As epcjimi1 already suggested one of the options PM Mitch aka Wondercoin if you want an easy "box" deal.
I've traded my 2 boxes of 5 sets with him for some ca$h and 70 sets (details are commercial secret after failing my own grading experiment with another box of 5
It beats the hassle of selling/grading/gambling.
The plus - you will know upfront what you get and exactly how much it will net
The minus - you will miss the thrill of the gambling and possibly leave some money on the table
Good luck either way >>
Thank you both for your well reasoned advice. I really appreciate it. It makes sense based on current prices, since it actually leaves relatively little money on the table, based on the costs of grading and the expected yield of 70 sets. The only reason I wouldn't do it now is that I really believe these will be worth way more than $700 each in the future, so I hate to cash out now just so that I can enjoy them. That's the attraction for me of having them graded -- not the gambling aspect, but the ability to enjoy them in the present and also reap future price appreciation. If I could be assured that the bulk grading results will hold going forward, or that NGC non-ERs will not sell at a big discount to ERs, a decision would be easy. Of course, there are no guarantees, which is why I am fishing for ideas. Thanks again. -- Mark >>
If you want a set to enjoy while waiting for them to appreciate in value why not just buy a set in your preferred flavor. MS 69's are dirt cheap right now and still are excellent coins for enjoying. >>
I have been seriously considering doing just that. I hesitated buying a 70 set from Goldmart for $1250, and now they are out of stock at $1295. I then noticed that they had tombstone 70s at $1200, which are now also out of stock. I'm now thinking of picking up a 69 set for $675, which is basically getting the slabs and the autographs for free in return for having no chance at any 70s. Given how generous the grading of the Mercantis has been as compared to regular PCGS submissions, I wonder if there is any chance that any Mercanti 69s would cross over to 70 ATS?
Thank you both for your well reasoned advice. I really appreciate it. It makes sense based on current prices, since it actually leaves relatively little money on the table, based on the costs of grading and the expected yield of 70 sets. The only reason I wouldn't do it now is that I really believe these will be worth way more than $700 each in the future, so I hate to cash out now just so that I can enjoy them. That's the attraction for me of having them graded -- not the gambling aspect, but the ability to enjoy them in the present and also reap future price appreciation. If I could be assured that the bulk grading results will hold going forward, or that NGC non-ERs will not sell at a big discount to ERs, a decision would be easy. Of course, there are no guarantees, which is why I am fishing for ideas. Thanks again. -- Mark >>
And thank you Mark for posting your intelligent questions and analysis here. I'm in exactly the same situation as you are here in holding a box of five and 'really' wanting to enjoy them....... I'd LOVE to rip that box open and gaze at those sparkling sets !!! Additionally, I'd like to make the most reasoned decision for profit in this little venture. I've been following his thread and related threads with keen interest and trailing your train of thought and reasoning on the matter...... Nice to have someone posting the same questions that are running through my head and allowing them to do the gritty work in typing them out..... Thank you again >>
<< <i>The difference between FS and NFS results suggest to me that something is acting on the grading process for such different results to be obtained.
I'm not suggesting nor think that the differences are a deliberate decision or act by anybody.
Rather, I think the differences are a result of the same criteria applied in a subjective manner by two different sets of graders, one set of graders does the FS, the other set of graders is grading the NFS.
Don't know what else it could be. >>
You could very well be correct but if so it is still a big problem and needs fixed pronto. I'd say it is more likely one set of graders is doing bulk and another doing non bulk. The disparity makes me want to jump right out of the grading game (at least with our host). >>
Agreed. In just looking at the pop reports and the shared orders that have been posted and seeing how they have been no way consistent with the results of the early bulk submissions (which were from the very same pool of coins and were also sent in sealed) was enough to get me to send a sealed box of 5 sets and a few extra loose reverse proofs and 2011-S coins to another grading service last week instead of our host... >>
Triple agreed! For what it's worth, it appears to be very possible that the early bulk results are still being experienced by those submitting bulk. If you just look at the weekly increases in the published pop reports, approximately 50% of the FS submissions are still pulling around 50% 70s, which is far in excess of the results reported in the shared reports and in the non-FS submissions.
There is no way to know what the breakdown is between bulk and regular submissions from week to week, but if we assume it is 50-50, then a 30% 70 rate for the regular submissions (which would be consistent with the shared reports and the non-FS published results) and a 70% 70 rate for the bulk submissions (which would be consistent with the early published reports) would yield the approximate 50% 70 rate reported on the increase from the 12/18 report through the 1/1 report. Of course, this conclusion depends on the bulk to non-bulk ratio being 50-50. If actual submissions skew more towards regular submissions (which seems likely as the weeks progress), it is even more possible that the bulk submission 70 rate is as generous as in the beginning.
Somebody here mentioned about black spots that are inside the holder and not the coin and pcgs removed them when he sent it back for them to remove those black things in his MS70 ASE 25th Anniversary coin. What if you purchased yours through Ebay will PCGS take it back and reholder it for you and remove those black dust/spots inside the holder for free or for a fee
Mine was a 69 and it had black spots on coin and holder. The coin still has some black spots but the holder black spots are gone. I got a sticky with DH founder of PCGS hand written on the coin saying virtually perfect and 69 was true. My 70 coin I planned on submitting I ended up reselling on ebay to buy another one. Got lazy didnt want to spend another $75.00 on guaranteed resubmission. If I get another ill do guaranteed resubmission and let you guys know as I am curious myself. Learning the coin system was expensive but still worth it
<< <i>Mine was a 69 and it had black spots on coin and holder. The coin still has some black spots but the holder black spots are gone. I got a sticky with DH founder of PCGS hand written on the coin saying virtually perfect and 69 was true. My 70 coin I planned on submitting I ended up reselling on ebay to buy another one. Got lazy didnt want to spend another $75.00 on guaranteed resubmission. If I get another ill do guaranteed resubmission and let you guys know as I am curious myself. Learning the coin system was expensive but still worth it >>
Yes your coin was the one i read Absolution. Thanks for sharing your experience. Does Anybody know what those black things are inside the holder and in Absolutions case on the coin itself
I think the black spots,which I have noticed on a few of my NGC and PCGS 25th ASEs and on an UNC ARMY $5,are a contaminant at the US mint. When I purchased the $5 it has two specks of black on it. When I flicked them off the coin with a q-tip it left a shiny spot. So I would guess the black specks are happening in the minting process and may in part be responsible for some of the shiny spots you see on many of the 25th eagles.
<< The difference between FS and NFS results suggest to me that something is acting on the grading process for such different results to be obtained.
I'm not suggesting nor think that the differences are a deliberate decision or act by anybody.
Rather, I think the differences are a result of the same criteria applied in a subjective manner by two different sets of graders, one set of graders does the FS, the other set of graders is grading the NFS.
Don't know what else it could be. >>
I don't think there's any doubt about it, but I haven't seen any acknowlegement, and really don't expect one. We're left to draw our own conclusions.
I have a question, not sure who would answer it, but seems to me that the graders would not know or care who submitted the coins. In other words, do they have all the paperwork in front of them, who paid what for what label? These folks are professionals, and yes they probably aren't perfect, but surely they take much pride in their work.
M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Yes, my point. I read all the ATB posts about how the grading got tougher as time went by when regular folk submitted, etc. I submitted my coins as a new member and got 69dmpls on several. I did cherry pick them, but what did I know? I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the graders and that is what is really being questioned here.
<< <i>M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin >>
And I guess another possibility is that the shared results are not representative of what all of the non-bulk submitters are receiving.
Question -- have your submissions all been on bulk labels, or have you been submitting for flags as well? If so, do your results on the flags match those on the bulk?
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to any early conspiracy theories, because the results I see from week to week are consistent. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) it simply looks to me like bulk submissions (whether made by you or even a newbie like me) are grading higher than regular submissions (if the shared reports are indeed accurate). Also, it is clear that FS as a whole continue from week to week to grade significantly higher than non-FS, despite the fact that the non-key coins are by definition being submitted sight unseen. I don't see a conspiracy at all. All I see is that early submissions were almost exclusively bulk, and the mix has tilted more towards regular as the weeks progress, but the apparent bias towards bulk receiving higher yields of 70s (again, assuming the shared reports are representative of all non-bulk results) has remained constant throughout.
Of course, we'd know for sure if PCGS published results by label! Does anyone have any idea why they don't, especially since they already break out FS and non-FS?
<< <i>M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin >>
And I guess another possibility is that the shared results are not representative of what all of the non-bulk submitters are receiving.
Question -- have your submissions all been on bulk labels, or have you been submitting for flags as well? If so, do your results on the flags match those on the bulk?
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to any early conspiracy theories, because the results I see from week to week are consistent. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) it simply looks to me like bulk submissions (whether made by you or even a newbie like me) are grading higher than regular submissions (if the shared reports are indeed accurate). Also, it is clear that FS as a whole continue from week to week to grade significantly higher than non-FS, despite the fact that the non-key coins are by definition being submitted sight unseen. I don't see a conspiracy at all. All I see is that early submissions were almost exclusively bulk, and the mix has tilted more towards regular as the weeks progress, but the apparent bias towards bulk receiving higher yields of 70s (again, assuming the shared reports are representative of all non-bulk results) has remained constant throughout.
Of course, we'd know for sure if PCGS published results by label! Does anyone have any idea why they don't, especially since they already break out FS and non-FS? >>
What is your point of all of this? Have you submitted your coins yet? Do you have anything showing bias from a personal standpoint?
<< <i>M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin >>
And I guess another possibility is that the shared results are not representative of what all of the non-bulk submitters are receiving.
Question -- have your submissions all been on bulk labels, or have you been submitting for flags as well? If so, do your results on the flags match those on the bulk?
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to any early conspiracy theories, because the results I see from week to week are consistent. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) it simply looks to me like bulk submissions (whether made by you or even a newbie like me) are grading higher than regular submissions (if the shared reports are indeed accurate). Also, it is clear that FS as a whole continue from week to week to grade significantly higher than non-FS, despite the fact that the non-key coins are by definition being submitted sight unseen. I don't see a conspiracy at all. All I see is that early submissions were almost exclusively bulk, and the mix has tilted more towards regular as the weeks progress, but the apparent bias towards bulk receiving higher yields of 70s (again, assuming the shared reports are representative of all non-bulk results) has remained constant throughout.
Of course, we'd know for sure if PCGS published results by label! Does anyone have any idea why they don't, especially since they already break out FS and non-FS? >>
What is your point of all of this? Have you submitted your coins yet? Do you have anything showing bias from a personal standpoint? >>
Not at all. I have not submitted my box of 5, and am trying to figure out what to do. In hindsight, the easiest thing would have been to submit ATS when ER was still available, but I let that ship sail. Now I could submit my FS eligible box ATS and hope that the non-ER slabs aren't worth way less than ER, hold the sealed box indefinitely (not very attractive), sell the box and buy whatever slabs I want to keep (not very attractive at today's prices for the sealed box), or submit to our hosts. I would probably not otherwise submit to our hosts under bulk due to the costs involved (between $1,000 and $1,250 for the box), but would strongly consider doing so if it increased my odds of landing 70s from approximately 30% to approximately 65%. Trying to figure out what to do is my point.
I have no personal experience at all, have absolutely no beef with either grading service or with anyone on this board, and am not meaning to question anyone's integrity or allege any intentional bias. I am trying to deconstruct an apparent statistically significant variation between publishing grading results for blind submissions of FS and non-FS coins, and between published FS reports and shared FS reports, so I can figure out whether and how to submit my box for grading.
<< <i>M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin >>
And I guess another possibility is that the shared results are not representative of what all of the non-bulk submitters are receiving.
Question -- have your submissions all been on bulk labels, or have you been submitting for flags as well? If so, do your results on the flags match those on the bulk?
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to any early conspiracy theories, because the results I see from week to week are consistent. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) it simply looks to me like bulk submissions (whether made by you or even a newbie like me) are grading higher than regular submissions (if the shared reports are indeed accurate). Also, it is clear that FS as a whole continue from week to week to grade significantly higher than non-FS, despite the fact that the non-key coins are by definition being submitted sight unseen. I don't see a conspiracy at all. All I see is that early submissions were almost exclusively bulk, and the mix has tilted more towards regular as the weeks progress, but the apparent bias towards bulk receiving higher yields of 70s (again, assuming the shared reports are representative of all non-bulk results) has remained constant throughout.
Of course, we'd know for sure if PCGS published results by label! Does anyone have any idea why they don't, especially since they already break out FS and non-FS? >>
What is your point of all of this? Have you submitted your coins yet? Do you have anything showing bias from a personal standpoint? >>
Not at all. I have not submitted my box of 5, and am trying to figure out what to do. In hindsight, the easiest thing would have been to submit ATS when ER was still available, but I let that ship sail. Now I could submit my FS eligible box ATS and hope that the non-ER slabs aren't worth way less than ER, hold the sealed box indefinitely (not very attractive), sell the box and buy whatever slabs I want to keep (not very attractive at today's prices for the sealed box), or submit to our hosts. I would probably not otherwise submit to our hosts under bulk due to the costs involved (between $1,000 and $1,250 for the box), but would strongly consider doing so if it increased my odds of landing 70s from approximately 30% to approximately 65%. Trying to figure out what to do is my point.
I have no personal experience at all, have absolutely no beef with either grading service or with anyone on this board, and am not meaning to question anyone's integrity or allege any intentional bias. I am trying to deconstruct an apparent statistically significant variation between publishing grading results for blind submissions of FS and non-FS coins, and between published FS reports and shared FS reports, so I can figure out whether and how to submit my box for grading. >>
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever.
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
So what's the problem with asking questions trying to discern what the he## is going on with the population reports before spending your hard earned money on grading? How can you look at them and not have questions? I looked at them 3 weeks ago and sent mine ATS. I would do the same again. I would think a publicly traded company that has a fuduciary responsibilty to it's shareholders would be interested in why they are loosing some business--but that's just my way of looking at it. Why is someone who has questions and isn't even accusing anyone of something unethical branded as a troublemaker?
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
So what's the problem with asking questions trying to discern what the he## is going on with the population reports before spending your hard earned money on grading? How can you look at them and not have questions? I looked at them 3 weeks ago and sent mine ATS. I would do the same again. I would think a publicly traded company that has a fuduciary responsibilty to it's shareholders would be interested in why they are loosing some business--but that's just my way of looking at it. Why is someone who has questions and isn't even accusing anyone of something unethical branded as a troublemaker? >>
Exactly. You have a choice and you exercised it. Good for you. I think PCGS graded coins are superior in every way. I choose to grade here and buy here. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
So what's the problem with asking questions trying to discern what the he## is going on with the population reports before spending your hard earned money on grading? How can you look at them and not have questions? I looked at them 3 weeks ago and sent mine ATS. I would do the same again. I would think a publicly traded company that has a fuduciary responsibilty to it's shareholders would be interested in why they are loosing some business--but that's just my way of looking at it. Why is someone who has questions and isn't even accusing anyone of something unethical branded as a troublemaker? >>
Exactly. You have a choice and you exercised it. Good for you. I think PCGS graded coins are superior in every way. I choose to grade here and buy here. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. >>
Yes I did and I will continue to do so for moderns. I get several hundred moderns graded per year and a handful of classics. Until things are on a more level playing field here the moderns will go elsewhere and the classics will be graded here.
I think it is a valid concern, if population reports updates are lagging then the first dealers to have stuff graded will make moon money on their stuff out of the gate. I do not know how often the population report is upgraded but I would suspect that it is not so difficult that it could not be updated on real time.
With that said, as long as the same grading standard is used for the whole series then I am happy. PCGS will not be able to please everyone, most people want 70's and as soon as they get their 70's then they complain if there are too many 70's. If the grading standard is the same and the coins happen to be great then there will be allot of 70's. On the other hand, if there are not enough 70's then people complain about that also, so basically in my humble opinion people only want PCGS to be fair when it suits them. Then they post allot of mumbo jumbo to try to curb the grading process to suit their needs?
<< <i>I think it is a valid concern, if population reports updates are lagging then the first dealers to have stuff graded will make moon money on their stuff out of the gate. I do not know how often the population report is upgraded but I would suspect that it is not so difficult that it could not be updated on real time. >>
So what else is new. It's been like that for years. As the saying goes "The early bird catches the worm"
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
Thanks for the kind words.
Seriously, I swear I had absolutely no intention of alleging a conspiracy, pulling chains, upsetting anyone, or getting kicked off. I know that I am fairly new, so while I try to be obsessively thorough before making decisions both large and small, I thought I might be missing something and was trying to find out what. In hindsight, and based on some of the responses I have received, that was probably naive and stupid. Please accept my sincere apologies for any offensive implications that were apparently inadvertently embedded in my questions.
NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another.
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes.
<< <i>You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
If A than B, or maybe C, but could be F, no,, it could be D, maybe E?, no wait a sec, F, but a permutation could result in G, but ATS could be H, J or K...
All I got to say is Wow.
Good luck, sounds to me like you are going to sit on your sets for now and not do anything.
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
Fitting first post, Don. Glad to see you have lost the "lurker" status and have gained the participant status. Here's to many more Donato posts.....and as David Hall would say: "Have fun with your coins!"
<< <i>You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
If A than B, or maybe C, but could be F, no,, it could be D, maybe E?, no wait a sec, F, but a permutation could result in G, but ATS could be H, J or K...
All I got to say is Wow.
Good luck, sounds to me like you are going to sit on your sets for now and not do anything. >>
"The population size includes all the individuals in the identified group to be studied. This may be the number of people in a city, or the number of people who buy new cars. Often you may not know the exact population size, which is not a problem. The mathematics of probability proves that the size of the population is irrelevant, unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a city of 100,000."
People seems to confuse about the sample size VS population size. We should not compare the sample size of First Strike to Non First Strike. If the sample size of Non First Strike is large enough (It doesn't matter if it is only 1/20 of the First Strike sample), we can trust the result and use it to compare with the First Strike statistics.
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
You also may want to consider doing a bulk submission. I'm assuming you have a sealed box of five sets, which is the minimum needed. I'll just say that I went with bulk because of all the hearsay, and am most pleased that I did so.
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
You also may want to consider doing a bulk submission. I'm assuming you have a sealed box of five sets, which is the minimum needed. I'll just say that I went with bulk because of all the hearsay, and am most pleased that I did so. >>
How can you send a box of 25 coins in for bulk... everything I've seen on the PCGS site says 100 coin minimum. Sure, you could send your coins to a dealer and have your coins tag along with a larger order, but not everyone is comfortable with that.
<< <i>How can you send a box of 25 coins in for bulk... everything I've seen on the PCGS site says 100 coin minimum. Sure, you could send your coins to a dealer and have your coins tag along with a larger order, but not everyone is comfortable with that. >>
They made a singular exception for the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets. It was not well-publicized. I only learned about it via some posts on various coin forums.
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
Thanks for the kind words.
Seriously, I swear I had absolutely no intention of alleging a conspiracy, pulling chains, upsetting anyone, or getting kicked off. I know that I am fairly new, so while I try to be obsessively thorough before making decisions both large and small, I thought I might be missing something and was trying to find out what. In hindsight, and based on some of the responses I have received, that was probably naive and stupid. Please accept my sincere apologies for any offensive implications that were apparently inadvertently embedded in my questions. >>
Perhaps I misinterpreted your posts NJCoin, good luck with your decision to grade or hold.
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
You also may want to consider doing a bulk submission. I'm assuming you have a sealed box of five sets, which is the minimum needed. I'll just say that I went with bulk because of all the hearsay, and am most pleased that I did so. >>
I have been considering doing that from the beginning, and am even more strongly considering it now that my FS-eligible boxes cannot get an ER designation ATS. I am waiting for 2 things, one of which I will be able to see, and one of which I probably won't. The first is how bulk 70 set pricing does going forward. To date, unfortunately, the market seems to have figured out that the bulks are grading generously, since the small premium Mercanti and tombstone 70s sell for over NGC 70s doesn't even cover the extra costs of grading, and 69s carry no premium at all, even though they contain an interesting, somewhat unique label and 5 original autographs that should be worth something in the future. This makes them a little risky if you don't hit the averages, since you are guaranteed to lose $250 on every set that comes back 69 or lower. In fact, if the raw sets are worth $700, even if you get back 3 Mercanti sets graded 70 out of 5 (which might be a big stretch given the latest published pop report), your profit is only the difference between what they are worth and $1117, before shipping and other fees. I am really hoping that in the future they go up faster than sealed sets in order to justify the investment. At today's market prices it seems like you need over 70% 70s to make even a little money, and you risk losing hundreds of dollars per 5 sets if you don't come close to 66% 70s.
Put another way, based on today's values, you could probably trade one FS-eligible sealed box of 5 for something close to 2 Mercanti 70 sets and one 69 set. Does it really make sense to sacrifice 2 sealed sets in order to cover grading fees for 3 sets, and to guarantee that your grading results hit the early reported average? That seems a little steep to me, given where I think (hope) these sets are going. That's why I haven't rushed off to do it yet.
The other wild card is whether the "hearsay" holds true going forward, which will always be unknown except in hindsight. If bulk grading results are already, or begin to, trend downward, that will be great for those sitting on bulk sets already graded 70, but make it even harder not to lose money in the future if, for instance, it costs $1250 to have 5 sets graded and you can only expect to receive 1 or 2 70 sets back (depending on how high 70 set values rise). (I assume that no matter what happens to the value of 70 sets, that 69s will never be worth more than sealed box sets, based on what we have seen so far. In fact, they could even end up being worth less, making the acquisition of Mercanti 70 sets very expensive by sending them in for grading in the future, which, on the other hand, will do a lot to support the value of those already graded.)
Hindsight being 20/20, the correct move was to either go ATS when ER was still possible (maybe non-ER values will be close to ER, so that might be a decent possibility in the future), or to do exactly what you did and get Mercantis early. Unfortunately, my crystal ball sucks, which is why I did neither when I had the chance, and now my head continues to spin and I am paralyzed. The big losers so far are the poor souls receiving the crappy grading results reported in the shared reports or the published non-FS reports, whose market values are being depressed by all of the early, more generously graded PCGS slabs out there. If the grading trends continue, however, they should see the values of their slabs start to come back if the PCGS 70 pops continue to trend down.
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
Thanks for the kind words.
Seriously, I swear I had absolutely no intention of alleging a conspiracy, pulling chains, upsetting anyone, or getting kicked off. I know that I am fairly new, so while I try to be obsessively thorough before making decisions both large and small, I thought I might be missing something and was trying to find out what. In hindsight, and based on some of the responses I have received, that was probably naive and stupid. Please accept my sincere apologies for any offensive implications that were apparently inadvertently embedded in my questions. >>
Perhaps I misinterpreted your posts NJCoin, good luck with your decision to grade or hold. >>
Thanks! You'll see going forward, I really have no axe to grind. I'm just trying to learn and figure out something that might defy explanation. Believe me, you are not the first to become annoyed by my compulsive need to figure out all the angles before parting with a few bucks. Just pity my poor wife, especially around major purchase time.
It's still early here in Baltimore....but what I see at first glance........ The 2 keys in FS are closing in on one to one 69 to 70. The 2 keys in non FS are closing in on two to one 69 to 70....very close to 01/01/12 pops. I'm sure a lot of folks following these pops will be scratching their heads.
FS S 70, 5383 of 10467 = 51.42% FS S 69, 4811 of 10467 = 45.96%
FS PR 70, 5550 of 10473 = 52.99% FS PR 69, 4641 of 10473 = 44.31%
NFS S 70, 103 of 391 = 26.34% NFS S 69, 272 of 391 = 69.57%
NFS PR 70, 127 of 374 = 33.96% NFS PR 69, 220 of 374 = 58.82%
Last week the percentages looked like this below, the NFS PR 70 results from 1/8/12 gained the most when compared to last week. Other than that, I don't see significant change in the comparison of result percentages from this week to last week.
<<For the 1/1/12, FS vs NFS results posted -
FS S 70 = 5167 of 9847 = 52.47% FS S 69 = 4462 0f 9847 = 45.31%
FS RP 70 = 5288 of 9854 = 53.66% FS RP 69 = 4319 of 9854 = 43.83%
NFS S 70 = 82 of 323 = 25.39% NFS S 69 = 227 0f 323 = 70.28%
NFS RP 70 = 94 of 306 = 30.72% NFS RP 69 = 190 of 306 = 62.09% >>
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>@NJCoin
As epcjimi1 already suggested one of the options PM Mitch aka Wondercoin if you want an easy "box" deal.
I've traded my 2 boxes of 5 sets with him for some ca$h and 70 sets (details are commercial secret
It beats the hassle of selling/grading/gambling.
The plus - you will know upfront what you get and exactly how much it will net
The minus - you will miss the thrill of the gambling and possibly leave some money on the table
Good luck either way
Thank you both for your well reasoned advice. I really appreciate it. It makes sense based on current prices, since it actually leaves relatively little money on the table, based on the costs of grading and the expected yield of 70 sets. The only reason I wouldn't do it now is that I really believe these will be worth way more than $700 each in the future, so I hate to cash out now just so that I can enjoy them. That's the attraction for me of having them graded -- not the gambling aspect, but the ability to enjoy them in the present and also reap future price appreciation. If I could be assured that the bulk grading results will hold going forward, or that NGC non-ERs will not sell at a big discount to ERs, a decision would be easy. Of course, there are no guarantees, which is why I am fishing for ideas.
If you want a set to enjoy while waiting for them to appreciate in value why not just buy a set in your preferred flavor. MS 69's are dirt cheap right now and still are excellent coins for enjoying. >>
I have been seriously considering doing just that. I hesitated buying a 70 set from Goldmart for $1250, and now they are out of stock at $1295. I then noticed that they had tombstone 70s at $1200, which are now also out of stock. I'm now thinking of picking up a 69 set for $675, which is basically getting the slabs and the autographs for free in return for having no chance at any 70s. Given how generous the grading of the Mercantis has been as compared to regular PCGS submissions, I wonder if there is any chance that any Mercanti 69s would cross over to 70 ATS?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>@NJCoin
Thank you both for your well reasoned advice. I really appreciate it. It makes sense based on current prices, since it actually leaves relatively little money on the table, based on the costs of grading and the expected yield of 70 sets. The only reason I wouldn't do it now is that I really believe these will be worth way more than $700 each in the future, so I hate to cash out now just so that I can enjoy them. That's the attraction for me of having them graded -- not the gambling aspect, but the ability to enjoy them in the present and also reap future price appreciation. If I could be assured that the bulk grading results will hold going forward, or that NGC non-ERs will not sell at a big discount to ERs, a decision would be easy. Of course, there are no guarantees, which is why I am fishing for ideas.
And thank you Mark for posting your intelligent questions and analysis here. I'm in exactly the same situation as you are here in holding a box of five and 'really' wanting to enjoy them....... I'd LOVE to rip that box open and gaze at those sparkling sets !!!
Additionally, I'd like to make the most reasoned decision for profit in this little venture. I've been following his thread and related threads with keen interest and trailing your train of thought and reasoning on the matter...... Nice to have someone posting the same questions that are running through my head and allowing them to do the gritty work in typing them out..... Thank you again
Glad to be of service!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The difference between FS and NFS results suggest to me that something is acting on the grading process for such different results to be obtained.
I'm not suggesting nor think that the differences are a deliberate decision or act by anybody.
Rather, I think the differences are a result of the same criteria applied in a subjective manner by two different sets of graders, one set of graders does the FS, the other set of graders is grading the NFS.
Don't know what else it could be. >>
You could very well be correct but if so it is still a big problem and needs fixed pronto. I'd say it is more likely one set of graders is doing bulk and another doing non bulk. The disparity makes me want to jump right out of the grading game (at least with our host). >>
Agreed. In just looking at the pop reports and the shared orders that have been posted and seeing how they have been no way consistent with the results of the early bulk submissions (which were from the very same pool of coins and were also sent in sealed) was enough to get me to send a sealed box of 5 sets and a few extra loose reverse proofs and 2011-S coins to another grading service last week instead of our host... >>
Triple agreed! For what it's worth, it appears to be very possible that the early bulk results are still being experienced by those submitting bulk. If you just look at the weekly increases in the published pop reports, approximately 50% of the FS submissions are still pulling around 50% 70s, which is far in excess of the results reported in the shared reports and in the non-FS submissions.
There is no way to know what the breakdown is between bulk and regular submissions from week to week, but if we assume it is 50-50, then a 30% 70 rate for the regular submissions (which would be consistent with the shared reports and the non-FS published results) and a 70% 70 rate for the bulk submissions (which would be consistent with the early published reports) would yield the approximate 50% 70 rate reported on the increase from the 12/18 report through the 1/1 report. Of course, this conclusion depends on the bulk to non-bulk ratio being 50-50. If actual submissions skew more towards regular submissions (which seems likely as the weeks progress), it is even more possible that the bulk submission 70 rate is as generous as in the beginning.
Coinfame,Kaelasdad,Type2,UNLVino,MICHAELDIXON
Justacommeman,tydye,78saen,123cents,blue62vette,Segoja,Nibanny
<< <i>Mine was a 69 and it had black spots on coin and holder. The coin still has some black spots but the holder black spots are gone. I got a sticky with DH founder of PCGS hand written on the coin saying virtually perfect and 69 was true. My 70 coin I planned on submitting I ended up reselling on ebay to buy another one. Got lazy didnt want to spend another $75.00 on guaranteed resubmission. If I get another ill do guaranteed resubmission and let you guys know as I am curious myself. Learning the coin system was expensive but still worth it
Yes your coin was the one i read Absolution. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Coinfame,Kaelasdad,Type2,UNLVino,MICHAELDIXON
Justacommeman,tydye,78saen,123cents,blue62vette,Segoja,Nibanny
I'm not suggesting nor think that the differences are a deliberate decision or act by anybody.
Rather, I think the differences are a result of the same criteria applied in a subjective manner by two different sets of graders, one set of graders does the FS, the other set of graders is grading the NFS.
Don't know what else it could be. >>
I don't think there's any doubt about it, but I haven't seen any acknowlegement, and really don't expect one. We're left to draw our own conclusions.
Jim
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
<< <i>M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin >>
And I guess another possibility is that the shared results are not representative of what all of the non-bulk submitters are receiving.
Question -- have your submissions all been on bulk labels, or have you been submitting for flags as well? If so, do your results on the flags match those on the bulk?
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to any early conspiracy theories, because the results I see from week to week are consistent. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) it simply looks to me like bulk submissions (whether made by you or even a newbie like me) are grading higher than regular submissions (if the shared reports are indeed accurate). Also, it is clear that FS as a whole continue from week to week to grade significantly higher than non-FS, despite the fact that the non-key coins are by definition being submitted sight unseen. I don't see a conspiracy at all. All I see is that early submissions were almost exclusively bulk, and the mix has tilted more towards regular as the weeks progress, but the apparent bias towards bulk receiving higher yields of 70s (again, assuming the shared reports are representative of all non-bulk results) has remained constant throughout.
Of course, we'd know for sure if PCGS published results by label! Does anyone have any idea why they don't, especially since they already break out FS and non-FS?
Wondercoin
<< <i>
<< <i>M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin >>
And I guess another possibility is that the shared results are not representative of what all of the non-bulk submitters are receiving.
Question -- have your submissions all been on bulk labels, or have you been submitting for flags as well? If so, do your results on the flags match those on the bulk?
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to any early conspiracy theories, because the results I see from week to week are consistent. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) it simply looks to me like bulk submissions (whether made by you or even a newbie like me) are grading higher than regular submissions (if the shared reports are indeed accurate). Also, it is clear that FS as a whole continue from week to week to grade significantly higher than non-FS, despite the fact that the non-key coins are by definition being submitted sight unseen. I don't see a conspiracy at all. All I see is that early submissions were almost exclusively bulk, and the mix has tilted more towards regular as the weeks progress, but the apparent bias towards bulk receiving higher yields of 70s (again, assuming the shared reports are representative of all non-bulk results) has remained constant throughout.
Of course, we'd know for sure if PCGS published results by label! Does anyone have any idea why they don't, especially since they already break out FS and non-FS? >>
What is your point of all of this? Have you submitted your coins yet? Do you have anything showing bias from a personal standpoint?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin >>
And I guess another possibility is that the shared results are not representative of what all of the non-bulk submitters are receiving.
Question -- have your submissions all been on bulk labels, or have you been submitting for flags as well? If so, do your results on the flags match those on the bulk?
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to any early conspiracy theories, because the results I see from week to week are consistent. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) it simply looks to me like bulk submissions (whether made by you or even a newbie like me) are grading higher than regular submissions (if the shared reports are indeed accurate). Also, it is clear that FS as a whole continue from week to week to grade significantly higher than non-FS, despite the fact that the non-key coins are by definition being submitted sight unseen. I don't see a conspiracy at all. All I see is that early submissions were almost exclusively bulk, and the mix has tilted more towards regular as the weeks progress, but the apparent bias towards bulk receiving higher yields of 70s (again, assuming the shared reports are representative of all non-bulk results) has remained constant throughout.
Of course, we'd know for sure if PCGS published results by label! Does anyone have any idea why they don't, especially since they already break out FS and non-FS? >>
What is your point of all of this? Have you submitted your coins yet? Do you have anything showing bias from a personal standpoint? >>
Not at all. I have not submitted my box of 5, and am trying to figure out what to do. In hindsight, the easiest thing would have been to submit ATS when ER was still available, but I let that ship sail. Now I could submit my FS eligible box ATS and hope that the non-ER slabs aren't worth way less than ER, hold the sealed box indefinitely (not very attractive), sell the box and buy whatever slabs I want to keep (not very attractive at today's prices for the sealed box), or submit to our hosts. I would probably not otherwise submit to our hosts under bulk due to the costs involved (between $1,000 and $1,250 for the box), but would strongly consider doing so if it increased my odds of landing 70s from approximately 30% to approximately 65%. Trying to figure out what to do is my point.
I have no personal experience at all, have absolutely no beef with either grading service or with anyone on this board, and am not meaning to question anyone's integrity or allege any intentional bias. I am trying to deconstruct an apparent statistically significant variation between publishing grading results for blind submissions of FS and non-FS coins, and between published FS reports and shared FS reports, so I can figure out whether and how to submit my box for grading.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>M ... I have stated repeatedly here that some of those early great results (the subject of conspiracy theories, etc.) were simply board member(s) who submitted coins through me. On top of that, board member(s) who submitted through me in the past month ended up in some cases getting even BETTER results than the first two weeks! And, vice versa, as it should be.
Wondercoin >>
And I guess another possibility is that the shared results are not representative of what all of the non-bulk submitters are receiving.
Question -- have your submissions all been on bulk labels, or have you been submitting for flags as well? If so, do your results on the flags match those on the bulk?
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to any early conspiracy theories, because the results I see from week to week are consistent. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible) it simply looks to me like bulk submissions (whether made by you or even a newbie like me) are grading higher than regular submissions (if the shared reports are indeed accurate). Also, it is clear that FS as a whole continue from week to week to grade significantly higher than non-FS, despite the fact that the non-key coins are by definition being submitted sight unseen. I don't see a conspiracy at all. All I see is that early submissions were almost exclusively bulk, and the mix has tilted more towards regular as the weeks progress, but the apparent bias towards bulk receiving higher yields of 70s (again, assuming the shared reports are representative of all non-bulk results) has remained constant throughout.
Of course, we'd know for sure if PCGS published results by label! Does anyone have any idea why they don't, especially since they already break out FS and non-FS? >>
What is your point of all of this? Have you submitted your coins yet? Do you have anything showing bias from a personal standpoint? >>
Not at all. I have not submitted my box of 5, and am trying to figure out what to do. In hindsight, the easiest thing would have been to submit ATS when ER was still available, but I let that ship sail. Now I could submit my FS eligible box ATS and hope that the non-ER slabs aren't worth way less than ER, hold the sealed box indefinitely (not very attractive), sell the box and buy whatever slabs I want to keep (not very attractive at today's prices for the sealed box), or submit to our hosts. I would probably not otherwise submit to our hosts under bulk due to the costs involved (between $1,000 and $1,250 for the box), but would strongly consider doing so if it increased my odds of landing 70s from approximately 30% to approximately 65%. Trying to figure out what to do is my point.
I have no personal experience at all, have absolutely no beef with either grading service or with anyone on this board, and am not meaning to question anyone's integrity or allege any intentional bias. I am trying to deconstruct an apparent statistically significant variation between publishing grading results for blind submissions of FS and non-FS coins, and between published FS reports and shared FS reports, so I can figure out whether and how to submit my box for grading. >>
Then do us a favor and go ATS.
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents
And, as always, I try to not be undersold (or "overbought) as well. LOL
Wondecoin
<< <i>@NJCoin
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever.
<< <i>
<< <i>@NJCoin
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
So what's the problem with asking questions trying to discern what the he## is going on with the population reports before spending your hard earned money on grading? How can you look at them and not have questions? I looked at them 3 weeks ago and sent mine ATS. I would do the same again. I would think a publicly traded company that has a fuduciary responsibilty to it's shareholders would be interested in why they are loosing some business--but that's just my way of looking at it. Why is someone who has questions and isn't even accusing anyone of something unethical branded as a troublemaker?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>@NJCoin
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
So what's the problem with asking questions trying to discern what the he## is going on with the population reports before spending your hard earned money on grading? How can you look at them and not have questions? I looked at them 3 weeks ago and sent mine ATS. I would do the same again. I would think a publicly traded company that has a fuduciary responsibilty to it's shareholders would be interested in why they are loosing some business--but that's just my way of looking at it. Why is someone who has questions and isn't even accusing anyone of something unethical branded as a troublemaker? >>
Exactly. You have a choice and you exercised it. Good for you. I think PCGS graded coins are superior in every way. I choose to grade here and buy here. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>@NJCoin
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
So what's the problem with asking questions trying to discern what the he## is going on with the population reports before spending your hard earned money on grading? How can you look at them and not have questions? I looked at them 3 weeks ago and sent mine ATS. I would do the same again. I would think a publicly traded company that has a fuduciary responsibilty to it's shareholders would be interested in why they are loosing some business--but that's just my way of looking at it. Why is someone who has questions and isn't even accusing anyone of something unethical branded as a troublemaker? >>
Exactly. You have a choice and you exercised it. Good for you. I think PCGS graded coins are superior in every way. I choose to grade here and buy here. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. >>
Yes I did and I will continue to do so for moderns. I get several hundred moderns graded per year and a handful of classics. Until things are on a more level playing field here the moderns will go elsewhere and the classics will be graded here.
With that said, as long as the same grading standard is used for the whole series then I am happy. PCGS will not be able to please everyone, most people want 70's and as soon as they get their 70's then they complain if there are too many 70's. If the grading standard is the same and the coins happen to be great then there will be allot of 70's. On the other hand, if there are not enough 70's then people complain about that also, so basically in my humble opinion people only want PCGS to be fair when it suits them. Then they post allot of mumbo jumbo to try to curb the grading process to suit their needs?
<< <i>I think it is a valid concern, if population reports updates are lagging then the first dealers to have stuff graded will make moon money on their stuff out of the gate. I do not know how often the population report is upgraded but I would suspect that it is not so difficult that it could not be updated on real time. >>
So what else is new. It's been like that for years. As the saying goes "The early bird catches the worm"
<< <i>@NJCoin
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
He would actually have 3 70 sets for $1,500.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>
<< <i>@NJCoin
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
Thanks for the kind words.
Seriously, I swear I had absolutely no intention of alleging a conspiracy, pulling chains, upsetting anyone, or getting kicked off. I know that I am fairly new, so while I try to be obsessively thorough before making decisions both large and small, I thought I might be missing something and was trying to find out what. In hindsight, and based on some of the responses I have received, that was probably naive and stupid. Please accept my sincere apologies for any offensive implications that were apparently inadvertently embedded in my questions.
BST Transactions: DonnyJf, MrOrganic, Justanothercoinaddict, Fivecents, Slq, Jdimmick,
Robb, Tee135, Ibzman350, Mercfan, Outhaul, Erickso1, Cugamongacoins, Indiananationals, Wayne Herndon
Negative BST Transactions:
Less than 1000 sets graded this week with 40-45 % 70 rate.
Still sitting on my free BO5. Plan to send to Newport in February/March.
Joe
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes.
<< <i>You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
If A than B, or maybe C, but could be F, no,
All I got to say is Wow.
Good luck, sounds to me like you are going to sit on your sets for now and not do anything.
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
Fitting first post, Don.
Glad to see you have lost the "lurker" status and have gained the participant status.
Here's to many more Donato posts.....and as David Hall would say: "Have fun with your coins!"
<< <i>
<< <i>You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
If A than B, or maybe C, but could be F, no,
All I got to say is Wow.
Good luck, sounds to me like you are going to sit on your sets for now and not do anything. >>
Yeah, you should see me when I shop for a car.
"The population size includes all the individuals in the identified group to be studied. This may be the number of people in a city, or the number of people who buy new cars. Often you may not know the exact population size, which is not a problem. The mathematics of probability proves that the size of the population is irrelevant, unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a city of 100,000."
People seems to confuse about the sample size VS population size.
We should not compare the sample size of First Strike to Non First Strike. If the sample size of Non First Strike is large enough (It doesn't matter if it is only 1/20 of the First Strike sample), we can trust the result and use it to compare with the First Strike statistics.
<< <i>
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
You also may want to consider doing a bulk submission. I'm assuming you have a sealed box of five sets, which is the minimum needed. I'll just say that I went with bulk because of all the hearsay, and am most pleased that I did so.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
You also may want to consider doing a bulk submission. I'm assuming you have a sealed box of five sets, which is the minimum needed. I'll just say that I went with bulk because of all the hearsay, and am most pleased that I did so. >>
How can you send a box of 25 coins in for bulk... everything I've seen on the PCGS site says 100 coin minimum. Sure, you could send your coins to a dealer and have your coins tag along with a larger order, but not everyone is comfortable with that.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>How can you send a box of 25 coins in for bulk... everything I've seen on the PCGS site says 100 coin minimum. Sure, you could send your coins to a dealer and have your coins tag along with a larger order, but not everyone is comfortable with that. >>
They made a singular exception for the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle sets. It was not well-publicized. I only learned about it via some posts on various coin forums.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>@NJCoin
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
Thanks for the kind words.
Seriously, I swear I had absolutely no intention of alleging a conspiracy, pulling chains, upsetting anyone, or getting kicked off. I know that I am fairly new, so while I try to be obsessively thorough before making decisions both large and small, I thought I might be missing something and was trying to find out what. In hindsight, and based on some of the responses I have received, that was probably naive and stupid. Please accept my sincere apologies for any offensive implications that were apparently inadvertently embedded in my questions. >>
Perhaps I misinterpreted your posts NJCoin, good luck with your decision to grade or hold.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>NJ, this is my first post as I just joined. However, I've been an avid reader lurking here for some time. I'm in the same boat with sealed boxes and decided to sit tight for the time being. With respect to your inclination to make a decision based on statistical analysis, the information needed is not available, ie the label breakdown with respect to time and submission quantities in relation to grades. Therefore, your best guess will have to do at this point in time. Otherwise, sit tight unless you're under the gun for one reason or another. >>
You are 1,000% correct, and my quest for some insight in the absence of specific published information is what has apparently annoyed some. Sitting tight is exactly what I'm doing for now, as much as it kills me to sit on a sealed box. I don't want to sell at these prices because I think they have to go higher over time, plus I really didn't buy them to flip. If I could open them and sell a few without destroying their value, and if the price were right, I probably would. As it is, if I'm wrong I guess I'll just sit on them, unopened, forever. If I'm right and prices go up, then at some point I'll have them graded and keep a few and sell the rest. If future non-ER prices are comparable to ER prices, then I'll probably go ATS. On the other hand, if lots of PCGS sets end up grading at a 40% rate going forward, then PCGS 70s will probably command a nice premium over NGC, so it might make sense to have them graded right here, since the higher value on the PCGS 70s should compensate for the lower 70 rate. This will be especially true in the case of FS eligible boxes if non-ERs end up being worth less than ERs ATS, since ER designations are no longer available ATS, even on FS eligible boxes. >>
You also may want to consider doing a bulk submission. I'm assuming you have a sealed box of five sets, which is the minimum needed. I'll just say that I went with bulk because of all the hearsay, and am most pleased that I did so. >>
I have been considering doing that from the beginning, and am even more strongly considering it now that my FS-eligible boxes cannot get an ER designation ATS. I am waiting for 2 things, one of which I will be able to see, and one of which I probably won't. The first is how bulk 70 set pricing does going forward. To date, unfortunately, the market seems to have figured out that the bulks are grading generously, since the small premium Mercanti and tombstone 70s sell for over NGC 70s doesn't even cover the extra costs of grading, and 69s carry no premium at all, even though they contain an interesting, somewhat unique label and 5 original autographs that should be worth something in the future. This makes them a little risky if you don't hit the averages, since you are guaranteed to lose $250 on every set that comes back 69 or lower. In fact, if the raw sets are worth $700, even if you get back 3 Mercanti sets graded 70 out of 5 (which might be a big stretch given the latest published pop report), your profit is only the difference between what they are worth and $1117, before shipping and other fees. I am really hoping that in the future they go up faster than sealed sets in order to justify the investment. At today's market prices it seems like you need over 70% 70s to make even a little money, and you risk losing hundreds of dollars per 5 sets if you don't come close to 66% 70s.
Put another way, based on today's values, you could probably trade one FS-eligible sealed box of 5 for something close to 2 Mercanti 70 sets and one 69 set. Does it really make sense to sacrifice 2 sealed sets in order to cover grading fees for 3 sets, and to guarantee that your grading results hit the early reported average? That seems a little steep to me, given where I think (hope) these sets are going. That's why I haven't rushed off to do it yet.
The other wild card is whether the "hearsay" holds true going forward, which will always be unknown except in hindsight. If bulk grading results are already, or begin to, trend downward, that will be great for those sitting on bulk sets already graded 70, but make it even harder not to lose money in the future if, for instance, it costs $1250 to have 5 sets graded and you can only expect to receive 1 or 2 70 sets back (depending on how high 70 set values rise). (I assume that no matter what happens to the value of 70 sets, that 69s will never be worth more than sealed box sets, based on what we have seen so far. In fact, they could even end up being worth less, making the acquisition of Mercanti 70 sets very expensive by sending them in for grading in the future, which, on the other hand, will do a lot to support the value of those already graded.)
Hindsight being 20/20, the correct move was to either go ATS when ER was still possible (maybe non-ER values will be close to ER, so that might be a decent possibility in the future), or to do exactly what you did and get Mercantis early. Unfortunately, my crystal ball sucks, which is why I did neither when I had the chance, and now my head continues to spin and I am paralyzed.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>@NJCoin
I saw offers today on BST at $700 per set which would leave you with $3500 for 5-coin box.
Not too bad - that can nearly get you 3 70s sets with no out-of-pocket expenses ... Just my 2 cents >>
This person is not interested in selling or buying sets, or even grading sets, just trying to upset the apple cart. The only problem is that he/she has no proof of any conspiracy, just trying to pull chains, get kicked off, whatever. >>
Thanks for the kind words.
Seriously, I swear I had absolutely no intention of alleging a conspiracy, pulling chains, upsetting anyone, or getting kicked off. I know that I am fairly new, so while I try to be obsessively thorough before making decisions both large and small, I thought I might be missing something and was trying to find out what. In hindsight, and based on some of the responses I have received, that was probably naive and stupid. Please accept my sincere apologies for any offensive implications that were apparently inadvertently embedded in my questions. >>
Perhaps I misinterpreted your posts NJCoin, good luck with your decision to grade or hold. >>
Thanks! You'll see going forward, I really have no axe to grind. I'm just trying to learn and figure out something that might defy explanation. Believe me, you are not the first to become annoyed by my compulsive need to figure out all the angles before parting with a few bucks. Just pity my poor wife, especially around major purchase time.
The 2 keys in FS are closing in on one to one 69 to 70.
The 2 keys in non FS are closing in on two to one 69 to 70....very close to 01/01/12 pops.
I'm sure a lot of folks following these pops will be scratching their heads.
First Strike®..............
As of 01/08/12
Non First Strike............................
<< <i>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that not all labels are graded equal... >>
FS S 70, 5383 of 10467 = 51.42%
FS S 69, 4811 of 10467 = 45.96%
FS PR 70, 5550 of 10473 = 52.99%
FS PR 69, 4641 of 10473 = 44.31%
NFS S 70, 103 of 391 = 26.34%
NFS S 69, 272 of 391 = 69.57%
NFS PR 70, 127 of 374 = 33.96%
NFS PR 69, 220 of 374 = 58.82%
Last week the percentages looked like this below, the NFS PR 70 results from 1/8/12 gained the most when compared to last week. Other than that, I don't see significant change in the comparison of result percentages from this week to last week.
<<For the 1/1/12, FS vs NFS results posted -
FS S 70 = 5167 of 9847 = 52.47%
FS S 69 = 4462 0f 9847 = 45.31%
FS RP 70 = 5288 of 9854 = 53.66%
FS RP 69 = 4319 of 9854 = 43.83%
NFS S 70 = 82 of 323 = 25.39%
NFS S 69 = 227 0f 323 = 70.28%
NFS RP 70 = 94 of 306 = 30.72%
NFS RP 69 = 190 of 306 = 62.09% >>