One too many?!

Previously, NGC was reluctant to jump on the "First Strike" bandwagon, and explained its rationale accordingly, since coins weren't necessarily the first coins struck. Thus, ultimately NGC devised a logical and more appropriate alternative designation with their "Early Releases" label.

While they earn no point premiums or otherwise, I understand why some collectors see some desire for these labels. Whether just for something other than plain brown, or to know that the coin hasn't been sitting in a drawer exposed to who knows what kind of environment for 10 years or more - one knows that the coin was encapsulated within 30 days of its release, and is generally more protected from harm -- especially compared to cellophane packaging like in some annual Mint Sets.

That said, I truly don't understand the distinction nor the purpose that NGC is attempting to make by offering the "First Releases" label.

http://www.ngccoin.com/services/firstreleases.aspx

In their own words, NGC indicates that there is no different process to obtain the label apart from the Early Releases label. Further, their FAQs also indicate that for the pop report/census, First Releases AND Releases will be counted together with one total, making them virtually impossible to distinguish down the road.

To add more confusion to the matter, it is not as if NGC has decided that as of XX/XX/XXXX date, "First Releases" will replace the "Early Releases" designation, perhaps using similar logic to their previous statement about Early Releases -- that they simply believe the terminology more accurately reflects the 30-day window from release to receipt by NGC. Had they done this, I would find it more palatable.

Instead, I submit that by creating two labels with identical requirements, virtually identical terminology, remarkably similar label appearance, that all NGC has done is create CONFUSION. While experienced collectors may fully understand that the labels are essentially interchangeable, my concern is that many newer or inexperienced collectors will not have such insight, and may be taken in by marketing of dealers or even casual sellers, whether on eBay or elsewhere, and may pay a higher premium for something that is ultimately interchangeable.

I rhetorically pose the question: Does anyone foresee themselves or even hoards of collectors re-submitting their NGC Early Releases coins to NGC to obtain "First Releases" labels as a re-holder? Similarly, for collectors who DO have Early Releases labels as a matter of course, I pose the question: Do you plan to add First Releases to your collections going forward, or will you stick to the Early Releases designation? That last part is not so rhetorical. While I welcome private replies, I also invite fellow collectors to post entries and commentaries about their feelings of the lack of distinction and use (or lack of use) of the new label option going forward. While I would surely like to know how other collectors feel about the new label, I suspect I am not alone in the matter, and that a great many collectors are scratching their heads wondering how others feel, and sort of waiting to see what the masses are doing.

I know that NGC and other grading companies are not just providing a service to collectors, but are ultimately in the marketing business and therefore try to create new "buzz" when they can with special labels -- and that the labels come at a premium price, netting NGC even just a couple extra dollars per coin, which I imagine adds up to an unthinkably high sum annually.

I also confess that when given the option, I've opted for the Early Releases designation on my bullion coins in the past, and only recently have bought some Commemorative coins on the secondary market with Early Release labels, primarily because I either found them for the same price from a dealer compared to another dealer (or even compared to the U.S. Mint's release price), or the price differential was so negligible it seemed harmless - like $1.00, less than if I submitted it for NGC grading on my own.

Am I a hypocrite? I'd like to think not. I am not opposed to all special labels. Remember my "teaser" when I started this entry, asking if this was "One too many?!"

In essence, I am not opposed to the Early Release labels entirely - though I am not hung up on them either. If I can get a deal on a brown label coin that fills a spot on one my sets and it's a plain label, and the price differential is more than $1-$2, I'll take the brown label. I am NOT willing to spend $10, $20, $50, $100 or more for a coin (or a set of coins) just to get the Early Releases label for a comparably graded coin. In fact, sometimes the price difference might allow me to buy a Proof/MS70 coin in a plain label vs. a Proof/MS69 in a special label. All things being equal, I'll take the higher graded coin in a heartbeat -- no two ways about it. I wonder if I am alone on this issue.... Time will tell if I hear from any of you about this piece.

Ultimately, why do I buy even Early Releases labels? Well, some SMALL part of me has watched sales and prices of auctions, eBay sales, and other dealer web sites. From what I've observed, the modest grading premium for the "Modern Special" tier is more than recouped by the selling price of what the coins in the Early Release labels or the "First Strike" labels from PCGS seem to fetch, compared to their plain label counterparts.

However, back to the original reason for my entry today. I am opposed to what I think is ultimately just a marketing ploy and money-maker from NGC with its "First Releases" label. I submit that it offers no newly added value to collectors, and in fact, offers confusion instead.

First Releases vs. Early Releases are something that I simply won't be pursuing. Now, that is not to say that if I found a dealer who had a First Releases coin for the same price as a Brown Label coin in the same grade, that I wouldn't buy it. If a dealer had the same coin in Early Releases, I'd opt for that instead -- especially if the new First Releases was a higher price point than Early Releases. If they were all priced equally, I would stick with Early Releases -- it's been around longer, and it's FAMILIAR to NGC Coin Collectors, and ultimately it's a known commodity.

When getting my own coins graded, I am going to stick with Early Releases as well. I don't find the First Releases label appealing. I rhetorically wonder if dealers and collectors alike shun the new "First Releases" designation, if it will ultimately vanish?

Ultimately, NGC's labels are driven by market desire and response. I am curious how many of us will speak with our wallets, checkbooks and credit cards and specifically AVOID the First Releases label, and stick with Early Releases, that is, until and unless NGC replaces one with the other entirely. Otherwise, I stick with my opinion that the two labels simultaneously are confusing, perhaps even a bit redundant, though not precisely, I am just finding myself lacking for a better word.

Since this has already gotten a bit long-winded, I am