The difference between Rick Snow's "Eagle Eye" and the Consortium's blessing is:

[James_OldeTowne]

... that the Consortium has nothing to lose. By one owner's own admission, he doesn't even care if he loses his whole $1,000,000 investment. It's nothing to him, therefore he has nothing to lose.

 

But when Rick Snow puts an Eagle Eye sticker on a coin, it's his rear-end that's on the line. Rick has everything to lose if he starts eagle-eye-ing coins that aren't up to snuff. That's his bread and butter!

 

So, that's the difference: "Nothing to lose" vs. "Everything to lose".

 

By the way, I am fully aware of the controversy surrounding those blue Indian cents. I discussed the issue personally at length with Rick and a couple of other coin experts, and am not at all convinced that Rick did anything illicit in the specific incident discussed ATS.

[IGWT]

Hi James --

 

I don't think your conclusion is right for a couple of reasons. First, the member who put up $1MM said that although his goal is not to make money, he certainly doesn't want to lose money, either.

 

Second, as I understand it -- and I might be corrected by those who are involved or as more information comes out -- the capitalization of the consortium is necessary initially to buy at the bid levels that it publishes. If members of the consortium can't then sell the coins at the same level or above (and no one can force a collector to pay the consortium's ask), then the consortium's capital will be depleted (and quite quickly, at that). They do seem to be putting their money where their mouths are.

 

Don't you agree that coins should be properly graded and that the market should reward coins that haven't been messed with (before there are none left)? It seems that you'd be a natural ally of the consortium in many respects.

 

 

 

[MikeKing]

maybe this will be the beginning of the end for pcgs

[Tradedollarnut]

Don't you agree that coins should be properly graded and that the market should reward coins that haven't been messed with (before there are none left)? It seems that you'd be a natural ally of the consortium in many respects.

 

Apparently, he'd rather rant and rave and tilt at windmills...

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Apparently, he'd rather rant and rave and tilt at windmills...

Tradedollarnut, I posted this thread in response to an issue you posted ATS. (Sorry I can't quote it directly, but I just don't feel like sifting through 30 pages of diatribe to find it.) It's your issue originally, not mine.

 

To answer IGWT's question, I do not think the market should "reward" coins that are properly graded and unmolested. Rather, I think it should "punish" those that are improperly graded or doctored. It doesn't make sense to me to pay more for something that is as it's supposed to be.

 

Of course, I do think there should be a "reward" for special coins, such as those that have attained lovely rainbow toning through an unmolested process.

 

Edited to add: IGWT, actually, you are right that I ironically would be an ally of the consortium in some sense. I am consumed with the belief that "original" coins are best, and would never, ever discount that point. But for me, the need for the direction of the hobby and the market to be guided by collectors (rather than dealers) trumps everything. I do think dealers can and should influence the market in a positive manner, but never, ever at the cost of pricing collectors out of what they love: coins. Hopefully, the consortium had the foresight to bring collectors on board.

[Tradedollarnut]

six of one, half dozen of the other. the fact is that quality for the grade coins should cost more than low end for the grade.

[IGWT]

To answer IGWT's question, I do not think the market should "reward" coins that are properly graded and unmolested. Rather, I think it should "punish" those that are improperly graded or doctored. It doesn't make sense to me to pay more for something that is as it's supposed to be.

 

That's a distinction that doesn't make a difference. I'll bet that you already pay more for a problem-free coin than for problem coin. Are you punishing the problem coin or rewarding the problem-free coin? Probably some of both; and, in any event, it really doesn't matter, because it's all about the relative value of the coins regardless of how you choose to characterize the situation.

[MarkFeld]

... that the Consortium has nothing to lose. By one owner's own admission, he doesn't even care if he loses his whole $1,000,000 investment. It's nothing to him, therefore he has nothing to lose.

 

But when Rick Snow puts an Eagle Eye sticker on a coin, it's his rear-end that's on the line. Rick has everything to lose if he starts eagle-eye-ing coins that aren't up to snuff. That's his bread and butter!

 

So, that's the difference: "Nothing to lose" vs. "Everything to lose".

 

By the way, I am fully aware of the controversy surrounding those blue Indian cents. I discussed the issue at length with Rick and a couple of other coin experts, and am not at all convinced that Rick did anything illicit in the specific incident discussed ATS.

And if Collectors Acceptance Group starts approving of coins that don't warrant/deserve it, they have obligated themselves to buy coins that "aren't up to snuff" at strong prices, put their "rear end on the line" and have everything to lose.

 

Seriously, have you even read about and/or do you understand that they are truly putting their money where their opinions (of coins) are?

[James_OldeTowne]

six of one, half dozen of the other. the fact is that quality for the grade coins should cost more than low end for the grade.

Gosh, every time I submit a post, there's another one I need to respond to .

 

I understood that the "20% to 40%" thing was based on greysheet bids. Am I wrong? So to me, as the greysheet itself says, accurately graded U.S. coins should bid at sheet, and lower-quality coins should go at a discount off of sheet. Coins that exceed the grade should exceed sheet.

 

Perhaps the problem the consortium should address is really deficient coins that sell for sheet or more, rather than accurately-graded coins that sell for more? Or maybe it's saying the same thing .

 

Mark, in answer to your question, when someone says they don't care even if the lose their whole $1,000,000, that tells me he has nothing to lose. Contrarily, when someone bases his business on his integrity (which Rick Snow does), he has a lot to lose by violating that integrity.

 

I'm of course not saying that consortium members don't have integrity. On the contrary, I believe they do.

[gmarguli]

... that the Consortium has nothing to lose. By one owner's own admission, he doesn't even care if he loses his whole $1,000,000 investment. It's nothing to him, therefore he has nothing to lose.

 

That $1M statement needs some perspective. TDN has put up $1M in backing so that his company will purchase coins deemed premium quality by experts above generic bid levels.

 

I believe there is a term in the industry for what he is doing. Perhaps others have heard the term as well. It's called Coin Dealer.

 

[Houston Investor]

If TDN purchases coins above CDN Bid he is becoming a retail buyer. If he then can not retail these profitably above his cost he is then the end user. The end user in the rare coin biz is the guy at the end of the numismatic food chain who paid too much and is stuck with the material. Everyone else in the arena made money but him. Perhaps with his financial resources this is a shrewd investment strategy which may yield big dividends down the road for him.

 

Consequently, calling him a dealer is quite an overblown, stretched compliment. End user is what many would call it. Others would say he is an investor.

[MarkFeld]

If TDN purchases coins above CDN Bid he is becoming a retail buyer. .

I don't know what market segments and grade levels you participate in, but I know dozens of dealers in various market segments who often pay above CDN bid and they are assuredly not "retail buyers".

[Houston Investor]

What is the difference between a turkey and a chicken?

[chinook]

I didnt interpret what TDN said as he didnt care about losing his $1 million. He is simply playing market maker or in stock market terms- a specialist. He(Legend) will be a buyer when no other can be found. His role is to provide a liquid and orderly market. He can only lose if he can not find a buyer his coins are if the market falls dramatically and/or quickly.

 

Rick Snow also acts in a specialist manner by stating he will buy his certified coins at a certain level to his published retail prices.

 

I remain skeptical of the motives of this consortium as I expressed ATS because I believe the market is the best arbitrator of price. I already see the market rewarding PQ coins and discounting LQ coins. I think the main objective of the consortium to serve as a wake-up to the TPGs that someone is watching them. If this forces the TPG's to be more CONSISTANT then I believe this will be a success. However I believe there is still alot of POTENTIAL for abuse by those in the consortium.

[Keleum]

I'm sure there will be plenty of abuse. The good thing is we'll know who it is, and it will be controlled. The next step, is gov't regulation after these guys gain too much control of the market and abuse it. But that's years down the road, and probably not with the current players.

 

I hope TDN is the maker for my coins, but somehow I see him focusing on trade dollars...

[Tradedollarnut]

when someone says they don't care even if the lose their whole $1,000,000

 

What someone said that? Kindly provide a quote.

[MikeInFL]

To me, there is quite a bit of difference between what Rick does and what the Consortium plans (or at least how I understand them both).

 

To identify the differences, I ask three very pointed questions...

 

#1 -- Where does Rick publish his buy-back prices?

 

#2 -- What is the spread between Rick's buy and sell prices?

 

#3 -- What has Rick done to make right the AT coins that now have Eagle Eye stickers on them?

 

I think the answers to these questions will define the differences between Rick's Eagle Eye stamp and the Consortium's...Mike

[chinook]

To me, there is quite a bit of difference between what Rick does and what the Consortium plans (or at least how I understand them both).

 

To identify the differences, I ask three very pointed questions...

 

#1 -- Where does Rick publish his buy-back prices?

 

#2 -- What is the spread between Rick's buy and sell prices?

 

#3 -- What has Rick done to make right the AT coins that now have Eagle Eye stickers on them?

 

I think the answers to these questions will define the differences between Rick's Eagle Eye stamp and the Consortium's...Mike

 

 

I believe the answer to 1 and 2 can be found here. Eagle Eye

 

I can not answer #3.

 

I will add that coins that I have seen with Rick's sticker have- for the most part- been very nice coins. I would assume the same for Consortium's stickers.