The vagaries of Fair Market Value (FMV) 1 1

[Henri Charriere]

The topic seems simple enough: supply vs demand, right? Maybe not.  As a member taught at the knees of those consummate professionals who are intimately familiar with the concept, one would expect my complete acquiescence to apparent numismatic authority.  But a recent review of various websites suggests something else is amiss.

Take the French 10-Francs gold rooster, 1910 "restrike," certified at MS-64 on one site. A seller on the site (as we speak) is asking USD 432.36, while another, on the same site, is demanding USD 556.66. What is the Fair Market Value? What factor(s) may account for the marked disparity in prices?

Elsewhere, two 1905 "Originals" certified as MS-64 by two different parties elsewhere on the site are listed with an identical selling price: USD 659.35. Is that the magical Fair Market Price? Maybe.  Suppose neither sells? Suppose the price of gold goes up? Suppose it goes down? Suppose Seller B spent more money to acquire his coin? Is he not entitled to attempt to recoup his investment? Is it the shopkeeper's fault if he wishes to make a profit on his wares? Can we really point fingers at eBay sellers to whom the only principle that applies is the Law of the Jungle?  They will post an outlandish price to simply test the waters.  If they elicit a bite, so much for FMV. My point is the true collector should regard any figures presented by any publisher as not only dated, but mere ballpark figures. And the buyer, after exhaustive examination and investigation, is always free to accept or reject a non-bidding price.  What about the coin, coin set or extensive collection for which no Fair Market Value has been determined?  Or the coin that has eluded the open market for years?  For that "merchandise," there is the auction with or without reserves. What, if any, is your take on FMV?  Are there presently any undervalued coin series? Absolutely. Have some become too overpriced? Indubitably. Feel free to express your thoughts!

Edited December 16, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Spacing.

[powermad5000]

Well, I will entertain with my own mere opinions on the posted subject (and to all readers it is simply my opinion on this subject).

The purchase price of any said coin in my opinion is only as much as the one with the money buying it is willing to spend.

There are basic principals of supply and demand as well as mintage numbers and survivability of not only numbers but of specimens in certain grades. These are basic principals. If there is less available, it makes it harder to get, and those who want it will be willing to pay more for such said specimen. Here we have the buyers end. The demand part of the equation. The person who makes demand a viable part of such equation.

Then we have the sellers end. This is where there can exist what I would call an imbalance in the equation. There is nothing that says a seller cannot set his/her own price. One could ask $5 for a coin, or $5,000, or $50,000. Just because a seller is asking such said price does not mean the buyer is going to make good on the sale.

Using your first example, Seller A is asking $432.36. Seller B is asking $556.66. Buyer X has seen many of these offered by other sellers (C,D,E,F,G, etc.) so there is supply available. If the coin Seller A has meets the demands of Buyer X (for eye appeal, condition, etc.), and the coin offered by Seller B is of comparable attributes, then Buyer X will most likely make a purchase from Seller A. Notice, though the other factors involved in the transaction and selection process. Eye appeal, surface condition, even its storage method can come into play. It is perhaps that Seller A knew the coin was not stored properly and has some surface issues and thus is priced lower. Seller B might have a coin that is less impaired than Seller A and thus is asking a higher premium for a less impaired coin.

Using the same figures, and assuming the same supply, let's look at the example if Seller A has an extremely nice and unimpaired coin, and Seller B has a more impaired coin but is asking even more money for said specimen. Buyers X, Y, and Z may have looked at both coins and Buyer Y decided faster to make the purchase and pulled his wallet out faster than the other two buyers and completed the transaction. Here is the catch, Buyers X and Z then may have exited without either making the transaction to buy Seller B's coin. As previously stated, just because a seller is asking for a certain amount does not mean there will be a buyer willing to pay the asking price.

I think this is where Fair Market Value (FMV) lies. I think it is a combination of more than just two factors. I think it is a combination of many factors and I think FMV falls somewhere in the middle of all of it. Such factors are supply vs demand, mintage number, overall survivability, condition survivability (i.e. many available in AU and below grades but few in MS),  spot metal price (melt value), eye appeal, actual surface condition (includes all grades and downgrades for details grades), and overall national economy.

I think the price guides are merely just that, a guide. I have seen many coins sell for less than the price guide values, but then comes along a coin that sells for more than that figure. To me, that is adjustments taking place in real time to the historical value of a coin when sales start to go above price guide values that have been static for some years. Possibly due to less supply, possibly due to a rise in melt value, possibly due to a better economy for those willing to bid an auction a little higher than they would have bid in the past because their job is secure. We do know that the discoveries of hoards can cause prices to drop dramatically when numbers adjust for coins thought to be very scarce when hoard numbers enter the marketplace and drive down values because there are specimens on the supply end thought to not previously exist. But say such hoard has all worn or corroded specimens. Then the prices for those MS specimens will remain static while the prices for lower grade coins will be the only ones to drop.

For those truly rare specimens and by those, I mean where there is 10 or less known examples, what we know is the values of those have continued to increase. They are obviously very difficult to obtain, very rarely are ever even offered for sale, and when they are, high end collectors come out and are willing to roll out more dough than ever before. 

I don't think you can include what someone purchased a coin for previously be an overriding factor in FMV. What if the buyer had no knowledge of what they were doing and got ripped off? Does that mean that FMV should go up to compensate his/her ignorance when it comes time for them to sell? No. FMV should fluctuate some due to some of the factors I mentioned that affect it, but it should be a value that does not experience wild swings either way (with exception for say such hoard discoveries that add large numbers to what was otherwise a small pool) and its rises or drops over time should be more like small steps and not peaks and valleys. Also in my opinion, these small steps should always be a small step up. More people being born, more people in the world, more collectors, but for 1964 and earlier coins, there is not supply to keep up with higher demand as their mintage numbers cannot be increased and just are, but the demand side should continue to increase (as long as the numbers of collectors increases). I don't see it happening, but should the hobby trail down and die off, then the value of coins will just decline until becoming the word we should not use here. Worth***s.

[Henri Charriere]

I find myself in fundamental agreement with everything member PM5G just said.  Now, let's ratchet it up a notch with a single simple question:  what is the FMV of a '33 SG DE?  Truth be told, we have some idea what it was, but have no idea what it may be. The price guides will indicate it sold for X million in year X.  The presumption is the FMV will have risen since.  It likely has.  Unique coins are generally exempt from discussions about FMV.  Set aside its storied history and The hype and hullabaloo which is sure to follow its re-sale (if there is one) and I would imagine, contrary to prior reports that the buyer did not choose to buy it because he was smitten by its look. Recall, too, that its prior owner also had a small block of stamps featuring the Inverted Jenny airmail stamp from 1918, as well as the unique 1847 British Guiana stamp. The concept of a Fair Market Value for these items do not apply as well. If there are such things as auction-eligible items, these top the list.  There are, of course, coins that were stolen or are missing. Once again, FMV, as was very ably explained by PM5G in the previous post, will have to be established by a small group of investor types. Or someone who plies the owner with offers he hopes he cannot refuse.

I began to realize this when I consulted the French Red Book (and web site listings) which supported the values cited which bore no reality to the prices American collectors routinely pay for coins overseas. This is particularly true for fairly unremarkable coins in the highest grades.  Prices may be listed, but absent recent auction records, the collector, particularly set registrants, are on their own.  Imagine the shock and awe routinely experienced by collectors of my series 🐓 who, in selling, are told encapsulation was superfluous and did not add value to the coin. It is my personal belief, FMV consideration aside, most coins -- more so those minted in recent years and already sold in OGHs, do not require encapsulation.

 

[RWB]

FMV varies with the quality and quantity of information available. The sole "legal" 1933 DE has a fair market value equal to what the most recent buyer freely paid (including commissions). Just as in real estate, much depends on comparables, current market demand, unsold inventory.

[zadok]

...futile discussion...every coin has its own FMV...no necessity for like coins to have the same FMV....

[powermad5000]

On 12/16/2023 at 4:01 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Imagine the shock and awe routinely experienced by collectors of my series 🐓 who, in selling, are told encapsulation was superfluous and did not add value to the coin.

I am not sure of the shock and awe mentioned in this area. Encapsulation IS superfluous. There is no rule that states an encapsulated coin is worth more than a raw coin because a coin should stand on its own merits and be valued possessing such merits or lacking such merits thereof. Encapsulation is a choice made by the owner, not a requirement. There are many right in this forum who submit nothing and others who submit all of their coins. Submission and encapsulation in and of itself does not mean either slabbed or raw are worth more or less because of the state in which they lie, either in a plastic vault, Dansco album, or cardboard flip.

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/16/2023 at 5:12 PM, powermad5000 said:

I am not sure of the shock and awe mentioned in this area. Encapsulation IS superfluous. There is no rule that states an encapsulated coin is worth more than a raw coin because a coin should stand on its own merits and be valued possessing such merits or lacking such merits thereof.... Submission and encapsulation in and of itself does not mean either slabbed or raw are worth more or less because of the state in which they lie, either in a plastic vault, Dansco album, or cardboard flip.

Is this your quaint and polite way of suggesting I spent hundreds of dollars for nothing AND worse, member @VKurtB's brash entreaties over the years to the contrary, had substance??? (Attention Dena:  It has come to my attention by powerhouse, @powermad5000,  that I am not worthy of the honorific, "Rising Star," graciously imposed on me and hereby surrender same, minus protestations, forthwith.)  My only possible defense is certification is a prerequisite for inclusion in the Set Registry, but I have not been able to locate that elusive clause stating membership is mandatory. Drat!  I hope the owner of that stone-cold coin from Yap doesn't see this.  

[VKurtB]

On 12/16/2023 at 4:01 AM, Henri Charriere said:

The presumption is the FMV will have risen since.  It likely has.

Not necessarily. Quite many rare coins sell for less, sometimes FAAAR less than their previous selling price. Look at the Eliasberg sale(s) coins, for example.

[VKurtB]

On 12/16/2023 at 4:01 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Imagine the shock and awe routinely experienced by collectors of my series 🐓 who, in selling, are told encapsulation was superfluous and did not add value to the coin.

This is a widely held belief that is nearly universal in most European countries. Encapsulation is MOST popular in China, due to rampant crookery there, and in the United States, due to [fill in your own blank]. Try to get ANY premium for a gaudy grade on ANY coin that is, is or is considered, a bullion item. It's nearly impossible, even with MS/PF70 grades. Yes, there are rubes that pay up here. Good luck finding the next buyer.

Edited December 17, 2023 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 12/16/2023 at 6:18 PM, Henri Charriere said:

My only possible defense is certification is a prerequisite for inclusion in the Set Registry,

That should have been known and understood from the word "go". The registry success needs to be its own reward.

Edited December 17, 2023 by VKurtB

[powermad5000]

On 12/16/2023 at 6:18 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Is this your quaint and polite way of suggesting I spent hundreds of dollars for nothing

Absolutely not. There was a reason (actually two major ones) for why you submitted. One was the determination of authenticity which is extremely important for the type set you are assembling. Second was for your registry. Therefore, you chose to submit and have the coins encapsulated. With the type set your are assembling I would have done the same especially for the guarantee of authenticity.

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/16/2023 at 1:06 PM, zadok said:

...futile discussion...every coin has its own FMV...no necessity for like coins to have the same FMV....

I quote, "....every coin has its own FMV." But it is not necessary "for like coins to have the same FMV."  HUH?

Same coin: FRENCH 10-FRANCS GOLD ROOSTER.

Same date:  1910

Same grade:  MS-64... Certified by the same TPGS. So far so good.

Asking prices:  $556.66 and $432.36 (and not a penny less; that's when I got my lecture:  "We believe the price to be the FMV of this piece....")

Recalls that line used at the McCarthy hearings... "Have you no decency, at long last, sir?"  I guess not.

I don't see the U.S. Mint selling products made-to-stringent-specs on a sliding scale.  

Numysticism.

 

[powermad5000]

I wish we could see the obverse and reverse photos of the two roosters with differing asking prices. I have a feeling despite the grade being the same there was probably a difference in eye appeal. Do you remember @Henri Charriere if one looked better than the other one? If they both looked identical (which could be possible but not likely) it is possible one seller was looking to get greedy. My thought in this instance is there are two MS 64 Roosters side by side and one has a small hit on the obverse that is quite noticeable while the other has a small hit that is "hidden" so to speak somewhere in the details. Two coins. Same grade. Hits in different locations resulting in one having better eye appeal. Yes? No?

[zadok]

On 12/16/2023 at 10:18 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I quote, "....every coin has its own FMV." But it is not necessary "for like coins to have the same FMV."  HUH?

Same coin: FRENCH 10-FRANCS GOLD ROOSTER.

Same date:  1910

Same grade:  MS-64... Certified by the same TPGS. So far so good.

Asking prices:  $556.66 and $432.36 (and not a penny less; that's when I got my lecture:  "We believe the price to be the FMV of this piece....")

Recalls that line used at the McCarthy hearings... "Have you no decency, at long last, sir?"  I guess not.

I don't see the U.S. Mint selling products made-to-stringent-specs on a sliding scale.  

Numysticism.

 

...totally meaningless...two dealers, collectors, investors whomever having nearly identical coins can/will determine their own FMV on every coin they own and/or wish to sell...the only determinate is the actual transaction price for each coin, that is the FMV for that coin at that time...every buyer/seller decides FMV  on every coin they buy/sell for every transaction...the two prices u quote in ur example r both realistic...u should try to get out more often in the real world of coin transactions instead of trying to make the real world fit what u think it should be....

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/17/2023 at 2:42 AM, powermad5000 said:

I wish we could see the obverse and reverse photos of the two roosters with differing asking prices. I have a feeling despite the grade being the same there was probably a difference in eye appeal. Do you remember @Henri Charriere if one looked better than the other one? If they both looked identical (which could be possible but not likely) it is possible one seller was looking to get greedy. My thought in this instance is there are two MS 64 Roosters side by side and one has a small hit on the obverse that is quite noticeable while the other has a small hit that is "hidden" so to speak somewhere in the details. Two coins. Same grade. Hits in different locations resulting in one having better eye appeal. Yes? No?

Unfortunately, the lesser of the two was sold before I had a chance to take a second look.  If I see a coin whose price -- and this has happened on occasion -- is below rooster melt (about $400, as we speak) I will contact the seller and let them know. Without delay, all thank me profusely.

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/17/2023 at 11:27 AM, zadok said:

...totally meaningless...two dealers, collectors, investors whomever having nearly identical coins can/will determine their own FMV on every coin they own and/or wish to sell...the only determinate is the actual transaction price for each coin, that is the FMV for that coin at that time...every buyer/seller decides FMV  on every coin they buy/sell for every transaction...the two prices u quote in ur example r both realistic...u should try to get out more often in the real world of coin transactions instead of trying to make the real world fit what u think it should be....

At the very outset, allow me to assure any newbie or novice reading the foregoing for the first time, that I hold this member in the highest regard and in no wise should anyone feel his tone is less than cordial or respectful. To the contrary, I am honored by his very presence and consider the comments he posts with undivided attention.

Tho I lack the mobility I once had, my set registries, # 6 "here," # 1 "there," have found favor with him, more particularly the latter.  I am tickled pink.  For all intents and purposes, lack of availability in the Rooster line has brought my ugrading efforts to a grinding halt. I am now little more than a dues-paying lurker.  Should I find favor with He who created the birds of the air and formed dry land, I will assume the role I have prepared for my entire life: philanthropist. I shall Set up a mahogany desk in a public space and begin righting (writing) the wrongs every member has suffered in silence. Like Santa, I have kept a list going back many years. I do not need any more money than I already have. Set Registry building is merely a surrogate activity no different than those who collect orchids, classic cars, old bottles and fossils of trilobites. I serve at the pleasure of my hosts.  🐓 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Die-polishing.

[GoldFinger1969]

Liquidity and number of transactions matter to FMV, too.

I can tell you price points for the 1908 NM Saint very easily because there are so many that you have sales quite often.  Ditto the 1924 and 1927 Saints in most grades up to MS-66.  But when you get to MS-67 and MS-68, transactions there are every few weeks or months.

[Henri Charriere]

It's been so long since I have seen any of the three F20F GRs I desperately need graded MS-67, that my thoughts have drifted to the unthinkable; shifting my focus to the 10-franc gold rooster line.  

Three irregulaties became immediately obvious...

1.  Four dates were never minted; the series parallels the 20-Francs' line, 1899 to 1914 -- but the '02, '03, '04 and 1914 are non-existent. Do I know why? Surely, you jest!

2.  There are 10 sets listed -- but three collectors share the same rank: # 6, and each features a single coin!  In fact, fully half the sets consist of only one coin. The average coin runs about $500.  I have not seen one graded as high as MS-66, much less MS-67.

3.  Reviewing the various compilations, I can detect no rhyme or reason to the grades collected.  Apparently, the optimists sprung for the highest grade first -- and then reality sunk in.  They settled for whatever they could get their hands on.  While none are "scarce," they all are and the fact an MS-65 can command a $1,000 selling price tells you everything you need to know about attempting a "world-class" set.  Every piece commands an inordinately high price and as the highly-esteemed member of few words [z] put it, in substance, it is what it is.  The Fair Market Value of each varies with the current spot price of gold and auction results.  They are, after all, bullion and managed to survive the ravages of wars, meltings and exports. As can be assumed, every 10-francs coin is 1/2 the size of its big brother, the 20-francs rooster -- and contains precisely one-half the amount of gold bullion: roughly a tenth of an ounce.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Die-polishing.

[VKurtB]

Here is truth: like many things in the coin field, ALL FMV’s are OPINIONS, and nothing more. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/18/2023 at 3:48 PM, VKurtB said:

Here is truth: like many things in the coin field, ALL FMV’s are OPINIONS, and nothing more. 

And to think one "highly-acclaimed" seller without hesitation figuratively challenged me to a duel to the death over my suggestion he modify his price by knocking off the silly $2.03 on a purchase which ran north of $600. I know there are collectors here that feel the same way. I like even numbers.  This was before state sales taxes were imposed on eBay. Ah, the good ol' days.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Die-polishing

[VKurtB]

On 12/18/2023 at 4:12 PM, Henri Charriere said:

And to think one "highly-acclaimed" seller without hesitation figuratively challenged me to a duel to the death over my suggestion he modify his price by knocking off the silly $2.03 on a purchase with ran north of $600. I know there are collectors here that feel the same way. I like even numbers.  This was before state sales taxes were imposed on eBay. Ah, the good ol' days.

You'll not get sales tax sympathy from me. 10% here. But my property taxes are minuscule, and gasoline (but not diesel, interestingly) is unbelievably inexpensive.

[powermad5000]

I just discovered this. I was looking to do some SBA upgrades for the set and was browsing 1980 S. I have come to find on the NGC price guide for an MS 67 is $300. I have also come to find out on the PCGS price guide an MS 67 is listed as $750. 

Perhaps someone can tell me why PCGS is more than double for NGC. The real problem with this particular is it causes a division in the sellers. Now, granted I had to throw out those figures for sellers I messaged with literally trying to push their junk coins for $400 or more. But the problem I noticed is it caused wild price differences.

In a case such as this, how then would one determine what FMV actually is?

Edited December 20, 2023 by powermad5000

[VKurtB]

On 12/20/2023 at 1:48 PM, powermad5000 said:

I just discovered this. I was looking to do some SBA upgrades for the set and was browsing 1980 S. I have come to find on the NGC price guide for an MS 67 is $300. I have also come to find out on the PCGS price guide an MS 67 is listed as $750. 

Perhaps someone can tell me why PCGS is more than double for NGC. The real problem with this particular is it causes a division in the sellers. Now, granted I had to throw out those figures for sellers I messaged with literal trying to push their coins for $400 or more. But the problem I noticed it caused is the wild price differences.

In a case such as this, how then would one determine what FMV actually is?

“Whom do you trust?”

Edited December 20, 2023 by VKurtB

[powermad5000]

On 12/20/2023 at 1:51 PM, VKurtB said:

“Whom do you trust?”

Honestly, NGC. I think a lot of PCGS slab grades are "overgraded" so it would make sense then if their price guides are inflated.

 

[Henri Charriere]

Gentlemen, malheureusement, the Great Zadok, whom no one has contradicted to date (and the Hon. V Kurt B, to a lesser extent) has rendered his verdict on this matter, upthread, as posted on Sunday, at 11:27 a.m.

As to whom to trust, fortunately, you have a God-given choice:  the Principal Keeper of Pallets, or your own lying eyes.

[VKurtB]

On 12/20/2023 at 3:25 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Gentlemen, malheureusement, the Great Zadok, whom no one has contradicted to date (and the Hon. V Kurt B, to a lesser extent) has rendered his verdict on this matter, upthread, as posted on Sunday, at 11:27 a.m.

As to whom to trust, fortunately, you have a God-given choice:  the Principal Keeper of Pallets, or your own lying eyes.

I always trust my own eyes, regardless of the reputation of another viewer. No one gets to tell me what any fair market value is, especially if it’s something that I don’t collect.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/20/2023 at 2:48 PM, powermad5000 said:

I just discovered this. I was looking to do some SBA upgrades for the set and was browsing 1980 S. I have come to find on the NGC price guide for an MS 67 is $300. I have also come to find out on the PCGS price guide an MS 67 is listed as $750. Perhaps someone can tell me why PCGS is more than double for NGC. The real problem with this particular is it causes a division in the sellers. Now, granted I had to throw out those figures for sellers I messaged with literally trying to push their junk coins for $400 or more. But the problem I noticed is it caused wild price differences.  In a case such as this, how then would one determine what FMV actually is?

Damn good question. 

I'm not really familiar with SBAs....but I will assume that at MS-67 the supply gets REALLY tight and you have heightened condition scarcity - is this the case ?  Major inflection point.....that sort of thing.  So....while there might be lots of 66's and 65's....there's no need to "pay up" for the PCGS premium at those levels.  But not so at MS-67.

The only thing you can do is see where recent sales went for all the relevant grades.  The more price data, the better and more accurate.

If NGC sellers think they can get PCGS pricing, let them believe that.  Those who are savvy and understand the market will price accordingly.  The rest will still be listing their coins 2 years from now. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/20/2023 at 2:56 PM, powermad5000 said:

Honestly, NGC. I think a lot of PCGS slab grades are "overgraded" so it would make sense then if their price guides are inflated.

I think the PCGS premium largely reflects the fact that with Trophy Coins, the super-rich buyers prefer and will pay up -- price inelasticity ? -- for PCGS coins.  And that filters down a bit to lower grades.  Should it ?  I have no idea.

Why does NGC trade at a premium to PCGS in foreign/world/ancient (?) coins ?  Again, I have no idea why.

Maybe EliteCoin, who owns multiple Trophy Coins among Saints, can tell us how he would have felt had any of the coins been in one holder or the other.  Or how he and other fellow high-end buyers see the 3 Big TPGs now.  As I recall from his registry, I believe virtually every coin now is in a PCGS holder but maybe I'm wrong.

FWIW, I've never heard a good explanation as to why the PCGS premium came about in the first place sometime in the mid-to-late 1990's.  A market share thing....nicer holders....some gradeflation from the other TPGs....no idea.

[Henri Charriere]

Why don't we start at the beginning.

What's a basic membership cost at NGC?

What's a basic membership cost at PCGS?

ANY REASON WHY ONE SHOULD COST NEARLY 3X MORE THAN THE OTHER?  (Now bear in mind, grading credits are not awarded in the lowest tiers of membership.)

Fact:  Regardless number of certifications performed or years in service, one is clearly convinced it enjoys a higher profile than the other but those suggesting it is tarred and feathered for "bashing" and run out of town on a rail.  The gentleman referred to as "the Market (first name Fair) can bear witness to this as he has Final Say. 😉 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Routine die-polishing; insertion of key word

[VKurtB]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:40 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Why don't we start at the beginning.

What's a basic membership cost at NGC?

What's a basic membership cost at PCGS?

ANY REASON WHY ONE SHOULD COST NEARLY 3X MORE THAN THE OTHER?  (Now bear in mind, grading credits are awarded in the lowest tiers of membership.)

Fact:  Regardless number of certifications performed or years in service, one is clearly convinced it enjoys a higher profile than the other but those suggesting it is tarred and feathered for "bashing" and run out of town on a rail.  The gentleman referred to as "the Market (first name Fair) can bear witness to this as he has Final Say. 😉 

But EVERY participant in any market has the personal option to play the game or refuse to play the game. As it pertains to any supposed “superiority” in the market of PCGS coins, I have lonnnng refused to play along, and have decided to ignore such nonsense.