The "Consortium"

[Bruceswar]

So one would submit coins like they would to a TPG?

 

As stated in anothe post the collector will not be able to send coins, but rather buy coins from them that have been picked out already. At least not at this time.

[WinstonWare]

So one would submit coins like they would to a TPG?

 

As stated in anothe post the collector will not be able to send coins, but rather buy coins from them that have been picked out already. At least not at this time.

 

Ah I see. There are so many posts on the subject I am having trouble keeping up with all the information. Thanks Bruce.

[James_OldeTowne]

Sometimes, I can't tell whether you are joking, and I hope you are in this case. If this statement was made in jest, I hope others realize it. The plain fact is that cheap coins are ALWAYS more liquid than mega-million dollar rarities, in any market!

 

You are wrong. Low end certified coins are very tough to sell in a down market. Ultra rarities will always sell.

OK, I didn't see where you stated "low end certified". I thought you meant low-end in general. My experience is that low-end uncertified coins sell well in any market.

 

James, in addition to unfairly characterizing my reply to your original point as "bologna", YOU changed YOUR original subject of "I don't need any group, person or "consortium" to tell me if a coin is worthy of my collection" to "as grade certification has done, adding yet ANOTHER layer of "certification" WILL add to MY COST for buying coins", etc. Sorry, I'm not in the mood to be talked to that way or have further discussions today, especially when I addressed your post and then you changed the subject.

I can't follow what "subject change" you're referring to. If it helps, I am saying that as a collector, I do not like it when "third parties" inflate the price of what I have to pay for coins. And it is blatantly false to state that "They are merely providing an opinion that others are free to care about or ignore altogether.", when in fact, that is not all they are doing. They are also driving up what it costs me to buy properly-graded coins.

[goldrarities.com-migration]

As stated in anothe post the collector will not be able to send coins, but rather buy coins from them that have been picked out already. At least not at this time.

 

 

CAC will not be selling coins directly to the public but has already had plenty of interest from many reputable dealers who do

[ziggy29]

I can't follow what "subject change" you're referring to. If it helps, I am saying that as a collector, I do not like it when "third parties" inflate the price of what I have to pay for coins. And it is blatantly false to state that "They are merely providing an opinion that others are free to care about or ignore altogether.", when in fact, that is not all they are doing. They are also driving up what it costs me to buy properly-graded coins.

I think I agree with this. As I wrote ATS earlier this morning:

 

I think a lot of the people here already have an eye for quality that exceeds the average collector. As a result, I think there's a fear that they will have to pay more to get a coin that's "all there for the grade" if most of them are "CAC-approved" instead of being able to use their skills to find quality for the grade on their own.

 

In that sense, it's like what happened with slabbing. Once people with less of an eye for great coins (or coin grading in general) felt more confident throwing a lot of money around because of slabbing and the trust they had in the grade, authenticity and lack of significant problems, it became harder for people who already had those skills to find those coins raw on their own, and thus prices paid for them rose significantly.

 

So I can understand why some people who have limited funds to chase great coins and a good eye for spotting them would feel like they could be priced out of the "good stuff" even more. I think some of the attacks on motive are low blows, but the skepticism is understandable and the so are some of the fears. In short, this sounds good for top dealers and good for collectors with deep pockets and limited coin-evaluation skills, but not so good for middle-class collectors who can use their knowledge and coin evaluation talents to level the playing field for them. This is my greatest concern about this endeavor.

[goldrarities.com-migration]

when in fact, that is not all they are doing. They are also driving up what it costs me to buy properly-graded coins.

 

The fact is that if the grading standards that were implemented when NGC and PCGS first started were not watered down, prices would be alot higher than they are now-

[ziggy29]

The fact is that if the grading standards that were implemented when NGC and PCGS first started were not watered down, prices would be alot higher than they are now-

For the same coin? It's hard to tell.

 

Let's say, for sake of argument, that we accept that today's 66 is yesteryear's 65. Would today's price for a 65 if there were no gradeflation be different than today's price for a gradeflated 66?

 

[gpnyc]

I've read the various threads with great interest and have come to one insurmountable problem with this whole concept: The fact that collectors cannot submit their own coins for evaluation speaks volumes.

 

I submit that the purpose of limiting access to this "service" is simply to pad the participating dealers' profits. If I want to sell a coin I already own, I can't get it "approved" beforehand, yet that same coin will likely sell for more once its gone through a participating dealer's inventory and its received its seal of approval. Result: less money for the collector, more money for the dealer. That's the end-game, otherwise why exclude collectors.. the very people this service purports to be helping?

 

Its OK to want to make more money, yet its a little insulting to pretend otherwise when you are blatantly excluding collectors from the process.

 

Just my 2¢. I look forward to constructive comments on where I'm going wrong with my analysis.

[123cents]

I have read just about all the post about "The Consortium." When and if the consortium goes into action will be the only way to judge its success. If it is a true benefit to the collector then it will be a success. If not, it will just fade away just like so many other "great ideas."

[Oldtrader3]

After much overnight consideration, this Consortium seal appears to be an end game for collector/investors to assure more accurate grading and maintain premiums on their high-end, certified material protecting them from (dealers) "my coin, your coin" one-way discount. If this is the case, I don't think that it will affect the average (slabbed) collector coin value much (one way or the other) because this service is beyond the purview of most collectors. IMHO, the collector coin market will continue, as always.

 

We have had a wide breath of discussion on this subject, but I would like to hear from some other senior collectors members of this site regarding their feelings on this issue.

[MarkFeld]

I can't follow what "subject change" you're referring to. If it helps, I am saying that as a collector, I do not like it when "third parties" inflate the price of what I have to pay for coins. And it is blatantly false to state that "They are merely providing an opinion that others are free to care about or ignore altogether.", when in fact, that is not all they are doing. They are also driving up what it costs me to buy properly-graded coins.

I think I agree with this. As I wrote ATS earlier this morning:

 

I think a lot of the people here already have an eye for quality that exceeds the average collector. As a result, I think there's a fear that they will have to pay more to get a coin that's "all there for the grade" if most of them are "CAC-approved" instead of being able to use their skills to find quality for the grade on their own.

 

In that sense, it's like what happened with slabbing. Once people with less of an eye for great coins (or coin grading in general) felt more confident throwing a lot of money around because of slabbing and the trust they had in the grade, authenticity and lack of significant problems, it became harder for people who already had those skills to find those coins raw on their own, and thus prices paid for them rose significantly.

 

So I can understand why some people who have limited funds to chase great coins and a good eye for spotting them would feel like they could be priced out of the "good stuff" even more. I think some of the attacks on motive are low blows, but the skepticism is understandable and the so are some of the fears. In short, this sounds good for top dealers and good for collectors with deep pockets and limited coin-evaluation skills, but not so good for middle-class collectors who can use their knowledge and coin evaluation talents to level the playing field for them. This is my greatest concern about this endeavor.

Ziggy, I understand and appreciate your concerns. You expressed them clearly and in a gentlemanly fashion, which I appreciate. I don't claim to be able to know how things will turn out, but I hope collectors end up better off.

 

The gist of your post and James', seems quite a bit different from the previous point that James had made and to which I had responded. He had stated:"My response, which I alluded to in Mark Feld's thread, is that I am tired of dealers and grading companies telling me what I may or may not collect"

 

My reply was :

 

"James, as as I mentioned previously in this thread: Nowhere have I seen stated that Collectors Acceptance Group plans to tell anyone else whether a coin is worthy of their collection. They are merely providing an opinion that others are free to care about or ignore altogether.

 

In your case, I'll change it to: Nowhere have I seen stated that Collectors Acceptance Group plans to tell anyone what they may or may not collect.

 

If you guys don't like the concept, that's fine and dandy, but out of fairness, please don't attribute edicts to them that they haven't put forth themselves."

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Mark, gotcha, and indeed, I caught the same problem in my own post and corrected it previous to your reply. Sorry about the confusion.

 

The fact is that if the grading standards that were implemented when NGC and PCGS first started were not watered down, prices would be alot higher than they are now-

GoldRarities, this statement defies all logic. If an MS-65 were an MS-65 forever, why in the world would it suddenly skyrocket in value? Makes no sense! On the contrary, it's price should rise more slowly than it would in a market where grading is all over the place. In other words, rock-solid, unchanging grading standards would in fact lead to a commodities market for coins. So if grading standards weren't watered down, then prices would be much lower than they are now.

 

It is in fact because coins can be upgraded that prices are "a lot higher than they are now". Speculation in upgradeable coins is what has driven sky-high prices.

 

This may be what the consortium is after - stabilization of grading, and therefore values, and that would be fantastic, except it completely ignores a fundamental and irrefutable fact of human nature: grading coins is subjective.

 

I think I'm through with the subject, since I'm apparently in the minority. I sincerely hope the consortium idea can help by keeping original coins in their original state, but I tend to doubt it will. As always, the best defense by far is to get original coins away from speculative crackout dealers, and into the hands of collectors who care about coins, and that can't be done when prices are in the stratosphere.

[BillJones]

As a collector who has a few hundred slabbed coins that I've hand picked over years, how can I get my coins "blessed" by this group? Do I have to sell them first and then have someone else reap the rewards?

 

And I'm going say this once. If I have to deal with that Spencer woman, forget it. My few interactions with her have been nothing but unpleasant.

 

[MunkyMan95]

I don't need any group, person or "consortium" to tell me if a coin is worthy of my collection. Never did, never will.

That's good to hear and as it should be. However, nowhere have I seen stated that Collectors Acceptance Group plans to tell anyone else whether a coin is worthy of their collection. They are merely providing an opinion that others are free to care about or ignore altogether.

Mark, that's baloney, and you know it. If the members of this mighty consortium are going to pay 20% to 40% more for certain bless-ed coins, you know darned well that that extra cost will just be passed on to me, the little collector when the coins are resold.

 

The fact is that, as grade certification has done, adding yet ANOTHER layer of "certification" WILL add to MY COST for buying coins. One way or another, the small collectors, who truly are the backbone of the hobby, continue to get squeezed out of the hobby by spiraling greed. If it isn't third-party grading fees, then it's the ridiculous cost of mint products, the absurd mushrooming number of coins required to form collections (ie. "state quarters" and "presidential dollars" - and now a mighty coin consortium of rich dealers paying more, and therefore charging more for coins.

 

As I stated elsewhere, if all these rich coin dealers are so concerned about the hobby, I have an idea: GET OUT and STAY OUT! Without your bloated money, the market slows down, prices fall, and coin doctors and crackout artists have less motive and incentive for their nefarious activities.

 

The fall in value for low end coins is not going to be any worse than it would have been the next down cycle. They're always the first to become illiquid.

Sometimes, I can't tell whether you are joking, and I hope you are in this case. If this statement was made in jest, I hope others realize it. The plain fact is that cheap coins are ALWAYS more liquid than mega-million dollar rarities, in any market!

 

Amen James!!

[BillJones]

I can understand the displeasure that James and others have expressed. The bottom line however, is this.

 

This consortium conept is a marketing ploy. If the dealers who are in it suceed in convincing the general collector popular WHO SPEND SERIOUS MONEY that their "blessed" coins are better, they will collect premium prices. If they don't collectors will ignore them, and the sticker won't be worth the cellophane it is printed upon.

 

As collectors we have the right to reject them and go our own way. We also have the rigth to refuse to pay their inflated prices if in fact they are inflated.

[ziggy29]

As collectors we have the right to reject them and go our own way. We also have the rigth to refuse to pay their inflated prices if in fact they are inflated.

Correct, of course. But here's the thing. If this marketing tool takes off and becomes mainstream -- like slabbing did -- we could see a repeat of what happened to most of the better coins out there.

 

Namely, there will be an attitude that there "must be something wrong" with a coin if it isn't slabbed, and slabbed by the right people. Thus, most of the best stuff wound up in slabs, at prices likely higher than raw. So it was either pay up or settle for inferior coins and average schlock for the grade (if that).

 

Could the same thing happen here? Will this take all the best coins for the grade into a new pricing tier, and again we'll be left with the choice of paying more (again) or settling for less desirable coins?

 

So we can "refuse to play" this game just as we're free to refuse to play the slabbing game. But depending on what you collect, refusing to play the slabbing game and refusing to buy slabbed coins (if they are more expensive than a theoretical identical raw coin) means you have almost no material to choose from. Obviously if you collect (say) VF Seated material, except for the key dates most are still raw anyway. But if you collect MS-65 SLQs, for example, if you refuse to pay the premium for a slabbed coin you're likely to never find most of what you need.

[Cladiator]

It's just a handfull of scabs trying to cut their own piece of the pie. Greed, pure and simple.

[Conder101]

In the old days the party of the first part (buyer) would negociate with the party of the second part (seller) and strike a deal.

 

Then they needed the opinion of the party of the third part (TPG).

 

Now the party of the first part and the part of the second part need the opinion of the party of the third part ratified by the party of the fourth part. . . .

(Why do I hear the contract scene from A Night at the Opera in the back of my mind?)

 

As stated in anothe post the collector will not be able to send coins, but rather buy coins from them that have been picked out already. At least not at this time.

 

CAC will not be selling coins directly to the public but has already had plenty of interest from many reputable dealers who do

So it will be a "grading service" that only dealers can submit to, just as PCGS and NGC started as.

 

Does anyone but me find it interesting that one of the consortium founders was also one of the founders of NGC, an was involved with the creation of PCGS as well? I guess it worked so well the first two times, lets try for three.

 

For those of you who feel upset because you think the TPG or the new consortium are trying to tell you what to collect. . .

 

WHY ARE YOU LISTENING TO THEM!!

 

If you don't like being told what to collect, try something novel, collect what you LIKE. Why pay a kings ransom for a MS-68 (and be at the mercy of the grading services), when a MS-63 is still a beautiful coin, and even a nice problem free VF has its own warmth and charm. While there are a few collectors who have more money than they know what to do with and who will insist on having the absolute finest, even though it can't really be recognized and is usually just a matter of luck, for most people chacing these things it ISN'T about collecting, it is speculating. It isn't about the history or story of the coin, it is about the flip, how much can I get for it when I sell. If that is your interest then the TPG and the Consortium may be great for you (as will be the grader of the grader of the grader in another 20 years).

 

I collect what I like. My collection wll never be in a "name" sale, but it is a nice collection and quite extensive. Will I ever get back the money that I have sunk into it? I don't know and I don't care. My collection has provided me with 35 years of pleasure and entertainment and I can't really put a price on that. But I know that I have never had to worry about what someone else would say about my coins and whether or not it will make this grade or that one. And my collection is much larger than it would have been if I had sunk a bunch of money into putting them in plastic.

[WinstonWare]

Okay, I think I get it now. The consortium goes out and buys coins are that appropriate or better for the grade, puts their stamp on them, and then sells them at 20-40% over greysheet. Is that right? But isn’t that what we all do already – try to buy coins that are choice for the grade? This consortium talk is getting boring and the consortium hasn’t even begun yet :sleep:

[ziggy29]

Okay, I think I get it now. The consortium goes out and buys coins are that appropriate or better for the grade, puts their stamp on them, and then sells them at 20-40% over greysheet. Is that right? But isnt that what we all do already try to buy coins that are choice for the grade? This consortium talk is getting boring and the consortium hasnt even begun yet :sleep:

Yes -- BUT the difference is that the people who used to be afraid to pay "strong money" well over sheet for a coin might be more emboldened now with a "seal of approval," increasing competition and (therefore) prices.

 

It's also possible it will bring in more investor money. If so, it could be a redux of the late 1980s coin market, when the new "third party grading" services slabbed coins and emboldened numismatically-ignorant investors to buy up things like common-date MS-63 Saints, MS-65 Morgans for $500 and other "sight unseen" investment pieces at nosebleed levels (even by today's standards) leading up to the Crash of '89.

 

Irrational exuberance, anyone?

[Connecticoin]

As stated in anothe post the collector will not be able to send coins, but rather buy coins from them that have been picked out already. At least not at this time.

 

I missed that -- where was this stated, and who stated it?

[goldrarities.com-migration]

CAC will not be accepting coins directly from the public, selling coins to the public or accepting modern/bullion coins for review.

 

 

[IGWT]

This consortium conept is a marketing ploy.

 

I wouldn't call it a ploy; although, if I were to be cynical, this is what I'd say:

 

I've read complaints by top-of-the line collectors and dealers that misgraded and doctored coins are hurting the market. The low-end, overgraded, or problem coins in 65 plastic (as an example) hold down the value of true gems that are also in 65 plastic. All the crackouts and processed coins -- the results of greed in practice -- have reached the point where they actually diminish the value of important segments of the market. Greed has become self-defeating in the current system.

 

The irony is that greed provides the solution to the problem that it created. Any cure for the current problems must be consistent with the economic self-interest of those who participate in the market. Otherwise, it simply wouldn't work. Those who are involved in the consortium want and need the market to flourish. They have found a way (or, so it seems) to enhance the market in a way that jibes with what many of us want. The consortium expects that the value of the "good" coins will carry the market higher when cut loose from the "bad." They'll benefit as a result, and we'll be satisfied if the program incidentally preserves coins by decreasing the incentive to crack, strip, and dip for an upgrade.

 

Anyway, that's what I would say if I were a cynic. I don't expect that much will change for me given what I collect.

[WinstonWare]

I expect that absolutely nothing will change for me given that I was always willing to pay more for the “right” coins whether they were slabbed or not; let alone slabbed and “stickered.” The more I think about the idea the more silly it seems. I wonder if there will ever be a new consortium to evaluate the original consortium evaluated coins – like two stickers . You could never go wrong if you had a slabbed, twice-stickered coin…right?

[Bruceswar]

As stated in anothe post the collector will not be able to send coins, but rather buy coins from them that have been picked out already. At least not at this time.

 

I missed that -- where was this stated, and who stated it?

 

It was stated in other words a few times, but gets the point across.

[MarkFeld]

As stated in anothe post the collector will not be able to send coins, but rather buy coins from them that have been picked out already. At least not at this time.

 

I missed that -- where was this stated, and who stated it?

 

It was stated in other words a few times, but gets the point across.

Collectors will certainly be able to submit their coins through dealers..It's not like they will only be able to buy others' coins that have been accepted and not sell their own that have been accepted. There is nothing to preclude a two way street.

[IGWT]

I'll take the lack of a response that either corrects or denies my "cynical" post as a confirmation. Thanks.

[JRocco]

I will post the same reply here as I posted ATS...

 

I can't say, given just this sound bite, what my thoughts are. I would like to see some change. I DO NOT think that all is perfect in the current situation.

 

I know that I have seen terrible coins in good plastic, yet the same good plastic companies have BB'd better coins sent in by us little guys. Accidental??? Lucky??? Or something worse???

 

I get pi$$ed off when I see some people/dealers (whose names will be left unmentioned) total cr@p regularly getting slabbed, when that same coin sent in by a common collector wouldn't stand a chance of getting slabbed.

 

Will this new Consortium help....dunno yet.

[MarkFeld]

I'll take the lack of a response that either corrects or denies my "cynical" post as a confirmation. Thanks.

I thought you post was decent, if not good.

[WinstonWare]

I’m excited for the time in numismatics when it will be socially acceptable to buy the sticker, not the coin (thumbs up