"Hot Topics" from Legend Numismatics

[James_OldeTowne]

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.

Well, maybe it's my turn to be aghast. First, I have never met "Laura", know absolutely nothing about her, and wouldn't recognize her in a room of two people. Interesting that you consider that a "bias".

 

Second, I haven't a clue where you think I attacked her (I think I attacked a poor definition of "quality"). Can you please show us all where that occurred?

 

Edited to add: Tradedollarnut, maybe I misunderstood. Are Laura and Legend one and the same?? Or is Laura employed by Legend, or does she own Legend? My apologies, because to be honest, I really don't know much about either entity. "Legend" is "Legend Numismatics", right? Do you have some affiliation with either?

[Tradedollarnut]

Yes, I'm Laura in drag. Any reports we've been sighted together are obvious falsehoods.

 

Only an affiliated person could possibly stand up against the bias shown in your posts - is that what you are insinuating? Welcome to Legend, Mark Feld. .

[MarkFeld]

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?

James, thanks for your reply. While I agree that a collector's enjoyment is the key to the hobby, I don't consider that to be a definition of "quality". One collector can get immense enjoyment out of a coin which is nearly universally considered to be of horrible "quality". Likewise another collector might receive essentially no enjoyment from a coin that most others would consider to be of spectacular "quality". Please note that that grade and price/value have nothing to do with my view on this subject (of "quality").

 

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.

James, to my eyes, the article didn't appear to have a narrow view or focus on "quality", but you have chosen to give it one. As per my reply to your definition of "quality", I don't think price/value or grade have anything to do with it. And, as best as I can tell, Legend feels the same way - it's just that you can't or won't see that.

[James_OldeTowne]

Yes, I'm Laura in drag. Any reports we've been sighted together are obvious falsehoods.

 

Only an affiliated person could possibly stand up against the bias shown in your posts - is that what you are insinuating? Welcome to Legend, Mark Feld. .

Uh , no , actually I wasn't insinuating anything... I really don't have a clue of your relationship with "Legend". I take it that there is some kind of relationship there (bias-free relationship, I am sure). I'm really not sure what to make of this post .

 

James, to my eyes, the article didn't appear to have a narrow view or focus on "quality", but you have chosen to give it one. As per my reply to your definition of "quality", I don't think price/value or grade have anything to do with it. And, as best as I can tell, Legend feels the same way - it's just that you can't or won't see that.

Mark, I believe you and I are in agreement on what I said. And, we can agree to disagree on the article's implied definition of "quality". I did indeed choose to believe that the Legend article presented an extremely narrorw focus on "quality", and said so in that very first post I keep coming back to. Here is the article's definition, quoted exactly

 

First, MY DEFINITION of quality is: Buy the BEST eye appealing, NON messed with coin for the grade.

 

... and here was my opening statement (underlines added):

 

I find the author's definition of "quality" positively useless, so that right there is enough to tell me that the rest of the article will have no value for me.

 

I don't know why this should have been interepreted by Tradedollarnut as some sort of personal attack on "Laura", or "Legend", or whomever. They are unknown person(s) to me. I really thought my post made it clear that I questioned the article's definition of "quality", and therefore everything else hinging on that definition.

 

I'll conclude by addressing your post, where you stated:

 

One collector can get immense enjoyment out of a coin which is nearly universally considered to be of horrible "quality". Likewise another collector might receive essentially no enjoyment from a coin that most others would consider to be of spectacular "quality".

 

I think this is for all practical purposes, exactly the definition of quality that I gave. In the two instances you illustrated, each collector enjoyed owning his coin, so to that collector, the coin was of high quality.

 

I guess this has been about hashed to death, so I'll quit arguing (again ). At least, in my opinion, this argument has demonstrated that "quality" has a wide range of definitions, and that no one definition is likely to fit every collector in every situation. Therefore, any article which hinges on "quality" should be read in the context of how that definition is biased.

[MarkFeld]

....I'll conclude by addressing your post, where you stated:

 

One collector can get immense enjoyment out of a coin which is nearly universally considered to be of horrible "quality". Likewise another collector might receive essentially no enjoyment from a coin that most others would consider to be of spectacular "quality".

 

I think this is for all practical purposes, exactly the definition of quality that I gave. In the two instances you illustrated, each collector enjoyed owning his coin, so to that collector, the coin was of high quality.

 

I guess this has been about hashed to death, so I'll quit arguing (again ).....

Sorry, James, I can't let you quit arguing just yet. Please read my two examples above again - in only one of those two cases is the collector enjoying the coin.

[gmarguli]

Sorry, James, I can't let you quit arguing just yet. Please read my two examples above again - in only one of those two cases is the collector enjoying the coin.

 

I haven't read this thread, but is the case where the collector is enjoying the coin a coin they purchased from Legend and where they are not enjoying it, it was purchased from a wannabe?

[MikeKing]

a good argument is always good for the soul.

[WoodenJefferson]

a good argument is always good for the soul.

This more of a "debate" than an argument...James needs to see Laura, I have a photo of her from the Atlanta show that was posted on the web, so it is in public domain.

 

Should I?

[gmarguli]

a good argument is always good for the soul.

This more of a "debate" than an argument...James needs to see Laura, I have a photo of her from the Atlanta show that was posted on the web, so it is in public domain.

 

Should I?

 

Something is not public domain just because it is posted to the internet. Just ask the music industry.

 

If anyone wants to see Laura or Bruce (TDN) all they need to do is type their name into Google picture search and a couple dozen pictures will pop up.

[WoodenJefferson]

a good argument is always good for the soul.

This more of a "debate" than an argument...James needs to see Laura, I have a photo of her from the Atlanta show that was posted on the web, so it is in public domain.

 

Should I?

 

Something is not public domain just because it is posted to the internet. Just ask the music industry.

 

If anyone wants to see Laura or Bruce (TDN) all they need to do is type their name into Google picture search and a couple dozen pictures will pop up.

 

I don't think her "image" is trademarked like the music industry and this photo was taken with her knowledge that it would be presented on the internet.

 

Never mind then...besides, if you Google Bruce, you get Bruce Lee, Google Laura you get Laura Bush

[gmarguli]

a good argument is always good for the soul.

This more of a "debate" than an argument...James needs to see Laura, I have a photo of her from the Atlanta show that was posted on the web, so it is in public domain.

 

Should I?

 

Something is not public domain just because it is posted to the internet. Just ask the music industry.

 

If anyone wants to see Laura or Bruce (TDN) all they need to do is type their name into Google picture search and a couple dozen pictures will pop up.

 

I don't think her "image" is trademarked like the music industry and this photo was taken with her knowledge that it would be presented on the internet.

 

Never mind then...besides, if you Google Bruce, you get Bruce Lee, Google Laura you get Laura Bush

 

The person who took the picture still owns it. And you need to add their last names to the search.

[Tradedollarnut]

How anyone can turn Buy the BEST eye appealing, NON messed with coin for the grade into a class warfare attack is beyond me.

 

I get so tired of the 'chip on the shoulder' attacks on perceived elitism. It's obvious in your posts that you've decided because Legend regularly deals in bigger coins that you've an opening to diss the article as an example of elitism. What's funny is that your bias is a reverse example of just what you rant about - looking down your nose at anything tainted by being elite!

[James_OldeTowne]

I get so tired of the 'chip on the shoulder' attacks on perceived elitism. It's obvious in your posts that you've decided because Legend regularly deals in bigger coins that you've an opening to diss the article as an example of elitism. What's funny is that your bias is a reverse example of just what you rant about - looking down your nose at anything tainted by being elite!

Well, well, well....

 

Well well well well well well well!

 

My, aren't we chippy this morning!

 

 

Now that I've had it explained to me your relationship with Legend, it sure is amazing that you'd have the gall of accusing others of being "biased" when discussing "Legend". Is there a single person in the entire numismatic community who could possibly have more of a bias than you when it comes to "Legend" (other than maybe the legendary lady herself)? I hardly think so.

 

You accuse me of having a "chip on the shoulder"?

 

 

How anyone can turn Buy the BEST eye appealing, NON messed with coin for the grade into a class warfare attack is beyond me.

 

Chip, chip, chip !

[MikeKing]

there's something to be said about whose brand of elitism we are talking about.

[IGWT]

Quality, to me, simply means superiority in kind. I've toyed with the idea of putting together a set of circulated, counterstamped coins. Superiority in coins of that kind, of course, differs substantially from the "quality" that Laura is writing about. I think you realize that, James; you're focusing on coins that will be appreciated by collectors, while Laura is focusing on coins that will appreciate for collectors (or at least hold their value). And, just so no one misinterprets what I'm writing, I'm not suggesting that those two groups are mutually exclusive.

 

It's appropriate for Laura to address the latter group of collectors. Like it or not, many collectors view their collections as a store of value or potential profit. Too many of those folks try to ensure a gain on future sales by buying cheap today. But, in a twist of irony, trying to get more for less is a sure way to lose money. This principle applies whether we're talking about circulated Walkers or mint state Bust coinage. So, it's not about a distinction between expensive and inexpensive coins; instead, it's about a distinction between coins that are generally desirable in the market and those that are not based upon condition for the grade.

 

In the end, James, I think you misunderstand your own disagreement with Laura's article. There's nothing elitist in her comments because they apply equally to all collectors who are principally concerned with making (or at least not losing) money. What you're saying, I think, is that collectors ought to be principally concerned with enjoying the coins. I think that the majority of collectors have both a bit of Laura and a bit of James in them.

[MikeKing]

I don't think James misunderstood anything.

[IGWT]

I don't think James misunderstood anything.

 

It's certainly possible that I'm the one who misunderstands. I'm just trying to make sense out a heated exchange between two people who are usually quite reasonable.

[Tradedollarnut]

Nothing heated on my part. More astonishment than anything else....

[Zoins]

I think one of the issues is whether "quality" should have a shared definition at all or if it should only be defined from the perspective of each individual. The exchange that highlights this for me is the following:

[James wrote:]

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?

[Mark wrote:]

James, thanks for your reply. While I agree that a collector's enjoyment is the key to the hobby, I don't consider that to be a definition of "quality". One collector can get immense enjoyment out of a coin which is nearly universally considered to be of horrible "quality". Likewise another collector might receive essentially no enjoyment from a coin that most others would consider to be of spectacular "quality". Please note that that grade and price/value have nothing to do with my view on this subject (of "quality").

James talks about quality in terms of whatever an individual enjoys. Mark talks about quality in terms of "nearly universally considered" and what "most others would consider". I think James would take exception not only to Legend's definition of quality, but any definition of quality that seeks to define quality for another person.

[James_OldeTowne]

That is correct. My misunderstanding (if there is one) is of the way the article interprets "quality". I've always thought that it should be a definition of personal preference, not a definition forced upon you by someone else's agenda.

 

In going back and re-reading the article again, I guess it would be of much more value to me if it had been spelled out that the discussion was geared toward investors, and not collectors. At least, that is how I now see it, and maybe that was the goal? Since I'm a pretty lousy financial investor in coins (but hopefully an adequate collector), I found little use for the article. I sincerely hope that those whose overriding goal is to profit from coins will glean some benefit from it.

[MarkFeld]

That is correct. My misunderstanding (if there is one) is of the way the article interprets "quality". I've always thought that it should be a definition of personal preference, not a definition forced upon you by someone else's agenda.

 

In going back and re-reading the article again, I guess it would be of much more value to me if it had been spelled out that the discussion was geared toward investors, and not collectors. At least, that is how I now see it, and maybe that was the goal? Since I'm a pretty lousy financial investor in coins (but hopefully an adequate collector), I found little use for the article. I sincerely hope that those whose overriding goal is to profit from coins will glean some benefit from it.

James, the large majority of "collectors" I know and hear about do care about things like resale value. One need not be an "investor" to have such thoughts or concerns. The article could and does apply to all types of coins, as well as all types of buyers.

[MikeKing]

Nothing heated on my part. More astonishment than anything else....

 

didn't Mr. Spock say something like that on a Star Trek episode? Yes, he did

[MikeKing]

too, some of the interpretation has to do with the source. If Q. David Bowers wrote the article, I would have taken it completely differently. But he didn't.

 

The source does take an elitist approach towards things, but so do I, I just know I'm right

 

Seriously though, my concerns within the hobby involve the dissemination of qualified knowledge and enabling people to build great collections, no matter what their $ strata or desire to spend (two different things) without prejudice.

[WoodenJefferson]

Nothing heated on my part. More astonishment than anything else....

 

didn't Mr. Spock say something like that on a Star Trek episode? Yes, he did

Mr. Spock also said this...

 

I see nothing heated here either...a bit of poking, barbing but more of a debate about the "Logic" of just what qaulity means in the Numismatic Jungle. I find all this very stimulating and honest. The psyche is a strange beast.

[James_OldeTowne]

For a moment there, I thought you might have said "The psycho is a strange beast" !

[numismatica]

 

I just bumped into this thread and felt compelled to share my views on the subject. First of all, I can't believe how much attention the most recent "HOT TOPICS" article has garnered.

 

MY REVIEW

I had a difficult time finishing the article due to the fact that it really contributes nothing of numismatic value. For that matter, it doesn’t even provide the reader with any basic words of wisdom. It is simply gibberish. The messages that I received from the article is this:

 

“buy nice coins, not ugly or doctored coins” and “buy the coin, not the holder”

 

Really? Gee, none of us collectors or dealers knew that. Thanks for the insightful advice. Beyond that, no new or significant information was presented. It is an empty body of text, completely devoid of information that would benefit any collector or dealer. The fact that it is so poorly written only adds insult to injury. The majority of YN articles I have read on this and other forums are superior in both substance and composition.

 

CONCLUSION

Although I agree with others that the author directly insults and even alienates the vast majority of collectors and dealers in the hobby, I won’t go into specifics. Rather than dissecting the article line-by-line, I will simply say that I did not like it. Everyone is entitled to state his/her own opinion and should not be flamed for doing so. This is a public forum and the article was posted here for the purpose of discussion.

 

Unfortunately, many of these types of threads have turned into personal attacks lately. Why can’t we agree to disagree in a friendly manner? One thing that we all have in common is that, no matter how much we disagree on other issues, we have a fraternal appreciation of numismatics.

 

I don’t know any of the people associated with Legend, but I get the feeling that they are here for the benefit the hobby overall. I am not exactly sure of TDN’s association with Legend, but I do appreciate the information (of a numismatic nature) that he posts here and across the street, including but not limited to the 1913 nickel and Trade Dollars. It’s interesting information that he does not have to share with anyone, yet he does.

 

My guess is that Laura simply has a difficult time expressing her thoughts in writing and that causes problems with people who take her too literally. If I were a member of the Legend team, I would suggest soliciting a professional numismatist/writer to contribute useful articles to help educate collectors and thus draw more people to the web site. How about an article on counterfeit detection or altered gold without mention of the intellectual inferiority of other dealers or collectors? The mind numbing drudgery presented in the latest Hot Topics article succeeds more at alienating and insulting collectors and dealers than anything else. Just my opinion…..

[Beijim]

I could not agree more with numismatica's assessment. Some people simply lack either the gift of writing or effective editing skill. I've never met Laura and can't speak to her motivations, so I assume she meant well but fell short in the execution.*

 

Beijim

 

* As opposed to Saddam Hussein's half-brother, who evidently fell somewhat long.

[LuvToCollect]

I think that some people, including myself at times, try to be eloquent instead of stating the obvious Although I found the posters opinion abrasive, I will leave that assessment to others.

[MAULEMALL]

 

* As opposed to Saddam Hussein's half-brother, who evidently fell somewhat long.

[WoodenJefferson]

I could not agree more with numismatica's assessment. Some people simply lack either the gift of writing or effective editing skill. I've never met Laura and can't speak to her motivations, so I assume she meant well but fell short in the execution.*

 

Beijim

 

 

I presumed she was a graduate?