Bullion? Semi-Numismatic? Numismatic?

[jayman1970]

I find it hard to believe that a coin can make it through the minting process and then packaging and shipping,then finally grading with no nicks or abrasions picked up along the way.I could believe a small number of 70's,but not such a large volume that you see out there!!

[John Maben]

Color me confused.

 

I just scanned JR's article to see how many times third party grading was even mentioned, and counted four. I also counted somewhere on the order of 35 or so paragraphs if you call a paragraph 4 to 5 sentences.

 

The thrust of this article is about BULLION and dozens of points are made which have absolutely nothing to do with grading yet most posts here are focusing in on the grading aspects of it.

 

It makes me wonder how many that posted read the article completely vs scanning it for hot points of interest.

 

The article is about explaining bullion in depth, and attempting to discern where pure bullion ends and numismatic value begins. The TPG aspect is an afterthought. I can provide a list of dozens of UNGRADED coins that many would label "bullion" that myself and many other would gladly pay well over bullion to purchase them.

 

Who cares? Lot's of people. Especially those that are new or fairly new to precious metals and coins.

 

 

The link to article posted by e1cnr makes some good points though I loathe the title as NGC and PCGS are not the culprits. There has been and are telemarketers that charge obnoxious prices however trust me on this, this DOES NOT apply only to modern coins. The final point made in that article CONFIRMS the need for the article that JR wrote! It states that many buy coins at inflated prices thinking they are simply buying bullion. Now remember folks, these people may not be as informed as you guys are. This is where defining the line between bullion and items that have numismatic value is NEEDED to PROTECT consumers.

 

John

[coinman1794]

Carl, perfectly stated, and I agree 100%.

 

I looked at a certified MS-70 modern commemorative dollar yesterday, and as usual, it had an obvious defect that should have kept it at MS-69 -- or better yet RAW.

 

But James, how many times can we say that about a classic, certified coin, too?

 

There aren't too many classic coins graded MS70.

 

Sure there are many classic coins "over graded"...certainly. But the premiums paid for such small differences in grade are more evident in modern material. Especially at this MS70 level where there really are no differences from a typical MS68...

 

jom

 

There are counless examples, throughout numismatics, of huge premiums paid for 1-grade-to-the-next jumps.

 

Pointing out that the same problems exist on slabbed classic coins implies that the problem encompasses the whole grading spectrum, not just 69 vs 70.

 

Frankly, I have not seen a 70 that looks 68. I have seen 70s that had tiny strike-thru dents and die defects in the frosting that most would probably interpret as contact marks when they were actually perfect, as-made coins. That said, I am not a fan of the 70 grade, and personally think the services should start issuing 69+ to the coins that are technically as-made, but that have strike defects as listed above, and reserve 70 for coins that look perfect as well as are perfect.

[coinman1794]

Good points, John.

 

The graders do their best to grade, label, and record what come in, but after they leave the building, they are out of the TPGs' control.

 

Further, the services state in their pop reports that the number of coins graded might not reflect what is out there, in total.

[FishyOne]

...services should start issuing 69+

 

As funny as that may sound, I agree completely. Many coins now in 70 holders are really 69+ pieces.

 

Maybe we can start a new trend!

[James_OldeTowne]

Color me confused.

 

I just scanned JR's article to see how many times third party grading was even mentioned, and counted four. I also counted somewhere on the order of 35 or so paragraphs if you call a paragraph 4 to 5 sentences.

 

The thrust of this article is about BULLION and dozens of points are made which have absolutely nothing to do with grading yet most posts here are focusing in on the grading aspects of it.

I strongly, but respectfully, disagree.

 

To my way of reading it, I see a minimum of TEN references, implied or expressed, to TPG certification. Basically, any reference to any "70" grade (outside of theoretical discussion) is in reference to certification, because only TPGs assign that grade. (I'm serious, I NEVER encounter sellers who are so crazy as to stick "MS-70" on 2x2 flips. And if they do, nobody pays attention to them.)

 

I'm sorry, but if you entire remove all reference to third-party certification, then the article is virtually entirely pointless. The only gist, aside from TPG "added value", is to point out that when people start collecting a series of something -- anything -- then the scarcer individual components of that series command a premium as their scarcity becomes apparent.

 

Duh. Do we really need "35 or so paragraphs" to tell us that?

 

I'm sorry, but upon re-reading it, the thrust IS NOT about "bullion"; it is about "bullion that is certified at the 70 level".

[John Maben]

..... thanks for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to the ludicrous and obnoxious notion that this article and thread are spam from someone who I thought would no better than to behave like a insufficiently_thoughtful_person. And also thanks to coinman as well.

 

James, I can't see how one could say the main point of the article was to emphasize or pitch 70's. The grading element was just one of several mentioned that are determining factors in separating bullion from semi-numismatic or numismatic coins.

 

John

[brg5658]

Color me confused.

 

I just scanned JR's article to see how many times third party grading was even mentioned, and counted four. I also counted somewhere on the order of 35 or so paragraphs if you call a paragraph 4 to 5 sentences.

 

The thrust of this article is about BULLION and dozens of points are made which have absolutely nothing to do with grading yet most posts here are focusing in on the grading aspects of it.

 

It makes me wonder how many that posted read the article completely vs scanning it for hot points of interest.

 

The article is about explaining bullion in depth, and attempting to discern where pure bullion ends and numismatic value begins. The TPG aspect is an afterthought. I can provide a list of dozens of UNGRADED coins that many would label "bullion" that myself and many other would gladly pay well over bullion to purchase them.

 

Who cares? Lot's of people. Especially those that are new or fairly new to precious metals and coins.

 

 

The link to article posted by e1cnr makes some good points though I loathe the title as NGC and PCGS are not the culprits. There has been and are telemarketers that charge obnoxious prices however trust me on this, this DOES NOT apply only to modern coins. The final point made in that article CONFIRMS the need for the article that JR wrote! It states that many buy coins at inflated prices thinking they are simply buying bullion. Now remember folks, these people may not be as informed as you guys are. This is where defining the line between bullion and items that have numismatic value is NEEDED to PROTECT consumers.

 

John

 

Maybe if one TYPES in enough ALL CAPS people will start BELIEVING them?

 

I'm going with Webster here:

nu·mis·mat·ics noun pl but singular in construction: the study or collection of coins, tokens, and paper money and sometimes related objects (such as medals)

 

It seems that intent could be a dividing line. Circulation coins clearly fall under numismatics, commemoratives have a nominal face value, but likely are more similar to medals -- thus falling under the definition of numismatics for some. But, I'm not sure where run-of-the-mill ASEs and AGEs fit into this definition. They have a nominal face value, but are never intended to be spent as such. Their designs are not generally commemorative in nature, but rather run for several years with the same design. Even "rare" gold eagle with mintages of say 1,500 or so (?) are artificially hyped as "rare" numismatic pieces, but outside of the registries and outside of plastic they are just another gold eagle.

 

Take the NGC and PCGS registries out of the equation, and I would bet that almost the entire market for bullion-type coins would fall through the roof to near true bullion value. I don't have as many years under my belt as you John (actually you've been a dealer since before I was born), but I would never recommend to a friend who wanted to get into collecting that they should start by picking up gold or silver bullion-type coins for a premium. JMO.

[John Maben]

...... ok, and maybe if one quotes webster in large blue letters their point will somehow reign supreme?

 

"Even "rare" gold eagle with mintages of say 1,500 or so (?) are artificially hyped as "rare" numismatic pieces, but outside of the registries and outside of plastic they are just another gold eagle"

 

Hyped by who? Where? The fact is there are probably more people with sets of half ounce gold eagles in this country than there are oh, let's say peace dollars by variety.

 

The low mintage coins have fetched serious premiums for as long as I can remember and for the record, my company rarely sells them.

 

"Take the NGC and PCGS registries out of the equation, and I would bet that almost the entire market for bullion-type coins would fall through the roof to near true bullion value."

 

I have 25,000 active customers of moderns. I'd bet less than 50 of them are registry people.

 

"I would never recommend to a friend who wanted to get into collecting that they should start by picking up gold or silver bullion-type coins for a premium. JMO."

 

...nor would I to a friend, or a stranger. I offer some insight and let people make their own purchasing decisions. I've always been that way, no different the 20 years I dealt in classics.

 

John

 

[$ilverHawk]

Color me confused.

 

I just scanned JR's article to see how many times third party grading was even mentioned, and counted four. I also counted somewhere on the order of 35 or so paragraphs if you call a paragraph 4 to 5 sentences.

 

The thrust of this article is about BULLION and dozens of points are made which have absolutely nothing to do with grading yet most posts here are focusing in on the grading aspects of it.

 

It makes me wonder how many that posted read the article completely vs scanning it for hot points of interest.

 

The article is about explaining bullion in depth, and attempting to discern where pure bullion ends and numismatic value begins. The TPG aspect is an afterthought. I can provide a list of dozens of UNGRADED coins that many would label "bullion" that myself and many other would gladly pay well over bullion to purchase them.

 

Who cares? Lot's of people. Especially those that are new or fairly new to precious metals and coins.

 

 

The link to article posted by e1cnr makes some good points though I loathe the title as NGC and PCGS are not the culprits. There has been and are telemarketers that charge obnoxious prices however trust me on this, this DOES NOT apply only to modern coins. The final point made in that article CONFIRMS the need for the article that JR wrote! It states that many buy coins at inflated prices thinking they are simply buying bullion. Now remember folks, these people may not be as informed as you guys are. This is where defining the line between bullion and items that have numismatic value is NEEDED to PROTECT consumers.

 

John

 

The thrust of the article is about how coins originally minted by the US Mint as bullion coins became numismatic, collectible coins. The bullion coins became numismatic, collectible coins through the marketing efforts of the US Mint, their chosen distributors and the TPGs.

 

There are only a handful of ASEs and AGEs that due to mintage or error are actually difficult to collect. The grades assigned to these coins are still a strong determinate as to their market value. Mr. Rudo did a good job of citing those very few examples. Mr. Rudo also clearly cites that the MS/PF70 label is the main factor in the valuation and "collectibility" of the majority of modern bullion coins.

 

Your claim that "The TPG aspect is an afterthought" is wrong. The value of the vast majority of ASEs and AGEs is dependent on the grade assigned by the TPGs. I refer you to your own web site, look at the price difference between a MS/PF 69 and a MS/PF70 coin. The grade assigned by the TPG does matter. Remove a MS/PF70 graded ASE or AGE from the TPG holder and try to sell it at the same "market" price and see how well you do. The plastic does matter for the vast majority of modern bullion coins. And the problem is that if you removed 5 MS/PF69 coins from the plastic and removed 5 MS/PF70 coins from the plastic, no one could tell which grade was assigned to which coin.

 

The seemly inconsistent assignment of the MS/PF70 grade by the TPGs as well as the completely dubious labels such as "First Strike" are pure marketing.

 

So as the old saying goes "buy the coin, not the holder". A little difficult if no one can consistently tell the difference.

 

Carl

 

[James_OldeTowne]

..... thanks for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to the ludicrous and obnoxious notion that this article and thread are spam from someone who I thought would no better than to behave like a insufficiently_thoughtful_person. And also thanks to coinman as well.

 

James, I can't see how one could say the main point of the article was to emphasize or pitch 70's. The grading element was just one of several mentioned that are determining factors in separating bullion from semi-numismatic or numismatic coins.

 

John

But John, I think you will have to admit that the "70" is the single and only crucial factor upon which (most of) the rest of the article is based. It's one thing for scarcity to derive from the absolute population of an item (i.e. mintage), but the population of a "70" grade is purely artificial and mostly arbitrary. No matter how you slice it or dice it, what people are paying a premium for MOST of the time is the grade on a plastic capsule, NOT the bullion coin.

 

A 1-oz gold coin costs $1600.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-69 slab grade costs $1,650.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-70 slab grade costs $$2,500.

 

Clearly, the coin is not commanding any sort of "numismatic premium". Rather, the PLASTIC is commanding a premium.

 

I do not mind at all that some people collect slabs. That's a great hobby, and it's wonderful if many folks get enjoyment out of collecting in that manner. But please, let's not try to make that seem as if it's numismatically related. There's nothing wrong with collecting slabs for slab's sake, so why would someone feel the need to somehow reassure themselves that they're really participating in some sort of numismatic pursuit?

 

Enclosing a common bullion item in a shard of plastic does not magically make that bullion item a numismatic item. It's still a bullion item. It just happens to be accompanied by a piece of plastic with a high grade printed on it.

[John Maben]

Carl,

 

In the context of the entire article, TPG is but a componet not the point. My takeaway is that the primary point is this which is also the title of the article:

 

"As a rule of thumb I feel that in order to be considered purely bullion, a coin or bar has to trade at 7% or less above its metal content to qualify. Coins that sell at between say 8% and 20% over the value of the metal could be labeled as “bullion related” or “semi-numismatic”. Once over a 20% premium I think you’re into Numismatic territory even though the value of the precious metal still plays a major role in the overall value of the coin. Even though these numbers may seem arbitrary, I feel that most in the marketplace would accept this definition and to put it simply, it makes sense."

 

Further, these points were made which are not TPG related:

 

"Getting a graded 70 isn’t the only way a bullion coin becomes numismatic. Sometimes collector’s value is created by good old fashion rarity. Many modern coins have very low mintages."

 

"A third way that bullion becomes numismatic is through minting varieties. There are two noteworthy times that the US Mint unintentionally created variety coins: the 1999-W $5 & $10 Gold Eagles and the 2008-W Reverse 2007 Silver Eagles."

 

"There are also times when coins begin as numismatic issues and then evolve into bullion coins."

 

I agree with you that the TPG influence on market value is not to be ignored and it scares even me on VERY low pop coins. Personally, ultra low pop modern coins and even some classics have extreme risk that I steer clear of for the most part. Still, it's about demand and buyers being able to buy what they want not what others think they should buy.

 

I don't think I was saying that the plastic doesn't matter with regard to value.

 

James- I agree with much of what you just posted but not entirely. The burnished silver, gold and platinum eagles along with the 2008-W buffalo's for example are incorrectly IMO referred to as "just bullion" by many non-collectors of moderns and their value has more to do with the coins than the plastic. There are many other examples where the coin not the holder sets the base numismatic value. The fact that many prefer these coins graded then adds additonal market value and that is created by supply and demand.

 

This should not be surprising. Do you think that most classic coins graded MS65 and higher would sell at the same numbers cracked out? Many might, but most? The influence is greater in moderns, granted.

 

JR's article attempts to draw a line in the sand by using percentages over melt that coins actually trade at. With all the confusing terminology and different ideas of where bullion starts and ends, this is a helpful and logical approach particularly for people that have not been around coins long enough to simply have the feel.

 

John

[brg5658]

...... ok, and maybe if one quotes webster in large blue letters their point will somehow reign supreme?

 

I'm glad the irony was not lost on you....as it was purposeful!

[ericj96-migration]

"Even "rare" gold eagle with mintages of say 1,500 or so (?) are artificially hyped as "rare" numismatic pieces, but outside of the registries and outside of plastic they are just another gold eagle. "

 

Answer: I would love to buy some of this sub 3,000 mintage artificially rare material from you graded or not at the same price as just some other eagle. Got any raw reverse proofs ASE? for $50 , Ultra High Relief Gold for $1700, W mint marked gold esp a raw roll of 99w issues. Please send this raw material to me! I will even tell you you are right about it all if you will sell such material at the "just another eagle price".

 

 

"Take the NGC and PCGS registries out of the equation, and I would bet that almost the entire market for bullion-type coins would fall through the roof to near true bullion value. "

 

Answer: I dont collect moderns in registry sets and about half my coins are not in slabs including the low mintage stuff. Most of my fellow moderns collectors dont compete in the registry either.

 

 

 

 

[brg5658]

"Even "rare" gold eagle with mintages of say 1,500 or so (?) are artificially hyped as "rare" numismatic pieces, but outside of the registries and outside of plastic they are just another gold eagle. "

 

Answer: I would love to buy some of this sub 3,000 mintage artificially rare material from you graded or not at the same price as just some other eagle. Got any raw reverse proofs ASE? for $50 , Ultra High Relief Gold for $1700, W mint marked gold esp a raw roll of 99w issues. Please send this raw material to me! I will even tell you you are right about it all if you will sell such material at the "just another eagle price".

 

 

"Take the NGC and PCGS registries out of the equation, and I would bet that almost the entire market for bullion-type coins would fall through the roof to near true bullion value. "

 

Answer: I dont collect moderns in registry sets and about half my coins are not in slabs including the low mintage stuff. Most of my fellow moderns collectors dont compete in the registry either.

 

I collect coins, not bullion trinkets.

 

I guess when the zombie apocalypse finally occurs, I'm just going to have to barter with things like food and tools instead of the all-powerful-shiny-and-useful hunks of "precious" metal.

[James_OldeTowne]

James- I agree with much of what you just posted but not entirely. The burnished silver, gold and platinum eagles along with the 2008-W buffalo's for example are incorrectly IMO referred to as "just bullion" by many non-collectors of moderns and their value has more to do with the coins than the plastic.

I do not frequently hear such commentary. For example, I don't think I've encountered a single collector who refers to the modern high-relief coins a "mere bullion", since they command a small premium over melt just for being "pretty". Heck, I don't consider buffalo gold to be bullion! Most folks are willing to pay a premium over melt just because the coins have an historic tie-in.

 

But we sell 1/10 oz coins as bullion all day long. Only if one is in a "MS-70" holder does its cost suddenly rise.

[coinman1794]

..... thanks for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to the ludicrous and obnoxious notion that this article and thread are spam from someone who I thought would no better than to behave like a insufficiently_thoughtful_person. And also thanks to coinman as well.

 

James, I can't see how one could say the main point of the article was to emphasize or pitch 70's. The grading element was just one of several mentioned that are determining factors in separating bullion from semi-numismatic or numismatic coins.

 

John

 

 

A 1-oz gold coin costs $1600.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-69 slab grade costs $1,650.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-70 slab grade costs $$2,500.

 

 

This is not a very useful demonstration unless it is compaired to something non-bullion. I said earlier that this arguement can be applied to more than just modern coins and bullion.

 

Lets take a common, classic gold 1904 Double Eagle.

 

Raw Mint State $1700

NGC MS64 $2200

NGC MS65 $3200

 

Does this mean the raw coin has little numismatic value and the slabbed 64 and 65 coins are overpriced? Does it mean that grade does matter, and because slabs are guarranteed, people buy with greater confidence? I would argue the latter.

 

Some people do collect modern bullion in perfect 70. Like it or not, that market does exist, just as the market exists for classic coins in gem condition.

[jom]

..... thanks for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to the ludicrous and obnoxious notion that this article and thread are spam from someone who I thought would no better than to behave like a insufficiently_thoughtful_person. And also thanks to coinman as well.

 

James, I can't see how one could say the main point of the article was to emphasize or pitch 70's. The grading element was just one of several mentioned that are determining factors in separating bullion from semi-numismatic or numismatic coins.

 

John

 

 

A 1-oz gold coin costs $1600.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-69 slab grade costs $1,650.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-70 slab grade costs $$2,500.

 

 

This is not a very useful demonstartion unless it is compaired to something else. I said earlier that this arguement can be applied to more than just modern coins and bullion.

 

Lets take a common, classic gold 1904 Double Eagle.

 

Raw Mint State $1700

NGC MS64 $2200

NGC MS65 $3200

 

Does this mean the raw coin has little numismatic value and the slabbed 64 and 65 coins are overpriced? Does it mean that grade does matter, and because slabs are guarranteed, people buy with greater confidence? I would argue the latter.

 

Some people do collect modern bullion in perfect 70. Like it or not, that market does exist, just as the market exists for classic coins in gem condition.

 

When a 68 or 69 or 70 all look pretty much the same I find the premiums absurd. Most modern issues are well made enough where those top grades mean little, to me at least. If one wants to pay that premium by all means but I personally avoid it if possible. I agree the market exists so I adjust what I look for. In the case of modern stuff I try to find it raw...mostly because I like the original packaging.

 

I could also argue that many MS64 and MS65 coins could look the same (high end of one, low end of the other). But in these grades with classic coins there seems to be a continuum of grading (with CAC and + and stars etc) which help apply a price for the "in betweens". There isn't such a device for modern issues in many cases. I mean can you really tell the difference? Enough to pay a big premium for? I don't bother but people do what they want.

 

Also, with classics I do the same. I avoid (or try) huge premiums for a grade (or a strike designation for example). On the other hand I have paid premiums for color. So, again, people do what they want to do.

 

Like I said earlier I don't see a point in labeling something as "bullion" or "numismatic". Really....doesn't it make a difference what you call it? Who cares?

 

jom

[coinman1794]

..... thanks for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to the ludicrous and obnoxious notion that this article and thread are spam from someone who I thought would no better than to behave like a insufficiently_thoughtful_person. And also thanks to coinman as well.

 

James, I can't see how one could say the main point of the article was to emphasize or pitch 70's. The grading element was just one of several mentioned that are determining factors in separating bullion from semi-numismatic or numismatic coins.

 

John

 

 

A 1-oz gold coin costs $1600.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-69 slab grade costs $1,650.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-70 slab grade costs $$2,500.

 

 

This is not a very useful demonstartion unless it is compaired to something else. I said earlier that this arguement can be applied to more than just modern coins and bullion.

 

Lets take a common, classic gold 1904 Double Eagle.

 

Raw Mint State $1700

NGC MS64 $2200

NGC MS65 $3200

 

Does this mean the raw coin has little numismatic value and the slabbed 64 and 65 coins are overpriced? Does it mean that grade does matter, and because slabs are guarranteed, people buy with greater confidence? I would argue the latter.

 

Some people do collect modern bullion in perfect 70. Like it or not, that market does exist, just as the market exists for classic coins in gem condition.

 

 

I could also argue that many MS64 and MS65 coins could look the same (high end of one, low end of the other). But in these grades with classic coins there seems to be a continuum of grading (with CAC and + and stars etc) which help apply a price for the "in betweens". There isn't such a device for modern issues in many cases. I mean can you really tell the difference? Enough to pay a big premium for? I don't bother but people do what they want.

 

 

The question is: what would someone pay for the coin raw, vs. slabbed? That throws CAC and + out the window (Star (*) is not part of the grade but it also becomes moot).

 

It takes an expert to judge a raw 64 from a 65, just as it takes one to grade a 68, 69, or 70. Typically, there is a huge difference between 70 and 69, and little difference between 69 and 68. A coin is either perfect or not; a 68 and 69 might have the same tiny grazes, but in different places.

[James_OldeTowne]

..... thanks for respectfully disagreeing as opposed to the ludicrous and obnoxious notion that this article and thread are spam from someone who I thought would no better than to behave like a insufficiently_thoughtful_person. And also thanks to coinman as well.

 

James, I can't see how one could say the main point of the article was to emphasize or pitch 70's. The grading element was just one of several mentioned that are determining factors in separating bullion from semi-numismatic or numismatic coins.

 

John

 

 

A 1-oz gold coin costs $1600.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-69 slab grade costs $1,650.

 

The same 1-oz gold coin plus a MS-70 slab grade costs $$2,500.

 

 

This is not a very useful demonstration unless it is compaired to something non-bullion. I said earlier that this arguement can be applied to more than just modern coins and bullion.

 

Lets take a common, classic gold 1904 Double Eagle.

 

Raw Mint State $1700

NGC MS64 $2200

NGC MS65 $3200

 

Does this mean the raw coin has little numismatic value and the slabbed 64 and 65 coins are overpriced? Does it mean that grade does matter, and because slabs are guarranteed, people buy with greater confidence? I would argue the latter.

 

Some people do collect modern bullion in perfect 70. Like it or not, that market does exist, just as the market exists for classic coins in gem condition.

Here's the difference, as I see it. I can and have sold double-eagles raw at similar grade increments. They do not have to be certified to bring reasonable value at those grades. How do I know this? All I have to do is look through past auction results and it's plain that enough people can grade these well enough to be willing to bid ... at least close to the value that a certified coin will bring. In other words, you could crack out an NGC MS-65 1904 D.E., and STILL have a reasonable chance that it will sell raw at or very near the same amount.

 

It is nowhere near the same for "70" coins.

 

Let's extend your example to another hypothetical situation, say a 2007 Buffalo:

 

Lets take a common, classic gold 1904 Double Eagle.

 

Raw Mint State $3100

NGC MS64 $3150

NGC MS65 $3200

NGC MS-69 $3500

NGC MS70 $10,000

 

There is no way no how that if you crack that MS-70 buffalo out that it would sell for anywhere near the MS-70 price. The grade on the slab is PARAMOUNT to what the coin + slab combination brings in an auction. You just can't separate them as you can "bullion" coins in "normal" grade.

 

[coinman1794]

The market is largely online now; sell them raw on ebay as MS65s and get full price.

[RockMyAmadeus]

He's promoting his business. Spam.

 

What I'd really like to say to you sir, I can not do on these boards. So I'll just say you're wrong.

 

This article is lengthy, makes many good points, and does little or nothing to promote my business which we already do well via paid advertising.

 

Take your axe and grind it somewhere else.

 

John

 

 

[John Maben]

The '07 Buffalo example is not a good one. Here's why:

 

Raw $1585/ $1625

MS69 $1590/$1630

MS70 $1610/$1675

 

Spot at $1554

 

These are my approx wholesale spreads. My retail prices are only a tad more. If you go to my website you'll see '09 70's for $1719. Out of '07 but they would only be a tad more.

 

Based on this example raw, slabbed, 69, 70, none of it makes much of a difference.

 

"I do not frequently hear such commentary. For example, I don't think I've encountered a single collector who refers to the modern high-relief coins a "mere bullion", since they command a small premium over melt just for being "pretty". Heck, I don't consider buffalo gold to be bullion! Most folks are willing to pay a premium over melt just because the coins have an historic tie-in."

 

James- I hear it all the time among dealers and collectors that have no involvement in moderns. It's all "just bullion". It isn't the majority, but it is a vocal minority. Just look on eBay! Tons of istings that call everything "bullion". It's VERY confusing to a newbie. This article explains some of the use and misuse of terminology.

 

As pointed out in the other article that labeled the TPG's as being part of a scam, new and uneducated buyers need things explained thoroughly. Otherwise, many assume they are buying "just bullion" when in fact they are paying premiums that go well beyond that of "just bullion". It's plain and simple.

 

John

 

[James_OldeTowne]

The '07 Buffalo example is not a good one. Here's why:

 

Raw $1585/ $1625

MS69 $1590/$1630

MS70 $1610/$1675

! Actually I was trying to make up an example on a "fictional" coin! You're right, the buffaloes are not a good example. Let's pretend we're talking "gold 10-Gakken coins" in my previous example !

[John Maben]

 

Hey.... I think most here have made good points and where I differ for the most part it's resulted in a healthy debate. It's only when off the wall comments (not you James) are made that that I get disgusted.

 

On a side note, kudos to NGC for the new policy that allows posts to be modified over long periods of time. I think it will encourage an even greater level of activity especially in the moneymarket area.

 

John

 

 

[ericj96-migration]

"They do not have to be certified to bring reasonable value at those grades. How do I know this? All I have to do is look through past auction results and it's plain that enough people can grade these well enough to be willing to bid ... at least close to the value that a certified coin will bring. In other words, you could crack out an NGC MS-65 1904 D.E., and STILL have a reasonable chance that it will sell raw at or very near the same amount."

 

Raw classics have the same fine issues as the moderns. If a classic is cleaned it can still look good and raw can be deceptive. I know a grader that bought a MS-64 high relief saint and felt it could make 65. Cracked it out and sent it back in. It came back MS-63. Very upset he cracked it out and sent it back in again. It came back MS-65. This guy worked for PCGS and died about 2 years ago.

 

The value of that coin varied wildly between the 3 grades based on the plastic it was in. NGC has the same minor grade wander in their process. Grading is subjective last time I checked and thats what drives grade flation. Moderns collectors want their coins in 70 holders and will pay extra to get them. Some of them are easy to find in high grades and some are not.

 

Eric

[John Maben]

I will differ with you Eric only in that SOME collectors of moderns want there coins in 70 holders. Many do not. To each his own, bottom line. I understand that what you said was not meant to implicitly suggest that all want 70's.

[e1cnr]

John, I admire you business and have no problem with filling needs and desires of collectors. I have no problem paying premium over melt for fine examples - even the US mint has a decent mark-up on many of their bullion offerings.

 

A 20% markup is much different than a 2000% markup over melt. Is there a point where maybe this is a tulip bulb frenzy and many don't want to be left holding the bag when th market drops? Especially when many people can not tell the difference from a 69 to a 70, and after a few years even the pros will see flaws in some 70s?

[John Maben]

John, I admire you business and have no problem with filling needs and desires of collectors. I have no problem paying premium over melt for fine examples - even the US mint has a decent mark-up on many of their bullion offerings.

 

A 20% markup is much different than a 2000% markup over melt. Is there a point where maybe this is a tulip bulb frenzy and many don't want to be left holding the bag when th market drops? Especially when many people can not tell the difference from a 69 to a 70, and after a few years even the pros will see flaws in some 70s?

 

I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that I personally am NOT a fan of very low pop moderns and try to steer clear of them. THESE are the coins that will sometimes bring the mega premiums you mention. In general, I agree with you that the higher the premium over melt the more inherent risk that exists.

 

I don't think 70's in general are a tulip bulb frenzy at all, but say a Lincloln Cent in MS or PF 70 or an Ike Dollar or something similar fetching many many thousands of dollars on the basis of a low pop 70 grade? Maybe.

 

There are others (dealers and collectors) that hate the fact that I have said this publicly a few times now and they truly believe I am wrong, believing that low pop moderns are as kosher as any other coin.

 

That said, I NEVER criticize or belittle any collector on collecting habits likes/dislikes, nor do I question what a dealer may choose to buy and sell as long as it's legal to do so. I MAY rarely comment if I think pricing is way out of line but even there I try to mind my own business, and mind it well.

[World Colonial]

Most Morgan and Peace dollars are "just bullion coins". Most Liberty and Saint Gaudens double eagles are "just bullion coins".

 

Are they? Where does the line between bullion and numismatic begin and end? Is there a middle ground?

 

Bullion was never intended for circulation and virtually all specimens are mint state...think ASE's. Remove them from the plastic shield with the grade on it and you can't tell them apart. The numismatic value only resides on the plastic.

 

Morgans, Peace, and St. Gaudens actually circulated to some extent. You will never find an MS70 specimen and if you remove one from the plastic container it will still have numismatic value.

 

Just my opinion but there's a distinct line.

 

I agree with you. With the exception of the few such as the 25th anniversary ASE that are special issue, I do not consider any business strike ASE, AGE or Platinum eagles to be collectibles.