Not a good start for the PQ "sticker".

[gmarguli]

With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.

 

So John is calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade. Is English John's second language? If so, that would explain a lot.

No, John is not "calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade". The language from TDN reads "solid for the grade", not "average for the grade". I will resist the temptation to ask you if English (and comprehension thereof) is your first language or not.

 

Bzzzz. Sorry Mark, but "solid for the grade" would indicate that the coin would likely regrade the same if resubmitted. It's not likely to grade lower or higher. Therefore, it encompasses the low end to the high end, but not either extreme. It is exactly what you said, "solid for the grade".

 

PQ stands for Premium Quality. That indicates that it is a high end coin in some manner, not just "solid for the grade".

 

Calling a coin "PQ" which is just "solid for the grade" is incorrect. Or prove me wrong. I know you like to buy "solid for the grade" coins. Go change the descriptions on your web site to indicate that every single coin is "PQ".

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

According to what TDN said that Albanese said, he stickered the coin because it brought alot more money than it should have

He absolutely did not say that. There was no indication given that at the time the coin was stickered, CAC had any idea regarding what the coin had sold for.

 

I would bet that the price realized was examined AFTER this thread was started, not at the time the coin was stickered. When the coin was reviewed for the sticker CAC wouldn't have known its previous history to look up the price realized even if they wanted to.

 

Yes, this is true. However, he is using the price paid to justify the CAC sticker (admittedly after the fact), not any set of standards.

 

And secondly, I find it hard to believe that I am siding with greg against Mark Feld in an argument. But I am, and that's how I feel.

[MikeInFL]

However, he is using the price paid to justify the CAC sticker (admittedly after the fact), not any set of standards.

 

And your proof of this is what?

[physics-fan3.14]

However, he is using the price paid to justify the CAC sticker (admittedly after the fact), not any set of standards.

 

And your proof of this is what?

 

I am solely going off of what TDN said Albanese said. There was no mention of standards of any sort in TDNs post, just the price paid.

[MikeInFL]

Therein lies your mistake.

 

I'm not saying your conclusions are incorrect, because they very well may be correct, but to jump to the conclusion you did based on the discussion (after the fact) is a hasty generalization in my opinion.

 

Respectfully...MIke

[MarkFeld]

According to what TDN said that Albanese said, he stickered the coin because it brought alot more money than it should have

He absolutely did not say that. There was no indication given that at the time the coin was stickered, CAC had any idea regarding what the coin had sold for.

 

I would bet that the price realized was examined AFTER this thread was started, not at the time the coin was stickered. When the coin was reviewed for the sticker CAC wouldn't have known its previous history to look up the price realized even if they wanted to.

 

Yes, this is true. However, he is using the price paid to justify the CAC sticker (admittedly after the fact), not any set of standards.

 

And secondly, I find it hard to believe that I am siding with greg against Mark Feld in an argument. But I am, and that's how I feel.

The CAC opinion and standard (not the price paid for the coin) were used to "justify" the sticker. The price paid, which, it appears was not the premium initially thought, was mentioned after the coin was stickered and is probably relevant to some, but completely irrelevant to others.

 

Greg is a smart guy who knows how to carry on a good debate. There might even be times when I side with him against myself in an argument.

[MarkFeld]

With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.

 

So John is calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade. Is English John's second language? If so, that would explain a lot.

No, John is not "calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade". The language from TDN reads "solid for the grade", not "average for the grade". I will resist the temptation to ask you if English (and comprehension thereof) is your first language or not.

 

Bzzzz. Sorry Mark, but "solid for the grade" would indicate that the coin would likely regrade the same if resubmitted. It's not likely to grade lower or higher. Therefore, it encompasses the low end to the high end, but not either extreme. It is exactly what you said, "solid for the grade".

 

PQ stands for Premium Quality. That indicates that it is a high end coin in some manner, not just "solid for the grade".

 

Calling a coin "PQ" which is just "solid for the grade" is incorrect. Or prove me wrong. I know you like to buy "solid for the grade" coins. Go change the descriptions on your web site to indicate that every single coin is "PQ".

 

Greg, if it were up to me (which I strongly suspect it's not) I would probably use the language "solid for the grade or better" rather than "premium quality". It's semantics, either way though, and there will almost always be disagreement about the meaning of such terms.

 

The reality is, that due to re-grades, up-grades, gradeflation, etc, it appears that many coins in holders these days are low-end and/or over-graded, or whatever you wish to call them. I believe that those which are are better than that (whether you choose to call them solid for the grade, PQ, high-end, etc) are being targeted by CAC for stickers.

 

Personally, as I have always done, I'll focus on the coins, not what sellers say about them. I expect to dislike certain coins that CAC stickers and that they will dislike some of my coins which I like.

[Arizonadesertrat]

<<...I expect to dislike certain coins that CAC stickers and that they will dislike some of my coins which I like.>>

 

I agree completely. The Schadenfreudenistas are attempting to hold the CAC stickering/marketing plan to a standard that cannot realistically be met. There has never been a perfect scheme for grading coins.

 

There will be instances, like this one, that elicit serious disagreement. And there will be stickered coins that are subsequently acknowledged to have been 'mistakes'---the more important question is how CAC handles these.

 

As with other contentious threads, this is evolving into a tag-team numisma-wrestling event. Kindly post a scoreboard so that 'elderly' participants, like me, can keep up.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

For those interested, here's a link to all MS64 1924-S buffs sold at Heritage:

 

http://coins.ha.com/common/auction/pricesrealized.php?chkCoinsOrCurrency=&hdnSearch=true&num=0&optGlobalSearch=&ln=&cboDenomination=Buffalo+Nickels%3A&txtSearch=1924-s+ms64&stage=1 The coin in question is at the top of this list.

 

You might paruse these listings to:

 

1) See other coins graded 64 and gauge for yourself where this sits (albeit only from photos) relative to other 64s -- i.e. strong for the grade, weak for the grade, average for the grade.

 

2) Gauge where the price is relative to other slabbed examples. (I think you will find that this coin has not gone for PQ money, and quite to the contrary of JA's second hand response, it is not on the high-end of the PCGS 64 coins sold by Heritage -- understanding the limitations of a small sample set -- but see for yourself and draw your own conclusions).

 

Respectfully...Mike

[ibyandsellsmith]

What a joke. I'd say that coin won't sell for that much of a premium, just because of that stupid sticker.

[JamminJ]

I wonder if the sticker was personally applied by the seller.

There is no cause to wonder, other than to take an unwarranted/cheap shot. The seller does not work for CAC and wouldn't have stickers to apply.

 

Isn't Albanese a founding member of the CAC?

 

You're confusing John Albanese with Dave & Dean Albanese of Albanese Rare Coins. There's no relation.

 

Wow, I thought they were in cahoots.

[Shamika-migration]

I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:

 

this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64

.

 

I'd like to point out that no auction of this coin as a 63 in 2005 or as a 64 earlier this year supports this statement.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

What's the bid on this coin?

[MarkFeld]

I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:

 

this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64

.

 

I'd like to point out that no auction of this coin as a 63 in 2005 or as a 64 earlier this year supports this statement.

 

There does appear to be some confusion or mix-up in those figures

 

Chris, thanks for carrying on the discussions on this lightening-bolt-of-a-subject in a generally polite fashion. You and a number of other posters have presented information and/or expressed opinions and/or criticisms like gentlemen, while some others have gone way overboard.

[Shamika-migration]

What's the bid on this coin?

 

As of the 10-12-07 Greysheet, bid is $4,000 in 64.

 

 

[Shamika-migration]

I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:

 

this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64

.

 

I'd like to point out that no auction of this coin as a 63 in 2005 or as a 64 earlier this year supports this statement.

 

There does appear to be some confusion or mix-up in those figures

 

Chris, thanks for carrying on the discussions on this lightening-bolt-of-a-subject in a generally polite fashion. You and a number of other posters have presented information and/or expressed opinions and/or criticisms like gentlemen, while some others have gone way overboard.

Thanks Mark. I don't spend as much time posting over here as I do ATS where this thread is going nuts, but I do lurk here quite a bit.

 

 

 

 

[jom]

while some others have gone way overboard.

 

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

As to this thread, I'll just repeat what I said ATS: As to stickers and whatnot I'm agnostic: I don't know and I don't care. The coin is a problem IMO due to the spots however I have not seen it in person. I think Shamika said he did and said it was overgraded at 63, I'll take his word for it.

 

I'll go on doing as I always do: Use the applied grade as a START not as a FINISH...as best I can anyway.

 

jom

[MikeInFL]

What's the bid on this coin?

 

As of the 10-12-07 Greysheet, bid is $4,000 in 64.

 

 

$4,000 x 2 = $4,600

 

DOES NOT COMPUTE!!! DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!

 

 

 

After further review, it seems to me either TDN or JA is confused.

 

In fairness, it is also important to realize none of us have seen the coin in hand, so we should be wary of making rash judgements based on Heritage and Albanese photographs.

 

Have a nice weekend everyone...Mike

[physics-fan3.14]

while some others have gone way overboard.

 

If I went overboard I am truly sorry. I had no intentions of doing such.

[michael]

from a nice high end ms 63 could go ms64 on a good day with the wind behind your back.................... to an overgraded/extremely low end ms 64

 

oh my

 

my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my

 

 

i do not like this really weakly struck, ugly toned buff at all in the ms64 holder as at first it was not bumped due to the horribly weak strike and i do not think bottom line it is worth ms64 money.... i do thinik money between 63 and 64 but i do think the coin is an extremely high end liner ms63 BUT NOT WORTHY OF MS64

 

 

[jackson64]

For what its worth..here's an MS 63 I got back today from NGC today ( used my 5 free submissions for renewing on what I thought were 5 nice coins that should be in slabs)..I was hoping for higher but they have been incredibly (ridiculously) strict (unfair, inaccurate etc etc) on any coin dated pre-1960 for almost a year. I'm running about 85% on NGC crackouts getting crossed over to PCGS with about 40% upgraded ...granted I only do this for coins that I feel are obviously undergraded...sad part is, it's not even worth trying to get the grade changed--so it's stuck as a 63

 

Point is, I'd still rather have 63's that look like this than 64's that look like that..

 

[fhcoins-migration]

I am neutral on the stickers but my real problem with the coin is not just the spots but

 

Notice the yellow bleeding around them, looks like some Von Braun found out that MS70/ammonia doesnt always improve nickels especially when it hits carbon.....

 

JMHO but would like to see in person and If so its something that would disqualify it from PQ to me as I like the strike and the coin overall just not the spots and whomever Probably worked on this coin.

[Connecticoin]

With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.

 

So John is calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade. Is English John's second language? If so, that would explain a lot.

No, John is not "calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade". The language from TDN reads "solid for the grade", not "average for the grade". I will resist the temptation to ask you if English (and comprehension thereof) is your first language or not.

 

Bzzzz. Sorry Mark, but "solid for the grade" would indicate that the coin would likely regrade the same if resubmitted. It's not likely to grade lower or higher. Therefore, it encompasses the low end to the high end, but not either extreme. It is exactly what you said, "solid for the grade".

 

PQ stands for Premium Quality. That indicates that it is a high end coin in some manner, not just "solid for the grade".

 

Calling a coin "PQ" which is just "solid for the grade" is incorrect. Or prove me wrong. I know you like to buy "solid for the grade" coins. Go change the descriptions on your web site to indicate that every single coin is "PQ".

 

Greg, if it were up to me (which I strongly suspect it's not) I would probably use the language "solid for the grade or better" rather than "premium quality". It's semantics, either way though, and there will almost always be disagreement about the meaning of such terms.

 

The reality is, that due to re-grades, up-grades, gradeflation, etc, it appears that many coins in holders these days are low-end and/or over-graded, or whatever you wish to call them. I believe that those which are are better than that (whether you choose to call them solid for the grade, PQ, high-end, etc) are being targeted by CAC for stickers.

 

Personally, as I have always done, I'll focus on the coins, not what sellers say about them. I expect to dislike certain coins that CAC stickers and that they will dislike some of my coins which I like.

 

Mark, I would have to side with Greg on this as well. The interpretation of the CAC sticker is confusing and/or misleading based on these statements, the CAC website, and TDNs posts over the past few weeks.

 

The bad part about this is that dealers (such as the "other" Albaneses) may hype the CAC sticker as "PQ" for coins that are really just solid for the grade. Given that roughly 75% of certain coin series may qualify for a sticker, many "solid for the grade" coins might be stickered solely for misleading marketing hype as "PQ"

[MarkFeld]

while some others have gone way overboard.

 

If I went overboard I am truly sorry. I had no intentions of doing such.

Thank you, though I wasn't speaking about you, as I think you just went a little bit overboard.

 

The bad part about this is that dealers (such as the "other" Albaneses) may hype the CAC sticker as "PQ" for coins that are really just solid for the grade. Given that roughly 75% of certain coin series may qualify for a sticker, many "solid for the grade" coins might be stickered solely for misleading marketing hype as "PQ"

If that (in terms of something even close to 75% and the hype) occurs it shouldn't take long for buyers to become aware of it and adjust/react accordingly. I appreciate concerns such as that and hope they end up being moot.

 

Point is, I'd still rather have 63's that look like this than 64's that look like that..

So would I, but you're comparing a 1938-D to a 1924-S and I don't think that's a fair comparison.