Who says coins sell for more in PCGS holders?
RYK
Posts: 35,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later.
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later.
0
Comments
www.brunkauctions.com
that PCGS coins overall sell for significantly more then NGC coins
I don't need to know the other three reasons, because that lousy photograph cost the owner $$$$. I have been a victim of that company's poor photographic work myself.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<< <i>The correct link for the PCGS version is THIS ONE
I don't need to know the other three reasons, because that lousy photograph cost the owner $$$$. I have been a victim of that company's poor photographic work myself. >>
That conclusion may or may not be valid. I don't think the linked images are bad. Regardless, in many cases, coins sell to bidders who have examined them in hand or had someone else do so on their behalf. Generally speaking, bidding on high value coins sight-unseen is unwise.
<< <i>From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
1. Eye appeal
2. Market Condition
3. Attendence
4. NGC is tougher than PCGS in grading trade dollars
5. Last but not least: Possible Shill Bidding!
<< <i>"That conclusion may or may not be valid. I don't think the linked images are bad." >>
The photos of the coin in the holders aren't that different, I agree. But the NGC photos sans holder show a glowing rainbow coin, while the PCGS photos sans holder show a dull lifeless coin. If it is the same coin, were the first photos juiced, or was a trainee shooting the latter?
Both coins show the number of "Internet/mail/phone bidders" without mentioning whether any of them saw anything more than the photos.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<< <i>Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
1) Image quality
2) Coin appearance and upgrade potential
3) FUN draws a bigger crowd; more bidders competing
4) It only takes two competitors to run up the price
5) The way the stars are aligned
Lance.
2. grading is not a science, and hardly consistent in the application of a given TPG's criteria.
1. The randomness of auctions
2. Timing (FUN more heavily attended, market more active in January)
3. The market--could it have slipped a bit since January?
4. The relative illiquidity of the coin market
I have discounted image quality as a factor for a couple reasons:
1. Buying an expensive, complex (ie not bright white, not proof 69 DCAM, etc.) coin on the basis of an image is an underinformed purchase.
2. Most buyers paying up for an expected upgrade, at that price/grade level, are not going by the photos.
3. The image quality is not different enough to explain the price difference, IMO.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Okay- I will eventually make up from that dream
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I actually considered that possibility, as well. In addition, the buyer of the coin in the second auction potentially had the additional information that the coin was previously in an NGC 64 holder, making it less likely (maybe?) that the coin would be an NGC 65 next time around.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
<< <i>Maybe folks thought the NGC coin was a possible upgrade and once they see a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker then they think the coin is accurately graded and not an upgrade in waiting?
I actually considered that possibility, as well. In addition, the buyer of the coin in the second auction potentially had the additional information that the coin was previously in an NGC 64 holder, making it less likely (maybe?) that the coin would be an NGC 65 next time around. >>
The buyer of the coin in the second auction was completely unaware of the prior sale at a higher price, or might have charged you more for the coin
I'll add a reason, which is actually a corollary to Lance's #4 ("It only takes two competitors to run up the price")...
The market for these coins is thin enough right now that the removal of one significant bidder (the winner of the PCGS-graded coin in the FUN sale) was enough to account for the drop in the price realized. (Or at least to not run the price up to the prior level.)
Beautiful coin, BTW!
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe folks thought the NGC coin was a possible upgrade and once they see a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker then they think the coin is accurately graded and not an upgrade in waiting?
I actually considered that possibility, as well. In addition, the buyer of the coin in the second auction potentially had the additional information that the coin was previously in an NGC 64 holder, making it less likely (maybe?) that the coin would be an NGC 65 next time around. >>
The buyer of the coin in the second auction was completely unaware of the prior sale at a higher price, or might have charged you more for the coin
But the upgrade specialists who bought it in the NGC holder, tried for the upgrade, and failed, didn't bid against the buyer in the second auction who I'm sure looked at it in hand....
--Jerry
<< <i>From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
Maybe, it was the eye appeal of the coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
Maybe, it was the eye appeal of the coin.
The discussion is about the identical coin selling twice. The "eye appeal" did not change.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
Maybe, it was the eye appeal of the coin.
The discussion is about the identical coin selling twice. The "eye appeal" did not change. >>
Yes it did. The coin was artificially toned between the sales.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
Maybe, it was the eye appeal of the coin.
The discussion is about the identical coin selling twice. The "eye appeal" did not change. >>
Yes it did. The coin was artificially toned between the sales. >>
I guess anything is possible. You might be able to tell from the photos what PCGS, John Albanese, Mark Feld, and I cannot detect with the coin in hand. Sure, anything is possible.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
Maybe, it was the eye appeal of the coin.
The discussion is about the identical coin selling twice. The "eye appeal" did not change. >>
Yes it did. The coin was artificially toned between the sales. >>
Unless you did it yourself or saw it being done, that is a very reckless and unfair comment to make, based upon images.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
Maybe, it was the eye appeal of the coin.
The discussion is about the identical coin selling twice. The "eye appeal" did not change. >>
Since eye appeal is subjective, the effect of eye appeal on the purchase price could easily be different from one sale to the other.
Unless you did it yourself or saw it being done, that is a very reckless and unfair comment to make, based upon images.
Frankly (and at the risk of irking two men I like and respect), the comment would be neither reckless nor unfair if phrased as a possibility instead of as a certainty. The possibility crossed my mind as well.
<< <i> The possibility crossed my mind as well.
Look at the two dots, above and below the elbow. On one picture, they are lighter than the surrounding areas, while in the other, they are darker. Obviously, the lighting for each photo is completely different. I don't see how you could reach any reliable conclusion about anything that *might* have happened to the coin between the time of the first and second picture, but then that's just me...
<< <i>Yes it did. The coin was artificially toned between the sales.
Unless you did it yourself or saw it being done, that is a very reckless and unfair comment to make, based upon images.
Frankly (and at the risk of irking two men I like and respect), the comment would be neither reckless nor unfair if phrased as a possibility instead of as a certainty. The possibility crossed my mind as well.
By changing the lighting and tilting the coin one way or the other, I could make the coin appear like either of the photos.
Furthermore, why would someone overpay for an attractively toned coin and tone it again?
<< <i>Yes it did. The coin was artificially toned between the sales.
Unless you did it yourself or saw it being done, that is a very reckless and unfair comment to make, based upon images.
Frankly (and at the risk of irking two men I like and respect), the comment would be neither reckless nor unfair if phrased as a possibility instead of as a certainty. The possibility crossed my mind as well.
Lou, while I am convinced that the different appearances are due solely to lighting, your post didn't irk me in the least. I have no problem with such comments, presented as opinions. On the other hand, as I already mentioned, I believe that the remark in question (stated as fact) was very reckless and unfair. And that's in addition to being incorrect.
Proof 64 (non cameo) trade dollars (just do a quick archive search) have been selling for anywhere between $3,220 and $4,025.
Cameo specimens have been selling for more.
Based on the price you paid, I believe you paid FULL wholesale value on a plain non cameo specimen.
what I believe happened is that 2 people looked at the ngc fun show pictures and bid sight unseen thinking the coin should cam and possibly dcam- (which explains the original price)
Limited Examples opinion: You can make any outcome/trend look any way you want.
Same coin ...
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Can we draw conclusions from one occurrence? Myself I would like to see more examples of it happening to draw a conclusion. >>
Yes, we can conclude that the same coin in a PCGS holder (or with a CAC sticker) does not always sell for more than in an NGC holder (or without a CAC sticker).
Both in NGC plastic and PCGS Plastic.
For any auction, regardless of price potential, a coin needs to attract at least two cimmitted bidders and I don;t think that situation occured with wither of the auctions involving this coin.
Lighting or not, TPG Slab or not, the coin just did npt do well.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Perhaps, and just maybe, since the coin transferred holders in a mere 3 month time span AND Proof Trade Dollars are kind of a specialized collectible which those that collect them are very familiar with them AND neither coin really reached their price potential, nobody really wanted the coin.
Both in NGC plastic and PCGS Plastic.
For any auction, regardless of price potential, a coin needs to attract at least two cimmitted bidders and I don;t think that situation occured with wither of the auctions involving this coin.
Lighting or not, TPG Slab or not, the coin just did npt do well. >>
Lee, I don't understand that. When the coin sold for $5750 the first time, it was an extremely strong price. And it brought an OK price the second time, even though that price was considerably lower than the previous sale.
But if your collecting purely on grade as in MS-67+, then PCGS on average, will sell for a higher price.
There were 8 bidders initially one of who was the winner.
There were 6 bidders on relist with obvious deletion of original bidder.
In a theoretical static situation a coin when relisted will sell for same amount as in first auction AFTER all bids by original bidder are deleted.
It always surprises me when people don't realize this simple fact.
Real winner as usual in the auction house which got what....something like 30% total juice??
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From my trade dollar thread:
"...in an NGC Proof-64 holder, it sold for $5750 in January (FUN auction). More recently, in a PCGS Proof-64 CAC holder, it sold for $4083 in the CSNS 2010 May auction."
A forum member PMed me and asked me why I thought it sold for so much less in the PCGS/CAC holder, compared to the "naked" NGC holder, and I offered him four reasons (actually, none had anything to do with the holder). Let's see what you come up with, and I will post my short list later. >>
Maybe, it was the eye appeal of the coin.
The discussion is about the identical coin selling twice. The "eye appeal" did not change. >>
Then that only leaves stupidity.
<< <i>
<< <i>Perhaps, and just maybe, since the coin transferred holders in a mere 3 month time span AND Proof Trade Dollars are kind of a specialized collectible which those that collect them are very familiar with them AND neither coin really reached their price potential, nobody really wanted the coin.
Both in NGC plastic and PCGS Plastic.
For any auction, regardless of price potential, a coin needs to attract at least two cimmitted bidders and I don;t think that situation occured with wither of the auctions involving this coin.
Lighting or not, TPG Slab or not, the coin just did npt do well. >>
Lee, I don't understand that. When the coin sold for $5750 the first time, it was an extremely strong price. And it brought an OK price the second time, even though that price was considerably lower than the previous sale. >>
I misread the price guide!
The name is LEE!
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe folks thought the NGC coin was a possible upgrade and once they see a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker then they think the coin is accurately graded and not an upgrade in waiting?
I actually considered that possibility, as well. In addition, the buyer of the coin in the second auction potentially had the additional information that the coin was previously in an NGC 64 holder, making it less likely (maybe?) that the coin would be an NGC 65 next time around. >>
The buyer of the coin in the second auction was completely unaware of the prior sale at a higher price, or might have charged you more for the coin
But the upgrade specialists who bought it in the NGC holder, tried for the upgrade, and failed, didn't bid against the buyer in the second auction who I'm sure looked at it in hand....
--Jerry >>
That was my thought.
TD