124Spider

On 8/23/2021 at 11:24 AM, zadok said:

priced does not mean they sell....

Sure; but a retailer who keeps overpriced inventory overpriced isn't going to last long.  When so many retailers seem to do the same thing (e.g., price an MS60 coin higher than an AU58 coin), I'm inclined to believe that it's a pretty common practice, and that the coins sell.

On 8/23/2021 at 10:46 AM, MarkFeld said:

The phenomenon isn't limited to just a few types. Often, an AU58 coin can be more (if not far more) appealing than a low grade unc. piece. The latter often gets its low mint state grade, due to lots of marks and/or other problems, which a nice 58 wont exhibit. 

GoldFinger and I both agree with your opinion about appeal, but we both find that low mint state coins consistently are priced significantly higher than AU58 coins, even when the low mint state coin is kind of ugly.  I have enjoyed buying AU58 coins on many occasions (especially Morgan and Peace dollars), finding AU58 consistently priced below less appealing MS60-MS62 coins.  

On 8/22/2021 at 9:28 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Strictly speaking, no matter how much bag wear and how many bag marks and dings a coin got...if it wasn't circulated, it's considered mint state.....wheras an AU coin can have the slightest wear on the high points but have really clean fields and very few bag marks or ding but is considered a lesser coin grade-wise.  

I agree, as I said above; AU58, to me, is a nice value point, because the market (in my aesthetic viewpoint) overvalues the mere fact of being "mint state," and undervalues eye appeal.  To me, that's not a bad thing, because I get to buy the coin I like better at a lower price.  Heck, the coin about which I started this thread is a perfect example.  It's a fairly rare coin, especially certified (the only way I would buy the coin, because it is often counterfeited or altered) in higher grades.  And the price increases exponentially above AU53 even into the very low mint state grades (an MS62--without full bands--costs about 3.5 times what an AU53 costs, and I think I got a very strong example of an AU55 at a price significantly below the NGC listed price for that coin at that grade).  So, when I found a beautiful coin, at the very high end of what I was wiling to pay, but one so nice it probably has better eye appeal than the vast majority of those few that exist in the next several higher grades even if I could find one, I bought it.

In any event, it's not as if dealers are forcing that on collectors; coins are a classic non-essential good, and the buyers, in aggregate, decide how much a coin is worth (with a floor, of course, which is a function of the melt value of the coin--not a significant issue for a rare dime like it is with your Saint-Gaudens beauties).  If buyers as a group prefer low mint state to pristine AU, so be it (and, as I said, that really does work for me).

Mark

On 8/22/2021 at 5:12 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

To me, the big dichotomy or "kink" in the grading scale is how low-60's Mint State coins are treaated, valued, and priced.....versus AU-58's.

We've talked about it before so I won't beat a dead horse.  But for many popular American coin types, that split between them and how the coins are valued/graded is noteworthy.

I'm enjoying this discussion, and learning; thanks to all of you!

Could you please elaborate on this statement?  I buy coins whose appearance pleases me, and I cannot play in the high mint-state world.  So I have developed a fondness for AU58, which strikes me as often being a sweet spot in the value curve; if I'm willing to pay what it costs to buy a coin in the range of AU55 to MS62, I don't have an emotional attachment to the "mint state" tag, finding them visually almost indistinguishable, so I'll buy the grade that seems to be to be the best value.  Are you saying that you think that AU58, which is practically indistinguishable from MS60 (and may, in fact, have more eye appeal), is undervalued compared to low mint-state coins?  And, if so, do you consider that a bad thing (and, if so, why is it a bad thing?)?

Mark

Are you guys saying that a coin graded "50" now is a poorer specimen than a coin graded "50" fifteen years ago?  Or are you saying that you object to the game of applying the "AU" tag to a coin that is not almost uncirculated (e.g., AU50)?

If the former, that is a bad thing for the hobby, and largely undermines the entire purpose for TPGs.

If the latter, I don't see where the complaint is.  Given that a coin graded "G" is a deeply worn coin, and not "good" by any rational standard; a coin graded "VG" is still a very worn coin, and not "very good" by any rational standard, etc., right up until AU58 (which is, IMO, "almost uncirculated,"), and given that those labels were attached long ago, I don't see the complaint about labels.

Numbers are supposed to be objective, and a coin given a certain grade today, should look very, very similar to the same type of coin given the same grade many years ago.  But attaching fluffy letters to the number, if the numbers ARE objective and consistent, does not offend me in the least.

Mark

On 8/22/2021 at 11:39 AM, GBrad said:

I will say this, based on what I spent on my two Morgans, taking into account what silver melt value currently is (which is NEVER going to happen on my end with these babies) and then add in what TPG fees would amount to for slabbing of these coins..... I am fairly certain I came out well ahead in my purchase(s).  

To clarify:  By "careful," I meant to warn you that those beautiful, iconic coins can be addictive.  So many of them are still quite inexpensive, even in mint state or almost mint state, that you're not likely to be taken for a  ride if you're careful; but 100 multiplied by even a fairly small number amounts to a lot of money over time!  Think of mint state common dates as a gateway drug!

On 8/21/2021 at 1:31 PM, GBrad said:

Being that I am extremely new to purchasing graded and slabbed coins outside my realm of expertise (actually, I’m not an expert on anything truth be known, especially coins…) I attended the BRNA show in Dalton, GA today. I had the great pleasure of meeting forum member VKurtB who was at the show as well. Extremely nice guy and very knowledgeable! That is probably an understatement. He twisted my arm and forced me to buy a Morgan….. I was totally and completely against it……,, (don’t believe me, I asked for his advice and help which he more than willingly gave…..😁).  I have never owned any Morgan Dollars, always wanted to, so I found a couple well within in my budget and bought them just to say “I now own Morgans”. Beautiful coins (to me) and a far cry from the Linc’s I am much more knowledgeable of and predominately collect. Here’s a pic of the two I got for pretty good deals. I’m very happy with them being that I’m not anywhere near the point of trying to assemble any type of set in the foreseeable future. 

Careful--buying a few Morgans at a local coin shop (raw coins, common dates, in pretty high grades for just above silver value; just because I wanted to own a few silver dollars) was what reignited my coin collecting.  To me, there's still nothing like a silver dollar, and I now own 85 distinct Morgans (and still buy one a month, or so) and all 24 Peace dollars (relatively few of my silver dollars are in mint state, and none above MS64+).  I'm poorer, but I just love looking at them in their albums (or slabs)!

On 8/22/2021 at 8:16 AM, RWB said:

TPS accuracy/consistency for circulated coins is extremely good. For uncirculated coins, it is poor.

I don't have many uncirculated certified coins, but among the ones I do have are four GSA Morgan dollars, graded MS64, MS63, MS64+ and MS63.  For the life of me, I cannot tell the difference among them.

On 8/22/2021 at 8:00 AM, RWB said:

Granularity is only as good as the uniformity of the grains. Humans make too many inconsistent judgements in AU and Unc conditions. For circulated coins, the ANA grading guide has all the detail separation necessary - the individual differences are best left to negotiation and perceived pricing.

So do you wish the grading scale were like it was decades ago, with only F, AG,G,VG,F,VF,EF,AU,BU?  I don't; the purpose of my first post here was confusion/unhappiness over what I perceive to be extreme variability in grading standards with a 70-point scale.

I don't know that we need a 70-point scale, because, demonstrably, it's not consistently applied.  I don't even know that we need a 30-point scale.  But, for coins I collect, two levels of "F" are useful, as are several levels of "VF" and three or four grades covering what is now 40-55.

Like you, I like the fairly objective standard of MS70 and AU58 (and for those of us not "investing" as much as we're building an affordable collection of pretty coins, I find AU58 to be sweet spot in the value curve).  I think that dividing MS into eleven grades is ridiculous.  But it's a long continuum between 1 and 55, and I like having a fair number of steps.

Mark

On 8/22/2021 at 6:49 AM, MarkFeld said:

I disagree. Even if you think certain coins labeled various numerical grades of AU are in fact, XF, it can still be useful to assign grades (50-58) to coins that others believe to be AU. For example,  regardless of how you might categorize them, typically, most people would prefer an AU55 or AU58 to an AU50 or AU53.

And if we're going to take issue with the labels, I don't feel that 40-49 are "extremely fine," 20-39 are "very fine," 12-19 are "fine," etc.  I think ALL labels from 1-55 are somewhere between optimistic (AU55) and absurd (everything on the low end). No, a coin graded 4 is not "good," it's a deeply worn-out coin.  But that doesn't negate the usefulness of a grading system with significant granularity.

On 8/21/2021 at 7:03 PM, RWB said:

No, it is not useful; it is harmful.

AU is a singular grade/condition point, just as is MS-70. AU marks the defined beginning of a circulated coin condition. It is a point of reference which cannot be changed without destroying all reliability and consistency in the concept of evaluating coin condition. The illegitimacies labeled "AU-55," "AU-53," "AU-50" are corruptions just as much as MS-73, MS-75 etc. It is merely a greedy squeeze to take in more money for lower quality product from the feeble-minded. Remember "LU" "Slider" "Virtually Unc" and the other in a mutated slime of metastasized numismatic cancers?

I buy for research, so the slab "grade" is irrelevant. For many that is not the case, and they are being cheated and abused for the collective avarice of fat-cat perverts.

To the extent that you're saying that an AU50 coin (even one correctly graded) isn't, in fact, "almost [or about] uncirculated," I certainly agree. Heck, even the AU55 that I bought doesn't make me pull out the magnifying glass to see signs of circulation (unlike my 1909-S VDB Lincoln cent--AU58--which shows no obvious signs of wear).

But I don't particularly care about the label, only the number.  I believe that coins' conditions cover a wide range, and a 70-point scale (or, more realistically, a 30-point scale) can be more useful than bunching a fairly wide range of conditions into one grade.

So yeah, let's call 40-55 "extremely fine," and reserve AU for 58.  Just like we have a 20-point range for "very fine."  But, in my opinion (and I readily acknowledge neither particular expertise nor a long-term passion for serious collecting nor caring about determining how many angels are dancing on the head of the pin--I'll never own a valuable MS67 coin, and I have a great deal of trouble convincing myself that dividing "uncirculated" coins into eleven classifications makes any sense), that's shifting deck chairs on the "Titanic."

To me, as a guy who has spent (to me, at least) a lot of money on this hobby, and expects to continue buying rare, fairly high grade coins (but not MS65+) for the foreseeable future, the issue is the meaning of a particular numerical grade, not the words (e.g., "AU" or "EF") attached to the number.  I would prefer a world where "50" meant something quite predictable, and I'm not finding that.

Mark

On 8/21/2021 at 2:57 PM, RWB said:

What you see is a failure to have and maintain standards. Too much money drives the gradual reduction of quality. Once, AU meant an coin with the slightest abrasion on the highest points or disturbance of field luster. Now, that has been bastardized to AU-58, AU-55, AU-50 and other rubbish. The AU-55 and 50 "phony grades" are really EF coins, but given the "AU" tag to boost prices.

I can't speak to gradeflation, but I don't take any issue with adding granularity to the scale.  Back when the scale was, G, VG, F, VF, EF, AU BU, a grade meant very little.  While I think it's silly to pretend that we work on a 70-point scale, when no more than 30 of them are ever used, I believe that, e.g., dividing AU into four grades (50, 53, 55, 58) is useful, because I believe that there is that much spectrum between the top of EF and the bottom of MS.

If there is gradeflation, that's a bad thing.  And if a significant percent of the coins graded by NGC and PCGS are assigned the wrong grade, that's a bad thing, IMO.

Mark

On 8/21/2021 at 12:52 PM, Dark Chameleon said:

just because it reaches a grade does not mean it reaches the price its asking for.

Another excellent point!  Related to the previous discussion of normal distribution, even assuming that a coin deserves to be a certain grade, the price should reflect where it falls within that grade.  When dealing with very rare coins, or high-grade coins, in which the difference in price from one grade to the next may be a great deal of money, the variance in actual value of a particular coin will depend on where it falls within that normal distribution.  My problem with the AU50 dime I did not buy was that it was priced above the value for an AU50 dime of that specification, and it was, at best, a very weak example of that grade (in my opinion).  I bought the AU55 version, despite the fact that it cost a good deal more than I wanted to pay to fill that slot, because I felt (i) the coin was a very strong AU55 coin, and (ii) the price was on the low end of the AU55 price range.  I have yet to feel buyer's remorse after paying whatever I willingly chose, for an excellent coin; I have felt buyer's remorse when I got a worse coin than I thought I was buying (which, of course, is why I now only pay big bucks for slabbed coins, and even they must be coins that I either see in person or see excellent photos of before buying).

Thanks.  Yeah, having two degrees in mathematics, and having once been an actuary, I understand normal distributions, as I understand that the "distance" between an MS63 and either MS64 or MS62 is not the same as the "distance" between an XF45 and (were there such a thing) an XF44 or XF46.  My surprise is in finding a 1942/41-D Mercury dime, graded by NGC as AU50, that, to my eye at least, looks (at best) no better than my 1942/41 Mercury dime, graded by NGC as XF40 (both obverse and reverse).  And, further, I am surprised that that AU50 coin would be so very inferior (to my eye, at least) to the AU55 coin that I ultimately bought.

Further, I also have an AU53 (NGC) Mercury dime, and an XF45 (NGC) Mercury dime; the AU53 is clearly better (on both sides) than the AU50 candidate, and the XF45 is better on the obverse and comparable on the reverse to the AU50.

So here I am comparing XF40, XF45, AU50, AU53 and AU55 Mercury dimes, and they are not anything like the linear progression I would expect for five coins that are neighbors on the grading scale (given that there really is no "grade" between those five grades).  The most likely explanation, to me, is a combination of (i) I'm an amateur, not expert at grading coins, (ii) my XF40 is perhaps under-graded, (iii) the AU50 candidate is perhaps over-graded. and (iv) the AU55 that I bought is a strong example of an AU55 Mercury dime.

And it also strongly points to a nontrivial number of slabbed coins, even from NGC and PCGS, being misgraded (beyond merely being on the weaker side of the normal distribution for what is legitimately a coin of that value).  This, to me, adds value to the CAC approval sticker (although I have only one such coin, but it is my most expensive coin).

"Buy the coin," indeed!

Fun discussion; thanks!

On 8/10/2021 at 1:05 PM, Rodent said:

Ya I had 6 in my cart 3 of the 2021 Morgan's and 3 of the 2021 Peace dollars.. clicked on place order 7 times.. cannot access this page came up each time.. then finally it showed a red warning that there is something wrong with your order.. ya the coins are no longer available.. sent email to U.S. Mint Customer service and asked them to honor my purchase.. is totally criminal to have items in your cart all payment methods in..and the mint takes the coins away from you.. if the Mint does not honor my order.. I am all done buying any  thing from the Mint.. 

It is certainly reasonable to respond to this mess by not playing their game when they have a hyped product to sell, and you suspect that the item will be too popular (I, for instance, will not be playing when the market opens for the proof silver eagles, even though they intrigue me; if they're still around later, when I think about it, I may give one effort to buying one). 

And if this experience turns you off to any collecting, then, sure, quit.  But sometimes (especially when dealing with government entities) things just don't go smoothly, and that's life.  I don't enjoy the game, but I wanted the coins without having to pay the markup on the secondary market, so I played.  It was frustrating.

First world problems, indeed!

From a curiosity standpoint, it will be interesting to see what happens to the prices on the secondary market when the coins actually ship, and a lot more hit the market with people flipping after actually having received their coins.  I suspect that the price will stay above $85, but I suspect that it'll be closer to $100 than to $200 when the dust settles.

That was a game I did not enjoy!  But at least it's over (assuming they don't continue the "series," which I hope they don't).

I don't suppose there really is much the Mint can do about the inability of their servers to handle the traffic, given that their present set-up is fine for 99.9+% of their needs (well, other than price their products, or make them in a quantity, so that they don't sell out in under a half hour), but it isn't any fun playing that game (you know, sign on, place the order; get kicked off, rinse, repeat, endlessly, until it magically works, or the product sells out).

On 5/20/2021 at 9:21 PM, Just Bob said:

The only thing that I found specifically for GSA holders is a Guardhouse brand wooden box made to hold 10 slabs. Wizard is currently out of stock. I also checked the Guardhouse website, but I could not find the box there. This may mean it is no longer sold by them, but you could contact them to be sure.

Link to Wizard here.

Guardhouse homepage here

I found one and have ordered it; thanks!

Edit--Except they don't actually have it; back to the drawing board!

On 8/3/2021 at 11:49 AM, Crawtomatic said:

That's a legit thought.  But then they run the risk of not selling their inventory.  As long as they're pricing the item at a comfortable profit margin they're better off selling out completely than warehousing product for months/years trying to milk it for full profit.

I agree with this, but anyone could have told them that $85 would be well below market; I'm hardly an expert, and my coin collection is quite modest compared to those who buy exclusively high-mint state slabbed coins, but I was very certain they were underselling the market.  I have no problem with using a price that would comfortably sell out in a couple of months, but it's absurd to use a price that sells out in 25 minutes, breaking their server in the process!  Even if they were surprised by the demand on May 24 (I wasn't), they knew full well this time what to expect.

On 8/3/2021 at 11:25 AM, Crawtomatic said:

This comes to mind every time I see a discussion - regardless of topic - where collectors condemn speculators/flippers/scalpers.  

I have no issue with market forces doing what they do; I have an issue with the Mint selling these for below-market prices, thereby enriching the dealers, who immediately list them on eBay for three times what they paid.  Why doesn't the Mint either make more of them, to satisfy the actual demand, or charge more?

As a taxpayer, I'm a bit annoyed at the incompetence displayed by the US Mint with this sale.

They either should have sold a lot more, or charged a lot more.  Instead, they let the volume dealers charge a huge markup.

It makes no sense to me that they would leave so much money on the table.

I have, alas, acquired a number of certified coins.  

"Alas," because I would rather that they just sit in the album, easily accessible.  But I am not comfortable spending a bunch of money on an expensive coin without an objective reason to believe that it's genuine, and in the advertised condition.  So I have bought a number of slabbed coins, which mostly just sit in the safe, and it's not very convenient to lug the bag out, spread them out, and give them some love.  And these are, after all, pretty much the best coins in my collection, which I like to look at!

I see that there are binders for holding the common slabs (NGC, PCGS, ANACS), but I have an additional "problem" (yes, I know it's a first world problem):  I have several certified Morgan dollars from the GSA hoard, in the original GSA plastic holder.  This is a larger holder than the standard slab, and I doubt it would fit in one of the slots made for the standard slab.

What have people done to solve this problem?

Thanks.

Mark

32 minutes ago, Mr_Spud said:

For some, I just put a common coin with the same date in the slot for a key coin that has the mintmark on the reverse that matches the rest of the set. Like for a Barber Dime album I have an 1895 dime with no mintmark in the 1895-O hole in a Meghrig album and have the real 1895-O in a slab. That way it looks like the album is full. The date on the obverse matches the date written on the album page, and when you turn the page to the reverse the page isn’t marked so you can’t even tell it’s the wrong mintmark unless you are looking for it.

I thought about this, but it does have flaws, alas.  It doesn't work for Lincoln cents because of the obverse mint mark; the same is true of standing Liberty quarters and early walking Liberty half dollars; and 1921 walking Liberty half dollars and Mercury dimes have no common sibling (1921 was a tough year for any silver coin not a Morgan dollar).  And it doesn't work for silver dollars, which have a melt value of about $20, and even the most common cost $30 or more in XF condition.  It works brilliantly for the 1937-D three-legged buffalo nickel, so I'll probably just get a nice copy of the normal one.

I'm thinking now of a hybrid--where possible (like the 1937-D buffalo nickel), I'll follow your suggestion.  Otherwise, I'll probably substitute coins of the same denomination from other series that aren't too expensive.
 

Thanks!

It does seem that there is no simple, elegant solution, which isn't a surprise.

I think I'll try using a different series of the same denomination of coin, and see how that looks.  For instance, common Indian Head cents in the Lincoln cents album; Jefferson nickels in the Buffalo nickel album, etc.  For the Morgan dollars, I can get uncirculated Eisenhower dollars for a nominal sum.  If that doesn't work, I'll bite the bullet and get good-looking, common coins of the same series.