Blackstone acquires a majority stake in Certified Collectibles Group
3 3

54 posts in this topic

On 7/27/2021 at 1:29 PM, gmarguli said:

Hum, where did I see this before? Oh yeah, modern coins. MANY PR70s are selling for 1%-2% of their highs 20 years ago. 

I've posted before about commemoratives going down 80-85% from their bubble peaks but I don't know of many (bullion) coins selling for 1-2% of their peaks 20 (??) years ago.

The PCGS sub-indices have the percentage drops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 5:10 PM, gmarguli said:

For PR70 moderns, many have. You can pull the sale prices from the PCGS site.  I pulled these randomly: 1989 1c - $1380 vs $70. 5% 1976 5c - $4230 vs $144. 3.4% 1999 10c - $1438 vs $23. 1.6%  1991 25c - $558 vs $20. 3.6% 1992 Silver 50c - $1895 vs $45. 2.4% 1972 Ike - $4715 - $240-$312. 5% Admittedly, those are their high and low points, but there is no denying that the prices have been rushed.

I don't know much about those coins, but I suspect many were just bubble-peaks that really didn't reflect a TRUE market with multiple sales at those prices on the way up or down.

If you look at something popular and liquid -- like the 1995-W ASE -- there was a single trade at $86,000....lots of trades at $25,000 - $35,000.....and the market last I checked (I could be off a bit) was $10-$15K for a PF70 depending on the additional label inducements.

Is it down a lot ?  Yup....is it down 80-90% ?  Only if you use the outlier high price.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was big into baseball cards because of my young cousins (I'd take them around to conventions in the NY-NJ area). 

When we were active -- late-1980's, early-1990's -- most cards were NOT graded.  I believe I recall some cards being graded by PSA because I remember the 1-10 scale (wasn't as well thought of at the time as the 1-100 scale).  But the cards were given a grade by dealers and it was generally EASIER to grade a baseball card than a coin:

  • Make sure the card has 4 sharp corners.
  • Look for well-centered on the front, decent centering on the back
  • No scuff or blemishes on the front or back, especially on the player himself
  • No bubble gum stains (this wasn't a concern when grading double eagles !! xD ) 

Of course, the big thing that caused a scandal and is still a big stink (there are active blogs and message forums dedicated to exposing them) is cutting the cards to give them sharp corners.  That's what the sellers of the T-206 Honus Wagner did to the card that Gretzky bought.  Unless you brought measuring equipment, you couldn't check that at the time of purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 11:17 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I've posted before about commemoratives going down 80-85% from their bubble peaks but I don't know of many (bullion) coins selling for 1-2% of their peaks 20 (??) years ago.

First bullion coin I looked at, 1991 SAE in PR70. $1610 vs $276. 17%. It'll be a little harder for bullion to get crushed as much just because there is the bullion value as a floor and bullion has risen significantly over the past 20 years.. 

 

On 7/27/2021 at 11:21 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I don't know much about those coins, but I suspect many were just bubble-peaks that really didn't reflect a TRUE market with multiple sales at those prices on the way up or down.

If you look at something popular and liquid -- like the 1995-W ASE -- there was a single trade at $86,000....lots of trades at $25,000 - $35,000.....and the market last I checked (I could be off a bit) was $10-$15K for a PF70 depending on the additional label inducements.

Is it down a lot ?  Yup....is it down 80-90% ?  Only if you use the outlier high price.

I picked the high price point, but I have no doubt that there were other sales within 20% of most of those. People were paying stupid money for labels. 

Also, those are only the prices the PCGS site lists. I just checked a coin I sold for $14 and it shows lowest sale at $20. Another coin I sold for $11 shows lowest as $16 (high of $226).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 3:08 PM, VKurtB said:

ABSOLUTELY. How could they not? Many modern issues now feature a MAJORITY of the pieces getting 70’s. Why don’t people understand this?

Because they put their trust in other people's lying eyes.  👀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 5:10 PM, gmarguli said:

For PR70 moderns, many have. You can pull the sale prices from the PCGS site. 

I pulled these randomly:

1989 1c - $1380 vs $70. 5%

1976 5c - $4230 vs $144. 3.4%

1999 10c - $1438 vs $23. 1.6%

1991 25c - $558 vs $20. 3.6%

1992 Silver 50c - $1895 vs $45. 2.4%

1972 Ike - $4715 - $240-$312. 5%

Admittedly, those are their high and low points, but there is no denying that the prices have been crushed.

Sure but I think you are looking at PCGS Pf 70 values right ? As far as Pf Ikes go, very few Pf 70 Ikes have been graded by NGC and the ones that have made that level don't trade often enough to determine real values. Seems like the problem really is that PCGS grades Pf 70 coins from slightly worn dies with no marks. Is that what a Pf 70 Dcam should be ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 12:31 PM, numisport said:

Sure but I think you are looking at PCGS Pf 70 values right ? As far as Pf Ikes go, very few Pf 70 Ikes have been graded by NGC and the ones that have made that level don't trade often enough to determine real values. Seems like the problem really is that PCGS grades Pf 70 coins from slightly worn dies with no marks. Is that what a Pf 70 Dcam should be ?

"MS-70" is not perfect; it is "as it came from the dies."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 3:57 PM, RWB said:

"MS-70" is not perfect; it is "as it came from the dies."

...and just what is ur data source other than ur own opinion?....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 3:34 PM, zadok said:

...and just what is ur data source other than ur own opinion?....

Neither the NGC nor the PCGS published standard for the grade of 70 requires perfection.
For example, this is from NGC’ website: What is a 70? NGC defines a Mint State or Proof 70 coin as having no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.

 

 

 

Edited by MarkFeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 11:29 AM, MarkFeld said:

Neither the NGC nor the PCGS published standard for the grade of 70 requires perfection.
For example, this is from NGC’ website: What is a 70? NGC defines a Mint State or Proof 70 coin as having no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.

 

 

 

...neither the sheldon nor the ana standards expand their definitions to include magnification boundaries, i would think that being perfect n having no imperfections basically equate, n in all four instances none state anything bout "as came from the dies"....which was my point of contention, just another feeble attempt to pass off opinion as fact that bears no supporting documentation...personally, im not aware of any man made item being perfect with the possible exception of bo derek.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 11:29 AM, MarkFeld said:

Neither the NGC nor the PCGS published standard for the grade of 70 requires perfection.
For example, this is from NGC’ website: What is a 70? NGC defines a Mint State or Proof 70 coin as having no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.

 

 

 

[And at 10x magnification, your formerly flawless 70 becomes a 69.  Nice.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 1:45 PM, zadok said:

...neither the sheldon nor the ana standards expand their definitions to include magnification boundaries, i would think that being perfect n having no imperfections basically equate, n in all four instances none state anything bout "as came from the dies"....which was my point of contention, just another feeble attempt to pass off opinion as fact that bears no supporting documentation...personally, im not aware of any man made item being perfect with the possible exception of bo derek.....

I am aware of no woman, borne by a woman, becoming a man except Chad (nee Chastity) Bono,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 1:54 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I am aware of no woman, borne by a woman, becoming a man except Chad (nee Chastity) Bono,

ur a bit offshore, were u swept away during the recent flooding?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 1:56 PM, zadok said:

ur a bit offshore, were u swept away during the recent flooding?...

No, still lurking about. And it is always a pleasure hearing from you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 3:57 PM, RWB said:

"MS-70" is not perfect; it is "as it came from the dies."

I cannot disagree Roger but as far as Pf 70 goes NGC obviously sees it differently in proof Ikes as so few coins are in NGC Pf 70 Ultra Cameo holders. With that said I think NGC rightfully decides to go a step further with an appraisal grade rather than a sketchy technical grade of 70 which for years was never used.

Edited by numisport
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 11:29 AM, MarkFeld said:

Neither the NGC nor the PCGS published standard for the grade of 70 requires perfection.
For example, this is from NGC’ website: What is a 70? NGC defines a Mint State or Proof 70 coin as having no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.

Suppose a lousy die was used for a run of strikings and an image was not sharp....they then used lots of "good" dies with a super-sharp image.

Would the non-sharp coins still grade MS70 ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 3:34 PM, zadok said:

...and just what is ur data source other than ur own opinion?....

Same as always - absolutely NOTHING other than his own opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 9:26 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Suppose a lousy die was used for a run of strikings and an image was not sharp....they then used lots of "good" dies with a super-sharp image.

Would the non-sharp coins still grade MS70 ?

 

No, they would not. Roger is simply wrong.

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 10:26 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Suppose a lousy die was used for a run of strikings and an image was not sharp....they then used lots of "good" dies with a super-sharp image.

Would the non-sharp coins still grade MS70 ?

 

That would be condition of the coin based on Sheldon's definition. "Sharp or not sharp" is an opinion. However, sales hype and lies have led people to assume some sort of 'perfection' rather than a clear definition.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 12:55 PM, RWB said:

That would be condition of the coin based on Sheldon's definition. "Sharp or not sharp" is an opinion. However, sales hype and lies have led people to assume some sort of 'perfection' rather than a clear definition.

Big deal. A clear definition is “nice and convenient and easily taught”, but also WRONG! I don’t give half a darn what Sheldon thought. He was wrong too.

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[William Herbert Sheldon was wrong? How so? Maybe Richter and his earthquake magnitude scale is wrong. Maybe the Fujita-Pearson scale of tornado intensity is suspect, too? And what about Saffir-Simpson and their hurricane wind scale? Where do we draw the line on who's wrong and what's right on the matter of scales, their limits and interpretations?  AND WHAT'S WITH THE USE OF SECOND COMING TYPE TO EMPHASIZE A POINT???   🤔 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 10:26 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Would the non-sharp coins still grade MS70 ?

The key point here, as delineated by @MarkFeld, is post-production imperfection as opposed to pre- or concurrent production. Strong strikes and weak or non-sharp strikes do not qualify as post-production imperfections irrespective of magnification.  As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously opined: "I know it when I see it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 1:11 PM, VKurtB said:

No, they would not. Roger is simply wrong.

Nothing personal, but as a matter of form [and simple etiquette] one ought not, may not, baldy state, "X is wrong."  The suggested approach is using neutral qualifiers and less offensive language or re-stating the matter entirely.  I know you are world-famous for being direct, and have even stated you'd rather be right than nice, and that is your prerogative, but the charge, You are Wrong, is unambiguous, loaded and leaves the aggrieved party with little face-saving measure. It just isn't done in the rarefied circles you continue to find yourself in.

The only instance I can recall -- and this was before my time and yours, I believe 1929, was when Robet Ripley in his first hard-cover book,  RIPLEY'S BELIEVE IT OR NOT! devoted an entire page entitled "Lincoln was WRONG!,"

I no longer have the book but recall he based his claim on a line deep in the text of the Gettysburg Address, which read, "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here...."

Probably not as eye-catching as his claim on another page, headed:  "Abraham Was Not a Jew!, but controversial nonetheless.

Everything you've set out to do for yourself in life you've already done, with distinction.  You're in the enviable position of having nothing left to prove -- except complete a few unfinished projects.  I'd like you to consider a more kinder and gentler you.     🐓 

Edited by Quintus Arrius
Clarifications
Link to comment
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
3 3