<< <i>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! >>
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 thought Dimeman was gonna post positive stuff in 2012!
Well guys Im far from being a graphic designer but this is how I actually envisioned the label combining the best of everything. Its far from a professional job but its just my take on what i wouldve like to see on this label. Perhaps a little corwded but its not too bad. Opinions welcomed
<< <i>Well guys Im far from being a graphic designer but this is how I actually envisioned the label combining the best of everything. Its far from a professional job but its just my take on what i wouldve like to see on this label. Perhaps a little corwded but its not too bad. Opinions welcomed >>
How about substituting that boring flag with this...
<< <i>Well guys Im far from being a graphic designer but this is how I actually envisioned the label combining the best of everything. Its far from a professional job but its just my take on what i wouldve like to see on this label. Perhaps a little corwded but its not too bad. Opinions welcomed
>>
Great, now we are going to have a 5th label!! I still like the original flag for a colorful label but your design is great (I always thought the whole signature thingy was goofy). That design is more what I envisioned when they said they were coming out with a flag signature label. Quick, copyright it so it can't be used!
Nothing beats the plain jane this is the grade because we are in the business of grading coins label. No gimmics or smoke and mirrors.
Great, now we are going to have a 5th label!! I still like the original flag for a colorful label but your design is great (I always thought the whole signature thingy was goofy). That design is more what I envisioned when they said they were coming out with a flag signature label. Quick, copyright it so it can't be used!
Nothing beats the plain jane this is the grade because we are in the business of grading coins label. No gimmics or smoke and mirrors. >>
A bit late for a copyright...but it would be nice if PCGS would consider it in the future and provide me some sort of incentive for the design. One can only wish right????
Truthfully this type of label is what I actually envisioned for the 2nd gen Mercanti Labels. Hey PCGS...its not too late to bring this label into the market for those that want it.
How about making a label that changes as you turn the slab? You could have the First Strike flag label when looking at the slab from the left, which turns into a Mercanti signature when viewed from the right.
<< <i>Well guys Im far from being a graphic designer but this is how I actually envisioned the label combining the best of everything. Its far from a professional job but its just my take on what i wouldve like to see on this label. Perhaps a little corwded but its not too bad. Opinions welcomed
>>
This is what i thought it would look like at first as well. This is
rodzm, I was also imagining PCGS would go with something more like your photoshopped example.
PCGS 70 sets are still selling for $1375 on the bottom end. I've seen these listed for $1700 and up. Will a $300 premium hold over time? Which will see the biggest % gains over time?
For $300 you can buy a graded 2011-S in PCGS 69 and still have beer money left over.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
<< <i>Rodzm: Wasn't one negative comment about the insert enough in an hour time span? PCGS employs talented graphic designers.
Wondercoin >>
OK, I understand pcgs hires professional graphic designers, but I am a professional graphic designer and I think aesthetically, these are exactly the same as the first ones...with a signature. Putting a little flag on the label isn't exactly creative in my opinion. I mean, I really like the plain, mercanti labels, so I'm not bashing pcgs here or their designers. I just don't understand what the point of creating all these, basically identical, different labels is. It certainly isn't a graphic design thing I'll tell you that. And just because pcgs hires professional graphic designers doesn't mean that everyone needs to like the labels.
JMO. And honestly, good for pcgs if they can keep stirring up interest in these...I personally think that is a GOOD thing BUt I'm just going to stick with the good ol' original mercantis for now.
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!
To each their own, certainly. But the only problem I've found with some of what I collect is not that the coins are classified by "special labels", or grading limited to dealers/individuals because of their submision volumn, or even the limitation of only buying a handful because of limited production.
Rather, the true rarity of some pieces (because of the number of surviving pieces, especially in higher grades) and the number of collectors that desire that/those pieces.
Pink Floyd: With all due respect, you are comparing "apples and oranges". There is not a $300 difference on the two different Mercanti sets best I know.
Dealers are PAYING $1,350 and up right now for Mercanti signed sets. Dealers are selling the Mercanti signed sets for as much as $2,499 (with success I am informed) right now.
You are comparing a dealer buy price against a dealer sell price to assert the $300 difference. Actually, in my case, the difference currently is between roughly $100-$150/set (give or take) depending upon the deal. And, to some extent perhaps that is because I am asking slightly more money for my "Mercanti #1's" than the lowest price you see them selling for on ebay.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
They add a flag to the mercanti set, how original... I think that my sets will remain ungraded until the dust settles. I have neither the time, nor the desire to play label roulette.
<< <i>Pink Floyd: With all due respect, you are comparing "apples and oranges". There is not a $300 difference on the two different Mercanti sets best I know.
Dealers are PAYING $1,350 and up right now for Mercanti signed sets. Dealers are selling the Mercanti signed sets for as much as $2,499 (with success I am informed) right now.
You are comparing a dealer buy price against a dealer sell price to assert the $300 difference. Actually, in my case, the difference currently is between roughly $100-$150/set (give or take) depending upon the deal. And, to some extent perhaps that is because I am asking slightly more money for my "Mercanti #1's" than the lowest price you see them selling for on ebay.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin >>
I am comparing a low end market price (the price that anyone with some education and hunting can get) of 1st gen Mercantis against what I have seen from the dealer sell price for these new Mercanti/Flags. Can't really give the dealer sell price a "market" price yet because I have not seen any auctions go out that would really give us an idea of how much these Mercanti/Flags are really worth. $300 may be on the high end with that said.
Apples to oranges perhaps. However, I prefer not to look at these through "label goggles" and what I see are PCGS 70 coins that are all the same at the end of the day no matter how much Koolaid is thrown in the mix. I may be very wrong at the end of the day with this belief but that's the way I see it.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
<< <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. >>
Coins - I know what you meant. What I meant is that unless they all hit at once, there will be so few of them in any given week's report that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to discern their impact. For example, if 750 flags grade 50-50 in an given week, and 250 new Mercantis grade 70-30, it would move the needle from 50-50 to 55-45, and we'd never know whether it's because Mercantis grade 20% better than flags, or because 5% more flags graded 70 in a given week.
<< <i>I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
<< I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
<<You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
NJ Coin>>
Was there really that much of a demand for FS before the TPG's started using it, and did the market really want labels with signatures, flags, or both? If there's no premium to them, are people behaving irrationally in paying extra for those labels?
<< <i><< I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
<<You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
NJ Coin>>
Was there really that much of a demand for FS before the TPG's started using it, and did the market really want labels with signatures, flags, or both? If there's no premium to them, are people behaving irrationally in paying extra for those labels?
Jim
Jim >>
I totally agree with you!!!! All I'm saying is, based on the fact that very few non-FS are even out there, nobody, other than the initial submitter, is paying a premium for FS. For that matter, since Mercantis and tombstones are basically selling for the same as flags, the market is also agreeing with you, since those labels do not seem to be carrying a premium in the aftermarket even though they cost more to obtain. Think about it -- if the coins don't come back 70, they sell for the same as opened, raw sets, so the market isn't even paying a premium for the slab! The only coins presently commanding a premium are the 70s, so it's hard to argue it's the label they are paying for as opposed to the coin.
<< <i><< I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
<<You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
NJ Coin>>
Was there really that much of a demand for FS before the TPG's started using it, and did the market really want labels with signatures, flags, or both? If there's no premium to them, are people behaving irrationally in paying extra for those labels?
Jim
Jim >>
I totally agree with you!!!! All I'm saying is, based on the fact that very few non-FS are even out there, nobody, other than the initial submitter, is paying a premium for FS. For that matter, since Mercantis and tombstones are basically selling for the same as flags, the market is also agreeing with you, since those labels do not seem to be carrying a premium in the aftermarket even though they cost more to obtain. Think about it -- if the coins don't come back 70, they sell for the same as opened, raw sets, so the market isn't even paying a premium for the slab! The only coins presently commanding a premium are the 70s, so it's hard to argue it's the label they are paying for as opposed to the coin. >>
Actually, I sold just about all of my non-FS coins for more than the then-current prices of the FS flags and the Mercanti coins... in most cases the buyers told me they paid extra to have labels that matched the rest of their collection.
<< <i><< I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
<<You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
NJ Coin>>
Was there really that much of a demand for FS before the TPG's started using it, and did the market really want labels with signatures, flags, or both? If there's no premium to them, are people behaving irrationally in paying extra for those labels?
Jim
Jim >>
I totally agree with you!!!! All I'm saying is, based on the fact that very few non-FS are even out there, nobody, other than the initial submitter, is paying a premium for FS. For that matter, since Mercantis and tombstones are basically selling for the same as flags, the market is also agreeing with you, since those labels do not seem to be carrying a premium in the aftermarket even though they cost more to obtain. Think about it -- if the coins don't come back 70, they sell for the same as opened, raw sets, so the market isn't even paying a premium for the slab! The only coins presently commanding a premium are the 70s, so it's hard to argue it's the label they are paying for as opposed to the coin. >>
Actually, I sold just about all of my non-FS coins for more than the then-current prices of the FS flags and the Mercanti coins... in most cases the buyers told me they paid extra to have labels that matched the rest of their collection. >>
Did you sell any 70s? If so, the premium may have also been due to the fact that the pop reports suggest that they were much more difficult to obtain than FS 70s. If not, then your experience further confirms the general rule so far that the price the PCGS slabs are receiving in the aftermarket have not been well correlated to what they cost to obtain from PCGS, since you received a premium for the slabs that were least expensive to obtain!
With this Mint issue gradeflation based upon label type has been hypothesized and grading cost inflation has occurred because the FS labels cost more and historically have commanded a higher return and most have bought into it
Actually, I sold just about all of my non-FS coins for more than the then-current prices of the FS flags and the Mercanti coins... in most cases the buyers told me they paid extra to have labels that matched the rest of their collection. >>
Did you sell any 70s? If so, the premium may have also been due to the fact that the pop reports suggest that they were much more difficult to obtain than FS 70s. If not, then your experience further confirms the general rule so far that the price the PCGS slabs are receiving in the aftermarket have not been well correlated to what they cost to obtain from PCGS, since you received a premium for the slabs that were least expensive to obtain! >>
Sold a few Reverse proofs in PR70 as well as a few of the 2011-W proofs and uncs in 70, all of which for a decent premium over the FS (flag and non-flags). I didn't get any of the 2011 bullions or 2011-S coins in 70. Of course, my sample size is small (less than 10 coins) and my sales may have also been boosted because I was the only one selling the non-FS coins at the time... sort of had the monopoly
I Don't regret not paying for the FS labels as I don't think I would have recovered the $450 additional cost per box of 5 sets. Just didn't make any sense to me to pay that money since all 100,000 sets were sold by the Mint on the same day... and nearly all of them were shipped to the purchasers within the FS deadline anyways. I also liked being able to get my coins graded at PCGS for less than the cost of an NGC submission
That said, I do have my last group of 25th Anniversary Set being graded at NGC right now as I think I'll get a better return doing so given all of the circumstances.
Actually, I sold just about all of my non-FS coins for more than the then-current prices of the FS flags and the Mercanti coins... in most cases the buyers told me they paid extra to have labels that matched the rest of their collection. >>
Did you sell any 70s? If so, the premium may have also been due to the fact that the pop reports suggest that they were much more difficult to obtain than FS 70s. If not, then your experience further confirms the general rule so far that the price the PCGS slabs are receiving in the aftermarket have not been well correlated to what they cost to obtain from PCGS, since you received a premium for the slabs that were least expensive to obtain! >>
Sold a few Reverse proofs in PR70 as well as a few of the 2011-W proofs and uncs in 70, all of which for a decent premium over the FS (flag and non-flags). I didn't get any of the 2011 bullions or 2011-S coins in 70. Of course, my sample size is small (less than 10 coins) and my sales may have also been boosted because I was the only one selling the non-FS coins at the time... sort of had the monopoly
I Don't regret not paying for the FS labels as I don't think I would have recovered the $450 additional cost per box of 5 sets. Just didn't make any sense to me to pay that money since all 100,000 sets were sold by the Mint on the same day... and nearly all of them were shipped to the purchasers within the FS deadline anyways. I also liked being able to get my coins graded at PCGS for less than the cost of an NGC submission
That said, I do have my last group of 25th Anniversary Set being graded at NGC right now as I think I'll get a better return doing so given all of the circumstances. >>
In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium.
<< <i>In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
I follow modern coins and I can attest to the fact that the ER label commands a premium. It's not the same premium that an FS brings, but it's a premium none the less. Personally I considered going ATS with my sets but I decided it simply wasn't worth cracking the boxes at the moment so I'm still sitting on every sealed box. The reason being is that I believe these sets will command much more than today's prices IMO and I intend on either grading later or simply selling the boxes sealed. Whether I'm right or wrong I don't know yet, but IMO people with sealed cases of five are going to do extremely well near the top whenever it arrives without ever having to spend a nickel on grading . Without a doubt people who didn't send ATS and will do so eventually left something on the table, but in my mind anyone sending a sealed case ATS right now is missing the bigger picture.
<< <i> In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
Fair question. Of course, I wouldn't mind having ER on the labels at NGC since they cost nothing extra. I initially thought I'd send my last sealed box (which was received well before the FS deadline) to PCGS for another non-FS submission. A submission to NGC wasn't in my plans so I paid no attention to the ER deadline. However, the various recent threads regarding the apparent discrepencies in bulk vs. non-bulk grading of these sets and in the FS and non-FS submissions made me a little uncomfortable with sending another box to PCGS. So, although the ER deadline had come and gone, I figured I'd probably come out ahead in sending them to NGC vs. PCGS even though the NGC 70 sets sell for less. I really don't think the value difference between ER and non-ER sets will be significant enough to make me regret the submission.
I also thought about selling the sealed box as-is since it did qualify for FS. But the prices I was offered just were not enough and I am confident I'll do much better in getting them graded myself, even if they don't have the best labels on the holders.
<< <i>In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
I follow modern coins and I can attest to the fact that the ER label commands a premium. It's not the same premium that an FS brings, but it's a premium none the less. Personally I considered going ATS with my sets but I decided it simply wasn't worth cracking the boxes at the moment so I'm still sitting on every sealed box. The reason being is that I believe these sets will command much more than today's prices IMO and I intend on either grading later or simply selling the boxes sealed. Whether I'm right or wrong I don't know yet, but IMO people with sealed cases of five are going to do extremely well near the top whenever it arrives without ever having to spend a nickel on grading . Without a doubt people who didn't send ATS and will do so eventually left something on the table, but in my mind anyone sending a sealed case ATS right now is missing the bigger picture. >>
Thank you very much for sharing your insight with me. If nothing else, it confirms to me that I am not the only one thinking this way! My problem is I don't want to sit on them sealed indefinitely, and I don't want to sell them now because I agree with you 1,000% that we are much closer to the low than the high for them. So, I obsess on the path not taken (sending to ATS before the deadline) because that is so much easier than figuring out what to do.
As I learn more about this, I see just how much value folks put on the ER or FS designation, and I'm just sorry I didn't clue into it sooner. Unfortunately, my common sense told me (incorrectly, as it turns out) that even though as a general rule the designations command a premium in the market (even though they are not truly "first strikes," they are a limited subset of a whole), that this time would be different because all were struck and ordered at the same time, and almost all were shipped in the first 30 days of release. That was before I realized that ATS demanded that they be in their hands, not merely shipped by the mint, in the first 30 days. I still can't believe people will place a big premium on ER in this case, but I also don't want to be the guy to test the theory by sending them a FS-eligible box just to see the sets sell for $100-$150 a piece less than ERs down the road.
I still think there is a chance I might be right, so, like you, I have held back for the time being. So many sets have already been designated ER ATS (I don't have access to their census reports, but I imagine it's over 20,000 based on the PCGS pop reports) that I wonder how much of a premium they will really carry over non-ER. Combine that with the fact that, if people really do value the designation, PCGS should garner the lion's share of all future grading of these sets, since I think the vast majority of all sealed boxes are FS-eligible, and I think it's entirely possible that the population of non-ER and non-FS sets will be significantly reduced as a result, serving to reduce or eliminate the premium for the ER or FS designation for these, since they won't be a small minority, but, rather, will be the vast majority of all graded sets.
<< <i> In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
Fair question. Of course, I wouldn't mind having ER on the labels at NGC since they cost nothing extra. I initially thought I'd send my last sealed box (which was received well before the FS deadline) to PCGS for another non-FS submission. A submission to NGC wasn't in my plans so I paid no attention to the ER deadline. However, the various recent threads regarding the apparent discrepencies in bulk vs. non-bulk grading of these sets and in the FS and non-FS submissions made me a little uncomfortable with sending another box to PCGS. So, although the ER deadline had come and gone, I figured I'd probably come out ahead in sending them to NGC vs. PCGS even though the NGC 70 sets sell for less. I really don't think the value difference between ER and non-ER sets will be significant enough to make me regret the submission.
I also thought about selling the sealed box as-is since it did qualify for FS. But the prices I was offered just were not enough and I am confident I'll do much better in getting them graded myself, even if they don't have the best labels on the holders. >>
I totally agree about not selling sealed boxes at this time. I also think you should be right about ER not being worth a large premium to non-ER, although I concede it's too soon to know for sure. It's just that if: (1) the PCGS bulks continue to grade well; and (2) they also continue to sell for a premium to ATS in the market; and (3) non-ER does end up at a significant discount to ER, then you might have left money on the table by going ATS rather than having PCGS grade them with tombstones or first gen Mercantis, albeit while paying a lot less in grading fees.
The thought of spending $1,250 to grade a box of coins that originally cost $1,500 bothers me on several levels, but if that's the way to maximize their value going forward, then there's no use fighting City Hall. I realize that the biggest bang for the buck so far was ER ATS, but now that that ship has sailed, the only way ATS makes sense now that they won't do ER while PCGS continues to do FS will be if the market doesn't assign a big premium to those designations. For what it's worth, I really hope you are right about the ER designation not being worth much of a premium. I don't think the FS one will be, because I don't think we'll ever see significant numbers of non-FS slabs.
I don't think it will matter much. There have been times that non ER have a premium because of low pops. Stupid game but you just never know. Market those Brown labels!!!!!
Currently working with nurmaler. Older transactions....circa 2011 BST transactions Gecko109, Segoja, lpinion, Agblox, oldgumballmachineswanted,pragmaticgoat, CharlieC, onlyroosies, timrutnat, ShinyThingsInPM under login lightcycler
<< <i>Sold a few Reverse proofs in PR70 as well as a few of the 2011-W proofs and uncs in 70, all of which for a decent premium over the FS (flag and non-flags). I didn't get any of the 2011 bullions or 2011-S coins in 70. Of course, my sample size is small (less than 10 coins) and my sales may have also been boosted because I was the only one selling the non-FS coins at the time... sort of had the monopoly >>
<< <i> In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
Fair question. Of course, I wouldn't mind having ER on the labels at NGC since they cost nothing extra. I initially thought I'd send my last sealed box (which was received well before the FS deadline) to PCGS for another non-FS submission. A submission to NGC wasn't in my plans so I paid no attention to the ER deadline. However, the various recent threads regarding the apparent discrepencies in bulk vs. non-bulk grading of these sets and in the FS and non-FS submissions made me a little uncomfortable with sending another box to PCGS. So, although the ER deadline had come and gone, I figured I'd probably come out ahead in sending them to NGC vs. PCGS even though the NGC 70 sets sell for less. I really don't think the value difference between ER and non-ER sets will be significant enough to make me regret the submission.
I also thought about selling the sealed box as-is since it did qualify for FS. But the prices I was offered just were not enough and I am confident I'll do much better in getting them graded myself, even if they don't have the best labels on the holders. >>
I totally agree about not selling sealed boxes at this time. I also think you should be right about ER not being worth a large premium to non-ER, although I concede it's too soon to know for sure. It's just that if: (1) the PCGS bulks continue to grade well; and (2) they also continue to sell for a premium to ATS in the market; and (3) non-ER does end up at a significant discount to ER, then you might have left money on the table by going ATS rather than having PCGS grade them with tombstones or first gen Mercantis, albeit while paying a lot less in grading fees.
The thought of spending $1,250 to grade a box of coins that originally cost $1,500 bothers me on several levels, but if that's the way to maximize their value going forward, then there's no use fighting City Hall. I realize that the biggest bang for the buck so far was ER ATS, but now that that ship has sailed, the only way ATS makes sense now that they won't do ER while PCGS continues to do FS will be if the market doesn't assign a big premium to those designations. For what it's worth, I really hope you are right about the ER designation not being worth much of a premium. I don't think the FS one will be, because I don't think we'll ever see significant numbers of non-FS slabs. >>
For PCGS, it of course depends on how many 70s you get. You could probably do an analysis to determine what percentage of 70s are needed for the grading to be profitable. If you don't think you can achieve that rate, you would be better off keeping them sealed.
While I agree the PCGS first strike designation might not get you any huge premium, it has almost always(not counting the ATB bullion), garnered a premium over the cost.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>While I agree the PCGS first strike designation might not get you any huge premium, it has almost always(not counting the ATB bullion), garnered a premium over the cost. >>
Understood, but in those cases I'd bet that around 95% of the entire release was not eligible. We never had a 100,000 coin release that entirely sold out in one day, and that, for the most part, entirely shipped within the first 30 days. The extra cost here is at least $450 per box of 5, and there are not now, and may never be, enough non-FS to perform an analysis. That said, I sure don't want to be the guinea pig to save a few bucks and see what happens.
<< <i> In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
Fair question. Of course, I wouldn't mind having ER on the labels at NGC since they cost nothing extra. I initially thought I'd send my last sealed box (which was received well before the FS deadline) to PCGS for another non-FS submission. A submission to NGC wasn't in my plans so I paid no attention to the ER deadline. However, the various recent threads regarding the apparent discrepencies in bulk vs. non-bulk grading of these sets and in the FS and non-FS submissions made me a little uncomfortable with sending another box to PCGS. So, although the ER deadline had come and gone, I figured I'd probably come out ahead in sending them to NGC vs. PCGS even though the NGC 70 sets sell for less. I really don't think the value difference between ER and non-ER sets will be significant enough to make me regret the submission.
I also thought about selling the sealed box as-is since it did qualify for FS. But the prices I was offered just were not enough and I am confident I'll do much better in getting them graded myself, even if they don't have the best labels on the holders. >>
I totally agree about not selling sealed boxes at this time. I also think you should be right about ER not being worth a large premium to non-ER, although I concede it's too soon to know for sure. It's just that if: (1) the PCGS bulks continue to grade well; and (2) they also continue to sell for a premium to ATS in the market; and (3) non-ER does end up at a significant discount to ER, then you might have left money on the table by going ATS rather than having PCGS grade them with tombstones or first gen Mercantis, albeit while paying a lot less in grading fees.
The thought of spending $1,250 to grade a box of coins that originally cost $1,500 bothers me on several levels, but if that's the way to maximize their value going forward, then there's no use fighting City Hall. I realize that the biggest bang for the buck so far was ER ATS, but now that that ship has sailed, the only way ATS makes sense now that they won't do ER while PCGS continues to do FS will be if the market doesn't assign a big premium to those designations. For what it's worth, I really hope you are right about the ER designation not being worth much of a premium. I don't think the FS one will be, because I don't think we'll ever see significant numbers of non-FS slabs. >>
For PCGS, it of course depends on how many 70s you get. You could probably do an analysis to determine what percentage of 70s are needed for the grading to be profitable. If you don't think you can achieve that rate, you would be better off keeping them sealed. >>
Doing an analysis is complicated by a few things. It's easy to know how many 70s you need, but it's really impossible to make an educated guess as to how many to expect. It looks like the bulks graded generously at first, but there is no way to know, other than after grades come back, whether that will remain the case going forward, especially since the big crush is now over, and the pop reports have been trending down every week.
It's also impossible to know whether or not the flags are grading at the same rate as the bulks, although the anecdotal evidence indicates they are not. So, it looks like you would make a few bucks if you pull 3 out of 5 70s, break about even with 2.5 out of 5 70s, and lose below that. Recent reports imply that one cannot expect to pull 2.5 out of 5 70s, but that could be incorrect, depending on whether or not different labels have different grading results, and that information is not available to us. Thus, all we know for sure is that we can get FS at PCGS and cannot get ER ATS, and bulk grading at PCGS costs a lot more than regular grading ATS. Until more non-ERs hit the market and we can see whether or not they go for big discounts over ERs, there is really no good way to make an educated guess on where to send unopened boxes, if anywhere.
It's also impossible to know whether or not the flags are grading at the same rate as the bulks, although the anecdotal evidence indicates they are not. So, it looks like you would make a few bucks if you pull 3 out of 5 70s, break about even with 2.5 out of 5 70s, and lose below that. Recent reports imply that one cannot expect to pull 2.5 out of 5 70s, but that could be incorrect, depending on whether or not different labels have different grading results, and that information is not available to us. Thus, all we know for sure is that we can get FS at PCGS and cannot get ER ATS, and bulk grading at PCGS costs a lot more than regular grading ATS. Until more non-ERs hit the market and we can see whether or not they go for big discounts over ERs, there is really no good way to make an educated guess on where to send unopened boxes, if anywhere. >>
Your numbers sound about right. I got 72% 70s on my bulk submission and my sets are now worth roughly about 28% more than if I had kept them sealed.
It's also impossible to know whether or not the flags are grading at the same rate as the bulks, although the anecdotal evidence indicates they are not. So, it looks like you would make a few bucks if you pull 3 out of 5 70s, break about even with 2.5 out of 5 70s, and lose below that. Recent reports imply that one cannot expect to pull 2.5 out of 5 70s, but that could be incorrect, depending on whether or not different labels have different grading results, and that information is not available to us. Thus, all we know for sure is that we can get FS at PCGS and cannot get ER ATS, and bulk grading at PCGS costs a lot more than regular grading ATS. Until more non-ERs hit the market and we can see whether or not they go for big discounts over ERs, there is really no good way to make an educated guess on where to send unopened boxes, if anywhere. >>
Your numbers sound about right. I got 72% 70s on my bulk submission and my sets are now worth roughly about 28% more than if I had kept them sealed. >>
And if I could know with any degree of certainty, not necessarily that I would pull 72%, but merely that bulks on average would grade the same tomorrow as when you submitted yours, a decision on what to do would be very simple! The problem for me is that the pop reports imply that is not the case, although it could also mean that non-bulks are grading differently and are constituting a greater percentage of the mix as opposed to the first few weeks. It's all so confusing!
Going back to the coins in this 25th Anniversary set. I was just looking at mine all graded and i placed them in the original 25th Anniversary US Mint Box to see how they would look. I am just In all over again.
In the end all you can do is analyze the data, make a decision and in the end if its wrong hopefully you've gained valuable experience. Experience being what you get when you don't get what you want
Currently working with nurmaler. Older transactions....circa 2011 BST transactions Gecko109, Segoja, lpinion, Agblox, oldgumballmachineswanted,pragmaticgoat, CharlieC, onlyroosies, timrutnat, ShinyThingsInPM under login lightcycler
<< <i>Going back to the coins in this 25th Anniversary set. I was just looking at mine all graded and i placed them in the original 25th Anniversary US Mint Box to see how they would look. I am just In all over again. >>
No go for me. I've always looked at the signitures as a distraction. The Gerald Ford '86 gold eagles are kind of cool...but I can't see any of these 100 years from now having any more than a tiny following of devout collectors.
<< <i>No go for me. I've always looked at the signitures as a distraction. The Gerald Ford '86 gold eagles are kind of cool...but I can't see any of these 100 years from now having any more than a tiny following of devout collectors. >>
Most is preference, for me I like almost anything with black borders.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>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
<< <i>No go for me. I've always looked at the signitures as a distraction. The Gerald Ford '86 gold eagles are kind of cool...but I can't see any of these 100 years from now having any more than a tiny following of devout collectors. >>
Most is preference, for me I like almost anything with black borders. >>
Thats why I really like the regular mercantis. Im a sucker for black and white
Comments
<< <i>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><< This is just so stupid... >>
+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 thought Dimeman was gonna post positive stuff in 2012!
however, i do like the label
but i still think the multitiude of labels for this set is NUTS x 10.
BTW rodzm...quit your day job!!! i really liked your impression!
<< <i>Well guys Im far from being a graphic designer but this is how I actually envisioned the label combining the best of everything. Its far from a professional job but its just my take on what i wouldve like to see on this label. Perhaps a little corwded but its not too bad. Opinions welcomed
>>
How about substituting that boring flag with this...
<< <i>Well guys Im far from being a graphic designer but this is how I actually envisioned the label combining the best of everything. Its far from a professional job but its just my take on what i wouldve like to see on this label. Perhaps a little corwded but its not too bad. Opinions welcomed
Great, now we are going to have a 5th label!! I still like the original flag for a colorful label but your design is great (I always thought the whole signature thingy was goofy). That design is more what I envisioned when they said they were coming out with a flag signature label. Quick, copyright it so it can't be used!
Nothing beats the plain jane this is the grade because we are in the business of grading coins label. No gimmics or smoke and mirrors.
<< <i>
Great, now we are going to have a 5th label!! I still like the original flag for a colorful label but your design is great (I always thought the whole signature thingy was goofy). That design is more what I envisioned when they said they were coming out with a flag signature label. Quick, copyright it so it can't be used!
Nothing beats the plain jane this is the grade because we are in the business of grading coins label. No gimmics or smoke and mirrors. >>
A bit late for a copyright...but it would be nice if PCGS would consider it in the future and provide me some sort of incentive for the design. One can only wish right????
Truthfully this type of label is what I actually envisioned for the 2nd gen Mercanti Labels. Hey PCGS...its not too late to bring this label into the market for those that want it.
<< <i>Well guys Im far from being a graphic designer but this is how I actually envisioned the label combining the best of everything. Its far from a professional job but its just my take on what i wouldve like to see on this label. Perhaps a little corwded but its not too bad. Opinions welcomed
This is what i thought it would look like at first as well. This is
Coinfame,Kaelasdad,Type2,UNLVino,MICHAELDIXON
Justacommeman,tydye,78saen,123cents,blue62vette,Segoja,Nibanny
PCGS 70 sets are still selling for $1375 on the bottom end. I've seen these listed for $1700 and up. Will a $300 premium hold over time? Which will see the biggest % gains over time?
For $300 you can buy a graded 2011-S in PCGS 69 and still have beer money left over.
<< <i>Rodzm: Wasn't one negative comment about the insert enough in an hour time span? PCGS employs talented graphic designers.
Wondercoin
OK, I understand pcgs hires professional graphic designers, but I am a professional graphic designer and I think aesthetically, these are exactly the same as the first ones...with a signature.
Putting a little flag on the label isn't exactly creative in my opinion.
I mean, I really like the plain, mercanti labels, so I'm not bashing pcgs here or their designers.
I just don't understand what the point of creating all these, basically identical, different labels is. It certainly isn't a graphic design thing I'll tell you that.
And just because pcgs hires professional graphic designers doesn't mean that everyone needs to like the labels.
JMO. And honestly, good for pcgs if they can keep stirring up interest in these...I personally think that is a GOOD thing
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!
To each their own, certainly. But the only problem I've found with some of what I collect is not that the coins are classified by "special labels", or grading limited to dealers/individuals because of their submision volumn, or even the limitation of only buying a handful because of limited production.
Rather, the true rarity of some pieces (because of the number of surviving pieces, especially in higher grades) and the number of collectors that desire that/those pieces.
Dealers are PAYING $1,350 and up right now for Mercanti signed sets. Dealers are selling the Mercanti signed sets for as much as $2,499 (with success I am informed) right now.
You are comparing a dealer buy price against a dealer sell price to assert the $300 difference. Actually, in my case, the difference currently is between roughly $100-$150/set (give or take) depending upon the deal. And, to some extent perhaps that is because I am asking slightly more money for my "Mercanti #1's" than the lowest price you see them selling for on ebay.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
They add a flag to the mercanti set, how original... I think that my sets will remain ungraded until the dust settles. I have neither the time, nor the desire to play label roulette.
<< <i>Pink Floyd: With all due respect, you are comparing "apples and oranges". There is not a $300 difference on the two different Mercanti sets best I know.
Dealers are PAYING $1,350 and up right now for Mercanti signed sets. Dealers are selling the Mercanti signed sets for as much as $2,499 (with success I am informed) right now.
You are comparing a dealer buy price against a dealer sell price to assert the $300 difference. Actually, in my case, the difference currently is between roughly $100-$150/set (give or take) depending upon the deal. And, to some extent perhaps that is because I am asking slightly more money for my "Mercanti #1's" than the lowest price you see them selling for on ebay.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin >>
I am comparing a low end market price (the price that anyone with some education and hunting can get) of 1st gen Mercantis against what I have seen from the dealer sell price for these new Mercanti/Flags. Can't really give the dealer sell price a "market" price yet because I have not seen any auctions go out that would really give us an idea of how much these Mercanti/Flags are really worth. $300 may be on the high end with that said.
Apples to oranges perhaps. However, I prefer not to look at these through "label goggles" and what I see are PCGS 70 coins that are all the same at the end of the day no matter how much Koolaid is thrown in the mix. I may be very wrong at the end of the day with this belief but that's the way I see it.
Jim
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Coins - I know what you meant. What I meant is that unless they all hit at once, there will be so few of them in any given week's report that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to discern their impact. For example, if 750 flags grade 50-50 in an given week, and 250 new Mercantis grade 70-30, it would move the needle from 50-50 to 55-45, and we'd never know whether it's because Mercantis grade 20% better than flags, or because 5% more flags graded 70 in a given week.
<< <i>I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
Jim >>
<<You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
NJ Coin>>
Was there really that much of a demand for FS before the TPG's started using it, and did the market really want labels with signatures, flags, or both? If there's no premium to them, are people behaving irrationally in paying extra for those labels?
Jim
Jim
<< <i><< I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
<<You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
NJ Coin>>
Was there really that much of a demand for FS before the TPG's started using it, and did the market really want labels with signatures, flags, or both? If there's no premium to them, are people behaving irrationally in paying extra for those labels?
Jim
Jim >>
I totally agree with you!!!! All I'm saying is, based on the fact that very few non-FS are even out there, nobody, other than the initial submitter, is paying a premium for FS. For that matter, since Mercantis and tombstones are basically selling for the same as flags, the market is also agreeing with you, since those labels do not seem to be carrying a premium in the aftermarket even though they cost more to obtain. Think about it -- if the coins don't come back 70, they sell for the same as opened, raw sets, so the market isn't even paying a premium for the slab! The only coins presently commanding a premium are the 70s, so it's hard to argue it's the label they are paying for as opposed to the coin.
<< <i>
<< <i><< I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
<<You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
NJ Coin>>
Was there really that much of a demand for FS before the TPG's started using it, and did the market really want labels with signatures, flags, or both? If there's no premium to them, are people behaving irrationally in paying extra for those labels?
Jim
Jim >>
I totally agree with you!!!! All I'm saying is, based on the fact that very few non-FS are even out there, nobody, other than the initial submitter, is paying a premium for FS. For that matter, since Mercantis and tombstones are basically selling for the same as flags, the market is also agreeing with you, since those labels do not seem to be carrying a premium in the aftermarket even though they cost more to obtain. Think about it -- if the coins don't come back 70, they sell for the same as opened, raw sets, so the market isn't even paying a premium for the slab! The only coins presently commanding a premium are the 70s, so it's hard to argue it's the label they are paying for as opposed to the coin. >>
Actually, I sold just about all of my non-FS coins for more than the then-current prices of the FS flags and the Mercanti coins... in most cases the buyers told me they paid extra to have labels that matched the rest of their collection.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><< I'm waiting for this latest "tulip craze" to implode. Collecting coins used to be fun and educational, even profitable if you were lucky. The proliferation of labels is insane. How many of the 25th anniversary sets did not qualify for "First Strike"? Not many, I suspect, which makes the designation meaningless. If the premium for these labels collapses, a lot of people could be hurt. OTOH, in the long run it may be the best thing for the hobby.
Jim >>
<<You are, of course, correct that a very small minority of sets were shipped after 12/7, and thus not eligible for FS, as long as they stay sealed. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there is no "premium" in the market for FS, since you never really see non-FS offered for sale. According to the latest pop report, so far only around 400 sets out of 11,000 graded by PCGS have not been slabbed with the FS designation, so, regardless of what you think about the proliferation of the labels, since virtually all of them have been FS, the premium, if any, attached to any label cannot, by definition, be due to the FS designation.
NJ Coin>>
Was there really that much of a demand for FS before the TPG's started using it, and did the market really want labels with signatures, flags, or both? If there's no premium to them, are people behaving irrationally in paying extra for those labels?
Jim
Jim >>
I totally agree with you!!!! All I'm saying is, based on the fact that very few non-FS are even out there, nobody, other than the initial submitter, is paying a premium for FS. For that matter, since Mercantis and tombstones are basically selling for the same as flags, the market is also agreeing with you, since those labels do not seem to be carrying a premium in the aftermarket even though they cost more to obtain. Think about it -- if the coins don't come back 70, they sell for the same as opened, raw sets, so the market isn't even paying a premium for the slab! The only coins presently commanding a premium are the 70s, so it's hard to argue it's the label they are paying for as opposed to the coin. >>
Actually, I sold just about all of my non-FS coins for more than the then-current prices of the FS flags and the Mercanti coins... in most cases the buyers told me they paid extra to have labels that matched the rest of their collection. >>
Did you sell any 70s? If so, the premium may have also been due to the fact that the pop reports suggest that they were much more difficult to obtain than FS 70s. If not, then your experience further confirms the general rule so far that the price the PCGS slabs are receiving in the aftermarket have not been well correlated to what they cost to obtain from PCGS, since you received a premium for the slabs that were least expensive to obtain!
But I remember that some Beanie Babies were the same, but with different names.
4200 become market clearing price in a couple of days
maybe box tape beat labels
<< <i>
<< <i>
Actually, I sold just about all of my non-FS coins for more than the then-current prices of the FS flags and the Mercanti coins... in most cases the buyers told me they paid extra to have labels that matched the rest of their collection. >>
Did you sell any 70s? If so, the premium may have also been due to the fact that the pop reports suggest that they were much more difficult to obtain than FS 70s. If not, then your experience further confirms the general rule so far that the price the PCGS slabs are receiving in the aftermarket have not been well correlated to what they cost to obtain from PCGS, since you received a premium for the slabs that were least expensive to obtain! >>
Sold a few Reverse proofs in PR70 as well as a few of the 2011-W proofs and uncs in 70, all of which for a decent premium over the FS (flag and non-flags). I didn't get any of the 2011 bullions or 2011-S coins in 70. Of course, my sample size is small (less than 10 coins) and my sales may have also been boosted because I was the only one selling the non-FS coins at the time... sort of had the monopoly
I Don't regret not paying for the FS labels as I don't think I would have recovered the $450 additional cost per box of 5 sets. Just didn't make any sense to me to pay that money since all 100,000 sets were sold by the Mint on the same day... and nearly all of them were shipped to the purchasers within the FS deadline anyways. I also liked being able to get my coins graded at PCGS for less than the cost of an NGC submission
That said, I do have my last group of 25th Anniversary Set being graded at NGC right now as I think I'll get a better return doing so given all of the circumstances.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Actually, I sold just about all of my non-FS coins for more than the then-current prices of the FS flags and the Mercanti coins... in most cases the buyers told me they paid extra to have labels that matched the rest of their collection. >>
Did you sell any 70s? If so, the premium may have also been due to the fact that the pop reports suggest that they were much more difficult to obtain than FS 70s. If not, then your experience further confirms the general rule so far that the price the PCGS slabs are receiving in the aftermarket have not been well correlated to what they cost to obtain from PCGS, since you received a premium for the slabs that were least expensive to obtain! >>
Sold a few Reverse proofs in PR70 as well as a few of the 2011-W proofs and uncs in 70, all of which for a decent premium over the FS (flag and non-flags). I didn't get any of the 2011 bullions or 2011-S coins in 70. Of course, my sample size is small (less than 10 coins) and my sales may have also been boosted because I was the only one selling the non-FS coins at the time... sort of had the monopoly
I Don't regret not paying for the FS labels as I don't think I would have recovered the $450 additional cost per box of 5 sets. Just didn't make any sense to me to pay that money since all 100,000 sets were sold by the Mint on the same day... and nearly all of them were shipped to the purchasers within the FS deadline anyways. I also liked being able to get my coins graded at PCGS for less than the cost of an NGC submission
That said, I do have my last group of 25th Anniversary Set being graded at NGC right now as I think I'll get a better return doing so given all of the circumstances. >>
In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium.
<< <i>In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
I follow modern coins and I can attest to the fact that the ER label commands a premium. It's not the same premium that an FS brings, but it's a premium none the less. Personally I considered going ATS with my sets but I decided it simply wasn't worth cracking the boxes at the moment so I'm still sitting on every sealed box. The reason being is that I believe these sets will command much more than today's prices IMO and I intend on either grading later or simply selling the boxes sealed. Whether I'm right or wrong I don't know yet, but IMO people with sealed cases of five are going to do extremely well near the top whenever it arrives without ever having to spend a nickel on grading
<< <i>
In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
Fair question. Of course, I wouldn't mind having ER on the labels at NGC since they cost nothing extra. I initially thought I'd send my last sealed box (which was received well before the FS deadline) to PCGS for another non-FS submission. A submission to NGC wasn't in my plans so I paid no attention to the ER deadline. However, the various recent threads regarding the apparent discrepencies in bulk vs. non-bulk grading of these sets and in the FS and non-FS submissions made me a little uncomfortable with sending another box to PCGS. So, although the ER deadline had come and gone, I figured I'd probably come out ahead in sending them to NGC vs. PCGS even though the NGC 70 sets sell for less. I really don't think the value difference between ER and non-ER sets will be significant enough to make me regret the submission.
I also thought about selling the sealed box as-is since it did qualify for FS. But the prices I was offered just were not enough and I am confident I'll do much better in getting them graded myself, even if they don't have the best labels on the holders.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
<< <i>In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
I follow modern coins and I can attest to the fact that the ER label commands a premium. It's not the same premium that an FS brings, but it's a premium none the less. Personally I considered going ATS with my sets but I decided it simply wasn't worth cracking the boxes at the moment so I'm still sitting on every sealed box. The reason being is that I believe these sets will command much more than today's prices IMO and I intend on either grading later or simply selling the boxes sealed. Whether I'm right or wrong I don't know yet, but IMO people with sealed cases of five are going to do extremely well near the top whenever it arrives without ever having to spend a nickel on grading
Thank you very much for sharing your insight with me. If nothing else, it confirms to me that I am not the only one thinking this way! My problem is I don't want to sit on them sealed indefinitely, and I don't want to sell them now because I agree with you 1,000% that we are much closer to the low than the high for them. So, I obsess on the path not taken (sending to ATS before the deadline) because that is so much easier than figuring out what to do.
As I learn more about this, I see just how much value folks put on the ER or FS designation, and I'm just sorry I didn't clue into it sooner. Unfortunately, my common sense told me (incorrectly, as it turns out) that even though as a general rule the designations command a premium in the market (even though they are not truly "first strikes," they are a limited subset of a whole), that this time would be different because all were struck and ordered at the same time, and almost all were shipped in the first 30 days of release. That was before I realized that ATS demanded that they be in their hands, not merely shipped by the mint, in the first 30 days. I still can't believe people will place a big premium on ER in this case, but I also don't want to be the guy to test the theory by sending them a FS-eligible box just to see the sets sell for $100-$150 a piece less than ERs down the road.
I still think there is a chance I might be right, so, like you, I have held back for the time being. So many sets have already been designated ER ATS (I don't have access to their census reports, but I imagine it's over 20,000 based on the PCGS pop reports) that I wonder how much of a premium they will really carry over non-ER. Combine that with the fact that, if people really do value the designation, PCGS should garner the lion's share of all future grading of these sets, since I think the vast majority of all sealed boxes are FS-eligible, and I think it's entirely possible that the population of non-ER and non-FS sets will be significantly reduced as a result, serving to reduce or eliminate the premium for the ER or FS designation for these, since they won't be a small minority, but, rather, will be the vast majority of all graded sets.
<< <i>
<< <i>
In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
Fair question. Of course, I wouldn't mind having ER on the labels at NGC since they cost nothing extra. I initially thought I'd send my last sealed box (which was received well before the FS deadline) to PCGS for another non-FS submission. A submission to NGC wasn't in my plans so I paid no attention to the ER deadline. However, the various recent threads regarding the apparent discrepencies in bulk vs. non-bulk grading of these sets and in the FS and non-FS submissions made me a little uncomfortable with sending another box to PCGS. So, although the ER deadline had come and gone, I figured I'd probably come out ahead in sending them to NGC vs. PCGS even though the NGC 70 sets sell for less. I really don't think the value difference between ER and non-ER sets will be significant enough to make me regret the submission.
I also thought about selling the sealed box as-is since it did qualify for FS. But the prices I was offered just were not enough and I am confident I'll do much better in getting them graded myself, even if they don't have the best labels on the holders. >>
I totally agree about not selling sealed boxes at this time. I also think you should be right about ER not being worth a large premium to non-ER, although I concede it's too soon to know for sure. It's just that if: (1) the PCGS bulks continue to grade well; and (2) they also continue to sell for a premium to ATS in the market; and (3) non-ER does end up at a significant discount to ER, then you might have left money on the table by going ATS rather than having PCGS grade them with tombstones or first gen Mercantis, albeit while paying a lot less in grading fees.
The thought of spending $1,250 to grade a box of coins that originally cost $1,500 bothers me on several levels, but if that's the way to maximize their value going forward, then there's no use fighting City Hall. I realize that the biggest bang for the buck so far was ER ATS, but now that that ship has sailed, the only way ATS makes sense now that they won't do ER while PCGS continues to do FS will be if the market doesn't assign a big premium to those designations. For what it's worth, I really hope you are right about the ER designation not being worth much of a premium. I don't think the FS one will be, because I don't think we'll ever see significant numbers of non-FS slabs.
<< <i>Sold a few Reverse proofs in PR70 as well as a few of the 2011-W proofs and uncs in 70, all of which for a decent premium over the FS (flag and non-flags). I didn't get any of the 2011 bullions or 2011-S coins in 70. Of course, my sample size is small (less than 10 coins) and my sales may have also been boosted because I was the only one selling the non-FS coins at the time... sort of had the monopoly >>
Did you sell these on eBay?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
Fair question. Of course, I wouldn't mind having ER on the labels at NGC since they cost nothing extra. I initially thought I'd send my last sealed box (which was received well before the FS deadline) to PCGS for another non-FS submission. A submission to NGC wasn't in my plans so I paid no attention to the ER deadline. However, the various recent threads regarding the apparent discrepencies in bulk vs. non-bulk grading of these sets and in the FS and non-FS submissions made me a little uncomfortable with sending another box to PCGS. So, although the ER deadline had come and gone, I figured I'd probably come out ahead in sending them to NGC vs. PCGS even though the NGC 70 sets sell for less. I really don't think the value difference between ER and non-ER sets will be significant enough to make me regret the submission.
I also thought about selling the sealed box as-is since it did qualify for FS. But the prices I was offered just were not enough and I am confident I'll do much better in getting them graded myself, even if they don't have the best labels on the holders. >>
I totally agree about not selling sealed boxes at this time. I also think you should be right about ER not being worth a large premium to non-ER, although I concede it's too soon to know for sure. It's just that if: (1) the PCGS bulks continue to grade well; and (2) they also continue to sell for a premium to ATS in the market; and (3) non-ER does end up at a significant discount to ER, then you might have left money on the table by going ATS rather than having PCGS grade them with tombstones or first gen Mercantis, albeit while paying a lot less in grading fees.
The thought of spending $1,250 to grade a box of coins that originally cost $1,500 bothers me on several levels, but if that's the way to maximize their value going forward, then there's no use fighting City Hall. I realize that the biggest bang for the buck so far was ER ATS, but now that that ship has sailed, the only way ATS makes sense now that they won't do ER while PCGS continues to do FS will be if the market doesn't assign a big premium to those designations. For what it's worth, I really hope you are right about the ER designation not being worth much of a premium. I don't think the FS one will be, because I don't think we'll ever see significant numbers of non-FS slabs. >>
For PCGS, it of course depends on how many 70s you get. You could probably do an analysis to determine what percentage of 70s are needed for the grading to be profitable. If you don't think you can achieve that rate, you would be better off keeping them sealed.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>While I agree the PCGS first strike designation might not get you any huge premium, it has almost always(not counting the ATB bullion), garnered a premium over the cost. >>
Understood, but in those cases I'd bet that around 95% of the entire release was not eligible. We never had a 100,000 coin release that entirely sold out in one day, and that, for the most part, entirely shipped within the first 30 days. The extra cost here is at least $450 per box of 5, and there are not now, and may never be, enough non-FS to perform an analysis. That said, I sure don't want to be the guinea pig to save a few bucks and see what happens.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
In that case, I have a question -- since ER would not have cost extra, why did you wait, and do you think you will have to suffer a monetary penalty with respect to non-ER vs. ER at this point? Since I've been learning as I've been going along, I am now been beating myself up for not submitting ATS while I could have had ER, and now I'm afraid to send them an FS eligible box which might yield more with FS labels (even though they will cost more) than non-ER. While I see MCM asking a $150 premium for an ER 70 set over non-ER, I don't know whether or not that represents actual market value, or just one dealer's attempt to extract an ER premium. >>
Fair question. Of course, I wouldn't mind having ER on the labels at NGC since they cost nothing extra. I initially thought I'd send my last sealed box (which was received well before the FS deadline) to PCGS for another non-FS submission. A submission to NGC wasn't in my plans so I paid no attention to the ER deadline. However, the various recent threads regarding the apparent discrepencies in bulk vs. non-bulk grading of these sets and in the FS and non-FS submissions made me a little uncomfortable with sending another box to PCGS. So, although the ER deadline had come and gone, I figured I'd probably come out ahead in sending them to NGC vs. PCGS even though the NGC 70 sets sell for less. I really don't think the value difference between ER and non-ER sets will be significant enough to make me regret the submission.
I also thought about selling the sealed box as-is since it did qualify for FS. But the prices I was offered just were not enough and I am confident I'll do much better in getting them graded myself, even if they don't have the best labels on the holders. >>
I totally agree about not selling sealed boxes at this time. I also think you should be right about ER not being worth a large premium to non-ER, although I concede it's too soon to know for sure. It's just that if: (1) the PCGS bulks continue to grade well; and (2) they also continue to sell for a premium to ATS in the market; and (3) non-ER does end up at a significant discount to ER, then you might have left money on the table by going ATS rather than having PCGS grade them with tombstones or first gen Mercantis, albeit while paying a lot less in grading fees.
The thought of spending $1,250 to grade a box of coins that originally cost $1,500 bothers me on several levels, but if that's the way to maximize their value going forward, then there's no use fighting City Hall. I realize that the biggest bang for the buck so far was ER ATS, but now that that ship has sailed, the only way ATS makes sense now that they won't do ER while PCGS continues to do FS will be if the market doesn't assign a big premium to those designations. For what it's worth, I really hope you are right about the ER designation not being worth much of a premium. I don't think the FS one will be, because I don't think we'll ever see significant numbers of non-FS slabs. >>
For PCGS, it of course depends on how many 70s you get. You could probably do an analysis to determine what percentage of 70s are needed for the grading to be profitable. If you don't think you can achieve that rate, you would be better off keeping them sealed. >>
Doing an analysis is complicated by a few things. It's easy to know how many 70s you need, but it's really impossible to make an educated guess as to how many to expect. It looks like the bulks graded generously at first, but there is no way to know, other than after grades come back, whether that will remain the case going forward, especially since the big crush is now over, and the pop reports have been trending down every week.
It's also impossible to know whether or not the flags are grading at the same rate as the bulks, although the anecdotal evidence indicates they are not. So, it looks like you would make a few bucks if you pull 3 out of 5 70s, break about even with 2.5 out of 5 70s, and lose below that. Recent reports imply that one cannot expect to pull 2.5 out of 5 70s, but that could be incorrect, depending on whether or not different labels have different grading results, and that information is not available to us. Thus, all we know for sure is that we can get FS at PCGS and cannot get ER ATS, and bulk grading at PCGS costs a lot more than regular grading ATS. Until more non-ERs hit the market and we can see whether or not they go for big discounts over ERs, there is really no good way to make an educated guess on where to send unopened boxes, if anywhere.
<< <i>...
It's also impossible to know whether or not the flags are grading at the same rate as the bulks, although the anecdotal evidence indicates they are not. So, it looks like you would make a few bucks if you pull 3 out of 5 70s, break about even with 2.5 out of 5 70s, and lose below that. Recent reports imply that one cannot expect to pull 2.5 out of 5 70s, but that could be incorrect, depending on whether or not different labels have different grading results, and that information is not available to us. Thus, all we know for sure is that we can get FS at PCGS and cannot get ER ATS, and bulk grading at PCGS costs a lot more than regular grading ATS. Until more non-ERs hit the market and we can see whether or not they go for big discounts over ERs, there is really no good way to make an educated guess on where to send unopened boxes, if anywhere. >>
Your numbers sound about right. I got 72% 70s on my bulk submission and my sets are now worth roughly about 28% more than if I had kept them sealed.
<< <i>
<< <i>...
It's also impossible to know whether or not the flags are grading at the same rate as the bulks, although the anecdotal evidence indicates they are not. So, it looks like you would make a few bucks if you pull 3 out of 5 70s, break about even with 2.5 out of 5 70s, and lose below that. Recent reports imply that one cannot expect to pull 2.5 out of 5 70s, but that could be incorrect, depending on whether or not different labels have different grading results, and that information is not available to us. Thus, all we know for sure is that we can get FS at PCGS and cannot get ER ATS, and bulk grading at PCGS costs a lot more than regular grading ATS. Until more non-ERs hit the market and we can see whether or not they go for big discounts over ERs, there is really no good way to make an educated guess on where to send unopened boxes, if anywhere. >>
Your numbers sound about right. I got 72% 70s on my bulk submission and my sets are now worth roughly about 28% more than if I had kept them sealed. >>
Coinfame,Kaelasdad,Type2,UNLVino,MICHAELDIXON
Justacommeman,tydye,78saen,123cents,blue62vette,Segoja,Nibanny
<< <i>Going back to the coins in this 25th Anniversary set. I was just looking at mine all graded and i placed them in the original 25th Anniversary US Mint Box to see how they would look. I am just In
I did that too
<< <i>ime to stop worrying about labels and start fixing the spotting issue >>
Or everyone could just stop worrying about everything and enjoy the coins
Just tossing a flag on there....it fine, if it was a totally new label design, maybe I'd be tempted to add a set, but not this.
<< <i>No go for me. I've always looked at the signitures as a distraction. The Gerald Ford '86 gold eagles are kind of cool...but I can't see any of these 100 years from now having any more than a tiny following of devout collectors. >>
Most is preference, for me I like almost anything with black borders.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>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
bumanchu >>
"repost"
<< <i>
<< <i>No go for me. I've always looked at the signitures as a distraction. The Gerald Ford '86 gold eagles are kind of cool...but I can't see any of these 100 years from now having any more than a tiny following of devout collectors. >>
Most is preference, for me I like almost anything with black borders. >>
Thats why I really like the regular mercantis. Im a sucker for black and white