<< <i>I spoke to Miles and the submission requirement is a minimum of 250 sets, so that pretty much shuts out the casual collector. He said it's being done for efficiency purposes. Feel free to contact him if you wish at 949-922-0515. >>
250 SETS, or 250 COINS? 250 coins (50 sets) are steep, but not crazy, and would be consistent with limiting bulk submissions to dealers. A 250 set minimum, if true, would be crazy, since that's a 1,250 coin minimum and represents 0.25% of the entire issue. Are you sure it's sets, not coins? >>
He definitely said sets. Even if he misspoke and meant 250 coins, that would still be way out of my league. >>
Coaster -- You are 1,000% correct! I just got off the phone with Miles, and it is definitely 250 sets, which probably limits potential submitters to a small handful of dealers specializing in this type of modern. It's PCGS's show, and they can run it as they see fit.
My take on it is that limiting availability this way might actually create a premium for the label, assuming there are enough people out there who care enough about such tings to pay for it (I know that it seems there are very few here who would fit into this category). On the other hand, and I made this point to Miles (who very patiently indulged me), restricting this to only those with the ability to aggregate 250 sets might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off.
I'm sure dealers in the know, such as WC, had no trouble gathering 250 unopened pre-12/8 sets for an initial submission, but I wonder how easy it would be today for a dealer to pull that many sets together, and then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, and then bear the risk that the labels do not command a premium in the aftermarket, in which case all the coins that come back 69 are instant money losers. With so few dealers probably able or interested in getting involved with this, it will then be difficult for individuals to participate through dealers, thereby further limting the money PCGS makes off this (although that, too, could potentially increase the value of the label).
The good news, if you can call it that, is that first generation Mercantis should be available going forward (of course, there are never any guarantees) with the original 25 coin minimum.
<< <i>might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off. >>
Is there still a backlog? If so, do the bulk submissions get put in front of the regular submission? They claim 30 days for Bulk which is the slowest level (Econo is 15 to 30 days). So, the gut s/b already graded considering WC is getting the special labels any day now.
<< <i>I spoke to Miles and the submission requirement is a minimum of 250 sets, so that pretty much shuts out the casual collector. He said it's being done for efficiency purposes. Feel free to contact him if you wish at 949-922-0515. >>
250 SETS, or 250 COINS? 250 coins (50 sets) are steep, but not crazy, and would be consistent with limiting bulk submissions to dealers. A 250 set minimum, if true, would be crazy, since that's a 1,250 coin minimum and represents 0.25% of the entire issue. Are you sure it's sets, not coins? >>
He definitely said sets. Even if he misspoke and meant 250 coins, that would still be way out of my league. >>
Coaster -- You are 1,000% correct! I just got off the phone with Miles, and it is definitely 250 sets, which probably limits potential submitters to a small handful of dealers specializing in this type of modern. It's PCGS's show, and they can run it as they see fit.
My take on it is that limiting availability this way might actually create a premium for the label, assuming there are enough people out there who care enough about such tings to pay for it (I know that it seems there are very few here who would fit into this category). On the other hand, and I made this point to Miles (who very patiently indulged me), restricting this to only those with the ability to aggregate 250 sets might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off.
I'm sure dealers in the know, such as WC, had no trouble gathering 250 unopened pre-12/8 sets for an initial submission, but I wonder how easy it would be today for a dealer to pull that many sets together, and then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, and then bear the risk that the labels do not command a premium in the aftermarket, in which case all the coins that come back 69 are instant money losers. With so few dealers probably able or interested in getting involved with this, it will then be difficult for individuals to participate through dealers, thereby further limting the money PCGS makes off this (although that, too, could potentially increase the value of the label).
The good news, if you can call it that, is that first generation Mercantis should be available going forward (of course, there are never any guarantees) with the original 25 coin minimum. >>
Guess my question - and did not expect NJ to ask specifically - is why is there a minimum to get a certain label, whether it's 250 sets for Mercanti/flag or 5 sets for Mercanti/no flag? A single set is slabbed with a flag, right? Is the process any harder from one to the other? Makes no sense to me why any submission would not qualify for any desired and available label, if one were willing to pay for it.
Simple - A few years ago, dealers got upset because the common collector could get FS designations and share in the $$$$$ the dealers were getting for coins with that designation. So, PCGS took it away from the common collector and reserved it for their special friends and dealers. There was a huge outcry and PCGS determine it was in their best interest to give it back to the common member.
So, they came up with more special labels to satisfy their special friends and dealers without taking anything away from their common members in the hopes they can give the profit advantage back to those special people yet not lose membership fees from the common collector. Keep in mind, it is their business and they can do what they like. Personally, I wish they would stick to grading coins rather than producing labels that make people start to question the grade that was awared to the coin.
<< <i>Simple - A few years ago, dealers got upset because the common collector could get FS designations and share in the $$$$$ the dealers were getting for coins with that designation. So, PCGS took it away from the common collector and reserved it for their special friends and dealers. There was a huge outcry and PCGS determine it was in their best interest to give it back to the common member.
So, they came up with more special labels to satisfy their special friends and dealers without taking anything away from their common members in the hopes they can give the profit advantage back to those special people yet no lose membership fees from the common collector. Keep in mind, it is their business and they can do what they like. Personally, I wish they would stick to grading coins rather than producing labels that make people start to question the grade that was awared to the coin. >>
All this label madness may just end up confusing and frusterating newer entrants/novices to the hobby. Kind of like when a crap load of different sport card products arrived in the early 90s and eventually crashed the prices/collectiblity of newer products.
<< <i>Psst...a fellow board member told me that a dealer told him that dealers pay $150 per set. I have no idea if this is for a specific volume or not. >>
FYI.... That is bad information. Trust me the 2nd generation Mercanti labels are $200 a set >>
All I can tell you is that Miles told me it was $250 per set with a 250 set minimum. Since I would never be close to having 250 sets to submit, I cannot imagine why he would quote me a figure that was not true. If $150 or $200 represents a volume discount, I shudder to think of how much volume is required to qualify for the discount, since you need to submit 250 coins out of a total mintage for 100,000 just to be allowed to buy the label!
<< <i>might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off. >>
Is there still a backlog? If so, do the bulk submissions get put in front of the regular submission? They claim 30 days for Bulk which is the slowest level (Econo is 15 to 30 days). So, the gut s/b already graded considering WC is getting the special labels any day now. >>
When I said "backlog" I only meant that, since WC said yesterday that they were all spoken for, that I assumed they had been ordered but not yet produced/graded/shipped. I assume those who knew about this made submissions around the time WC hinted about it, and I assume that backlog is what PCGS is shipping now to the WCs of the world . Now that everyone knows about it, who has the ability to pull 250 unopened sets from inventory, or go out and acquire them, in order to make a submission? It looks to me like this is going to be a very limited offering. I wonder if it will be so limited as to stifle demand. Time will tell.
<< <i>All this label madness may just end up confusing and frusterating newer entrants/novices to the hobby. Kind of like when a crap load of different sport card products arrived in the early 90s and eventually crashed the prices/collectiblity of newer products. >>
Every time I go label crazy, I have to remind myself of what Eric Jordan says. Buy good coins and minimize entry cost risk. It's good to review the advice he gives on his thread whether you're a novice or an old-timer.
<< <i>I spoke to Miles and the submission requirement is a minimum of 250 sets, so that pretty much shuts out the casual collector. He said it's being done for efficiency purposes. Feel free to contact him if you wish at 949-922-0515. >>
250 SETS, or 250 COINS? 250 coins (50 sets) are steep, but not crazy, and would be consistent with limiting bulk submissions to dealers. A 250 set minimum, if true, would be crazy, since that's a 1,250 coin minimum and represents 0.25% of the entire issue. Are you sure it's sets, not coins? >>
He definitely said sets. Even if he misspoke and meant 250 coins, that would still be way out of my league. >>
Coaster -- You are 1,000% correct! I just got off the phone with Miles, and it is definitely 250 sets, which probably limits potential submitters to a small handful of dealers specializing in this type of modern. It's PCGS's show, and they can run it as they see fit.
My take on it is that limiting availability this way might actually create a premium for the label, assuming there are enough people out there who care enough about such tings to pay for it (I know that it seems there are very few here who would fit into this category). On the other hand, and I made this point to Miles (who very patiently indulged me), restricting this to only those with the ability to aggregate 250 sets might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off.
I'm sure dealers in the know, such as WC, had no trouble gathering 250 unopened pre-12/8 sets for an initial submission, but I wonder how easy it would be today for a dealer to pull that many sets together, and then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, and then bear the risk that the labels do not command a premium in the aftermarket, in which case all the coins that come back 69 are instant money losers. With so few dealers probably able or interested in getting involved with this, it will then be difficult for individuals to participate through dealers, thereby further limting the money PCGS makes off this (although that, too, could potentially increase the value of the label).
The good news, if you can call it that, is that first generation Mercantis should be available going forward (of course, there are never any guarantees) with the original 25 coin minimum. >>
Guess my question - and did not expect NJ to ask specifically - is why is there a minimum to get a certain label, whether it's 250 sets for Mercanti/flag or 5 sets for Mercanti/no flag? A single set is slabbed with a flag, right? Is the process any harder from one to the other? Makes no sense to me why any submission would not qualify for any desired and available label, if one were willing to pay for it. >>
I think it's because they wanted something special to offer dealers and very large submitters. Think about it, the bulk program is really meant for them, and yet PCGS lowered to bulk minimum from 100 coins to 25 for the Mercantis and tombstones, which in hindsight was really pretty extraordinary.
You are correct that there is no process reason they can't offer everything to everyone, but it also makes sense that they want to offer something special to their best customers, to give them something to sell to us, if we want it, that we cannot get any other way. I get that, and they are entitled to do anything like this that they want to try to create value for their best customers (i.e., large dealers).
I don't care one way or the other, but I really think they might have gone too far this time in creating exclusivity. If we want these, but cannot find a dealer accumulating 250 sets to send in, so that we can be a part of the submission, our only choice would be to find someone with inventory and buy from them. If these then turn out to be too difficult to find, or too expensive relative to everything else in the market (buy the coin, not the label!), we might decide we can live without them. If that turns out to be the case, then PCGS will have taken a pretty cool idea (attractive design, original signatures, etc.) and turned it into a white elephant.
Personally, I think the minimum should have been a more reasonable 50 sets, in order to satisfy the dealers' desire for something exclusive for them, but still making it easily accessible to the rest of us by making it relatively simple to find someone to do a submission for the unwashed masses. As always, time will tell. As interesting as these new labels sound, how many on this board would be willing to trade unopened boxes in order to acquire the new label at a large premium (e.g., trade an unopened set plus around $1,000 for second gen Mercanti 70 set), if that was the only way to get them?
<< <i>Simple - A few years ago, dealers got upset because the common collector could get FS designations and share in the $$$$$ the dealers were getting for coins with that designation. So, PCGS took it away from the common collector and reserved it for their special friends and dealers. There was a huge outcry and PCGS determine it was in their best interest to give it back to the common member.
So, they came up with more special labels to satisfy their special friends and dealers without taking anything away from their common members in the hopes they can give the profit advantage back to those special people yet no lose membership fees from the common collector. Keep in mind, it is their business and they can do what they like. Personally, I wish they would stick to grading coins rather than producing labels that make people start to question the grade that was awared to the coin. >>
>>
Sheessh, 2011 was a confusing year to begin with for the novice, with "25th anniversary," "25th anniversary sets," and a multitude of coins. Now this. At what point will the collector just throw their arms up in confusion and walk away? I fear that this recent move does not benefit the collector, though it is a personal preference as far as holder aesthetics.
What's more, we are going to end up spending all of our time trying to make sure our labels match up, which is difficult since there are so many of them. So we'll have to spend more money on coins so our labels match.
I will continue doing what I have been doing, which is to buy the best coins at the cheapest possible. I will grudgingly play the FS/ER game but that is it. I can only hope that collectors do their homework.
They will discover that 100k S and P ASEs were made this year. Those are the numbers that really matter.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
All these different labels is driving me right out of coin collecting. I can not keep up with all the different labels. It was fine when it was just the numerical scale but this is crazy .
True Pink Floyd, keep your eye on the prize! It is confusing for new members as to grading options or whether to grade at all. Still, I will try to buy PCGS graded over ATS or whenever it seems a good price. I think that is the key to building a collection, knowing what to buy, when and how much. This forum provides information and expertise and it is greatly appreciated.
Might we be overthinking the whole label thing??...........The fact is only 100K sets...........2 unigue coins from the set and only 8-9 percent being graded...........What difference does a label make? (well other than FS).......if you end up with a set or 2 (or more) of 70's you still have something very collectible and surely down the road worth more than you paid.............most would be happy with that..........as always IMO............PS still would like to see the label
My photographer is out tonight, but I took a shot for ebay. A number of board members asked me for a pic of the new Mercanti Flag holder. Here it is (although the pic does not do it justice).
Ebay # 320827221615
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
That looks awesome. Any chance I can change my Mercanti for that Mercanti label? I'll probably have to pay extra but that looks too awesome to pass up, especially if my growing collection is filled with flag labels. Looks good in the bank, feel American pride
I've hated the flag labels since they came out. Definitely prefer the regular mercantis over these new hybrids...by a longshot. I still don't understand why there would possibly be this many different labels...ridiculous in my opinion.
Adds a nice splash of color but it continues with the tombstone trend. The regular gold-lettered Flag is still by and large the most aesthetically appealing of the logos IMO. Plus, I like to see the grades on the front, since that's a lot of the point of submitting!
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
This latest hybrid lacks creativity and is a poorly design label. Its the same thing except with a flag replacing the silver eagle. All that was needed to do was reduce the First Strike font on the flag label, add mercanti's signature on the front with his title, etc.
Why didn't they "flip" the label on all of the Mercanti's?
With the orientation presented you learn very little about the coin. It would seem more appropriate to me for the grade to be on the same side as the obverse and the signature on the same side as the reverse, the side of the coin Mercanti designed. Duh!
That would also be more aesthetically pleasing to me on the Mercanti's
Well I really hope they come out with ONE More change, How about now putting a set of these in the PRONG holders, and than have rotating labels on each one? Since there going with all prongs (or maybe not since there has been no official announcement) They might as well add these on now. Enjoy tom
<< <i>That looks awesome. Any chance I can change my Mercanti for that Mercanti label? I'll probably have to pay extra but that looks too awesome to pass up, especially if my growing collection is filled with flag labels. Looks good in the bank, feel American pride >>
Seems as though you can change for it as long as you have 1,250 slabs that need changing!
<< <i>Adds a nice splash of color but it continues with the tombstone trend. The regular gold-lettered Flag is still by and large the most aesthetically appealing of the logos IMO. Plus, I like to see the grades on the front, since that's a lot of the point of submitting! >>
I am with you on finding the grade on the front to be more useful, but with these, the point is apparently to feature the original autograph of the engraver rather than burying it on the back, and I guess that makes sense from both Mercanti's and PCGS's point of view.
Assuming many are correct...and we are witnessing collector "fatique" or disinterest by younger people...I point to stunts like this by our host as a primary contributing factor.
How about laying off the various and assundry marketing scams (just to make few extra $) for a few minutes and just grade the damn coins for a change!
Now that I've seen it, I have to concede that the people running the show at PCGS are brilliant. Regardless of whether or not you like the design, this label addresses one of the biggest concerns of label collectors on the forum -- namely, that the Mercantis and tombstones cannot be added to the collections of label collectors who want their labels to match (e.g., flags, plain). The beauty of this label is that it can be used for any coin Mercanti had a hand in designing, and collectors will be able to build a collection of slabs of originally signed Mercanti coins. If they haven't already thought of this, I'd like to talk to someone at PCGS about compensating me for this idea , but I'm sure that explains replacing the image of the silver eagle with the generic flag.
As I've stated before, to me the biggest stumbling block is the artificial exclusivity created by the high minimum. Now that I've seen it, if I am right and they use it for other coins designed by Mercanti, I wouldn't be shocked if future minimums were 250 coins, rather than 1,250. If not, I still think that these will be soooo exclusive that a market for them may never have a chance to develop.
<< <i>Adds a nice splash of color but it continues with the tombstone trend. The regular gold-lettered Flag is still by and large the most aesthetically appealing of the logos IMO. Plus, I like to see the grades on the front, since that's a lot of the point of submitting! >>
And here I was worried it was going to be something special. The original flag label blows this thing away. Kind of like mixing two great looking pure breed dogs together and ending up getting an ugly mutt, IMOP.
It will be interesting to see if the ratio of 70 coins increase for these labels compared to the common member First Strike submittals. There has already been talk about the high numbers of 70 grades for the signature and tombstone labels and how the ratio dropped for the common member flag labels. Now, if the ratio increases again, it will not look good for PCGS' grading reputation I hate to say. I have always championed PCGS but this proves out, it may not be good.
With that said, I hope you do well with them WC.
On a side note, are these eligible to be cracked out and put in the regular flag label?
<< <i>My photographer is out tonight, but I took a shot for ebay. A number of board members asked me for a pic of the new Mercanti Flag holder. Here it is (although the pic does not do it justice).
Ebay # 320827221615
Wondercoin >>
I actually like this label better than the original Mercanti and Tombstone but still favor original Flags and regular plain non FS labels the most and I completely agree with this by RichR:
Assuming many are correct...and we are witnessing collector "fatique" or disinterest by younger people...I point to stunts like this by our host as a primary contributing factor.
How about laying off the various and assundry marketing scams (just to make few extra $) for a few minutes and just grade the damn coins for a change!
I really don't think we are in comic book stages here. To compare baseball cards and comic books to silver coins is a huge stretch. These will be bought. Now the market in the end will determine if the special labels carry a premium or not. I bought all of the original mercanti's. Will this make those more desired? I'm sure I don't know the answer. In the end I think the newbies will buy what they like and only time will tell what that is. I don't think the attention is a bad thing at all and the most popular coin will continue to become more popular.
Currently working with nurmaler. Older transactions....circa 2011 BST transactions Gecko109, Segoja, lpinion, Agblox, oldgumballmachineswanted,pragmaticgoat, CharlieC, onlyroosies, timrutnat, ShinyThingsInPM under login lightcycler
<<It's not just collector fatigue in my opinion, the proliferation of labels related to the 25th has created confusion and dilution of the product. >>
Amen brother! And I might go so far as to add that the multitude of so subtly different offerings might have actually harmed overall appreciation so far (and yes, I know it's only been a couple of months)...
But, honestly, how finely can you keep dividing what was already a pretty small (relatively speaking) issue size?!?
<< <i>Adds a nice splash of color but it continues with the tombstone trend. The regular gold-lettered Flag is still by and large the most aesthetically appealing of the logos IMO. Plus, I like to see the grades on the front, since that's a lot of the point of submitting! >>
And here I was worried it was going to be something special. The original flag label blows this thing away. Kind of like mixing two great looking pure breed dogs together and ending up getting an ugly mutt, IMOP.
It will be interesting to see if the ratio of 70 coins increase for these labels compared to the common member First Strike submittals. There has already been talk about the high numbers of 70 grades for the signature and tombstone labels and how the ratio dropped for the common member flag labels. Now, if the ratio increases again, it will not look good for PCGS' grading reputation I hate to say. I have always championed PCGS but this proves out, it may not be good.
With that said, I hope you do well with them WC.
On a side note, are these eligible to be cracked out and put in the regular flag label? >>
Given how relatively few of these I think will be produced, due to the high minimums, I doubt there will be enough to appreciably move the needle on the grading ratios one way or the other, although if these all hit at once I guess they could move one week's numbers. As always, time will tell.
Many thanks to Wondercoin for giving us a look. Already having purchased a Mercanti signed set, I feel no urge to get one of these just for the substitution of the flag for eagle. But it will have it's appeal. Still, the proliferation of all graded sets may become a concern, not just the number of labels - short term anyway.
Please don't worry about this ASE debacle hurting the coin collecting hobby...........as these are "NOT" coins and most coin collectors couldn't care less!!!
<< <i><<It's not just collector fatigue in my opinion, the proliferation of labels related to the 25th has created confusion and dilution of the product. >>
Amen brother! And I might go so far as to add that the multitude of so subtly different offerings might have actually harmed overall appreciation so far (and yes, I know it's only been a couple of months)...
But, honestly, how finely can you keep dividing what was already a pretty small (relatively speaking) issue size?!? >>
<< <i>Given how relatively few of these I think will be produced, due to the high minimums, I doubt there will be enough to appreciably move the needle on the grading ratios one way or the other, although if these all hit at once I guess they could move one week's numbers. As always, time will tell. >>
What I am talking about is if 99% of them end up with the 70 grade when it has been demostrated the grading ratio of the common member flad labels decreased from the original dealer signature/tombstone grades. That was the asimption here anyway. I am not sure it was backed by any facts.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I spoke to Miles and the submission requirement is a minimum of 250 sets, so that pretty much shuts out the casual collector. He said it's being done for efficiency purposes. Feel free to contact him if you wish at 949-922-0515. >>
250 SETS, or 250 COINS? 250 coins (50 sets) are steep, but not crazy, and would be consistent with limiting bulk submissions to dealers. A 250 set minimum, if true, would be crazy, since that's a 1,250 coin minimum and represents 0.25% of the entire issue. Are you sure it's sets, not coins? >>
He definitely said sets. Even if he misspoke and meant 250 coins, that would still be way out of my league. >>
Coaster -- You are 1,000% correct! I just got off the phone with Miles, and it is definitely 250 sets, which probably limits potential submitters to a small handful of dealers specializing in this type of modern. It's PCGS's show, and they can run it as they see fit.
My take on it is that limiting availability this way might actually create a premium for the label, assuming there are enough people out there who care enough about such tings to pay for it (I know that it seems there are very few here who would fit into this category). On the other hand, and I made this point to Miles (who very patiently indulged me), restricting this to only those with the ability to aggregate 250 sets might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off.
I'm sure dealers in the know, such as WC, had no trouble gathering 250 unopened pre-12/8 sets for an initial submission, but I wonder how easy it would be today for a dealer to pull that many sets together, and then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, and then bear the risk that the labels do not command a premium in the aftermarket, in which case all the coins that come back 69 are instant money losers. With so few dealers probably able or interested in getting involved with this, it will then be difficult for individuals to participate through dealers, thereby further limting the money PCGS makes off this (although that, too, could potentially increase the value of the label).
The good news, if you can call it that, is that first generation Mercantis should be available going forward (of course, there are never any guarantees) with the original 25 coin minimum.
<< <i>[ then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, >>
Where did this number come from?
$62,500 divided by 250 (min) sets = $250 per set for grading for a bulk submission of this size.
<< <i>
<< <i>[ then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, >>
Where did this number come from?
$62,500 divided by 250 (min) sets = $250 per set for grading for a bulk submission of this size. >>
Yup. $250 per set, the same as the first gen Mercanti. Since it has a 250 set minimum, I didn't ask about volume discounts.
<< <i>might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off. >>
Is there still a backlog? If so, do the bulk submissions get put in front of the regular submission? They claim 30 days for Bulk which is the slowest level (Econo is 15 to 30 days). So, the gut s/b already graded considering WC is getting the special labels any day now.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I spoke to Miles and the submission requirement is a minimum of 250 sets, so that pretty much shuts out the casual collector. He said it's being done for efficiency purposes. Feel free to contact him if you wish at 949-922-0515. >>
250 SETS, or 250 COINS? 250 coins (50 sets) are steep, but not crazy, and would be consistent with limiting bulk submissions to dealers. A 250 set minimum, if true, would be crazy, since that's a 1,250 coin minimum and represents 0.25% of the entire issue. Are you sure it's sets, not coins? >>
He definitely said sets. Even if he misspoke and meant 250 coins, that would still be way out of my league. >>
Coaster -- You are 1,000% correct! I just got off the phone with Miles, and it is definitely 250 sets, which probably limits potential submitters to a small handful of dealers specializing in this type of modern. It's PCGS's show, and they can run it as they see fit.
My take on it is that limiting availability this way might actually create a premium for the label, assuming there are enough people out there who care enough about such tings to pay for it (I know that it seems there are very few here who would fit into this category). On the other hand, and I made this point to Miles (who very patiently indulged me), restricting this to only those with the ability to aggregate 250 sets might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off.
I'm sure dealers in the know, such as WC, had no trouble gathering 250 unopened pre-12/8 sets for an initial submission, but I wonder how easy it would be today for a dealer to pull that many sets together, and then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, and then bear the risk that the labels do not command a premium in the aftermarket, in which case all the coins that come back 69 are instant money losers. With so few dealers probably able or interested in getting involved with this, it will then be difficult for individuals to participate through dealers, thereby further limting the money PCGS makes off this (although that, too, could potentially increase the value of the label).
The good news, if you can call it that, is that first generation Mercantis should be available going forward (of course, there are never any guarantees) with the original 25 coin minimum. >>
Guess my question - and did not expect NJ to ask specifically - is why is there a minimum to get a certain label, whether it's 250 sets for Mercanti/flag or 5 sets for Mercanti/no flag? A single set is slabbed with a flag, right? Is the process any harder from one to the other? Makes no sense to me why any submission would not qualify for any desired and available label, if one were willing to pay for it.
So, they came up with more special labels to satisfy their special friends and dealers without taking anything away from their common members in the hopes they can give the profit advantage back to those special people yet not lose membership fees from the common collector. Keep in mind, it is their business and they can do what they like. Personally, I wish they would stick to grading coins rather than producing labels that make people start to question the grade that was awared to the coin.
<< <i>Simple - A few years ago, dealers got upset because the common collector could get FS designations and share in the $$$$$ the dealers were getting for coins with that designation. So, PCGS took it away from the common collector and reserved it for their special friends and dealers. There was a huge outcry and PCGS determine it was in their best interest to give it back to the common member.
So, they came up with more special labels to satisfy their special friends and dealers without taking anything away from their common members in the hopes they can give the profit advantage back to those special people yet no lose membership fees from the common collector. Keep in mind, it is their business and they can do what they like. Personally, I wish they would stick to grading coins rather than producing labels that make people start to question the grade that was awared to the coin. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>[ then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, >>
Where did this number come from?
$62,500 divided by 250 (min) sets = $250 per set for grading for a bulk submission of this size. >>
Yup. $250 per set, the same as the first gen Mercanti. Since it has a 250 set minimum, I didn't ask about volume discounts.
Psst...a fellow board member told me that a dealer told him that dealers pay $150 per set. I have no idea if this is for a specific volume or not.
Coinfame,Kaelasdad,Type2,UNLVino,MICHAELDIXON
Justacommeman,tydye,78saen,123cents,blue62vette,Segoja,Nibanny
<< <i>
<< <i>Psst...a fellow board member told me that a dealer told him that dealers pay $150 per set. I have no idea if this is for a specific volume or not. >>
FYI.... That is bad information. Trust me the 2nd generation Mercanti labels are $200 a set >>
All I can tell you is that Miles told me it was $250 per set with a 250 set minimum. Since I would never be close to having 250 sets to submit, I cannot imagine why he would quote me a figure that was not true. If $150 or $200 represents a volume discount, I shudder to think of how much volume is required to qualify for the discount, since you need to submit 250 coins out of a total mintage for 100,000 just to be allowed to buy the label!
<< <i>
<< <i>might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off. >>
Is there still a backlog? If so, do the bulk submissions get put in front of the regular submission? They claim 30 days for Bulk which is the slowest level (Econo is 15 to 30 days). So, the gut s/b already graded considering WC is getting the special labels any day now. >>
When I said "backlog" I only meant that, since WC said yesterday that they were all spoken for, that I assumed they had been ordered but not yet produced/graded/shipped. I assume those who knew about this made submissions around the time WC hinted about it, and I assume that backlog is what PCGS is shipping now to the WCs of the world . Now that everyone knows about it, who has the ability to pull 250 unopened sets from inventory, or go out and acquire them, in order to make a submission? It looks to me like this is going to be a very limited offering. I wonder if it will be so limited as to stifle demand. Time will tell.
<< <i>All this label madness may just end up confusing and frusterating newer entrants/novices to the hobby. Kind of like when a crap load of different sport card products arrived in the early 90s and eventually crashed the prices/collectiblity of newer products. >>
Every time I go label crazy, I have to remind myself of what Eric Jordan says. Buy good coins and minimize entry cost risk. It's good to review the advice he gives on his thread whether you're a novice or an old-timer.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I spoke to Miles and the submission requirement is a minimum of 250 sets, so that pretty much shuts out the casual collector. He said it's being done for efficiency purposes. Feel free to contact him if you wish at 949-922-0515. >>
250 SETS, or 250 COINS? 250 coins (50 sets) are steep, but not crazy, and would be consistent with limiting bulk submissions to dealers. A 250 set minimum, if true, would be crazy, since that's a 1,250 coin minimum and represents 0.25% of the entire issue. Are you sure it's sets, not coins? >>
He definitely said sets. Even if he misspoke and meant 250 coins, that would still be way out of my league. >>
Coaster -- You are 1,000% correct! I just got off the phone with Miles, and it is definitely 250 sets, which probably limits potential submitters to a small handful of dealers specializing in this type of modern. It's PCGS's show, and they can run it as they see fit.
My take on it is that limiting availability this way might actually create a premium for the label, assuming there are enough people out there who care enough about such tings to pay for it (I know that it seems there are very few here who would fit into this category). On the other hand, and I made this point to Miles (who very patiently indulged me), restricting this to only those with the ability to aggregate 250 sets might very well severely limit the money PCGS can make from this once the initial backlog is worked off.
I'm sure dealers in the know, such as WC, had no trouble gathering 250 unopened pre-12/8 sets for an initial submission, but I wonder how easy it would be today for a dealer to pull that many sets together, and then cut a check for $62,500 for grading, and then bear the risk that the labels do not command a premium in the aftermarket, in which case all the coins that come back 69 are instant money losers. With so few dealers probably able or interested in getting involved with this, it will then be difficult for individuals to participate through dealers, thereby further limting the money PCGS makes off this (although that, too, could potentially increase the value of the label).
The good news, if you can call it that, is that first generation Mercantis should be available going forward (of course, there are never any guarantees) with the original 25 coin minimum. >>
Guess my question - and did not expect NJ to ask specifically - is why is there a minimum to get a certain label, whether it's 250 sets for Mercanti/flag or 5 sets for Mercanti/no flag? A single set is slabbed with a flag, right? Is the process any harder from one to the other? Makes no sense to me why any submission would not qualify for any desired and available label, if one were willing to pay for it. >>
I think it's because they wanted something special to offer dealers and very large submitters. Think about it, the bulk program is really meant for them, and yet PCGS lowered to bulk minimum from 100 coins to 25 for the Mercantis and tombstones, which in hindsight was really pretty extraordinary.
You are correct that there is no process reason they can't offer everything to everyone, but it also makes sense that they want to offer something special to their best customers, to give them something to sell to us, if we want it, that we cannot get any other way. I get that, and they are entitled to do anything like this that they want to try to create value for their best customers (i.e., large dealers).
I don't care one way or the other, but I really think they might have gone too far this time in creating exclusivity. If we want these, but cannot find a dealer accumulating 250 sets to send in, so that we can be a part of the submission, our only choice would be to find someone with inventory and buy from them. If these then turn out to be too difficult to find, or too expensive relative to everything else in the market (buy the coin, not the label!), we might decide we can live without them. If that turns out to be the case, then PCGS will have taken a pretty cool idea (attractive design, original signatures, etc.) and turned it into a white elephant.
Personally, I think the minimum should have been a more reasonable 50 sets, in order to satisfy the dealers' desire for something exclusive for them, but still making it easily accessible to the rest of us by making it relatively simple to find someone to do a submission for the unwashed masses. As always, time will tell. As interesting as these new labels sound, how many on this board would be willing to trade unopened boxes in order to acquire the new label at a large premium (e.g., trade an unopened set plus around $1,000 for second gen Mercanti 70 set), if that was the only way to get them?
<< <i>
<< <i>Simple - A few years ago, dealers got upset because the common collector could get FS designations and share in the $$$$$ the dealers were getting for coins with that designation. So, PCGS took it away from the common collector and reserved it for their special friends and dealers. There was a huge outcry and PCGS determine it was in their best interest to give it back to the common member.
So, they came up with more special labels to satisfy their special friends and dealers without taking anything away from their common members in the hopes they can give the profit advantage back to those special people yet no lose membership fees from the common collector. Keep in mind, it is their business and they can do what they like. Personally, I wish they would stick to grading coins rather than producing labels that make people start to question the grade that was awared to the coin. >>
Sheessh, 2011 was a confusing year to begin with for the novice, with "25th anniversary," "25th anniversary sets," and a multitude of coins. Now this. At what point will the collector just throw their arms up in confusion and walk away? I fear that this recent move does not benefit the collector, though it is a personal preference as far as holder aesthetics.
What's more, we are going to end up spending all of our time trying to make sure our labels match up, which is difficult since there are so many of them. So we'll have to spend more money on coins so our labels match.
I will continue doing what I have been doing, which is to buy the best coins at the cheapest possible. I will grudgingly play the FS/ER game but that is it. I can only hope that collectors do their homework.
They will discover that 100k S and P ASEs were made this year. Those are the numbers that really matter.
Ebay # 320827221615
Wondercoin
Yuck!!!!!!
Definitely prefer the regular mercantis over these new hybrids...by a longshot.
I still don't understand why there would possibly be this many different labels...ridiculous in my opinion.
Wondercoin
With the orientation presented you learn very little about the coin. It would seem more appropriate to me for the grade to be on the same side as the obverse and the signature on the same side as the reverse, the side of the coin Mercanti designed. Duh!
That would also be more aesthetically pleasing to me on the Mercanti's
bumanchu
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I used to be famous now I just collect coins.
Link to My Registry Set.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-specialty-sets/washington-quarters-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-1932-1964/publishedset/78469
Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and Thanks to Those who teach us what to search For.
Coinfame,Kaelasdad,Type2,UNLVino,MICHAELDIXON
Justacommeman,tydye,78saen,123cents,blue62vette,Segoja,Nibanny
<< <i>That looks awesome. Any chance I can change my Mercanti for that Mercanti label? I'll probably have to pay extra but that looks too awesome to pass up, especially if my growing collection is filled with flag labels. Looks good in the bank, feel American pride
Seems as though you can change for it as long as you have 1,250 slabs that need changing!
<< <i>Adds a nice splash of color but it continues with the tombstone trend. The regular gold-lettered Flag is still by and large the most aesthetically appealing of the logos IMO. Plus, I like to see the grades on the front, since that's a lot of the point of submitting! >>
I am with you on finding the grade on the front to be more useful, but with these, the point is apparently to feature the original autograph of the engraver rather than burying it on the back, and I guess that makes sense from both Mercanti's and PCGS's point of view.
How about laying off the various and assundry marketing scams (just to make few extra $) for a few minutes and just grade the damn coins for a change!
As I've stated before, to me the biggest stumbling block is the artificial exclusivity created by the high minimum. Now that I've seen it, if I am right and they use it for other coins designed by Mercanti, I wouldn't be shocked if future minimums were 250 coins, rather than 1,250. If not, I still think that these will be soooo exclusive that a market for them may never have a chance to develop.
<< <i>Adds a nice splash of color but it continues with the tombstone trend. The regular gold-lettered Flag is still by and large the most aesthetically appealing of the logos IMO. Plus, I like to see the grades on the front, since that's a lot of the point of submitting! >>
And here I was worried it was going to be something special. The original flag label blows this thing away. Kind of like mixing two great looking pure breed dogs together and ending up getting an ugly mutt, IMOP.
It will be interesting to see if the ratio of 70 coins increase for these labels compared to the common member First Strike submittals. There has already been talk about the high numbers of 70 grades for the signature and tombstone labels and how the ratio dropped for the common member flag labels. Now, if the ratio increases again, it will not look good for PCGS' grading reputation I hate to say. I have always championed PCGS but this proves out, it may not be good.
With that said, I hope you do well with them WC.
On a side note, are these eligible to be cracked out and put in the regular flag label?
<< <i>illini420.........I like those Labels better....no distraction at all. >>
I'm with you.... Keep it simple and focus should be on the coin...
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
<< <i>My photographer is out tonight, but I took a shot for ebay. A number of board members asked me for a pic of the new Mercanti Flag holder. Here it is (although the pic does not do it justice).
Ebay # 320827221615
Wondercoin >>
I actually like this label better than the original Mercanti and Tombstone but still favor original Flags and regular plain non FS labels the most and I completely agree with this by RichR:
Assuming many are correct...and we are witnessing collector "fatique" or disinterest by younger people...I point to stunts like this by our host as a primary contributing factor.
How about laying off the various and assundry marketing scams (just to make few extra $) for a few minutes and just grade the damn coins for a change!
Amen brother! And I might go so far as to add that the multitude of so subtly different offerings might have actually harmed overall appreciation so far (and yes, I know it's only been a couple of months)...
But, honestly, how finely can you keep dividing what was already a pretty small (relatively speaking) issue size?!?
<< <i>
<< <i>Adds a nice splash of color but it continues with the tombstone trend. The regular gold-lettered Flag is still by and large the most aesthetically appealing of the logos IMO. Plus, I like to see the grades on the front, since that's a lot of the point of submitting! >>
And here I was worried it was going to be something special. The original flag label blows this thing away. Kind of like mixing two great looking pure breed dogs together and ending up getting an ugly mutt, IMOP.
It will be interesting to see if the ratio of 70 coins increase for these labels compared to the common member First Strike submittals. There has already been talk about the high numbers of 70 grades for the signature and tombstone labels and how the ratio dropped for the common member flag labels. Now, if the ratio increases again, it will not look good for PCGS' grading reputation I hate to say. I have always championed PCGS but this proves out, it may not be good.
With that said, I hope you do well with them WC.
On a side note, are these eligible to be cracked out and put in the regular flag label?
Given how relatively few of these I think will be produced, due to the high minimums, I doubt there will be enough to appreciably move the needle on the grading ratios one way or the other, although if these all hit at once I guess they could move one week's numbers. As always, time will tell.
I agree and will myself not be buying any of them.
They are just too expensive and too many of them.
I long for the good old days where I would buy multiples of the 69's and 70's but now will buy no more of any of them because of there being
too many to choose from.
It has just become a greed issue and I want no part of it.
<< <i>I'm going to wait for the 360 degree slab with battery operated motor which rotates the coin. (You know, like a store display
How about a "glow in the dark" slab? Now, that would be enlightening!
+4
Please don't worry about this ASE debacle hurting the coin collecting hobby...........as these are "NOT" coins and most coin collectors couldn't care less!!!
And who or what is "Mercanti"????
<< <i><<It's not just collector fatigue in my opinion, the proliferation of labels related to the 25th has created confusion and dilution of the product. >>
Amen brother! And I might go so far as to add that the multitude of so subtly different offerings might have actually harmed overall appreciation so far (and yes, I know it's only been a couple of months)...
But, honestly, how finely can you keep dividing what was already a pretty small (relatively speaking) issue size?!? >>
I agree that pricing was negatively impacted.
<< <i>Given how relatively few of these I think will be produced, due to the high minimums, I doubt there will be enough to appreciably move the needle on the grading ratios one way or the other, although if these all hit at once I guess they could move one week's numbers. As always, time will tell. >>
What I am talking about is if 99% of them end up with the 70 grade when it has been demostrated the grading ratio of the common member flad labels decreased from the original dealer signature/tombstone grades. That was the asimption here anyway. I am not sure it was backed by any facts.