Why I think the "consortium" will be BAD for the hobby.

[Count_Erfit]

If they persist as they state and only review NGC or PCGS product, it will reduce ANACS and ICG slabs to a very low status.

 

Possibly even to market unacceptability.

 

If I were ANACS or ICG (or both) I would immediately seek an injunction against them.

 

I would want them to show cause why they would exclude my company if their objective were to "benefit the hobby." I would question their expertise if they could not verify that a mint state 64 coin in a holder different from NGC or PCGS was graded to an acceptable standard.

 

Were I NGC or PCGS, I would join them as if they capitulate and agree to verify slabs other than NGC or PCGS, then the "second tier" TPGs would no longer be considered "second tier."

 

And then people would send coins to whatever service was fastest and then forward to the consortium for "verification" and market acceptability would follow.

 

But, failing this, suddenly all holders OTHER than NGC or PCGS will immediately be suspect and would thereby create a significant loss of value for those who have trusted any but the two main ones.

 

It seems to me that this would open a whole can of worms.

 

The only way that I can see that there would be no liability nor loss to present owners of certified coins would be if the magnanimous creators of the consortium were to create a wholly DIFFERENT grading service and those wishing a "tighter" standard could submit to them.

 

But standing as I understand it to be now, I would think that this will create a whole new cause to seek compensation from WHATEVER grading company the coin now resides in if it did not verify.

 

I see a lot of losers here and only a few winners.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

If they persist as they state and only review NGC or PCGS product, it will reduce ANACS and ICG slabs to a very low status.

 

Possibly even to market unacceptability.

 

If I were ANACS or ICG (or both) I would immediately seek an injunction against them.

 

I would want them to show cause why they would exclude my company if their objective were to "benefit the hobby." I would question their expertise if they could not verify that a mint state 64 coin in a holder different from NGC or PCGS was graded to an acceptable standard.

 

Were I NGC or PCGS, I would join them as if they capitulate and agree to verify slabs other than NGC or PCGS, then the "second tier" TPGs would no longer be considered "second tier."

 

And then people would send coins to whatever service was fastest and then forward to the consortium for "verification" and market acceptability would follow.

 

But, failing this, suddenly all holders OTHER than NGC or PCGS will immediately be suspect and would thereby create a significant loss of value for those who have trusted any but the two main ones.

 

It seems to me that this would open a whole can of worms.

 

The only way that I can see that there would be no liability nor loss to present owners of certified coins would be if the magnanimous creators of the consortium were to create a wholly DIFFERENT grading service and those wishing a "tighter" standard could submit to them.

 

But standing as I understand it to be now, I would think that this will create a whole new cause to seek compensation from WHATEVER grading company the coin now resides in if it did not verify.

 

I see a lot of losers here and only a few winners.

 

I don't think you'd get very far. Anyone is free to give an opinion (or not) and bid (or not) on any coins they care to. But, if you disagree, perhaps an injunction can also be brought against those who only bid on and buy PCGS coins exclusively, NGC coins exclusively or even uncertified coins exclusively.

[BillJones]

I agree with your comment that properly graded ANACS and ICG coins should be considered for the consortium's blessing. If that were the case, those companies would be in a better position to compete with "the big two" on a level playing field.

 

I've long been an advocate of additional grading services providing credible competition to "the big two." If ICG especially had been able to maintain its early promises of equal treatment for all customers and consistent, knowledgeable market acceptable grading standards, we might not be seeing the advent of the consortium. “The big two” have let their standards grow lax, and as a result of that, over grading and ignoring or even encouraging doctoring of coins has led to where we are now.

 

Competition works well for consumers. Too many people fail to understand that, which leads to them to foolishly fall into the brand loyalty trap. The PCGS weenies are a prime example of this market ignorance.

 

Moderately large dealers, like those who are forming the consortium, have more interest in maintaining the positive perceptions of “the big two” (ESPECIALLY the positive perceptions of PCGS) than they do in consumer protection. Make no mistake about it. The consortium is a marketing ploy that is calculated to gain market share for those are in it. If you don’t believe me, you need only read the posts of one of the consortium’s most prominent members, who constantly attacks smaller, “wannabe” dealers to boost her own image.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I think the Count had made an excellent point. I trust the Consortium has considered the ramification of the infamous ACG lawsuit.

[DonHeath]

Before passing judgment on the consortium, I'll wait to learn whether they intend publishing a list of cert#'s that were reviewed and DIDN'T get stickered. Such a list would require member dealers to live in the market they're creating. That's fair enough. Otherwise, buyers of unstickered coins will intentionally be left guessing regarding whether a certain coin they're considering in a dealer's inventory has been submitted and rejected prior to their purchase. If each coin gets one shot in the holder it's in, and member dealers are willing to reduce the pool of coins they represent as PQ, it's good for all. If member dealers don't trust the service, why should buyers?

[Count_Erfit]

I don't see this as a "competition." I see it as exclusionary to any other than NGC and PCGS and, in fact, will also hurt them as people who are denied the verification would certainly be financially harmed.

 

A "competition" would be a separate grading entity with all its benefits and liabilities.

 

This present proposal could easily be accomplished between dealers with a simple two bit database that serial numbers could be entered into if a coin were particularly nice and "worthy" of buying sight unseen. (provided no subscriber...cheats)

 

Subscribers could read the numbers and do as they wished.

 

Every time an "infallible" sight-unseen scheme tries to surface, there is always disagreement. If a "sticker" will COMPEL sight-unseen purchases (with no waffling) then only an UNDERGRADED coin will make the cut.

 

Which is then, de facto, cheating the owner of the coin when it should be resubmitted.

 

Coins are EYE-APPEAL dependent. Since no two people can agree on beauty, how can it be quantified?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Before passing judgment on the consortium, I'll wait to learn whether they intend publishing a list of cert#'s that were reviewed and DIDN'T get stickered. Such a list would require member dealers to live in the market they're creating. That's fair enough. Otherwise, buyers of unstickered coins will intentionally be left guessing regarding whether a certain coin they're considering in a dealer's inventory has been submitted and rejected prior to their purchase. If each coin gets one shot in the holder it's in, and member dealers are willing to reduce the pool of coins they represent as PQ, it's good for all. If member dealers don't trust the service, why should buyers?

Don, publishing such a list could make some difference, but owners of coins which failed to receive the stickers could simply get new ID numbers for the coins. Yes, that would take additional time and money, but it would surely be done if the financial implications warranted it. That said, I still like the idea. (thumbs u

[Count_Erfit]

Anyone is free to give an opinion (or not) and bid (or not) on any coins they care to. But, if you disagree, perhaps an injunction can also be brought against those who only bid on and buy PCGS coins exclusively, NGC coins exclusively or even uncertified coins exclusively.

 

Which is exactly making my point. Those who deal solely in NGC or PCGS are demonstrating their TRUST in the reputation of those two companies. Which trust would be compromised if people suddenly have to have even THOSE slabs verified to make sure of the value that they have placed in that trust.

[BillJones]

Don, publishing such a list could make some difference, but owners of coins which failed to receive the stickers could simply get new ID numbers for the coins. Yes, that would take additional time and money, but it would surely be done if the financial implications warranted it. That said, I still like the idea.

 

Sorry, Mark, but when I read comments like this, it makes me want to strangle consortium baby in its crib before it has chance to come out and terrorize the world. Why should “the mark of Cain” be placed upon a coin because of one dealer’s opinion? At any rate using this list of serial numbers for “body bagged” graded coins would be cumbersome to say the least. Imagine running the bourse floor with list of blacklisted serial numbers for coins. The idea is preposterous.

[MarkFeld]

Anyone is free to give an opinion (or not) and bid (or not) on any coins they care to. But, if you disagree, perhaps an injunction can also be brought against those who only bid on and buy PCGS coins exclusively, NGC coins exclusively or even uncertified coins exclusively.

 

Which is exactly making my point. Those who deal solely in NGC or PCGS are demonstrating their TRUST in the reputation of those two companies. Which trust would be compromised if people suddenly have to have even THOSE slabs verified to make sure of the value that they have placed in that trust.

I don't see how that makes your point which I responded to:"If I were ANACS or ICG (or both) I would immediately seek an injunction against them.

 

I would want them to show cause why they would exclude my company if their objective were to "benefit the hobby."

 

You can't force an auction house to accept coins graded by all certification companies if they don't want to, regardless of whatever impact it might have on excluded companies. Ditto for coins listed in publications like the CDN and CCDN, as well as those which are listed on electroninc trading networks. If a company doesn't want to review or bid on particular coins that is their right.

[MarkFeld]

Don, publishing such a list could make some difference, but owners of coins which failed to receive the stickers could simply get new ID numbers for the coins. Yes, that would take additional time and money, but it would surely be done if the financial implications warranted it. That said, I still like the idea.

 

Sorry, Mark, but when I read comments like this, it makes me want to strangle consortium baby in its crib before it has chance to come out and terrorize the world. Why should “the mark of Cain” be placed upon a coin because of one dealer’s opinion? At any rate using this list of serial numbers for “body bagged” graded coins would be cumbersome to say the least. Imagine running the bourse floor with list of blacklisted serial numbers for coins. The idea is preposterous.

Bill, how would you feel about grading companies taking images of all coins submitted and doing whatever else was necessary to match future submissions in an effort to provide consistent grading?

[jtryka]

You can't force an auction house to accept coins graded by all certification companies if they don't want to, regardless of whatever impact it might have on excluded companies. Ditto for coins listed in publications like the CDN and CCDN, as well as those which are listed on electroninc trading networks. If a company doesn't want to review or bid on particular coins that is their right.

 

That's true, but I don't know of any auction houses that are purporting to better the entire hobby through their efforts. The CAG has taken on a much bigger role as policeman or enforcer that goes beyond the role of an auction house. It seems to me, the CAG either needs to be willing to review all coins in all slabs (or no slabs) or tone down their rhetoric about wanting to save the hobby as a whole.

[Count_Erfit]

I'm not arguing their right to do it. I'm saying that since they are adding an imprimatur of acceptability, which is arbitrary, but also designated as to being for the purpose of creating a "premium" or a (shudder) PQ pricing, that they will suddenly be providing an "official" opinion on an opinion.

 

But...being as it is price-based, will damage all owners of coins not so designated.

 

This is an attempt to get dealers to agree on what coins (of an already considered opinion of grade) will ACTUALLY trade at the level indicated on the slab.

 

A grade of a grade is ludicrous. It would be funny if people weren't going to be harmed by NOT paying for a FURTHER "certification" of what they already paid for to be certified.

 

This ....seems.... to be indicating a concern over the market in general and a way to get a means to dishonor an established grade rather than admitting that "hey, it's every man for himself" if they don't have a ...verification.

 

It is common knowledge that nicer coins bring nicer money. This is just a way to get a proportion of the coins out of the market without admitting a reduction in grade or "value."

 

Why not just have the participants only buy coins that are middlemanded by Albanese (or an elected proxy)?

 

 

[Count_Erfit]

That's true, but I don't know of any auction houses that are purporting to better the entire hobby through their efforts. The CAG has taken on a much bigger role as policeman or enforcer that goes beyond the role of an auction house. It seems to me, the CAG either needs to be willing to review all coins in all slabs (or no slabs) or tone down their rhetoric about wanting to save the hobby as a whole.

 

Well said. Better than mine.

 

 

[jesbroken]

 

 

That's true, but I don't know of any auction houses that are purporting to better the entire hobby through their efforts. The CAG has taken on a much bigger role as policeman or enforcer that goes beyond the role of an auction house. It seems to me, the CAG either needs to be willing to review all coins in all slabs (or no slabs) or tone down their rhetoric about wanting to save the hobby as a whole.

 

 

Jeff,

That is one of the most sensible statements regarding the Consortium that has yet been stated. While several have mentioned the damage to the hobby that can and will occur if only NGC and PCGS slabs are certified, no one has referenced the Conortium's wanting to "save the hobby". How could this possibly occur utilizing those tactics. I would back it 100% if all slabs were certified/failed. Anyone sending in the joke slabs would be silly. I hope those involved in this issue will read all the posts and garner the common sense that is posted. It would be a shame for that much money and talent to be wasted and actually end up doing the opposite of their stated goals.

[BillJones]

Don, publishing such a list could make some difference, but owners of coins which failed to receive the stickers could simply get new ID numbers for the coins. Yes, that would take additional time and money, but it would surely be done if the financial implications warranted it. That said, I still like the idea.

 

Sorry, Mark, but when I read comments like this, it makes me want to strangle consortium baby in its crib before it has chance to come out and terrorize the world. Why should “the mark of Cain” be placed upon a coin because of one dealer’s opinion? At any rate using this list of serial numbers for “body bagged” graded coins would be cumbersome to say the least. Imagine running the bourse floor with list of blacklisted serial numbers for coins. The idea is preposterous.

Bill, how would you feel about grading companies taking images of all coins submitted and doing whatever else was necessary to match future submissions in an effort to provide consistent grading?

 

I would not feel badly about it at all if there were a fair appeal process for body bags, but there isn't. You get a sometimes inadequate, always cryptic message back after paying a fee as high as $125.00 depending upon the value of the item you submitted. You can’t talk anyone about it; you can’t get a decent explanation for why they did what they did. In short you get nothing for you money.

 

If the TPGs were to blacklist specific coins, they would need to accompany that action with an adequate definition. They are not going to do that for two reasons. First, it’s too expense. Second, if certain customers were to submit the coin, they would have a better change of getting it graded. That’s right some submitters are more equal than others.

 

Sure some coins are borderline, and you know why they receive a lower grade or a rejection. But I have had cases of where the reason for rejecting the coin leaves you guessing, especially when you see coins with far greater problems get graded. It smacks of the “old boy network” where some submitters are more equal than other submitters. And I can see when this consortium thing has a strong chance of becoming cartel that will take care of its members to the detriment of others.

 

[Count_Erfit]

It would be a shame for that much money and talent to be wasted and actually end up doing the opposite of their stated goals.

 

Another gem in a nutshell. I can only think of the people who used to come in to my shop and ask questions about coins and slabs.

 

I can't even imagine the impact this would have on someone ENTERING the hobby.

 

"Let's see. I buy this coin. I send it in for grading. And then I send it in AGAIN for someone ELSE to tell me if I wasted my money the first time. Uh, got any stamps?"

 

This flies in the face of calling it a "hobby."

 

Where's the FUN in all this?

 

Yes, the graders have lately in some instances (or continually?) gone off the deep end to accomodate the desire for more good grades than there are good coins. But what is to be accomplished by adding another level of approval that will not bind the original graders? It only penalizes those who have already been screwed.

 

Is it just to make coins safe for ignoramuses to "invest" in? Do we want or need more detached ignorance dumping money on coins?

 

Is it so awful to ask someone to LEARN about what they will spend significant money on?

 

All RISK can't be avoided in ...anything.

[Houston Investor]

The consortium is not only a bad idea, it is an idea that will drag down the coin business. What is needed is fresh money entering numismatics. Confusing these people about controversy over TPG's is a step in the wrong direction. I have yet to see this idea publicly announced in a publication like Coin World nor supported by a majority of dealers. All we need is another overhead expense!

Besides, how are you going to sell Numismatics with a negative marketing campaign?

 

I pay 95% of CDN Bid for ICG, PCGS, NGC, ANACS coins offered to me at my table at shows which in my view are properly graded and needed for inventory. I will not up my offer one cent if a coin has the CAG sticker. The CDN is for properly graded coins in the first place.

 

I think such a consortium is damaging for the coin business and the major TPG's above in the mixed message it will send, especially to fresh money entering the market. Consequently, I do not see this idea gaining any more steam than a lot of the hot air in here and if it does, some people are going to lose their rear ends big time. Recently, at a Houston show I observed another dealer trying to explain some of the issues raised in here to some obvious newbies to the coin market at his table. This guy had a long winded obnoxious spiel that went on for an hour. I could tell it was way over their head and they eventually left his table without buying anything. Instead of trying to sell them $120 - $135 MS 65 common date slabbed morgans he should have directed them to a $20 and under junk box. Of course "because he had specially picked these out" and they were "properly graded (his wonderful grading skills" he wanted $175. He came over to my table and tried to sell me some at $150 - I offered 95% of CDN bid (about $100) for some I picked out and he walked off in a huff saying "these are worth much more" and I told him "good for you, then why don't you go sell them somewhere."

 

Is the CDN going to have a separate column for CAG decaled coins? I hardly think so - do they have a column for Ms / Pr 70 mods? No.

 

A lot of you think your coins are worth much more than current market levels as reported in the CDN (wholesale) and Coin World (Retail), especially if they are going to have your CAG decal. Good for you then, why don't you see if you can go sell them for more somewhere when you get your decal.

[DirtyGoldMan]

I pay 95% of CDN Bid for ICG, PCGS, NGC, ANACS coins offered to me at my table at shows which in my view are properly graded and needed for inventory.

 

That's great if you are buying commodity coins (like the MS-65 Morgans to which you referred). If you are buying southern gold*, the only coins that you are going to buy for 95% Bid is the overgraded crappy coins. Better coins for the grade trade at much higher levels.

 

* You can feel free to substitute seated quarters, halves, and dollars, bust dollars, any rare date gold, early gold, proof gold, and many other non-commodity coins here.

 

A collector like myself will likely have no reason to buy from you, and a dealer like yourself will have no reason to sell to a collector like me. Don't assume that all of numismatics revolves around whatever grade the TPG of your choice sticks on the slab and what the corresponding value is for it in CDN.

 

I do agree with your point about confusing new entrants to the hobby with layers of certification, but frankly, when I re-entered, I was similarly befuddled with all of the slab companies. As one gains experience, one learns to navigate the certified environment, and this level of certification will be another that a minority might choose to consider.

[MikeInFL]

Given how little we know of the consortium, I'd sat it is a bit premature to suggest it will have a positive or negative impact. (Although anything both Parker and Marguli are against, must be good.) While I have many unanswered questions, I, for one, am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, considering who's involved and their reputations...Mike

[DirtyGoldMan]

Given how little we know of the consortium, I'd sat it is a bit premature to suggest it will have a positive or negative impact. (Although anything both Parker and Marguli are against, must be good.) While I have many unanswered questions, I, for one, am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, considering who's involved and their reputations...Mike

 

Agreed!

[BillJones]

Let's see.

 

Now if one is buys a high coin with great eye appeal it's going need TWO certifications to qualify that coin for the marketplace. One from NGC or PCGS and a second one from the "consortium," which if it gets its way could be called "The Cartel."

 

For those of you who wish to pay for two certifications for every coin you buy, good luck to you. As for myself I'll continue to buy coins that I like. If it has an extra sticker on it so be it. But the presence of that sticker is not going to influence my purchases.

[Houston Investor]

I am not going to pay a premium for the presence of their sticker.

[IGWT]

I am not going to pay a premium for the presence of their sticker.

 

Would you accept one?

[BillJones]

I am not going to pay a premium for the presence of their sticker.

 

Would you accept one?

 

If I like the coin, I'll buy it. But I won't pay any more because it has gotten their blessing. I've not seen the list of who this insider group is, but I suspect that it is a bunch dealers with whom I don't do business. If that is the case, I'll have to get the sticker coins second hand. Given that those items will have been through the daisy chain, I doubt that I will be seeing an stickers in my collection any time soon.

[IGWT]

If I like the coin, I'll buy it.

 

Bill, I should have been clearer in my post. I was asking Parker if he would accept a premium price for a stickered coin that he was selling.

[James_OldeTowne]

I was asking Parker if he would accept a premium price for a stickered coin that he was selling.

I know I would! I would also accept a premium for a non-stickered coin that I was selling.

[BillJones]

If I like the coin, I'll buy it.

 

Bill, I should have been clearer in my post. I was asking Parker if he would accept a premium price for a stickered coin that he was selling.

 

Of course he would! Didn't you know? All coin dealers are pigs, including me.

[IGWT]

Of course he would! Didn't you know? All coin dealers are pigs, including me.

 

OK

[carson city]

"Perhaps an injunction can be brought"---what are you guys smoking ? No wonder this half-baked idea has yet to surface ! If any legal action is being contemplated, I would suspect it is against CAC.