Attempt to objectively state the biggest problem I see facing the "Consortium"

[James_OldeTowne]

I hope the consortium does end up positively influencing the hobby, I really do. As a passionate collector, I love this hobby, and never want to see it corrupted. So my objective with this thread is to point out a potential pitfall, indeed the single biggest one I see. My goal is not to be negative, but rather to be proactive. If this pitfall can somehow be avoided, then so much the better for the success of the consortium.

 

The consortium seems completely premised on the idea that approved coins are choice, original, but most importantly, irrefutably undoctored coins (and therefore premium-worthy). As long as this holds true, then I believe approved coins can and will trade at a premium. And I do believe that (unfortunately) the entire high-end market will be refueled, and rise considerably in value. As a collector, I will have to pay more, and I don't like that, but that's another discussion.

 

Here's the pitfall. The instant that doctored coins that can be proven to be altered get stickered for approval and start showing up in the marketplace at premium values - in other words, as soon as doctored coins start getting past the eyes of the approvers and sold for premiums - then immediately, every other approved coin will have a shadow of doubt and suspicion cast upon it. The entire population of approved coins will no longer be trusted. What kind of chaos will that trigger? I do not know.

 

It would be easy to prove a coin is doctored, as we have seen many times before. Simple "before and after" photos do the job nicely.

 

Have no doubts about it. There is no humanly possible way for a group of even the finest well-meaning experts to filter out every doctored coin. Some doctoring jobs are just that good, and some doctored coins definitely, inevitably will get approved by the consortium, despite their best efforts to the contrary.

 

As I stated previously, I hope for the best, but frankly, I do expect the worst from this endeavor.

 

OK, you can start throwing your darts.

[WinstonWare]

That’s why we’re gonna need many consortiums. If a coin is approved by a top tier TPG and 5 or 6 consortiums then you’ll know for sure that it’s good. Of course, it may be difficult to actually see the coin under all those stickers .

[Revenant]

That would be the challenge yes... maybe the stickers could be really small?

[jesbroken]

Let's just skip the the TPG's and send our coins directly to the Consortium and save time and money. Unless there is certain pre-election promises made in that regard.

[Cladiator]

...I believe approved coins can and will trade at a premium.

It will price many people out of these coins that are collecting them at the edge of their budget now. Take my PQ AU bust half dimes that I can afford to collect and turn them into something I can only afford watch others collect. Which leaves me with the options of either collecting lower grades which I happen to enjoy less or collect less eye appealing coins that the CAC hasn't inflated the prices of. Geez, thanks for that.

 

Did the sarcasm come through in that last line? Hope so...

 

[BankNote1]

If active dealers are doing the review. Then how do we know if their coins are getting a higher mark than the just plain ole collectors are getting. The abuse of the Consortium could be gigantic!!!!!! I also know the dealers that are involved in this are in it for a big profit!

I am sorry but I think this is just another way to relieve collectors of their hard earned money!!!!!!

[MarkFeld]

...I also know the dealers that are involved in this are in it for a big profit! I

And you KNOW that how?

 

It will price many people out of these coins that are collecting them at the edge of their budget now. Take my PQ AU bust half dimes that I can afford to collect and turn them into something I can only afford watch others collect. Which leaves me with the options of either collecting lower grades which I happen to enjoy less or collect less eye appealing coins that the CAC hasn't inflated the prices of. Geez, thanks for that.

 

Did the sarcasm come through in that last line? Hope so...

Sarcasm? Perhaps. More seriously though, I bet that the PQ AU bust half dimes you collect will be barely affected, if at all. By the way, many years ago and for a while, I used to collect Capped Bust Half Dimes, only.

 

Jmaes you asked for my feedback in another thread, so here it is briefly:

 

Here's the pitfall. The instant that doctored coins that can be proven to be altered get stickered for approval and start showing up in the marketplace at premium values - in other words, as soon as doctored coins start getting past the eyes of the approvers and sold for premiums - then immediately, every other approved coin will have a shadow of doubt and suspicion cast upon it. The entire population of approved coins will no longer be trusted. What kind of chaos will that trigger? I do not know.

I think the concern is perfectly valid, though the consequences of doctored coins getting through seem to be over-stated. No one should expect perfection, and I don't see the whole thing collapsing due to a lack of that perfection. While I have no doubt that we will disagree on many aspects of the new group, I appreciate your fair minded approach.

[PerryHall]

...I also know the dealers that are involved in this are in it for a big profit! I

And you KNOW that how?

 

We'll know soon enough when we see their fee structure.

 

 

 

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Let's just skip the the TPG's and send our coins directly to the Consortium and save time and money. Unless there is certain pre-election promises made in that regard.

 

Hear, Hear!

[DC Dawg]

That would be the challenge yes... maybe the stickers could be really small?

I hope the stickers cannot be forged!

 

Scott

[Cladiator]

That would be the challenge yes... maybe the stickers could be really small?

I hope the stickers cannot be forged!

 

Scott

Everything can be forged. It's won't be a question of if but when.

[TomB]

It is likely that doctored coins get into NGC and PCGS holders everyday yet these two companies have not yet been seriously hurt by that fact, nor has their continued existance dragged the broader market down.

[MarkFeld]

...I also know the dealers that are involved in this are in it for a big profit! I

And you KNOW that how?

 

We'll know soon enough when we see their fee structure.

 

 

 

 

Unless, at a minimum, you know everything there is to know about their start up costs and cost of doing business, how will the fee structure tell you whether " the dealers that are involved in this are in it for a big profit!"?

[jtryka]

It is likely that doctored coins get into NGC and PCGS holders everyday yet these two companies have not yet been seriously hurt by that fact, nor has their continued existance dragged the broader market down.

 

If this is true, then it pretty much eliminates the main reasons for the Consortium's existence doesn't it? After all, if doctored coins get into NGC and PCGS folders every day, and it neither hurts those companies or the market in general, what's the point of forming a consortium as the implication is that the consortium's existence can neither stop such coins getting into those holders nor drag the broader market upwards. Am I missing something here?

[SlumLord98-migration]

I see two things that would need to happen for this to work. First, forget the stickers. Brand the slab, pass or fail, instead with something that can't be removed or altered. Then publish a list of all slab serial #s of coins submitted along with results. Submission would give express permission for inclusion on the list. Publish the list far and wide so anyone with a modicum of curiousty could find it.

 

If a coin is branded 'fail' or whatever, it would have to be submitted raw to remove the stigma. If the services pay due diligence and tighten up their standards, resubmission would carry a heavy risk for the owner of the failed coin. Submission for reholdering might result in a new slab sans 'fail' branding, but it would have the same serial #, making it easy enough to spot.

[jesbroken]

Unless the Consortium certifies all TPG's then it is doomed to just be an extension of the price ladder for NGC and PCGS. They might as well just add another line on their fee schedules whether or not they have an investment in the Consortium. I understand they foresee an issue of time management with the poor level of TPG's, but do they really think that anyone would send them a coin from one of those TPG's? I feel that this cannot benefit the average collector without across the board certification, only the upper/upper echelon collector and not numismatics as a whole.

Mark before you slay me, this is just my opinion as a collector who will never likely buy a 1796 draped bust half in any condition, but who would like to someday buy a 1909 S VDB Lincoln in MS63/64 condition. I am afraid that the Consortium would cause the price of this coin to become out of my range in a very short time.

I wish the Consortium would post a notice of their intentions and goals and a email address to write to them.

Thanks for your time.

[DC Dawg]

That would be the challenge yes... maybe the stickers could be really small?

I hope the stickers cannot be forged!

 

Scott

Everything can be forged. It's won't be a question of if but when.

Maybe I should have said that I hope they make the stickers difficult to forge!

[BillJones]

I see two things that would need to happen for this to work. First, forget the stickers. Brand the slab, pass or fail, instead with something that can't be removed or altered. Then publish a list of all slab serial #s of coins submitted along with results. Submission would give express permission for inclusion on the list. Publish the list far and wide so anyone with a modicum of curiousty could find it.

 

If a coin is branded 'fail' or whatever, it would have to be submitted raw to remove the stigma. If the services pay due diligence and tighten up their standards, resubmission would carry a heavy risk for the owner of the failed coin. Submission for reholdering might result in a new slab sans 'fail' branding, but it would have the same serial #, making it easy enough to spot.

 

If this bunch starts putting indelible "fail" stickers on slabs, look for them to go out of favor very quickly. There will be few submitters who will be willing to risk the chance of having their certification ruined by those whose main motivation is driven by self promoting greed.

[DonHeath]

Honestly, the biggest problem I see with the consortium's plan is that the TPG's logical reaction would be to loosen, thereby drawing submissions, crossovers, and crackouts in large numbers. These coins would be largely unfit for the consortium, and soon they would find little to do. After they certified the coins in their inventories, they'd be out of business. The public would wonder why they (the consortium) weren't enjoying the numismatic heyday that is 2007. That is not the impact the consortium is seeking.

 

 

[carson city]

Beautifully stated !

[DonHeath]

Which would be worth more, a TPG 66 or a consortium stickered 65, to a collector whose already heavily invested in TPG holdered coins? That's a question I suppose the market will answer.

[PerryHall]

...I also know the dealers that are involved in this are in it for a big profit! I

And you KNOW that how?

 

We'll know soon enough when we see their fee structure.

 

 

 

 

Unless, at a minimum, you know everything there is to know about their start up costs and cost of doing business, how will the fee structure tell you whether " the dealers that are involved in this are in it for a big profit!"?

 

How high can their operating costs be? A magnifier, a lamp, and a pile of stickers? It's not like they have to buy an ultrasonic slab sealing machine or other fancy equipment. Their biggest expense will be the salaries of the graders and advertising costs to hype this new "service". I'll be very surprised if this so called altruistic enterprise doesn't make a lot of money for all involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

How high can their operating costs be? A magnifier, a lamp, and a pile of stickers? It's not like they have to buy an ultrasonic slab sealing machine or other fancy equipment. Their biggest expense will be the salaries of the graders and advertising costs to hype this new "service". I'll be very surprised if this so called altruistic enterprise doesn't make a lot of money for all involved.

Perry, I think you may be severely underestimating the effort required here - and I suspect the consortium is too. Please reconsider my opening thesis.

 

It will almost be necessary to have documentary photographic proof that a coin to be blessed has not changed appearance, at least in a very long time. As soon as they bless a few coins that can be proven to have "changed" appearance, then the credibility of the entire operation will be undermined and permanently compromised.

 

Consider the infamous Norweb Hibernia. If it were "approved", and later proven to be a doctored coin (as was the case), instantly, every other similar appearing coin with a sticker becomes suspect. If a rare proof is approved and later discovered to have had toning added to hide problems, suddenly, every other approved coin with similar toning becomes suspect.

 

It is inevitable that mistakes will happen, and undermine the credibility of the approval process. While it is true that a similar situation occurred with slabs without depressing the market, it is a far more crucial issue for the consortium process, because their success is premised on truly making a "sight-unseen" market. For that to happen, there would have to unconditionally 100% trust and believe that there are never bad coins that get "approved".

 

It is obvious that members of the consortium have confidence that they'll be able to weed out every bad coin, but I just don't believe it. No person, and certainly no group of persons, each with unique ideas and standards, is infallible, but for a sight-unseen market to work, infallibility is a requirement.

 

Edited to add:

 

I forgot to make my point , which is that there may be much overhead cost required to research every coin thoroughly, in order to ensure it didn't previously have a different appearance.

[ziggy29]

It is inevitable that mistakes will happen, and undermine the credibility of the approval process. While it is true that a similar situation occurred with slabs without depressing the market, it is a far more crucial issue for the consortium process, because their success is premised on truly making a "sight-unseen" market. For that to happen, there would have to unconditionally 100% trust and believe that there are never bad coins that get "approved".

I doubt anyone expects this to be perfect -- for sure, some doctored coins will probably get through. The two keys for this to gain acceptance, then, are (a) the mistakes need to be quite rare and (b) the group needs to proactively remediate their mistakes, perhaps by buying the coins back and "de-blessing" them much as a TPG sometimes does when they perform a downgrade review and agree that the coin doesn't deserve the grade on the holder (or that they let a problem coin get through).

 

The bottom line, then, is that members should unconditionally honor their sight-unseen bid for ALL blessed coins -- even doctored coins that turn in the holder, even overgraded coins that "slipped by," et cetera. What will NOT be acceptable is if a member of this group ever fails to pay the listed buy price for one of these coins because they don't think it's worthy of the grade or price.

[jesbroken]

The bottom line, then, is that members should unconditionally honor their sight-unseen bid for ALL blessed coins -- even doctored coins that turn in the holder, even overgraded coins that "slipped by," et cetera. What will NOT be acceptable is if a member of this group ever fails to pay the listed buy price for one of these coins because they don't think it's worthy of the grade or price.

 

What wil NOT be acceptable is the fact that they are in business not just to regrade coins and cleanse the market of overgrades, but to make a profit buying and selling coins. I'm sorry to all the people who truly wish to make a difference in the coin market for the good of all, and I feel sure that to an extent this has started this way, but it will not last. In a very short time, favoritism will occur and then more regularly than not. You cannot in all fairness be in competition with your customers when you are the one creating the marketable commodity. This is not like being a coin dealer and buying and selling coins, as the coins are available to all-in this they are making the commodity for sale.I cannot see this endeavor succeed in the manner supposed. IMHO.

[carson city]

When you put the Dealers in charge of anything(grading), they are in it for the Profit--Aesop. Appears to be just another Scam in a long list of Scams. Maybe Hans Tulving will also be involved ?