gmarguli

On 11/25/2022 at 9:43 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Check out the 10-Year Chart to see the end of the U.S. Coin bear market, but hit the 1970 To Date Chart to see how far we are still down from the bubble spike years.

The chart doesn't take into account is the loosening of grades or inflation. Without those, the chart is useless. 

Highly doubtful it net grades due to the bump. It's a large coin and a tiny bump. 

On 11/24/2022 at 1:04 PM, EagleRJO said:

Looks like the NGCX scale is intended for "modern" bullion and circulating coins since 1982.  What's so significant about the 1982 date other than the change in composition for the cent?  I have heard it argued that 1934 and later is a pretty good dividing line for "modern" circulating coins.

My great great grandfather used to say 1865 was the start of modern coinage... 

There is no real reason. Different TPGs have called 1970 the modern cutoff. And also 1965. And 1955. 

1982 is as good as any other date as that was the start of the so-called modern commemorative era. 

On 11/23/2022 at 7:03 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Which coins are you largely referrring to there, Gmarg ?

FWIW, I think focusing on the subsectors of the PCGS 3000 is more relevant.  The 3000 is just way too broad.

In the PCGS3000:

Unapproachable: Chain/Wreath 1c in UNC, numerous key dates in near gem/gem, 1792 Half Disme in MS63/64, most early coinage they have listed in MS63-65, key date gold, proof gold, etc. The reality is that the vast number of collectors will never be able to afford any coin that costs anything near these levels. These are dream coins and they shouldn't be used to judge the health of the market. 

Well Heeled: Contains tons of $5K-$50K coins. Median income in US is around $45K and household around $65K. A significant portion of collectors will never be able to afford these and many that do buy at this level may only buy one or two to complete a set. 

I don't know the weight (if any) put on each coin, but I'd much rather have an index like this heavily weighted upon the coins that frequently trade and lightly weighted on the coins that come up for auction once a year. It'd give a much better representation of the whole market.

On 11/23/2022 at 4:32 PM, World Colonial said:

It's my inference that the majority of collectors don't expect to ever buy the types of coins in your post.  They could never afford to buy these coins and some who are able won't buy it anyway,  so it makes no difference to their collecting psychology if the price goes "through the roof".

This is different than being priced out of what I'd describe as "collector" coins.  This first happened at scale in the mid-70's.  You've seen the PCGS 3000 Index.

The point I was trying to make is that collectors who are accustomed to one level of collecting won't move endlessly down the food chain to collect something they find noticeably less appealing.  This varies by collector but believe it applies to most.  It's my inference that many collectors from the 60's quit collecting in the 70's for the reason I am giving you here,

Are you considering the coins in the PCGS3000 "collector coins"?  I suspect that 1/3 of the coins in that list are flat out unapproachable for the vast majority of collectors. Another 1/3 are only available to well heeled collectors.

I'd like to see the list stripped of the unrealistic coins and account for inflation and see what the return looks like for real collector coins. I suspect it is much less than it is right now. 

On 11/22/2022 at 7:43 PM, World Colonial said:

I agree, but the problem for actual collecting is decreasing affordability for the more typical collector.  To my recollection, I don't recall anyone else ever (not even once) bringing this up here or on any coin forum where I posted.  Most posters are lot more interested in a higher price level.

I believe common MS-63 and similar Morgan dollars are mostly owned in volume as "investments" by financially motivated buyers.  The coins are far too common to be mostly owned by set and type collectors or even as impulse purchases.

Concurrently, this is a "staple" coin of US collecting and I think it's important that coins like it remain affordable to most buyers.  "Affordable" is relative of course but my assumption is that at least 50% of the collector base has an annual budget of $500 or less. 

A noticeable percentage in this group probably do not own $100 coins.  Eliminating this and other similar coins as an option due to budget constraints will make collecting less interesting to them.

I'm not sure that collectors getting priced out of their series is a bad thing. It sounds healthy for the market. It means that there is more demand (more collectors) as part of the hobby. Those priced out of a series will likely look at a different series or world coins. 

The ultra common coins like MS63 Morgans are owned by clueless grandmas that bought them off the home shopping channels and the Sunday coupon section marketers. Do not underestimate the MASSIVE quantities of product these "dealers" move. 

On 11/17/2022 at 11:13 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

But I don't think it moves the needle for them.  I think CU/PCGS was bought for about $750 MM and the buyers were much smaller than BX.  

And they did second round financing a little while later valuing the company at $5+ billion.

On 11/17/2022 at 10:35 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I thought CU/PCGS got bought out by private equity.  Did NGC change ownership recently ?

Yes, CCG was purchased by Blackstone. 

On 10/14/2022 at 6:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Considering the value of a CAC bean, I'm not so sure.

What exactly is the value of the bean? Long before there was CAC, nicer for the grade coins traded at a premium. 

Pre-CAC, if there were 10 coins of the same grade in an auction, they'd sell for $800 (dogs), $1000 (average), and $1400 (high end).

Post-CAC, if there were 10 coins of the same grade in an auction, they'd sell for $800 (dogs), $1000 (average), and $1400 (high end, but has a CAC sticker).

Fools jump up and down to say this is proof that CAC coins bring a premium. 

Beans may help people who can't grade or aren't onsite to sort the nicer coins from the average, but whether or not the bean creates a premium is debatable.

On 10/14/2022 at 9:35 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Demands on people's time are much greater today than 25 years ago, let alone in the 1970's or 1950's.

Nope, that's just something old fogies like to say. Just like in the 1950's you had to walk to school uphill in both directions....

I suspect that the people that would pay for a sticker are different from the people who slab coins. 

CAC is going to need to give submitters a reason to send to them instead of PCGS/NGC. The only reason would be more profit. Yet it seems like an extremely uphill battle for a CAC slab to trade at a higher price than the well established PCGS/NGC. 

From the ANACS website: In December 2007, ANACS was acquired by EKW, LLC, of Colorado and on January 1, 2008 was relocated to Englewood, Colorado, a Denver suburb.

Looks like EKW is just a holding company. 

Whenever (probability of upgrade)(increase in value) > cost of regrade. 

Maybe it was announced before, but I just got an email from the Mint saying these were available for subscription sign-ups. The Mint site is crazy slow as usual.

Looks like UNC limited to 275,000, Proof to 400,000, and Reverse Proof to 250,000.

On 9/3/2022 at 12:51 PM, AdamWL said:

My FedEx delivery guy thinks any house in the same zip code is close enough to throw it in the driveway and mark it as delivered.

My house is set back 200+ feet from the street. FedEx kept leaving packages behind the driveway entry wall, which could be seen by people walking by, and were stolen too often. I finally had a custom sign made saying don't leave packages here, delivery them to the front door. I now get FedEx packages left directly under this sign.

I once saw the FedEx guy leave a package under the sign. I went up to him and asked what I needed to do to get packages delivered to my front door so they don't get stolen. He smiled and waved at me and got in his truck and left without saying a word. 

They also like to deliver my packages to a house with the same number a few blocks away. One night a lady came to my door and handed me a package. She wanted to introduce herself as she said that this was the 3rd or 4th package of mine that was misdelivered to her over the last couple of weeks.

F*** FedEx! 

Albanese supposedly felt the modern market was crazy priced and the prices would eventually drop and people would get burned. Coins that were not rare were selling for a lot of money. There was only perceived rarity because so few had been submitted. So a 1964 Kennedy in PR66 should not be selling for $159 and a PR68 definitely should not be selling for $895, even if there were only 30 PR66 and 3 PR68 graded. So NGC stopped grading them. While possibly a magnanimous move by Albanese to kill the modern market, it was an incredibly stupid business decision as PCGS said screw that and continued to grade them. At this time it was still debatable as to which company would come out on top. PCGS clearly became the modern coin winner around this time. I don't recall when, but NGC realized their mistake and started to grade moderns but clearly way more liberally than PCGS.

Hall killed the modern market by getting rid of the PR70 grade. Whether his decision or not (he blamed Rick Montgomery who had left PCGS for NGC), he was the head of the company and he takes the blame. There was a time when PCGS PR70 coins actually sold for really good money. It was because PCGS was extremely tight on that grade, while NGC was much more loose. I recall selling PCGS PR70 state quarters for $150-$300. NGC PR70 would bring a small fraction of this. But everyone knew the deal.

With PCGS you would get a very small percentage of PR70 and that is where you'd make your money. The PR69 you'd blow out around cost. At NGC, you'd get 10X the number of PR70, but only make a little on each and blow out the PR69 at around cost. When PCGS turned off the PR70 spigot it screwed up this dynamic. No dealer wants a zillion PR69s and no PR70s. This caused the prices on PR70s to go up as it was clear no more would be graded. This caused a lot of liability for PCGS (see the infamous 1963 PR70 Lincoln or the dozen PR70 Ike dollars). Then Hall "reinstituted" the PR70 grade (I believe thanks to my Open Letter on the PCGS forums), but the grade didn't just reappear, it came back with a vengeance. The old 1%-3% for 70s suddenly appeared to be dramatically higher. The market for modern proofs is pretty thin at the high price points. Only a few people will pay $300 for a PR70 when there are few of them graded, but you can make your money, and a lot of people will be happy with a PR69 for a fraction of the cost. However, when there are a ton of PR70s graded, most people will buy them at $25 instead of a PR69 since the cost isn't that much different. Since then, the 70 grade has only become more common and I believe this is only partially due to mint quality. Now a 70 brings little more than slabbing cost and a 69 may bring you $5. Even with the highly discounted bulk grading fees, there is no financial incentive to submit most moderns anymore. 

So when I say he killed the modern market, that's what I mean. There is no incentive for 99.9% of the people to submit moderns when you can buy a PR70 for less than you can make one yourself. Clearly the TPG still grade millions of NCLT, but I believe they do so with massive submissions from a few dealers at greatly reduced rates. Today, most slabbed and raw generally don't sell for much difference in the aftermarket. 

On 8/26/2022 at 6:47 AM, World Colonial said:

I don't think the prior post is referring to NCLT which accounts for the lopsided majority of "modern".  I've never heard of anyone collecting "business strike" ASE as a collectible until later, only buying it for the metal content.  Outside of the Chinese Panda and Mexican Libertad, it's my recollection the other NCLT weren't struck until later either.

By "modern", referring to US moderns.  There were no registry sets at the time (came later but forgot exactly when) which presumably means NGC might have thought hardly anyone would ever submit this coinage.  Volume only became "meaningful" beginning in 1999 with the introduction of SQ and later series.

The business strike ASE were absolutely collected early on. I remember submitting a lot of the 1988 and 1989 SAE business strikes. Used to sell a bunch on Teletrade until that bastion of hypocrisy would (kind of) no longer take them on consignment.

NGC stopped grading moderns supposedly because Albanese thought they were overpriced in the marketplace and people would get burned. 

On 8/25/2022 at 7:10 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

You wonder, if with all the pent-up demand for classic coins when they first opened for business, if the 2 TPGSs would have even been able to handle modern coins individually submitted, let alone mass submittances like you see today with dealers sending in hundreds or thousands at a time.

When PCGS was started, the expectation was they would receive hundreds of coins per month. They had no idea the demand and why should they. Their product wasn't that much different from ANACS & Accugrade which was already in the marketplace. The authenticity and grade guarantee backed by money made a lot of people more confident to buy coins. So they didn't have the capacity for what arrived day one regardless of whether it was classic or modern coins. And modern coins started to be submitted fairly early on. 

Both services graded modern coins from day one. They were popular early one. You used to see 1964 proof coins with insane price tags because they graded PR67 or PR68. Even super common stuff from the 70s & 80s in PR69 were bringing crazy prices. 

Then Albanese intentionally tried to kill the modern market and ended up only hurting NGC and helping give PCGS the market edge.

Then Hall killed the modern market because he was clueless.

On 8/26/2022 at 7:49 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Do you think that PCGS and NGC also had more well-known folks (D. Hall, J. Albanese, etc.) so that folks were more interested in seeking out those 2 TPGs ?  ANACS clearly had 1st-mover advantage.

PCGS & NGC were using slabs. ANACS were still user paper certs. I don't believe ANACS guaranteed the grade when they introduced slabs. PCGS & NGC had established dealer networks.

On 8/24/2022 at 7:25 PM, VKurtB said:

The flat out MAJORITY of coins submitted today would not have been ACCEPTED for grading during the late 1980’s. They simply were not eligible. 

I assume you're referring to modern coins. NGC stupidly restricted them at this time, but PCGS and ANACS accepted them.

If you're referring to world coins, that was a slow rollout of accepted countries at PCGS & NGC, but I recall ANACS graded pretty much anything. 

I don't run into a lot of ICCS coins to have a firm opinion, but the ones I do I generally find them to be in-line to slightly overgraded. Years ago I'd have said they grade the same or stricter.

I know a lot of people have complained that they have loosened their standards over the past few years. Same can be said for NGC/PCGS.