GoldFinger1969

On 12/14/2022 at 3:13 PM, VKurtB said:

Under WHAT procedure could this case EVER get reopened?

You get a coin collector elected president !!  

On 12/14/2022 at 1:20 PM, VKurtB said:

This is 100% FRAUD and EMBEZZLEMENT by the two Uglo-Americans at the top. Why do people trust ANYTHING to 20-something’s? They are all criminals or m-o-r-o-n-s. If you find one who CAN think, they’re running a scam. 

I don't know about the age-thing, but yes it is fraud and embezzlement.  Charlie Gasparino of FBC and The NY Post nailed it by saying SBF is trying to deflect blame with his "I f***** up" admissions.

On 12/14/2022 at 1:20 PM, VKurtB said:

Both of SBF’s parents are Stanford law professors and they look like co-conspirators at this point. 

No evidence of that, I would be surprised if they had any inkling of the illlegal activities.

This was a LEGIT COMPANY doing ILLEGITIMATE THINGS...it APPEARED to be on the up-and-up as with that hillarious FTX Super Bowl commercial with Larry David. 

Any reason why that coin was graded "BU" by NGC with no grade ?

Was it one of those things where you get a bulk discount if you eschew a numerical grade and just go for a more general classification ?

On 12/14/2022 at 4:01 PM, EagleRJO said:

Other than for general trends possibly for higher value coins I wouldn't rely on data 7 years old, and would use current GC , HA and Sacks sold data.  Possibly combined with eBay sold data for more common coins.

I think that the HISTORICAL data shouldn't change that much on something like past selling prices.  Using the HA archives is a very good source....had it been an amalgamation of Ebay completed sales and asking prices, that's another thing. 

The data in the price grids for every Saint should be 99% accurate/good even if a 2nd edition needs to be done.  What MIGHT change is 2014 and 2015, the most recent two years in the grid -- and of course, we don't have anything for 2016 to the present since the book was published in 2018 and the data covers 1976-2015.

On 12/14/2022 at 4:05 PM, RWB said:

Agreed. That is a major problem for printed text when markets now flow on a river of electrons, not printers' ink.

Right, for things that are fluid and change -- like a population census.  That can change over time from hoards, new finds, etc.

But something fixed like average selling price shouldn't be revised back too much, unless you changed the method of computation (i.e., instead of using HA solo, also incorporating GC or SB). 

On 12/14/2022 at 1:20 PM, RWB said:

The book's prices are only one source, and are "snapshots" in time. However, they are a more reliable value point than various lists because they are specific. If the collector does additional research into the same kind of sources, his information will be much higher quality than published lists. 

Yes, and as I posted on another thread somewhere, I saw a glitch with a 1-year bump-up in prices on the NGC Price Graph for MS-67 1908 NM Saints.  Just went from about $9K to $15K for 1 year and came down.  No other grades moved like that, and gold didn't either.

On 12/14/2022 at 1:20 PM, RWB said:

It can also aid in understanding why two coins of the same date, mintmark and grade can sell for significantly different prices.

Yeah, wondering about 2 different 1908 NM WF Saints I had both MS-66, one from PCGS and one from NGC......also posted in another thread here.  NGC coin went for 20% more.  I think I saw rub and a mysterious band on the PCGS from the Eagles underbelly to the 8 O'Clock position but I am not sure.  Usually, PCGS coins sell at the premium.

On 12/14/2022 at 10:40 AM, RWB said:

Published values are always estimates and guidance, unless they some from a specific source such as a seller or an auction. Use the lists to help understand the range of possible retail value and to build a mental correlation between that range and the actual condition of a specific coin. This can be a chore, or it can be part of the fun of hunting for that elusive creature called  "Best Value."

As an example, Roger has a matrix in his Saints Double Eagles book for every coin based on HA actual sales prices.  It's very useful and would save anybody lots of time for price estimates except for the most recent price quotes (the data ends in 2015 in the book).

On 12/14/2022 at 11:45 AM, EagleRJO said:

In the $300 to $500 range and down about 15% to 20% for the half dozen or so CC Morgans mostly purchased at GC recently, and maybe one slabbed one from eBay at about the same discount.  That still leaves about another half dozen more expensive CC Morgans to complete the circulation set, which I have also seen down about 15 % to 20%.  But I am looking for an even better deal than that for the half dozen or so more expensive CC Morgans, so I am just watching prices and being patient as they continue to come down..

It DOES make sense that with the economy and work habits returning to normal -- and govt checks ending -- that people would drift away from habits they took up in 2020 and 2021. 

It will be interesting to see how many full-time coin collectors we eventually hold from the pandemic era. 

On 12/14/2022 at 9:54 AM, Just Bob said:

This is true. When PCGS first started, an MS65 was a true gem. I remember ask price for 1880-S Morgans in MS65 being $800 and up. Back then, an MS67 was a wondercoin.  I read an interview with someone who worked at NGC when they first started. He stated that they intentionally graded strict, and the prices back then reflected that strictness. NGC coins consistently bid higher than PCGS. That is why a coin in an original black holder is a guaranteed upgrade or gold sticker.

Two things....first, it didn't help the grading strictness that right after the 2 major TPGs started operating in 1986-87...you had a HUGE coin bubble that took prices up 2x or 3x on the belief that Wall Street $$$ would be flowing into coins.  The greater usage of electronic quote machines for dealers compared to 10 years earlier during the gold bubble didn't help, either.

Second....it's possible NGC coins were bid higher than PCGS during the late-1980's or early-1990's.  Whether that was true for all/most coins or just select series, I don't know -- I wan't into coins at the time.  John Albanese jumped to NGC so maybe the strict period was associated with him (anybody know when he left NGC ?).

I believe it was the early-to-mid 2000's when the PCGS premium came about.  It may have been influenced by the premiums that Trophy Collectors were willing to pay for certain coins in select series (i.e., Saints) and this filtered down to other coins/series.  Or....it may have been because NGC really was overgrading lots of coins.   Or it may have been because NGC graded a few coins or series loosely and PERCEPTION took over.   Again, I didn't follow this too closely but I read that this is when technical grading morphed into market grading.  Maybe NGC took it more liberally than PCGS -- dunno.

I will say this:  most of the "gradeflation" threads I read NOW and in recent years seem to focus on PCGS.  Maybe there were some legacy coins graded by NGC that were loosely graded but I don't think that's a problem now.

Let's face it...if some people, especially Trophy Collectors with Big $$$, decide they WANT one TPG over another (for whatever reason, legit or not)....then prices will be higher for that TPG and it filters down to other coins and series.  

Rational or not.  

On 12/13/2022 at 10:59 PM, EagleRJO said:

I think the PCG$ guide prices in particular are unreasonably high retail prices, as they jacked up their guide prices earlier this year at what turned out to be an unusual price spike.  They never adjusted the guide prices down, even though prices across the board came down, so now I don't even bother looking up those PCG$ prices. It seems like some still use PCG$ as a guide, including buyers who blindly use them without realizing they are unreasonably high, or dealers who still think they can get those prices from the peak.  So, I just move on to another coin if I see prices headed towards or listed at the PCG$ guide price. I have been sticking with the NGC prices as a guide, supplemented by actual sold listings at Great Collections or Heritage Auctions (adjusted for the higher BP).  I also look at sold eBay listings if they are slabbed coins.  In the end, the NGC guide prices seem to be pretty accurate with what coins have been going for in general,  I can typically find coins at or lower than those NGC prices, although sometimes it requires me to be patient and wait for the right coin at the right price to come along.

Actual prices are always best.  Takes time but no substitute for actual sales.

I do find the NGC (and PCGS, if they have it, can't remember) price GRAPHS useful for a quick-and-dirty look at the price movement going back years.  The recent prices might be off but you can see the TREND clearly.

But even that you have to take with caveats.  I was looking at 1908 NM WF Saints in MS-67.  I punched up the NGC price chart going back to like 2006, maximum or all or whatever.  It looked like I thought it would....except....right around 2015 the price jumped from like $9,00 to $15,000 and stayed there for about 1 year and then dropped back down again.  It looked like a square camel's hump "bump" in the price that stood out.  No other price jumps for other high-grade 1908 NM Saints....could have been an outlier with 1 or 2 sales for whatever reason....could be an error in the data, I didn't explore further.  Wasn't the market or 1908 Saints or the gold price or anything acting weird at that time.

On 12/13/2022 at 11:20 PM, EagleRJO said:

I found that many listings or minimum bid prices on eBay are close to the maximum prices from the price spike around March of 2022.  These sellers either bought at a high earlier this year, or think they can still get those higher prices, which have become easy to spot and typically end up being an auction that doesn't make the reserve or become a stale listing.  So, I ended up bailing on eBay and have been sticking with bidding at Great Collections, which has been working out pretty well.

I just see the same stuff listed for MONTHS if not years going unsold.  It's like they are waiting for the market to move 50% in their favor....or....hoping somebody totally clueless happens to stumble on theirs and bid high.  

Another thing I've seen:  market is $300.....they list it for BIN for $700....someone makes an offer for $500 and gets it at that price or maybe after negotiating $550 or whatever.  Still a huge premium even though the buyer thinks he got a great deal and "saved" 30% or so.

Prices can fluctuate on Ebay bigtime, especially for stuff that doesn't sell that often or is somewhat unique.  I once bought a rare Sports Illustrated I wanted from the 1970's and paid like $80 for it.  Then a few weeks later an identical condition issue went for like $15. 

I learned then that unless I really needed something or an item was rare and wasn't listed weekly or very frequently...don't chase !!  

On 12/14/2022 at 4:37 AM, EagleRJO said:

I had been missing about a dozen of the more expensive CC Morgans for a complete circulated set I have been assembling.  So, I have been watching them like a hawk and bidding on quite a lot of them.  Prices have come down a good amount (as well as other coins I collect), and I have knocked off about half a dozen of the CC Morgans for a good amount less than the NGC guide prices.

Really ?  I wasn't aware anything CC had declined of late.  What price range Morgans are we talking about that you saw the declines ?

On 12/13/2022 at 10:51 PM, Mr.Bill347 said:

Yeah, it was just over $300 so I feel like I did reasonably well.

Online, LCS, or coin show ?

On 7/13/2022 at 6:08 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If inflation was going to gallop for a decade, it would be.  But the market believes the Fed WILL stamp out inflation -- even at the cost of a recession. We'll see if Jerome Powell is Paul Volcker. 

We'll see if Powell is Volcker or Arthuer Burns tomorrow about 2:30 PM.

On 7/13/2022 at 6:12 PM, Sandon said:

I have observed these "spikes" before in the early 1980s and 1990s, and those who bought at the peak were left disappointed for some years thereafter.  (My uncertified AU 50 or better specimen cost me all of $40, but that was back in 1992.)

The spikes then were bubbles where the prices went up 500-1,000% as I recall.  Prices than dropped 75-85% for the coins hawked by the telemarketers and gold/silver dealers.

On 7/15/2022 at 5:48 PM, Coinbuf said:

I agree that $400 is too much for a raw coin, I have seen MS62 NGC graded coins crossing the auction blocks for around $450 including one at Stacks last month.   But these are the pitfalls of ebay, ebay fees are high and a seller can ask anything he wants, it is up to the buyer to decide yes or no.

Shouldn't the all-in costs for a seller on Ebay be somewhere between GC and HA ?  I see more ridiculous ask prices on Ebay that are anywhere from 20% high for very liquid, frequently-sold items (i.e., popular Saints) to 50-200% over FMV or recent sales prices for less-actively seen coins/items (i.e., modern commemoratives or 5 ounce silvers).

FTW, did you end up sending in the coin for a grade ?

Any more MSDs added to your collection ?

This is a really good thread with great posts, information, and back-and-forth.

Even though I didn't contribute, I didn't want it to fall by the wayside so quickly.  Maybe other Morgan fans here want to comment.

Check out the pair of MS-66 1908 WF NM Saints I posted in another thread, PCGS and NGC.

If the weak feathers on the PCGS and the band towards 8 PM from the belly are NOT rub/wear, then it's very strange that the NGC would sell for 20% more than the PCGS coin.  I can't tell if the feathers/band are rub/wear.

Nice coin....did you have to pay up for it if you were looking for this type for a while ?  Carson City stuff is hot and has been for a few years now.

I see lots of gold coins on GC  going without bids; buyers aren't just paying up.  They will let the coins come in to them.

BTW, they are now up to the 7th Edition for the Bower's MORGAN SILVER DOLLAR book.  Wish someone would do a 2nd one for DOUBLE EAGLES. 

On 12/13/2022 at 4:10 PM, World Colonial said:

Designating funds as "customer" versus "firm" in an accounting ledger in and of itself doesn't mean anything.  This appears to be all that FTX did. 

That is something that is Securities Law 101.  Accounts must be segregated.  Forget about "regulation of crypto" -- this is about basic custodial accounts.  ANY business which takes monies has to adhere to this principel -- you can't take my downpayment for something and put it to another make-good. 

Instead of worrying about crypto itself, they should have been worried about the actual accounts.  They weren't. 

It's aking to worrying about if my tech stocks are too risky for my age instead of....is my account being raided by the firm ?

On 12/13/2022 at 4:10 PM, World Colonial said:

If I read correctly, FTX had no (real) board of directors, no audit function, and I'm not clear on their risk management practices either.  This is all "101" for any financial firm or for that matter, pretty much any large or public company.

Yes, but even without the right structure there had to have been (or should have been) basic custodial recordkeeping audits.

What about back-ups in case of a power failure ?  In case of a cyber attack ?  EMP attack ?  Basic stuff.

On 12/13/2022 at 4:10 PM, World Colonial said:

It can differ somewhat for privately held firms but shouldn't much. They obviously had poorly defined job functions, limied if any segregation of duties, and who knows if any accounting controls such as reconciliations which should have identified this problem.  This is all based upon what I have read.

Yup....would have helped.  You would think that the regulators -- who can regulate FIRMS if not CRYPTO -- should have been on this.  Ditto the private investors.

On 12/13/2022 at 4:10 PM, World Colonial said:

Is there such a thing in crypto land?  I have never heard of such a firm.

Fundamental principle of investing:  custodial oversight is NOT with the firm making the investments (unless you trust a Big Bulge Bracket Firm like JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, etc.).

Even those firms may use others to clear and verify trades, I'm not sure.  But I know that most RIAs and small asset managers use firms like JPM Chase, Goldman, etc. to verify their trades.  This way.....THEY are on the hook.

If I open up "GoldFinger Asset Management" and I steal the money and am producing MY OWN statements, I can get away with anything for a long time.  But if I clear through JPM Chase or Fidelity or Schwab.....THEY are on the hook and will insist the $$$ be held by them because the statements have their names on it and they're liable.

That is how Madoff got away with his fraud.  In fact, I am unaware of any material fraud or Ponzi Scheme where a big Wall Street firm was involved in clearing.  There, the problem is excessive trading, risky trading, high commissions, etc.  But no outright fraud. 

Self-clearing or clearing with a firm nobody ever heard of is 10 red flags. 

On 12/13/2022 at 10:30 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

PART A.  PCGS CERTIFICATION BREAKDOWNS.  As of today, 12/12/22, 430 originals (1899-1906) have been authenticated and certified.  Interestingly, 1 has been graded MS-45; 7 @ MS-55 and 28 @ MS-58.  To date, no original has been certified MS-67, or higher.  Only 7 have been certified as MS-66; some 38 @ MS-65.  As of today, 12/12/22, 2,744 restrikes (1907-1914) have been authenticated and certified. Interestingly, 5 have been graded MS-55 and 17 @ MS-58. Notably, 637 have been certified as MS-66 while 66 have been certified as MS-67.  For some time now, and particularly following a recent rooster-dump, I have maintained that set registrants encounter an invisible wall at the 66/67 demarcation line.  These stats bear out my contention, whatever the reason.  In addition, the compilation of a low-ball set, either now or in the near future, appears highly unlikely for two reasons: it would not be economical (current melt: $335.) and few of these essentially bullion coins bear wear and tear.  [Stay tuned for PART B of my survey:  NGC CERTIFICATION BREAKDOWNS, to be released shortly.]

From the Church Hoard above, it appears SOME years there are tons of survivors, no ?  They may be circulated and even worn, but lots survived.

On 12/13/2022 at 10:48 AM, VKurtB said:

I have LITERALLY never watched ANYTHING on CNBC in over two years. I refuse to as a matter of principle. It was force fed to us when I worked at the PA Capitol. Vile lies are their stock in trade. 

Sorry, they are one of the best news sources out there and I am no fan of NBC or MSNBC.  Their markets coverage is excellent.  When they have some news people squat over, yeah, you can detect the agenda bias.

You can also watch Fox Business Channel and/or Bloomberg TV if you don't like CNBC.  I'm watching all of them this morning.

Business/financial channels are the least-biased and most-objective news channels around.  They have to be -- their viewers keep score on them EVERY day with their accounts and P/L statements.  

On 12/13/2022 at 10:16 AM, World Colonial said:

Just read an SEC statement on CNBC.com.  The charges include violation of securities laws.  Once again, regulators waited to close the barn door after the horses are out of the barn.   I'm going to make the wild guess that the customer funds are gone and little if anything will ever be recovered.

It's tough to judge before the fact.  I do wonder though why a Primary Directive like no touching of customer assets is allowed to be possible at ANY firm.

Again....if JP Morgan Chase loses $40 billion with their capital account on bad bond trades....Jamie Dimon cannot BORROW money from millions of Chase customer checking accounts like mine and my parents for a few days at quarter-end to fool the regulators and Fed oversight people.  He can't just push a button and do that.

It appears that was the case at FTX.  Does anybody know who their custodian was ?  Custodians need to be separate from the trading firm or asset manager.