How much do you depend on auction descriptions for good information?

[RWB]

Last night, while awaiting the meteor shower that was a dud, I was reading some auction catalogs by my red LED light, and noticed many errors and obsolete information in some of the descriptions. (For example, one was a 1948 Franklin Half discussed ATS, whose description contained several mistakes.)

 

How much do you depend on auction lot descriptions for accurate information and well-researched content? (If you need a modern standard, start with the Newman IV catalog as a good model.)

 

[rockhobby]

I am very skeptical based on actual experiences. A short explanation is given below.

 

I have been looking for a nice example of a 1939 and 1939 d rev. of 1938 Jefferson nickel for about 4 years now. Almost everyone of them that is described as rev. of 38 in the Heritage auctions is actually a rev. of 40. All you have to to do is examine the large photos provided by Heritage.

 

On two occasions I have purchased what I thought was the correct coin on Ebay but alas, had to return it to the seller because they were rev. of 40's. Guess what, they were both purchased from Heritage and the seller was reselling based on the Heritage desription. This was my fault because the photos were so poor. If the step area is fuzzy or indistinct, I now request a better photo. This becomes quite frustrating and is primarily due to the TPG's not making the distinction on their slab for years after they started grading 1939 nickels.

 

Doug

[Afterword]

No more than their estimates, which is not much at all.

[Walkerfan]

Descriptions are pointless to me and I barely even bother to read them. Many times the bad coins sound good and the goods ones sound bad. My decisions are based solely on images and/or in hand inspection.

[leeg]

I used to believe the auction descriptions, 100% all in.

 

Now that I've become a researcher, not so much.

 

Most just regurgitate the same old information that is probably incorrect.

 

Takes time and money to find the truth though.

[Crazy Mtn Coins]

I do not even read the descriptions. They all sort of sound alike. I look at the enlarged photos, then research the coin census (NGC & PCGS) and past prices of the auctions. I also pay fairly close attention to when was the last time a coin of that particular grade or year auctioned. Some of them have been at least 5 years or more. At my age 5 years is a bunch. So then the auction prices do not mean as much as they are very out dated. Then I wing it.

[breakdown-migration]

I actually like reading auction descriptions. I would never purchase a coin based on description but I might take a closer look at a negative aspect based on the subtle turns of phrase. For instance, "mark consistent with the assigned grade" usually means a distracting mark. "short of a full strike, which is the norm for this issue" means a very weak strike.

[JJSingleton]

I certainly will never bid on a coin without seeing it in hand or by a trusted adviser. And I do not consider auction catalogs as a reliable information source. I so often chuckle when reading the fluff written about the Dahlonega Mint. At least half written in auction catalogs is misinformation and it has been repeated so many times the misinformation has taken on a life of its own.

[BillJones]

I read the auction descriptions after I have accessed the coin from the photos. Most of the time they really soft peddle the problems, which limits their usefulness, but when you are on the web, that's about all you have to work with.

 

The best thing is to go to the auction and look at the lots in person. Nothing can beat that.

[DaveG]

Ever since I learned there is a "conspiracy" by certain auction houses to ignore the new information provided in your RoAC books, I've declined to depend on auction descriptions.

 

 

[Hard Times]

Auction descriptions, like grades, are usually only one tool of many to evaluate a coin. In many cases, after reading one and then looking at the image, you realize what is not being said is as important as the description. Perhaps the most candid descriptions I ever have seen in recent years were by James Garcia. You know what you are getting from his descriptions. No surprises.

 

Best, HT

 

[coinman_23885]

Last night, while awaiting the meteor shower that was a dud, I was reading some auction catalogs by my red LED light, and noticed many errors and obsolete information in some of the descriptions. (For example, one was a 1948 Franklin Half discussed ATS, whose description contained several mistakes.)

 

How much do you depend on auction lot descriptions for accurate information and well-researched content? (If you need a modern standard, start with the Newman IV catalog as a good model.)

 

I liken it to using Wkipedia, blogs, and other unreliable sources in writing an academic paper.

[Walkerfan]

Let me add that I still read them out of curiosity but I will never make decisions based solely upon them. I prefer the visual aids instead. The problems are normally omitted or vastly understated in the written descriptions.

[grip]

Last night, while awaiting the meteor shower that was a dud, I was reading some auction catalogs by my red LED light, and noticed many errors and obsolete information in some of the descriptions. (For example, one was a 1948 Franklin Half discussed ATS, whose description contained several mistakes.)

 

How much do you depend on auction lot descriptions for accurate information and well-researched content? (If you need a modern standard, start with the Newman IV catalog as a good model.)

 

I liken it to using Wkipedia, blogs, and other unreliable sources in writing an academic paper.

 

 

That's funny, but right on.