World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?
Nick Knight
second listing as far as I've noticed, and I suppressed my urge to ask the
seller about his claims and descriptions the first time. This time I had
more trouble resisting.
The coin in question is here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200325454724
Now, this piece is typically right up my alley. I've been focusing on full
size Talers/Crowns (sometimes a double Taler sneaks in, but this is rare)
with dates before 1700. I do buy higher end pieces, on occassion, but am
just as thrilled by upper-low-to-upper-mid grade items. This particular
pieces is a bit above my normal range, but it might tempt me to stretch
under the right conditions (no other items of interest at the time, enough
room in the budget because of this, and if the piece didn't have such a
glaring flaw). Certified world coins are a minor turn-off for me, or have
been. I'll have to re-evalute this stances once I see some of these Chinese
fakes in-person.
My first question of the seller: "Finest known" by whom? His answer: why,
PCGS, of course.
I did NOT ask how many PCGS has actually certified. I'm guessing a handful.
I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was 1-2.
What value is the claim of "Finest Known" in this context? To me, it seems
almost deceiving, yet in a technically accurate way, if the preposition "by
PCGS" was added. I've just not seen PCGS certification as a popular trend
in the Taler market, so this claim seems out-of-place. Anyone else?
Second nit: The price quotes provided. I asked the source of these, which
is not stated. His response: Krause. No date or specific publication
specified, so I'll guess it has to be a late-model Cat of World Coins. Fair
enough. Except for his next claim in his email:
"A PCGS coin is worth more that the values in the book which are for
ungraded and uncertified specimens".
Noting also that Krause does not list values for AU grades. Well,
interesting.
Ungraded? If a coin is ungraded, then how would you pick the right column
in Krause to begin with??!! Yeah, I know what he meant, but it isn't a
satisfying answer. Again, I get the heebie-geebies.
Disclaimer: My Krause catalogues are all relatively dated. I do not know
if the trends and beliefs I'm used to following are still valid, but I still
seem to be picking up a couple of non-trivial pieces every year. So, I'm
agreeing with enough dealers on value. My calculation for the coin in
question resulted in a guess ... "what I'd pay" is WELL below the stated
value for an XF or so coin. I'm not sure I'd net-grade this one that high
with that ding, whether it was mint-produced or appeared later. It is
unappealing to me. But that's just me.
First question for those who follow world coins: Does PCGS certification
add the same value (however artificial) to world coins as it tends to do for
some US coins?
#2: Do Krause values tend to be accurate reflections of the prices you have
to pay for an accurately graded world coin? Or, is there some percentage
(under 100) that can typically be applied to get a more realistic value or
retail cost?
#3 and finally, I think: If a Morgan dollar had such an obvious mark on it
(the ding at 6:00 on the obverse), would PCGS grade it as an AU55 with no
other clarifying notations?
I guess I could ask if anyone actually believes the ding was a flan flaw,
but I personally really don't care. I'd prefer one without, so ib my eyes
it's a serious detraction no matter when it was inflcited.
Thanks for listening,
Nick
Mr. Jaggers
The coin is probably included in a PCGS population report. But without
further information, the claim is worth very little.
That said, the large thalers have become one of the favorite targets of the
Chinese counterfeiters, and their products are extremely deceptive.
Certification is mandatory. Buy one raw from a stranger at your peril.
> Second nit: The price quotes provided. I asked the source of these,
> which is not stated. His response: Krause. No date or specific
> publication specified, so I'll guess it has to be a late-model Cat of
> World Coins. Fair enough. Except for his next claim in his email:
>
> "A PCGS coin is worth more that the values in the book which are
> for ungraded and uncertified specimens".
>
> Noting also that Krause does not list values for AU grades. Well,
> interesting.
>
> Ungraded? If a coin is ungraded, then how would you pick the right
> column in Krause to begin with??!! Yeah, I know what he meant, but
> it isn't a satisfying answer. Again, I get the heebie-geebies.
>
> Disclaimer: My Krause catalogues are all relatively dated. I do not
> know if the trends and beliefs I'm used to following are still valid,
> but I still seem to be picking up a couple of non-trivial pieces
> every year. So, I'm agreeing with enough dealers on value. My
> calculation for the coin in question resulted in a guess ... "what
> I'd pay" is WELL below the stated value for an XF or so coin. I'm
> not sure I'd net-grade this one that high with that ding, whether it
> was mint-produced or appeared later. It is unappealing to me. But
> that's just me.
The prices cited in the auction match those in the 2008 (4th) edition of the
17th century Krause catalog.
> First question for those who follow world coins: Does PCGS
> certification add the same value (however artificial) to world coins
> as it tends to do for some US coins?
PCGS certification makes a coin more fungible, not more valuable.
> #2: Do Krause values tend to be accurate reflections of the prices
> you have to pay for an accurately graded world coin? Or, is there
> some percentage (under 100) that can typically be applied to get a
> more realistic value or retail cost?
I don't think a blanket statement is at all appropriate here. Krause prices
are way too high for some items, way too low for others. I've had numerous
conversations with Tom Michael about this, but he is one person responsible
for all the pricing in a stack of coin catalogs a foot and a half high.
> #3 and finally, I think: If a Morgan dollar had such an obvious mark
> on it (the ding at 6:00 on the obverse), would PCGS grade it as an
> AU55 with no other clarifying notations?
PCGS does not grade any coin with clarifying notations, as do ANACS, NCS,
and SEGS. The slightest defect will get some coins slabbed "genuine" while
others with gross defects end up graded. In spite of all the pontifications
of the pontificators, I have yet to see any consistency in this regard.
> I guess I could ask if anyone actually believes the ding was a flan
> flaw, but I personally really don't care. I'd prefer one without, so
> ib my eyes it's a serious detraction no matter when it was inflcited.
Everyone would prefer a coin without the ding, most importantly the person
who one day will consider buying it from either you or your heir. If you
have to convince yourself that the coin is a good buy, it's not for you. A
slabbed problem coin is still a problem coin.
James
note.boy
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:49cfd189$1$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
Is that an attempted piercing below the bishop?
It has that odd coffee staining that is described in a different thread that
is the result of a cleaned coin retoning.
If that's not enough reason not to bid they use too much ALL CAPS, fonts and
colours. Billy
Bruce Remick
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2mlq65....@news.alt.net...
> Just more shenanigans by the top "legitimate" grading services to create
> artificial rarity, which can inflate prices dramatically and dramatically
> boost demand for their services. Similar to the registry set nonsense and
> the consequent appearance of MS-70 grading of coins with defects. All part
> of the game. Doesn't mean it can't be fun playing it, but people should
> know how the "rules" keep on changing over time.
In this case, there are no "shenanigans" by PCGS that I can see. It's the
seller who has embellished the thaler's description and gushed over the fact
that none other than PCGS has graded and slabbed it. I would be more put
off by the trivial "small flaw" and by the seller indicating with a diagram
how one should go about submitting his five-star feedback. And somehow--
probably it's just me-- the name "EyeLoveCoins" doesn't sound like a name
that a collector or dealer of high end coins would choose. Silly, perhaps,
but it did strike me.
sgt23
> "Reid Goldsborough" <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I would bet it was probably bought from some one in China.
Johnny Doe
>#3 and finally, I think: If a Morgan dollar had such an obvious mark on it
>(the ding at 6:00 on the obverse), would PCGS grade it as an AU55 with no
>other clarifying notations?
Yes, if the Morgan dollar was minted in the 17th century.
>I guess I could ask if anyone actually believes the ding was a flan flaw,
>but I personally really don't care. I'd prefer one without, so ib my eyes
>it's a serious detraction no matter when it was inflcited.
No offense, but not everything is meant for YOU to buy. If the coin
was a VG, would you even mention the 'ding'? Its not like having the
defect makes the otherwise fantastic coin an abomination to
numismatics, worthy of destruction.
Mr. Jaggers
No matter what the sharpness grade, nor what the coin, that kind of ding
does detract from both the aesthetic and numismatic values, and it is
obligatory to mention it. Anything less is dishonesty.
James
Johnny Doe
I guess my take is that as long as the seller posts good pictures (and
I feel these were pretty good), if PCGS saw no reason to remark it on
the slab, why should the seller? As long as there is no corresponding
flatness on the other side, I would have to assume that the mark is a
planchet flaw, not damage. Of course, at this price, I would only be
interested in bidding if it had a no-questions-asked return policy in
case the mark is either 1) damage or 2) horribly distracting in-hand.
Of course, I still remember the old days of going to coin shows full
of 'sliders', 'whizzed' coins, deceptive plugged holed and ex-jewelry
pieces, coins stapled into dark smoked flips that were non-returnable
if removed for inspection, altered dates and mint marks, 'original
unopened' late 50's and early 60's proof sets that didn't have sealed
envelopes in the first place, and dealers with 5 watt light bulbs over
cases of blast-white over-dipped AU's marked 'GEM BU'. To me, this
offering is 100 steps above the old-days bourse', and, with good
pictures, allows the buyer to decide for themselves whether or not to
bid. I don't expect any dealer to act as my mother - If I don't know
better, and they don't lie, its not their fault if I make a poorly
thought out purchase.
Mr. Jaggers
For the record, PCGS does not "remark" things on the slab when they grade a
coin. ANACS does, SEGS does, NCS does, but not PCGS. If a problem is
considered serious enough chez PCGS, it will nowdays be placed in a slab
labelled "Genuine" and I believe there will be a code number somewhere that
corresponds to the reason the piece would not grade. But you have to know
the codes, they don't actually print a decoder card on the label.
Also for the record, the absence of flatness opposite a ding does not mean
that the ding is a planchet flaw. Assume that it is one at your peril.
James
PC
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gqoko...@enews5.newsguy.com...
>
> Everyone would prefer a coin without the ding, most importantly the person
> who one day will consider buying it from either you or your heir. If you
> have to convince yourself that the coin is a good buy, it's not for you.
> A slabbed problem coin is still a problem coin.
>
What does that stick on the bottom of the obverse (that looks like he is
about to sit on) represent?
PC
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:egVzl.84333$FI5....@newsfe07.iad...
> In this case, there are no "shenanigans" by PCGS that I can see. It's the
> seller who has embellished the thaler's description and gushed over the
> fact that none other than PCGS has graded and slabbed it. I would be more
> put off by the trivial "small flaw" and by the seller indicating with a
> diagram how one should go about submitting his five-star feedback. And
> somehow-- probably it's just me-- the name "EyeLoveCoins" doesn't sound
> like a name that a collector or dealer of high end coins would choose.
> Silly, perhaps, but it did strike me.
Bruce have you not considered the fact that this seller "has received the
coveted status of POWER_SELLER".
What more assurance do you need?
;-)
Mr. Jaggers
It appears to be an aegis, typical of portraits of religious figures in
gowns, signifying that the bearer is under the protection of God.
James
Jud
Mr. Jaggers wrote:
> It appears to be an aegis, typical of portraits of religious figures in
> gowns, signifying that the bearer is under the protection of God.
>
> James
Now, I learned something! Not too far from me, at the Bath Iron Works,
they build Aegis missle destroyers and cruisers.
Learn something new every day.
Mr. Jaggers
Just imagine what it would be like if you listened to Public Radio!
James the Geek
Nick Knight
>>#3 and finally, I think: If a Morgan dollar had such an obvious mark on it
>>(the ding at 6:00 on the obverse), would PCGS grade it as an AU55 with no
>>other clarifying notations?
>Yes, if the Morgan dollar was minted in the 17th century.
Hmmm. We're not going to get a logical comment, eh? I didn't think the
question was all that difficult.
>>I guess I could ask if anyone actually believes the ding was a flan flaw,
>>but I personally really don't care. I'd prefer one without, so ib my eyes
>>it's a serious detraction no matter when it was inflcited.
>No offense, but not everything is meant for YOU to buy. If the coin was a
>VG, would you even mention the 'ding'? Its not like having the defect
>makes the otherwise fantastic coin an abomination to numismatics, worthy of
>destruction.
Hmmm again. I had no intention of buying it. Although I did, obviously,
L@@K.
Certainly if the coin was a VG with a ding, the ding would still be
significant. Of course, then it wouldn't be in a PCGS AU55 holder with a
starting price of over $900, and no, I might not be questioning it. But
then, if we weren't in an ecomonic down-turn, would the ecomony be in a
slump?
"otherwise fantastic" seems fair enough, noting the exception. You did read
the original post, right?
No offense taken, BTW.
Nick
Bruce Remick
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:gqqvho$icg$1...@news.motzarella.org...
mea whatever. Here I always thought that all one needed to become a Power
Seller was to post a surge of auctions in a short period. I'll have to
apologize to that guy one day, flan flaw and all. Too bad I can't afford
his coins.
.
Johnny Doe
<bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote:
>In <j5o1t4pltjt9c49jj...@4ax.com>, on 03/30/2009
> at 10:15 AM, Johnny Doe <n...@home.net> said:
>
>>>#3 and finally, I think: If a Morgan dollar had such an obvious mark on it
>>>(the ding at 6:00 on the obverse), would PCGS grade it as an AU55 with no
>>>other clarifying notations?
>
>>Yes, if the Morgan dollar was minted in the 17th century.
>
>Hmmm. We're not going to get a logical comment, eh? I didn't think the
>question was all that difficult.
Nick, you obviously know that PCGS, et.al., do not deal with
'absolute' grading standards, but vary them according to the era, coin
type & size, method of coining, etc. Issues that would be perfectly
acceptable on a 1793 large cent are reasons to body-bag a Morgan or
any other modern, industry-manufactured coin. Now apply that
differentiation to a taler from the 1600's.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Mr. Jaggers
Nick at least acknowledged your post, but ignored mine, even after I spent
time researching the prices for him. Oh well, I imagine I got into his
killfile somehow.
James
PC
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9ecaabce-a9d6-48ac...@r37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>> It appears to be an aegis, typical of portraits of religious figures in
>> gowns, signifying that the bearer is under the protection of God.
>>
> Now, I learned something! Not too far from me, at the Bath Iron Works,
> they build Aegis missle destroyers and cruisers.
> Learn something new every day.
Neat
PC
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>
> Nick at least acknowledged your post, but ignored mine, even after I spent
> time researching the prices for him. Oh well, I imagine I got into his
> killfile somehow.
>
He is very proud of his killfile and you should be too.
Nick Knight
>Nick at least acknowledged your post, but ignored mine, even after I spent
>time researching the prices for him. Oh well, I imagine I got into his
>killfile somehow.
Killfile? James! You'd have to be pretty obnoxious for that. Those who
are "there" are certainly there for a reason. More to my thinking, they're
there because there's no reason for me to have to read their posts.
Coin-related posts are almost always interesting.
I found your post interesting and, well, logical. What was there with which
to argue? I'll got reread this evening and see if I can find a constructive
comment ... or a nit! :)
Nick
Nick Knight
>acceptable on a 1793 large cent are reasons to body-bag a Morgan or any
>other modern, industry-manufactured coin. Now apply that differentiation
>to a taler from the 1600's.
A taler from the 1600's is really nothing all that special. I mean, they
are plentiful in a variety of grades, noting specific exceptions by type (of
which this doesn't appear to be one). My perception is that there is more
demand for US type coins, in-general, even though there are more of them
around. Whatever the case, I've always found the phrase "great shape for
its age" odd. How much circulation do you think most 1600's talers
experienced in the 1800's and beyond?
While it's been awhile, I had a beautiful 1827 Bust Half PCGS body-bagged
back to me for a much more obscure, seemingly-natural-to-me mark. It
managed an MS60 in an ANACS holder, where it resides today. Is there an
1800's cutoff or something?
Is an ancient, then, still an "AU" piece with a big chisel test mark down
the middle? Plenty of detail on either side!
A ding is a ding, and this one is significantly detrimental.
>That wasn't so hard, was it?
Apparently it still is for some.
Nick
Mr. Jaggers
OK, no problem, I was just wondering. Reread at your leisure, and if you
find a nit, go ahead and pick! It keeps me on my toes, and I definitely
need to remain on my toes in today's numismatic climate. It's a jungle out
there, with predators hiding everywhere. Oop, here comes one now...GLOM...
James
Mr. Jaggers
> In <m9a4t4dho8kk6g7nn...@4ax.com>, on 03/31/2009
> at 09:38 AM, Johnny Doe <n...@home.net> said:
>
>> acceptable on a 1793 large cent are reasons to body-bag a Morgan or
>> any other modern, industry-manufactured coin. Now apply that
>> differentiation to a taler from the 1600's.
>
> A taler from the 1600's is really nothing all that special. I mean,
> they are plentiful in a variety of grades, noting specific exceptions
> by type (of which this doesn't appear to be one). My perception is
> that there is more demand for US type coins, in-general, even though
> there are more of them around. Whatever the case, I've always found
> the phrase "great shape for its age" odd. How much circulation do
> you think most 1600's talers experienced in the 1800's and beyond?
Congratulations on being the first person to say out loud what I've been
thinking for some time now. Those VG 1909-S VDB Lincolns probably got that
way in the first ten to fifteen years, then were discovered and thrown into
a cigar box. But it's in great shape for a 100-year old "penny." I wonder
how many of those Depression-era coin boards were ever completely filled and
redeemed for a premium.
> While it's been awhile, I had a beautiful 1827 Bust Half PCGS
> body-bagged back to me for a much more obscure,
> seemingly-natural-to-me mark. It managed an MS60 in an ANACS holder,
> where it resides today. Is there an 1800's cutoff or something?
Whenever I have tried to pin anyone down about that, they obfuscate like
mad. That said, I just rejected a PCGS slabbed 3 cent silver that looked as
if it had been caught in the gearwork of a binder, so it's not necessarily
the age.
Recently there has been considerable grumbling within EAC about coppers
being bagged because of planchet defects caused by the mint.
> Is an ancient, then, still an "AU" piece with a big chisel test mark
> down the middle? Plenty of detail on either side!
I'd call it an AU piece with a big chisel test mark down the middle. That
gives a pretty good verbal picture of the piece. A lot better than "stray
marks typical for the grade."
> A ding is a ding, and this one is significantly detrimental.
The true test of the impact of that ding: attempt to sell the coin to a
dealer. You'll quickly find that it cuts the offer in half, or worse ("I'm
sorry, but guys just won't buy a coin with a mark like that.")
James
Nick Knight
>> What value is the claim of "Finest Known" in this context? To me, it
>> seems almost deceiving, yet in a technically accurate way, if the
>> preposition "by PCGS" was added. I've just not seen PCGS
>> certification as a popular trend in the Taler market, so this claim
>> seems out-of-place. Anyone else?
>The coin is probably included in a PCGS population report. But without
>further information, the claim is worth very little.
Well, that's what he admitted in his reply. My question is "what does that
mean?". How many Talers does PCGS actually slab? It's a tiny, small
percentage of the overall market, I'm sure. Can I sell some of my Talers
and claim they are the "finest known", because in my small world, these are
the best I've seen?
I suppose I should get myself a look at a recent population report.
>That said, the large thalers have become one of the favorite targets of the
> Chinese counterfeiters, and their products are extremely deceptive.
>Certification is mandatory. Buy one raw from a stranger at your peril.
Yes, this is very unfortunate. One of the things I've enjoyed about my
Taler collection is that they all fit into a relatively small box, and I can
handle them. Well, when I visit them at the bank, or buy new ones to join
their cousins at the bank. I guess that's unfortunate too. <sigh>, why do
I bother, then? :)
I really don't like slabbed Talers. Particularly those huge gobs of plastic
that NGC started to use. I can't find a picture online, so I'll hope that
the size never caught on. A previous post of mine referenced these at
9"x3", but I'm not sure from where that measurement came.
But you're right, those Chinese fakes are worrisome. Some of them are easy
to spot on eBay, but you wonder about those that aren't, and how long it
will take the "common fakes" to work their way into the domestic system. I
want to see one in-person to see how hard they are to spot. I just don't
know if I can collect these in slabs, tho.
>> #2: Do Krause values tend to be accurate reflections of the prices
>> you have to pay for an accurately graded world coin? Or, is there
>> some percentage (under 100) that can typically be applied to get a
>> more realistic value or retail cost?
>I don't think a blanket statement is at all appropriate here. Krause
>prices are way too high for some items, way too low for others. I've had
>numerous conversations with Tom Michael about this, but he is one person
>responsible for all the pricing in a stack of coin catalogs a foot and a
>half high.
My perception has them usually way too high. But I'm sure there are cases
that fall the other way. If I actually owned a late-model book, I would
probably use it and be able to offer a more balanced opinion :). What I do
know is that by using my old, old Draskovic(s) and a copy of Krause's
Catalogue of Crowns and Talers AND German Coins, I can get a pretty good
picture of relative values between coins. For me, this is good enough when
considering a handful of potential purchases and trying to determine the
"better buy". Ok, so it may not actually be, but I feel good about it when
I get home and then to the bank :)
>> #3 and finally, I think: If a Morgan dollar had such an obvious mark
>> on it (the ding at 6:00 on the obverse), would PCGS grade it as an
>> AU55 with no other clarifying notations?
>PCGS does not grade any coin with clarifying notations, as do ANACS, NCS,
>and SEGS. The slightest defect will get some coins slabbed "genuine"
>while others with gross defects end up graded. In spite of all the
>pontifications of the pontificators, I have yet to see any consistency in
>this regard.
That was part of my experience mentioned earlier when trying to get my 4
collector's club coins graded. I still can't tell how they pick and choose,
but in a way I'm glad they offer such varience. I've purchased some wicked
looking MS60 coins and been under-impressed with many MS63 examples
(specifically, US Capped Bust Halves). The fact that there are many nice
looking MS60-62 coins to be had amongst many more dogs has provided me with
a nice collection at a reasonable cost. Hmmmm. Thinking about it, I
haven't added an MS-level bustie to my collection for a couple of years now.
Well, they seem to be coming back down in price again. I'm not sure if
that's good news or bad news for me ... I'll be optimistic. This time.
Nick