutely the most confounding issue I have encountered in this hobby so far. And, it was proven once again to me yesterday by a VERY well respected dealer via pm. I truly do not understand why the numismatic brotherhood will not out the offenders. >>
I think it's because these offenders are some of the biggest suppliers of wholesale material to the dealers, and these dealers don't want to lose such an important source of material to sell.
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. >>
First, you are assuming that everyone, dealers and collectors alike, will only buy stickered coins. That will never happen, so as long as there is a market for unstickered coins, nothing will change. And the bigger the price spread between stickered and unstickered, more and more people will collect unstickered coins and keep the cycle going.
Anaconda is a BUSINESS. They are asked to consign a coin. THAT'S WHAT DEALERS DO. THEY SELL COINS! If they didn't take this one, someone else would. It wouldn't remove it from the market. The best thing is to describe it accurately. If someone buys it, great and if not, fine. I'm suspecting that many of the dealers involved in the CON will sell both stickered and unstickered coins and therefore why bother with the CON?
I believe the original purpose of the TPGs was primarily to provide a sight-unseen market for dealers and that consumer protection was a tangent of the primary objective. As for the coin, I can't say that it looks attractive in Brandon's images, which is not any fault on Brandon, but that the Heritage image did suggest a more original looking surface. However, from the pair of images I couldn't state without question that the coin was worked on in the intervening time period.
<< <i>Wasn't the whole purpose of TPG's to protect less knowledgable collectors from problem and overgraded coins? >>
Actually, the original purpose of TPG's was to help facilitate dealer transactions, and of course to make as much money as possible. Protecting collectors (and coins) is a marketing facade that the TPG's have cashed in on. They have been very $uccessful$ at it.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
I showed my coin to a well-known crack out dealer at the Parsiappany show a few years ago when it was worth about 14K and told him jokingly I wouldn't part with it for less than 20K, only to see him whip out his check book. I had a change of heart about parting with the coin but I FINALLY understand why he was willing to pay way too much.
This is one of the most educational threads I have seen on the forum. How about a slab the size of a lucite brick with the PCGS, NGC, and CAC stickers entombed for eternity with the coin?
<< <i>I believe the original purpose of the TPGs was primarily to provide a sight-unseen market for dealers and that consumer protection was a tangent of the primary objective. >>
Yep, Tom is correct. Consumer protection was not the primary driver.
I reviewed photos of some other PCGS graded coin in the registry sets area and was unable to come to my own conclusion on what grade this coin should be. I see a lot of opinions but no discussion of the basis for what people see. I sense some disbelief in the upgrade which might not even be a reflection of what various authors believe the right grade is for this coin.
I'd like to see some comments from people who know this series well enough to grade the coins and can explain why they think the grade should be X. --Jerry
<< <i> 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. >>
This reminds me of a dealer friend of mine that I would visit once a week. He would always have something new every time I went that he would take out of the case and show me when I got there. Many times, the coin would be in a 2X2 with nothing written on it. I would ask him what he had it graded at, and his answer would always be "I grade it at about $50.00 (or whatever he wanted for the coin)." If I told him I was looking for an XF and that one looked VF to me, he would take the holder back, write XF on it, and hand it back saying "OK it's an XF- that'll be $50.00." To me, there was never a better example of 'buy the coin, not the holder'. The fact is, it's a rare coin and quite a nice one at that, regardless of grade. It's sad that such an awesome coin would go from gorgeous to ugly because it used to be in a different wrapper. I would love to be able to afford to have a coin like that in my collection someday, and if I had an extra $91500.00 lying around, I would consider buying it. It's not the kind of coin you could just walk into your local shop and buy. If it sells for $91500.00, to an educated buyer, then it's a $91500.00 coin. I'm not saying that we shouldn't grade coins, but I think that when you have a coin of that caliber, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>What are the odds a TPG would intentionally over grade a coin such as this one in a grand money making scheme between all parties involved?
It's just a question.
Between ENRON and Tim Donaghy (see NBA referee if you're out of that news loop) the potential is certainly there, hypothetically speaking of course. >>
I would say it is much more subtle than that. Both services were started with the same intentions, to be the best and most highly respected out there. With regard to the classics, and the high-dollar pedigree stuff, both services lick their perverbial chops to get this stuff graded and in their population reports. The arrogance that exists between both TPGs allows for a 'race to the top' in the gradeflation arena, IMO. Let's face it, this is no different than when PCGS slabbed the AT and blantantly cleaned proof Gobrecht that had previously resided in an NCS holder with the 'cleaned' designation. you remember the furor that caused?
<< <i>What are the odds a TPG would intentionally over grade a coin such as this one in a grand money making scheme between all parties involved >>
You get the full meal deal at NGC - NCS will "conserve" your coins, NGC will turn XF's into AU's and AU's into MS's. NGC in turn will put profits into becoming the "official" grader of the ANA and PNG. The cycle goes round and round, everybody in the business wins - oops - except the collectors and the coin's originality.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i>What are the odds a TPG would intentionally over grade a coin such as this one in a grand money making scheme between all parties involved >>
You get the full meal deal at NGC - NCS will "conserve" your coins, NGC will turn XF's into AU's and AU's into MS's. NGC in turn will put profits into becoming the "official" grader of the ANA and PNG. The cycle goes round and round, everybody in the business wins - oops - except the collectors and the coin's originality. >>
yeah, that doesn't happen with PCGS. they won't dip or conserve a coin, will they?
As I read through the posts on the thread, some of which rail against ARC for not taking the ill-defined "high road" - and others who defend the open market, I keep thinking that the consortium will:
-Create redundancy, good or bad.
-Bring increased value to superior coins.
-Bring back the possibilty of a sight-unseen market sans steep discounts.
-Create yet one more opportunity for shenanigans to be played on the unsuspecting or unsophisticated moneyed class.
-Virtually guarantee the scrutiny, if not outright involvement, of the FTC in the rare coin business.
<< <i>You get the full meal deal at NGC - NCS will "conserve" your coins, NGC will turn XF's into AU's and AU's into MS's. NGC in turn will put profits into becoming the "official" grader of the ANA and PNG. The cycle goes round and round, everybody in the business wins - oops - except the collectors and the coin's originality. >>
yeah, that doesn't happen with PCGS. they won't dip or conserve a coin, will they?
PCGS's de facto service >>
No comparison. PCGS will only do it to correct a problem with one of their coins, and they charge nothing for it. NGC, through NCS, has built a profit center around coin conservation.
<< <i>You get the full meal deal at NGC - NCS will "conserve" your coins, NGC will turn XF's into AU's and AU's into MS's. NGC in turn will put profits into becoming the "official" grader of the ANA and PNG. The cycle goes round and round, everybody in the business wins - oops - except the collectors and the coin's originality. >>
yeah, that doesn't happen with PCGS. they won't dip or conserve a coin, will they?
PCGS's de facto service >>
No comparison. PCGS will only do it to correct a problem with one of their coins, and they charge nothing for it. NGC, through NCS, has built a profit center around coin conservation.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ,
while i certainly wouldn't disagree with you about what you said, my point was to make it clear that to the "purists" that think TPGs should not be dabbling (let alone making a full fledged effort) for coin conversation that it is done by both services to some extent; PCGS does it to fix problem coins (and i assume this keeps them from paying the owner to take the coin off the market), while NGC is more open about doing this on a contractual basis for anyone. Either way, it still happens to conserve coins.
I also wouldn't argue that some coins "need" this service. In fact, I have a proof world coin from the turn of the century with a smear in the fields from someone's fumble fingers. It is on the surface only, and i assume NCS will simply dip it and re-submit it to NGC. It is a pop 1/0 coin, so i had a vested interest in getting rid of the smear before it toned to the point that it couldn't be removed.
Comments
<< <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. >>
You were insinuating that you didn't own it.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
The sentiments above are exactly why I've sold most of my collection over the last year. Anyone who doesn't think fraud is rampant in this business is wearing rose-colored glasses. And no Consortium is going to make a difference. All the dealers know the players involved, yet are afraid to speak up.
The coin in question definitely looks NCS'd 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. >> >>
<< NGC didn't grade it the first time. It was in a PCGS holder. >>
<< 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?? >>
Ah, okay. I read the post incorrectly.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i> All the dealers know the players involved, yet are afraid to speak up. >>
This is absolutely true and absolutely the most confounding issue I have encountered in this hobby so far. And, it was proven once again to me yesterday by a VERY well respected dealer via pm. I truly do not understand why the numismatic brotherhood will not out the offenders. I am starting to believe that all of this "we have to clean up the hobby" hyperbole on the part of the dealers is a bunch of crap designed to prevent the FTC or some other governing body from interfering in what is presently a self-policing (and I use that term loosely) industry.
<< <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. >>
Hold on! Wasn't the whole purpose of TPG's to protect less knowledgable collectors from problem and overgraded coins? Now we need a "consortium" to protect us from the TPG's? Before long, we'll need yet another layer of protection from the consortium that is protecting us from the TPG's that is protecting us from doctors and dealers. When will the insanity end!
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Hold on! Wasn't the whole purpose of TPG's to protect less knowledgable collectors from problem and overgraded coins? Now we need a "consortium" to protect us from the TPG's? Before long, we'll need yet another layer of protection from the consortium that is protecting us from the TPG's that is protecting us from doctors and dealers. When will the insanity end! >>
When will the insanity end? So long as the stakes are high and the profit motive is everpresent, probably never.
<< <i>Wasn't the whole purpose of TPG's to protect less knowledgable collectors from problem and overgraded coins? >>
Yes, that is the purpose. How's that working out these days?
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Yes, that is the purpose. How's that working out these days? >>
Sorry, I just had to laugh!!
Russ you crack me up!! Good find on that auction appearance (PC-50) BTW
<< <i>
<< <i><< Wasn't the whole purpose of TPG's to protect less knowledgable collectors from problem and overgraded coins? >>
Yes, that is the purpose. How's that working out these days? >>
Clearly it is not!!!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Adrian, I love the coins on your site. I check your site each day, but I now have to admit I am over my head trying to determine value for "high end" coins. I literally do not know who to trust to assist me making these decisions. I have been told here over and over to have a trusted dealer help you look the coin over, especially if it is expensive.
What could someone like me do in this case had I expressed an interest in this coin?
As an added aside, is the other 1795 Flowing Hair $1 NGC MS61 owned by you or is it also a consignment from the same consignor?
<< <i>No big deal. >>
What?? No big deal, it's just a worked on AU which upgraded to an MS-61 and is now being offered for $90,000.00+, almost 3x the money from what it previously sold for.
Now that you kow the history of this particular coin will you pull the listing from your web-site/inventory?
<< <i>Thats pretty disturbing ! AU-50 to MS61 >>
what's even more disturbing is 33.3K to 91.5K!!!
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
<< <i>
<< <i> All the dealers know the players involved, yet are afraid to speak up. >>
This is absolutely true and absolutely the most confounding issue I have encountered in this hobby so far. And, it was proven once again to me yesterday by a VERY well respected dealer via pm. I truly do not understand why the numismatic brotherhood will not out the offenders. >>
I think it's because these offenders are some of the biggest suppliers of wholesale material to the dealers, and these dealers don't want to lose such an important source of material to sell.
<< <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 taking a "good coin" and making a "bad coin" out of it. >>
First, you are assuming that everyone, dealers and collectors alike, will only buy stickered coins. That will never happen, so as long as there is a market for unstickered coins, nothing will change. And the bigger the price spread between stickered and unstickered, more and more people will collect unstickered coins and keep the cycle going.
Anaconda is a BUSINESS. They are asked to consign a coin. THAT'S WHAT DEALERS DO. THEY SELL COINS! If they didn't take this one, someone else would. It wouldn't remove it from the market. The best thing is to describe it accurately. If someone buys it, great and if not, fine. I'm suspecting that many of the dealers involved in the CON will sell both stickered and unstickered coins and therefore why bother with the CON?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Wasn't the whole purpose of TPG's to protect less knowledgable collectors from problem and overgraded coins? >>
Actually, the original purpose of TPG's was to help facilitate dealer transactions, and of course to make as much money as possible. Protecting collectors (and coins) is a marketing facade that the TPG's have cashed in on. They have been very $uccessful$ at it.
This is one of the most educational threads I have seen on the forum. How about a slab the size of a lucite brick with the PCGS, NGC, and CAC stickers entombed for eternity with the coin?
Commems and Early Type
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>I believe the original purpose of the TPGs was primarily to provide a sight-unseen market for dealers and that consumer protection was a tangent of the primary objective. >>
Yep, Tom is correct. Consumer protection was not the primary driver.
<< <i>
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images. Wonder who "asked" them to do that? I wonder, wonder who?
Jonathan
<< <i>
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images. Wonder who "asked" them to do that? I wonder, wonder who?
Jonathan >>
I see them just fine.
<< <i>
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images.
Jonathan >>
Images are still up and functioning for me.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images.
Jonathan >>
Images are still up and functioning for me. >>
Beat ya'.
<< <i><< It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images. Wonder who "asked" them to do that? I wonder, wonder who?
Jonathan >>
You have to be signed in to see them.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Heritage took down the images. Wonder who "asked" them to do that? I wonder, wonder who? >>
I'm still seeing them.
<< <i>
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images. Wonder who "asked" them to do that? I wonder, wonder who?
Jonathan >>
Man, everybody wants a piece of this action. I could care less if the pictures are there.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images. Wonder who "asked" them to do that? I wonder, wonder who?
Jonathan >>
Man, everybody wants a piece of this action. I could care less if the pictures are there.
You're just jealous of their photography skills, aren't you?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images. Wonder who "asked" them to do that? I wonder, wonder who?
Jonathan >>
Man, everybody wants a piece of this action. I could care less if the pictures are there.
You're just jealous of their photography skills, aren't you?
Yes. They won't tell me their secrets though.
<< <i>Yes. They won't tell me their secrets though. >>
Based on these images, I'd say a flat bed scanner is their "secret".
I'd like to see some comments from people who know this series well enough to grade the coins and can explain why they think the grade should be X. --Jerry
It's just a question.
Between ENRON and Tim Donaghy (see NBA referee if you're out of that news loop) the potential is certainly there, hypothetically speaking of course.
<< <i>
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. >>
This reminds me of a dealer friend of mine that I would visit once a week. He would always have something new every time I went that he would take out of the case and show me when I got there. Many times, the coin would be in a 2X2 with nothing written on it. I would ask him what he had it graded at, and his answer would always be "I grade it at about $50.00 (or whatever he wanted for the coin)." If I told him I was looking for an XF and that one looked VF to me, he would take the holder back, write XF on it, and hand it back saying "OK it's an XF- that'll be $50.00." To me, there was never a better example of 'buy the coin, not the holder'. The fact is, it's a rare coin and quite a nice one at that, regardless of grade. It's sad that such an awesome coin would go from gorgeous to ugly because it used to be in a different wrapper. I would love to be able to afford to have a coin like that in my collection someday, and if I had an extra $91500.00 lying around, I would consider buying it. It's not the kind of coin you could just walk into your local shop and buy. If it sells for $91500.00, to an educated buyer, then it's a $91500.00 coin. I'm not saying that we shouldn't grade coins, but I think that when you have a coin of that caliber, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
<< <i>What are the odds a TPG would intentionally over grade a coin such as this one in a grand money making scheme between all parties involved?
It's just a question.
Between ENRON and Tim Donaghy (see NBA referee if you're out of that news loop) the potential is certainly there, hypothetically speaking of course. >>
I would say it is much more subtle than that. Both services were started with the same intentions, to be the best and most highly respected out there. With regard to the classics, and the high-dollar pedigree stuff, both services lick their perverbial chops to get this stuff graded and in their population reports. The arrogance that exists between both TPGs allows for a 'race to the top' in the gradeflation arena, IMO. Let's face it, this is no different than when PCGS slabbed the AT and blantantly cleaned proof Gobrecht that had previously resided in an NCS holder with the 'cleaned' designation. you remember the furor that caused?
<< <i>What are the odds a TPG would intentionally over grade a coin such as this one in a grand money making scheme between all parties involved >>
You get the full meal deal at NGC - NCS will "conserve" your coins, NGC will turn XF's into AU's and AU's into MS's. NGC in turn will put profits into becoming the "official" grader of the ANA and PNG. The cycle goes round and round, everybody in the business wins - oops - except the collectors and the coin's originality.
<< <i>What are the odds a TPG would intentionally over grade a coin such as this one in a grand money making scheme between all parties involved? >>
I'll be lucky if anybody even sees my benign question just above this thunderclap, let alone responds to it.
--Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>What are the odds a TPG would intentionally over grade a coin such as this one in a grand money making scheme between all parties involved >>
You get the full meal deal at NGC - NCS will "conserve" your coins, NGC will turn XF's into AU's and AU's into MS's. NGC in turn will put profits into becoming the "official" grader of the ANA and PNG. The cycle goes round and round, everybody in the business wins - oops - except the collectors and the coin's originality. >>
yeah, that doesn't happen with PCGS. they won't dip or conserve a coin, will they?
PCGS's de facto service
or PCGS will turn a NCS slabbed cleaned coin, into a high dollar proof AT POS, all with a wave of the magic wand!
PRESTO!
As I read through the posts on the thread, some of which rail against ARC for not taking the ill-defined "high road" - and others who defend the open market, I keep thinking that the consortium will:
-Create redundancy, good or bad.
-Bring increased value to superior coins.
-Bring back the possibilty of a sight-unseen market sans steep discounts.
-Create yet one more opportunity for shenanigans to be played on the unsuspecting or unsophisticated moneyed class.
-Virtually guarantee the scrutiny, if not outright involvement, of the FTC in the rare coin business.
Just my humble opinion.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>You get the full meal deal at NGC - NCS will "conserve" your coins, NGC will turn XF's into AU's and AU's into MS's. NGC in turn will put profits into becoming the "official" grader of the ANA and PNG. The cycle goes round and round, everybody in the business wins - oops - except the collectors and the coin's originality. >>
yeah, that doesn't happen with PCGS. they won't dip or conserve a coin, will they?
PCGS's de facto service >>
No comparison. PCGS will only do it to correct a problem with one of their coins, and they charge nothing for it. NGC, through NCS, has built a profit center around coin conservation.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I can't find the coin on Anaconda's site anymore. >>
*** POOF ***
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It was a better dealer when it was in a PCGS AU50 holder.
Russ, NCNE >>
Heritage took down the images. Wonder who "asked" them to do that? I wonder, wonder who?
Jonathan >>
Man, everybody wants a piece of this action. I could care less if the pictures are there.
You're just jealous of their photography skills, aren't you?
Yes. They won't tell me their secrets though.
Here's one secret that will serve you well, the phrase: "for disclosure purposes... "
<< <i>
<< <i>You get the full meal deal at NGC - NCS will "conserve" your coins, NGC will turn XF's into AU's and AU's into MS's. NGC in turn will put profits into becoming the "official" grader of the ANA and PNG. The cycle goes round and round, everybody in the business wins - oops - except the collectors and the coin's originality. >>
yeah, that doesn't happen with PCGS. they won't dip or conserve a coin, will they?
PCGS's de facto service >>
No comparison. PCGS will only do it to correct a problem with one of their coins, and they charge nothing for it. NGC, through NCS, has built a profit center around coin conservation.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ,
while i certainly wouldn't disagree with you about what you said, my point was to make it clear that to the "purists" that think TPGs should not be dabbling (let alone making a full fledged effort) for coin conversation that it is done by both services to some extent; PCGS does it to fix problem coins (and i assume this keeps them from paying the owner to take the coin off the market), while NGC is more open about doing this on a contractual basis for anyone. Either way, it still happens to conserve coins.
I also wouldn't argue that some coins "need" this service. In fact, I have a proof world coin from the turn of the century with a smear in the fields from someone's fumble fingers. It is on the surface only, and i assume NCS will simply dip it and re-submit it to NGC. It is a pop 1/0 coin, so i had a vested interest in getting rid of the smear before it toned to the point that it couldn't be removed.