• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

I Know I will get a flame or 2 for this but..........

Started by MAULEMALL,

26 posts in this topic

MAULEMALL

MAULEMALL

Posted
Posted

do you have any prejudices to wards label colors for slabs?

 

I have gotten to the point where I won't even look at a close up of a Pcgs blue labeled Morgan.

 

I will go to sites, like Heritage for example, and where they have the thumbnails that you click on for the auction I just pass right over them.

The same for the new ANACS slabbed Morgans.

 

 

The grading is just,,,Off is all I can think of to say.

 

Is it just me? Am I getting too picky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted

When looking through a lot of coins, such as at a major auction, I routinely don't even bother looking at generic coins in PCGS holders. By "generic", I'm referring to "widgets" - coins such as blast-white and/or high-grade Morgans, Walkers, "RD" small-cents, and just about anything over the grade of MS-60.

 

However, it is not because I think they're grading is "off", but rather because I know that seeing that blue label drives many buyers into a frenzy. Frothing at the mouth over the sight of the PCGS logo, I see these guys willing to pay way too much for such coins, merely because of the brand of certification. It isn't worth my time to bother even looking at coins that I know will go for too much.

 

As always, there are exceptions, but due to the reason given above, I'm one of the very few I'm sure who specifies a preference for NGC coins. That usually surprises most folks who don't know me.

 

I hope nobody across the street sees this 893crossfingers-thumb.gif.

 

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MunkyMan95

MunkyMan95

Posted
Posted

I'd say that a widget is a very common coin, with virtually no eye appeal, that only constitutes the price it is sold at because it's in Plastic. Another instance of people buying the holder, instead of the coin.

 

 

 

At least, that's how I understood the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomB

TomB

Posted
Posted

The way I have always interpreted the term widget as it applies to coins is any coin that is sufficiently generic so that there is nearly always an easily accessed quantity available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stanley

Stanley

Posted
Posted

Thanks guys, Would I be safe to say just as I thought, subjective.

Widget is a loose definition with no absolute boundaries, but within a criterion of more common coinage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomB

TomB

Posted
Posted

Yes, 1998. I purchased an 1892 Columbian half at a show on September 6, 1998 and handed the coin to another dealer to piggyback onto his submission to PCGS. The coin was delivered to me in November, 1998 in the then-new blue insert holder. At that time this was the first coin I had seen with that insert color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted

((( I'd say that a widget is a very common coin, with virtually no eye appeal, that only constitutes the price it is sold at because it's in Plastic.

 

... the term widget as it applies to coins is any coin that is sufficiently generic so that there is nearly always an easily accessed quantity available.

 

A widget is any coin that could be found at any show or coin shop at any time. A common date, blast white Morgan for example.

 

Widget is a loose definition with no absolute boundaries, but within a criterion of more common coinage. )))

 

I just wanted to collect all these suggested definitions for "widget", because they all do a good job of getting to the heart of the matter. I think they all apply very well, though there is no specific definition for the term (which of course, comes from the study of Accounting to begin with). But numismatically, a widget is a widget is a widget, and to pay extra for a certain logo on a widget is, I think, money poorly spent.

 

Of course, there may be registry considerations, but that is a separate argument. Regardless, I find the PCGS logo to be a convenient time-saver as far as which coins I don't even bother to look at!

 

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAULEMALL

MAULEMALL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Regardless, I find the PCGS logo to be a convenient time-saver as far as which coins I don't even bother to look at!

 

James

I think I got 2 of them flame retardant suits around here somewhere 893scratchchin-thumb.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rexcat

rexcat

Posted
Posted

Here’s something I saw earlier this year:

 

As I researched and shopped for my 1937 proof Buffalo Nickel I found there to be a large (and mindless) disparity in the prices of NGC examples vs. the PCGS ones, especially in the PF66 and PF67 grades. I saw early on that most likely it would be a NGC coin that would be added.

 

At the show were I purchased my proof buffalo I saw four 1937 PF67 nickels in PGCS holders, three that I didn’t like at all (for the grade mostly) were $300 to $450 and the only one that I would think about, actually it was a very nice proof and the dealer knew it, so he wanted $2950 for the coin. That’s a whooping $550 or 23% more than what my fantastic looking NGC PF67 cost me, plus with the coins just a few booths away from each other I did go back to look at both a couple of times to make comparisons so it’s easy for me to say the NGC coin is nicer cloud9.gif and the PCGS coin is over priced! 893whatthe.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing