"Hot Topics" from Legend Numismatics

[Tradedollarnut]

Laura collected AU58 bust halves - I think she's into quality no matter what the grade.

[thebeav]

This thread has gone NUTS across the street. At 12 pages and counting, soon to go 'POOF' I'm sure.....

Hot Topics

 

Paul

[DC Dawg]

Doesn't she have anything better to do???

 

Scott

[Tradedollarnut]

It's gone nuts across the street because they know that with enough bait, she'll respond. They get their jollies doing that, despite the harm it does to the board in general.

 

Let's not fall into that trap here, eh?

[James_OldeTowne]

Perhaps "Legend" could take a page out of the "Luncheon Numismatics" book on what kinds of coins folks really consider "bargains". Here's a link to an article about a Luncheon purchase a couple of years ago.

[cpm9ball]

Perhaps "Legend" could take a page out of the "Luncheon Numismatics" book on what kinds of coins folks really consider "bargains". Here's a link to an article about a Luncheon purchase a couple of years ago.

 

 

Chris

[WoodenJefferson]

Perhaps "Legend" could take a page out of the "Luncheon Numismatics" book on what kinds of coins folks really consider "bargains". Here's a link to an article about a Luncheon purchase a couple of years ago.

 

This is hilarious! It takes a bit to make me chuckle...this article made me ~spit~

[Zoins]

TDN just posted a thread ATS called "An important word from Poorguy". It basically echoes Legend's thoughts on the increasing prevalence of gradeflation. Here's the original quote from Poorguy just in case the thread gets poofed (it doesn't seem like it will so far but you never know):

As more and more of them get graded and regraded there is only one place to go but up. Nobody is going to crack out a coin in an MS66 holder when it is obviously an MS65 or even lower. However, you can bet your last bronze plated button that someone, eventually, will crackout and eventually upgrade that PQ MS64 until it resides in a holder at a grade nobody with an average sized set of cohones or half a brain cell would even consider cracking out. It is essentially the Peter Principle applied to coins and grading. Coins are being upgraded to the point where nobody wants to pony up the dough at the level they are graded at so they trade at lower levels both hurting the values of properly graded coins and creating a false sense of market weakening because of lower prices realized. On the other end of the spectrum, premium examples are bringing staggering prices with no printed value guide even coming close to what they are bringing while overgraded lack-luster and stripped out examples are selling for much lower than listed price levels.

Dragon has an interesting observation on page 2:

Don't kid yourself, PCGS pretty much does two things now, grades moderns and that fresh from the mint stuff for all the speculators, and classic crackouts, that's it.

With more and more classic coins being maxed out, it seems the situation with classics is becoming similar to moderns, where many wouldn't risk cracking some coins out of their coffins. I found the thread worth reading.

[James_OldeTowne]

Zoins, please post this in a separate thread. It appears to me to be a different issue from this thread, and unlike this thread, is worthy of some thoughtful discussion. I think posting elsewhere would be beneficial.

[MarkFeld]

Zoins, please post this in a separate thread. It appears to me to be a different issue from this thread, and unlike this thread, is worthy of some thoughtful discussion. I think posting elsewhere would be beneficial.

I disagree with the "different issue" part, as one of the main points in each article is that there are far too many maxed out and/or over-graded coins out there. Laura then went on to suggest that collectors buy the best that they can. And by the way, Anaconda doesn't sell too many $50 items either, so there is more than one similarity here.

[Tradedollarnut]

Zoins, please post this in a separate thread. It appears to me to be a different issue from this thread, and unlike this thread, is worthy of some thoughtful discussion. I think posting elsewhere would be beneficial.

 

Translation: If I agree with poorguy too much in this thread, it might make my rants against Laura seem somewhat hypocritical.

[MikeKing]

Zoins, please post this in a separate thread. It appears to me to be a different issue from this thread, and unlike this thread, is worthy of some thoughtful discussion. I think posting elsewhere would be beneficial.

I disagree with the "different issue" part, as one of the main points in each article is that there are far too many maxed out and/or over-graded coins out there. Laura then went on to suggest that collectors buy the best that they can. And by the way, Anaconda doesn't sell too many $50 items either, so there is more than one similarity here.

 

 

indeed there is.

[James_OldeTowne]

The difference I see is this: Legend's article discusses coin doctors enhancing coins to get them into higher holders. Poorguy's discusses the mere resubmitting of coins time and again until they end up in higher holders. I feel these are drastically different subjects. The frist activity can be considered fraudulent. I don't think the second can be.

 

Zoins, please post this in a separate thread. It appears to me to be a different issue from this thread, and unlike this thread, is worthy of some thoughtful discussion. I think posting elsewhere would be beneficial.

 

Translation: If I agree with poorguy too much in this thread, it might make my rants against Laura seem somewhat hypocritical.

Tradedollarnut, I'm not sure, but are you saying I'm a hypocrite? Does the fact that I've honestly defended my previous statement in the first paragraph change that? Please elaborate - I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to feel attacked or not . I really think you are reading much too much into my request of Zoins .

 

Edited to add: Upon re-reading, just for the record, I find little of value to me in Poorguy's quote as well. I personally am not swayed much by the grade on any holder, and will bid based on how much I like the coin, rather than the holder. But again, I feel it is a different enough subject that it shouldn't be buried in a "Legendary" thread.

[MarkFeld]

The difference I see is this: Legend's article discusses coin doctors enhancing coins to get them into higher holders. Poorguy's discusses the mere resubmitting of coins time and again until they end up in higher holders. I feel these are drastically different subjects. The frist activity can be considered fraudulent. I don't think the second can be......

James, I sure didn't read/see the Legend article the way you apparently did. It did mention enhanced/doctored coins, but also made numerous references to quality (or lack thereof) and over-grading, which had nothing to do with coin doctors - please see below. Additionally, even if Legend's message had pertained only to doctored coins, the message regarding staying away form inferior (for the grade) quality pieces would still apply and be just as important.

 

"Dealers maniputale the sevices and each other to continually upgrade coins and make you feel good when you are buying their inferior product. Basically, they are forcing changes in what the word "quality" now means."

 

"This is clearly becoming a TWO TIER marketplace. Classic rarities seem to be graded properly for the most part probably because they are out in the publics scrutiny. However, coins I like to call widgets, face the worst impact of gradeflation and are causing the market to spin in all directions-when he underlying body is healthy"

 

"The public MUST recognize that "there is NO substitute for quality". Keep rejecting the bad stuff. If you want to secure your investment (for lack of a better term) do not buy junk. Even if you buy it super cheap, junk is still junk and faces the risk of falling in value. QUALITY coins will always have appeal and will continue to only get rarer as gradeflation steams on. This mantra can not be repeated enough."

 

"Why are Saints so abused an non quality oreinted? Becuase so many of them get "rammed" through the grading services (we're talking about thousands a clip) by the major "crackout" dealers it does distort their grading of them. In the end, it doesn't matter who is to blame, there is a horrible non quality product (poorly graded Saints) out on the market place being forced on the public. Do not let your standards slip! "

 

Edited to add: Upon re-reading, just for the record, I find little of value to me in Poorguy's quote as well. I personally am not swayed much by the grade on any holder, and will bid based on how much I like the coin, rather than the holder.

Many collectors and dealers, however, ARE swayed by the grade on the holder. The caution against that was precisely the point of Legend's article. Perhaps the article has zero potential benefit to you, but it should to many others.

[James_OldeTowne]

I saw the idea of zoins posting his quote separately as an opportunity to attack the issue separately. My suggestion wasn't intended to be "hypocritical", which I guess is what Tradedollarnut was trying to indicate.

 

For novice collectors, or those who simply don't know any better, I don't see any advantage to clouding these issues up by attempting to address them together in a single thread. It seems to me that doctoring coins to get higher grades stems from a much different motive than that of merely resubmitting coins in hopes of higher grades.

 

My apologies if I am in the wrong, here.

[MikeKing]

I don't think you're wrong, but irrespective of that, he was trying to throw you a jab.

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't think you're wrong, but irrespective of that, he was trying to throw you a jab.

Well, in that case, I stick my tongue out in Tradedollarnut's general direction!

 

[MikeKing]

I didn't mean to get in between the two of you, maybe I should step out of the way?

[MarkFeld]

I didn't mean to get in between the two of you, maybe I should step out of the way?

Good idea Mike. Otherwise, it sounds like you might get a jab from one of them and a tongue stuck out at you from the other.

[Tradedollarnut]

It's all good. I'm just simply aghast at the general 'pooh poohing' about an emphasis on quality ... simply because one doesn't like the monetary values a dealer purveys in...

[WoodenJefferson]

CoinWorldTrends article

[James_OldeTowne]

It's all good. I'm just simply aghast at the general 'pooh poohing' about an emphasis on quality ... simply because one doesn't like the monetary values a dealer purveys in...

 

I think that what your aghast about is the fact that someone could actually have a different, more meaningful definition of quality, one that doesn't revolve just around "monetary values".

 

I'm aghast! You mean, a coin can be affordable, even inexpensive, not be "THE BEST", yet still be good quality? Say it isn't so!

 

Good grief, I can only imagine what kind of chaos there would be if the only possible way of measuring "quality" in the coin world was by looking at a price-tag (or a grade).

 

You know, if you'd just spend a lot more on coins by buying "THE BEST", you, too, could be a high-quality collector.

 

Thank God we don't evaluate our fellow coin collectors in this manner.

 

Or do we?

[MarkFeld]

I think that what your aghast about is the fact that someone could actually have a different, more meaningful definition of quality, one that doesn't revolve just around "monetary values".

James, what is that different definition to which you allude? Legend suggested focusing on "quality" and not buying coins which were over-graded and/or messed with. That advice applies to any/every grade and value coin, even if YOU choose to focus on a high grade/value example from the article.

 

If you had provided advice via your website and specifically mentioned common date MS62 Morgan Dollars as an example, would that necessarily mean that your advice applied only to low value coins of less than 63 quality? Of course not. You sound as if for some reason, you have blinders on, and are focused on the narrow picture instead of the broad one.

[MikeKing]

I think one of the major issues here is the elitism of the company in question, and the color of their advice given in the particular report we are talking about.

 

There is no question that there is some truth and a postive message to be derived from what they said, but it is questionable that their message is not self serving.

 

While there isn anything wrong with people choosing to spend more money than others on their coins, it is injurious to the hobby to provide misinformation about what quality in a coin really is. It certainly isn't 'the highest grade' in PCGS plastic that hasn't been 'fooled with' or reached it's pinnacle in the 'crack out' game.

[MarkFeld]

I think one of the major issues here is the elitism of the company in question, and the color of their advice given in the particular report we are talking about.

Mike, that may very well be true.

 

There is no question that there is some truth and a postive message to be derived from what they said, but it is questionable that their message is not self serving

Most information posted by companies on their own web sites is probably at least somewhat self serving. But, as you have indicated, that doesn't mean that the message isn't truthful, accurate and potentially helpful.

 

While there isn anything wrong with people choosing to spend more money than others on their coins, it is injurious to the hobby to provide misinformation about what quality in a coin really is. It certainly isn't 'the highest grade' in PCGS plastic that hasn't been 'fooled with' or reached it's pinnacle in the 'crack out' game.

I agree, though I don't feel that there was any misinformation provided regarding what "quality" is.

[Zoins]

I agree that how one interprets the article may be influenced by how one is predisposed towards the author of the article and not just the content of the article itself.

 

When I read the Legend article, my thoughts were:

 

(a) quality does not necessarily mean high grade

 

The article specifically says some AUs may be higher quality than some MSs. That seems similar to the advice I hear on these boards about preferring AU58s over low grade MSs for eye-appeal over strict numbers. I also applied the advice for quality to problem coins. At times (though not every time), there has been strong advice given on these boards to avoid problem coins, which can exist in all grades, even PO01s. I'm thinking about wearing down a Morgan with a rim ding to see if I wear off the rim ding Not only did I not read that quality has to be high grade, it seemed to reaffirm the advice I've seen given on these boards.

 

(b) quality does not necessarily mean expensive

 

Although Legend is in the more expensive coin market (along with Anaconda), I did not read the recommendation for quality as only applying to expensive coins. This could be because I also look at world coins and tokens (Conder, Civil War, Hard Times, etc.). Many classic world coins can be had in low grades for around $5 while high grades fetch $50. The tokens go for a bit more but still far less than what Legend sells. I used something like the quality advice (before the article came out) to avoid buying inexpensive problem Conders when I first started considering them.

 

From my experiences above, I think the advice in the Legend article can easily be interpreted different ways depending on one's disposition. I, for one, did not read the article to say quality had to be high grade or expensive. I applied the advice equally to situations where coins are expensive and/or high grade as well as to situations where coins are inexpensive and/or low grade.

[Tradedollarnut]

You sound as if for some reason, you have blinders on, and are focused on the narrow picture instead of the broad one.

 

Ya think? It's either that or he's being intentionally obtuse to suit his agenda.

[James_OldeTowne]

You sound as if for some reason, you have blinders on, and are focused on the narrow picture instead of the broad one.

Mark, I'm surprised that you of all people would think that I've stated a more "narrow focus" than that given by the article. To the contrary, I've explained that the article's implied definition of "quality is too narrow.

 

I know that you yourself have bought and sold coins in values ranging from well under a hundred dollars, to well into the many of thousands. Are your clients who purchase $25,000 coins "higher quality collectors" than those who can only afford those of the $50 range? I hope and believe that I am correct in thinking that you do not follow such a misguided philosophy. I believe you will agree that a coin costing $50 can be of extremely high quality, and certainly may well be the best some collectors can afford.

 

So far, Tradedollarnut has at least twice labelled me - as a "hypocrite", and as "obtuse". Why? I don't know, but I'll go ahead and re-state my agenda (again). I just simply do not believe the definition of "quality" implied by Legend's article to be useful to the biggest majority of coin collectors. And if the rest of the article hinges on a definition that doesn't work for most collectors, then I see little value in it. Again, I go back to my initial post, which pretty much stated the same thing. I haven't changed my tune on this, and I don't think I attacked anyone over it.

 

The article could have been written by anyone, and I would still feel the same way.

 

Tradedollarnut, if I've come across as attacking you, or labelling you in some manner, then I apologize. I don't see the value to this conversation of your labelling me as a "hypocrite" and "obtuse".

[Tradedollarnut]

I think you don't like Laura and therefore attack her article on a very narrow interpretation that most people wouldn't use. Someone without your bias against her would agree that she went out of her way to state she's talking about quality for the grade - not quality as in high value.

 

She brings a lot on herself with her no holds barred attitude on the boards, but attacking her over a Hot Topics posted to her website that bends over backwards to be as all encompassing as possible is silly and I'm not afraid to say so.

[James_OldeTowne]

James, what is that different definition to which you allude? Legend suggested focusing on "quality" and not buying coins which were over-graded and/or messed with. That advice applies to any/every grade and value coin, even if YOU choose to focus on a high grade/value example from the article.

Mark, sorry, I forgot to address your question.

 

My definition of quality goes something like this:

 

A "quality coin" is one you enjoy owning.

 

I know, it's a simplistic sounding definition, but think about it. You will find that "financial value" has absolutely no implication here. Nor does grade, nor does cost or profit or any other extraneous forces. It doesn't insult anyone, and doesn't imply any kind of elitist notions. My definition instead focuses on the collector and what he enjoys.

 

Isn't that truly the key to our wonderful hobby?