Premium for plastic

[crito]

I've been watching WTC "death coin" auctions on eBay, in particular the 2001 silver eagles. Both ICG and PCGS produce 9-11 slabs with 2001 SAE's, but the PCGS coins typically sell for TWICE the price. Now, I can understand if it's based on grading standard differences or demand by registry participants. These coins aren't numerically graded and can't be used in the registry, however. The "pedigree" is the same. So, I have to conclude the additional premium is based COMPLETELY on the PCGS logo and has NOTHING to do with the coin. I really don't see how that's good for collectors or the hobby. All this talk about ACG overgrading, but what about over-inflated/hyped-up prices for hologram stickers! Seems to me the net effect is the same: suckering collectors into paying too much

 

 

[bigd5]

I'm not sure how anyone is being "suckered". Everyone has a choice, and in this case, it seems they are going with the pcgs slabbed coins. Are you insinuating that this is PCGS' fault?

[crito]

But in this case there really is no difference between the coins. You can't argue the PCGS coin is more conservatively graded or "death coin" registry participants are gobbling them up. The premium is obviously based on HYPE. Whether that's done by intentional undergrading, and then claiming to be "conservative", or by intentionally overgrading, like ACG is accused of, seems like a moot point to me. It's still a premium based on boolshiat and has NOTHING to do with the coin.

 

I'm not saying that people don't have the right to be suckers just that is seems somewhat hypocritical to target some boolshiat artists and give others a free pass.

 

[jtryka]

Death coins aside, you raise an interesting point. Lots of us like to bash the likes of ACG for their rampant inconsistent overgrading, but is PCGS' rampant inconsistent undergrading any better? It seems the main difference is that one cheats buyers and one cheats sellers. As a collector, I would hate to buy an MS-62 coin for MS-65 money because that's what it said on the ACG holder, but as a potential seller, I would be just as ticked to get MS-62 money for what really is an MS-64 coin! They are both unfair, but unfair to different participants in the market. Now don't get me wrong, I am not implying that PCGS is anywhere as bad on the conservative side as ACG is on the liberal side, my only point is that both are bad practices that hurt collectors and dealers alike. But for those of us that buy the book before the coin, and buy the coin and not the holder, the inconsistency provides a return on all the work we do!

[Beijim]

Arbitrage: the secret behind many a successful career!

 

Beijim

 

[gmarguli]

Arbitrage: the secret behind many a successful career!

 

PCGS will not cross them with the pedigree.

[gmarguli]

PCGS slabs? I thought that the early slabs were PCGS and the later ones were CU slabs (same PCGS slab without the initials listed on it)? Maybe that was only for the slabbed gold flakes.

[bigd5]

How is pcgs "targeting" anyone with these?

Seems the market is setting the price, not the grading services. I don't see what the beef here is, other than you are upset that collectors are paying premiums for pcgs slabbed coins. Is anyone twisting their arms?

When you say the premium is obviously based on "hype", please elaborate. How is pcgs "hyping" these coins? Maybe I missed the big ad campaign from them (which is more than probable)

[crito]

I've never been fond of the NGC holder (for aesthetic reasons) and can't say I'm particularly fond of their grading either (especially the misuse of PL on moderns), but they have kept the "hype" to a minimum. I really don't see someone who sells the coin NOT the plastic as a "bad" dealer. Judging from some comments on the boards, however, you'd think anyone who deals in "inferior" slabs is a crook and PCGS dealers are doing everyone a favor. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Whether I buy an ANA 69 in a PCGS 68 slab or an ICG 70 slab doesn't really matter to me. All that matters is which I pay more for. And my argument is the same coin will cost you more in the PCGS slab. How does that make ICG bad and PCGS good? I don't know. Someone paid for HYPE not the coin, and that's the real crime IMHO

 

 

[crito]

"Seems the market is setting the price, not the grading services. I don't see what the beef here is, other than you are upset that collectors are paying premiums for pcgs slabbed coins. Is anyone twisting their arms? "

 

I'm not upset and I could care less what you pay a premium for. But bashing the competition while hyping your own crud doesn't make you the hobby's savior either. Nobody’s doing anyone a favor here, but some sure act like they are.

 

 

[TomB]

The price disparity is interesting. I don't care for any of these issues with these coins in them, so, I have not kept any track on what they are doing.

[gmarguli]

I'm particularly fond of their grading either (especially the misuse of PL on moderns)

 

You mean "consistent"? As for the PL on moderns, I have seen it given very few times. What don't you like about it?

[crito]

I intentionally used these as examples because they don't have a numeric grade on them (but always end up in that argument anyway, somehow). My only real point is that there's more than one way to "pump and dump" and anti-competitive boolshiat is NEVER good for the hobby IMHO. Nobody ever forced someone to buy an ACG slab either. If you're "protecting" newbies from getting burned, shouldn't they know they'll pay TWICE as much for the same coin in a PCGS vs ICG slab too?

 

[crito]

"You mean "consistent"? As for the PL on moderns, I have seen it given very few times. What don't you like about it?"

 

The examples I've seen (all of two or three) were "brilliant" with mirrored surfaces, but lacked any cameo contrast (i.e. no frost on the devices). Seems a bit confusing IMHO. I'm not really sure what the criteria is, but doubt it's the same as PL on a Morgan.

 

[gmarguli]

You will rarely find MS coins that are cameo. If you're expecting the coin to look like a Morgan, then it won't happen very often. You'll have to settle for mirrored fields.

 

 

[crito]

"You will rarely find MS coins that are cameo"

 

I realize that, but that's my understanding of the word "proof-like" and has been for decades. Hence, I feel it's being misused on moderns. If any coin struck from heavily polished dies is PL, then I have A LOT of them

 

 

[gmarguli]

There are a lot of ultra-modern PLs. I find the PL Lincolns in change all the time.

 

You can frequently find Morgans that are PL without cameo. It's just that they are so common with some sort of cameo that people don't take too much notice of them.

[crito]

I thought I read somewhere, that on Morgans, the standard had something to do with reflectivity of the devices in the fields at a certain distance. Maybe that was just at PCGS or something. Anyways, no special preparation goes into a PL modern. You have to carefully polish around the devices to get the cameo effect. Pulling a used die out and polishing it doesn't seem like anything I'd pay a premium for. In fact, I'd probably pay less for that than a frosty surfaced first-strike But whatever floats yer boat, I guess.

 

[bigd5]

I don't see where anyone said "ICG is bad and PCGS is good", in relation to the coins you have mentioned. Seems like you are a bit upset with PCGS. Medication and bed rest will usually do the trick

It's the same with just about anything in the marketplace. People pay premiums for name brand products ALL the time. Is there a benefit? Depends on who you argue the point with. I would say the pcgs coins are grabbing premiums because pcgs has a strong hold of the modern coin market. They are the most popular in that segment, so the coins in their holders are seeing the most demand, and hence, the highest prices realized.

 

"I'm not upset and I could care less what you pay a premium for. But bashing the competition while hyping your own crud doesn't make you the hobby's savior either. Nobody’s doing anyone a favor here, but some sure act like they are."

 

Who was that comment directed at? Examples of bashing the competition and hyping the crud?

 

[coinman1794]

Usually the first coins to come from a die are the ones that are prooflike. As the die wears, the mirrored finish starts turning frosty. And, of course die polishing later on can make the dies reflective once again. There is no special preperation of the dies required for a coin struck from those dies to be called proof-like.

 

Prooflike means mirrored surfaces, like a proof. I know there are different standards on how reflective the mirrors must be, but I am not sure what they are. NGC is very consistent in only giving PL to coins that are fully prooflike, with no breaks in the reflectivity, with the exception of cameo of course.

 

Also, while a PL coin can have cameo contrast, it certainly does not have to. In fact, most do not. And, not all proof coins are cameo, so PL coins certainly don't have to be cameo. There is no cameo requirement for a coin to be prooflike.

 

 

[braddick]

ANACS also will grade Moderns with the PL designation. I have a State Quarter in MS67PL from ANACS and it does look different in the sense the fields are mirror-like.

If used sparingly it's not a bad characteristic to list on the insert as a coin in full PL that is also high grade does have an appeal that rises above the norm.

[Beijim]

Regarding the distinction between prooflike and cameo effects, coinman1794 is absolutely correct. Prooflike (nowadays at least) refers only to the degree to which the fields (not the devices) exhibit mirror finish. A better term for this designation as applied to mint state coins might be "mirror-like," because proof coinage doesn't always have mirrored fields. The satin and matte proof Peace dollars are good examples. Strictly speaking, "proof" means only that the coin was specially prepared for collection or exhibition and not for general circulation. It has come to imply mirrored fields because most modern proofs use this finish.

 

Cameo, on the other hand, refers to the degree of contrast between device and mirror finish field. The reference is to jewelry in which some raised device, such as a portrait, is rendered in a material like white ivory against a contrasting background in some other color. On modern proof coinage, cameo is achieved by sandblasting those portions of the die that will render the devices. The sandblasting is what imparts the "frosted" effect, which contrasts with the mirror surfaces imparted by the die's highly polished field areas in conjunction with specially prepared, polished planchets.

 

In graded proof coinage, the proof designation is independent of the cameo or ultra cameo designation. There are examples of each combination: proof, proof cameo, and proof ultra (or deep) cameo.

 

I believe (but am not certain) that at least one "proof-like" designation standard exists in which the mirror surface must reflect an object residing 8" away. I don't know specifially how the grader measures this - perhaps someone can fill in the details?

 

Beijim