What do you think? : Salzberg Advises: Research PCGS Populations and Prices
1 1

129 posts in this topic

1,607 posts

Not familiar with "Newman Coins," can you elaborate ?

 

And is Laura saying that there is a marketability factor in the higher price for those coins in PCGS holders or was she saying/implying that there was a problem with grading by NGC of those coins ? Not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,647 posts
Not familiar with "Newman Coins," can you elaborate ?

 

And is Laura saying that there is a marketability factor in the higher price for those coins in PCGS holders or was she saying/implying that there was a problem with grading by NGC of those coins ? Not the same thing.

 

A quick web search should lead you to the wonderful Eric Newman collection/sales/foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,607 posts
A quick web search should lead you to the wonderful Eric Newman collection/sales/foundation.

Thanks Mark, I did. (thumbs u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124 posts

First off, I was never a fan of "market grading" Buffalo Nickels.  When that started, everyone jumped on board.  I still detest it, but have come to understand it.  Grudgingly.

I think that there is a real push in the Hobby now to get the highest grade for common (newer) coins.  Submissions for common dates have skyrocketed.  This is especially true with Lincoln Cents because of the as minted spots on them.  That only answers part of the problem.

I personally believe that "let the first one who is without sin cast the first stone".

Nobody would be throwing anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 posts

The PCGS response explained how the 1912-S nickel population exploded by stating PCGS graded two fresh rolls that were recently discovered.  So out of 80 coins 44 of them graded 66? Sounds a little fishy and isn't he helping with the NGC argument?

PCGS didn't offer an explanation for all the other dramatic coin population increases except to say how popular they are now as a service. Did they become so popular only in the last five years?

Please reply...

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,631 posts
9 hours ago, bluegrassriver said:

The PCGS response explained how the 1912-S nickel population exploded by stating PCGS graded two fresh rolls that were recently discovered.  So out of 80 coins 44 of them graded 66? Sounds a little fishy and isn't he helping with the NGC argument?

PCGS didn't offer an explanation for all the other dramatic coin population increases except to say how popular they are now as a service. Did they become so popular only in the last five years?

Please reply...

 

 

 

 

 

Kool-Aid is a drink best served at room temperature...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,299 posts

There are some problematic consequences with weaker or watered down grading standards.  I recently sent NGC a two coin "appearance review", they are pretty fast with these and though they are not exactly liberal when money is at stake they are generally reasonable and responsive.  PCGS on the other hand takes many months to respond, I have had the same coin that I paid just under $3K for which they admitted had the problem that cac identified but have used auction figures of PCGS certified coins that put the coin at around $2K instead, though Greysheet supports my original purchase price.  And if you compare both NGC and PCGS coins at the same grade level there is some variation that sometimes makes it hard to compare apples with apples.  The grade guarantee becomes vital for confidence in the hobby/business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,793 posts

The article and its conclusions are interesting and informative as far as they go.

 There are several items of concern, however.

  • ·         Charts should be based on percent of change for direct comparison of different coins, not integer values.

  • ·         It is not clear that a cause and effect relationship exists between population and price. [Is one a leading indicator? Are there enough data points to draw a conclusion?)

  • ·         Absent fixed standards for each numeric “grade” the relationship between “MS66” of 2010 and “MS66” of 2017 is unknown.

  • ·         The universe of specimens of any date/mm/denomination/grade is completely unknown. Thus, random or opportunistic authentication submissions can overwhelm routine data. (SG $20 1908 is a classic example.)

  • ·         The old problem of repeat submissions renders much of the data unreliable.
  • There is also the related problem of very small submission quantities for coins with enormous mintages.

Much can be gained from understanding trends, but a statistical approach requires careful treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,793 posts

RE: " The PCGS response explained how the 1912-S nickel population exploded by stating PCGS graded two fresh rolls that were recently discovered.  So out of 80 coins 44 of them graded 66? Sounds a little fishy and isn't he helping with the NGC argument?"

I'm not out to "chide" the poster or infer anything untoward. His comments are entirely in line with those of nearly all modern coin collectors.

However, the above comment is more likely related to inexperience with legitimately original coins. Very few alive today have seen a roll of new 19th or early 20th century coins preserved at the time of issue. And that means very few understand the high quality of mint products that was normal Until the 1930s, US mints did not use mechanical counting machines -- they used counting boards. The sub-Treasuries and FRBs used counting machines, but the Mint refused to do so because they were concerned about damage to their coins. A roll of 1912-S nickels would have been, overall, noticeably higher in quality than a roll of 1935 nickels or 1955 nickels...and that is after being handled in bags and probably by bank tellers. To have 40 out of 80 coins grade "MS66" is entirely plausible, and would likely have been the result regardless of which authentication company did the work. (As a point of reference, go back to the book From Mine to Mint and count the number of handling steps for pre-1930 and post-1930.)

Once the FRBs took over much of coin distribution in about 1925, the overall quality declined due to additional handling and mechanical counting.

Edited by RWB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1