| Author |
 Replies: 24 / Views: 2,096 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
84 Posts |
quote:
Quote from NGC and PCGS:
To PCGS, a "first strike" coin is one that is delivered by the Mint within 30 days of its initial sales date. American Silver Eagles, for example, usually go on sale Jan. 1, so a first strike would be any coin delivered by Jan. 31.
Lipcon, however, said PCGS previously used a definition indicating that a "first strike" was one of the first coins produced by a certain die.
NGC says it will designate a coin "first strike" if it arrives with the proper documentation at the company within the first month of release or is submitted in sealed U.S. Mint packaging at a later date.
"We have had a very clear definition the entire time. It was based on timing," said Steve Eichenbaum, chief executive officer at NGC. "Everything we have done is very transparent. We made no representation with regard to rarity or no representation with regard to value."
From article in yahoo news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061217...rike_lawsuitI guess "early releases" may help settle lawsuit, but why not just give it up...and grade the early coins sent out the same as the later because the US Mint says there is no difference. Well money and value,IMHO, hope they are sued til they get it right. |
|
Valued Member
Sweden
79 Posts |
Just saw that Yahoo! article. Funny how the NGC announcement fails the mention the lawsuit and conveniently uses the excuse "having two overlapping pedigrees to identify coins of early release may create confusion in the marketplace" as rationale for the decision.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
256 Posts |
Exactly why I will not do any business with NGC anymore. They didn't even hesitate to run from one scam and start another! It is becoming evident that the only interest NGC has with collectors is how fast they can relieve them of their finances. I will have to see what PCGS does before I put them on the same level as NGC but my faith in TPG's (at least these two) just went down the drain. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
751 Posts |
I have a different view on the matter of special labels and pedigrees. I find it an unflattering and unlikely characterization that this is a one-sided fraud perpetrated by the "money-hungry TPGs" to defraud the "unsuspecting and uneducated masses." This is the language of victimology and class-action lawsuits and I reject it. These special labels are a product offered to a demanding marketplace. Consumers are constantly clammoring for ways to distinguish their collection from others. At this very forum, we hear how important it is to have a particular label on a graded coin to enhance its value. If I understand correctly, the business strike W-mintmark ASE is available in a 2-coin set with 10k minted, a 3-coin set with 250k minted, and singly minted to order. There are multiple posts by several members who insist on the "added value" of a particular colored label, despite the identical nature of the coin. Furthermore, the TPGs aren't selling the coins or charging substantially more for these special labels. If a consumer pays more for an identical coin because it is slabbed with a black or red label, and then comes to the realization that the premium was ill-spent, I fail to understand how the slabbing company--who didn't receive any part of the premium--owes anyone recompense. |
|
Valued Member
United States
344 Posts |
I suppose they will just fine them and slap their hands and give them another 2 years probation. You think ? Besides which there is always someone to take their place. The Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) is a third-party appraisal service for grading rare coins. It determines the condition and authenticity of each coin it grades to provide consumers with an independent knowledgeable rating on which to judge the coin. It was founded in 1986, and is located in Newport Beach, CA. On August 17, 1990 the FTC issued a press release regarding PCGS. "FTC CHARGES COIN CERTIFICATION CO. MISREPRESENTS OBJECTIVITY OF ITS COIN GRADING SERVICES; COMPANY AGREES TO SETTLEMENT" The FTC charged that "PCGS misled consumers by falsely claiming that it provides consistent, objective grading of coins and that investment in PCGS-certified rare coins eliminates all the risk associated with the grading of coins." PCGS/David Hall was charged and placed on probation for 2 years. Civil Action No. 90-1982, https://www.ftc.gov, New York Times, 8/17/90 The Wall Street Journal, 8/17/1990 |
|
Valued Member
United States
414 Posts |
They just added something every now and then. The sad thing is that collectors start to use them and that this fact encouraged them to go further and further. The finer difference they can find, the lower number of coins for each finer difference will be. And collectors will think they should pay for the high premium. That is why they want 100 point system or fraction point system.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
256 Posts |
quote:
These special labels are a product offered to a demanding marketplace. Consumers are constantly clammoring for ways to distinguish their collection from others. At this very forum, we hear how important it is to have a particular label on a graded coin to enhance its value.
If I understand correctly, the business strike W-mintmark ASE is available in a 2-coin set with 10k minted, a 3-coin set with 250k minted, and singly minted to order. There are multiple posts by several members who insist on the "added value" of a particular colored label, despite the identical nature of the coin.
In the case of the ASE anniv. set labeling. Those labels distinguish a known and actual set or item. The key words are actual and known and the TPG's have taken steps to insure the accuracy of these labels. In the case of the "first strike" and now the "early release" labels it is clear that these are misguiding labels since professionals and the mint itself has stated that there is no way to prove the authenticity or accuracy of such labeling. Deceiving the public is wrong, the two TPG's were wrong in doing it and they got caught! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
751 Posts |
It's probably no surprise, but I disagree with you. In both cases, you are consigning an added value for some intangible that is noted on the label. In the one case, it is the manner in which the coin is released. In the other case, it is the time period in which the coin was released. Several months down the road, neither detail is testable. You either trust the slabber to report faithfully or not. I hope we are not arguing over whether a "first strikes" label is accurate. I don't see the point in arguing that. If a company says that they will mark any coin issued in the first 30 days after release a "first strike", then so be it--that's their definition. Another company might say that it will only give an ASE "first strike" status if it arrives in a sealed "green monster box" in which the date of packaging was August 31 (of the prior year) or earlier. Just because that doesn't conform to your definition of a "first strike" (say, because their definition would include the first 50%--or because the order of packaging is not necessarily the order of manufacture), you have no right to say their definition is indefensible. Just so long that they don't represent their definition as something it is not. Maybe the problem is that you don't believe the "first strikes" label adds any value. That's fine. That's what the market is for. There are many who don't think an MS-70 is worth 5x the price of an MS-69. Those same people might believe there is no reproducible test for discriminating between the two grades and as a result, will not pay a premium for the 70. I think you might be directing your anger at the wrong party. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
834 Posts |
No extra value to the coins at all just another way for a TPG to get more money. |
|
Valued Member
United States
84 Posts |
quote:
Original posted by texasmick
You either trust the slabber to report faithfully or not.
That's the problem. I have purchased 2 "first strike" coins. 2006 Buffalo & ASE. Because I thought first strike meant, one of the first coins striked. Now I know better. Does that mean I am upset no. But I trusted the TPG label in this instance. The seller was just repeating was being marketed by the TPG. quote:
If I understand correctly, the business strike W-mintmark ASE is available in a 2-coin set with 10k minted, a 3-coin set with 250k minted, and singly minted to order. There are multiple posts by several members who insist on the "added value" of a particular colored label, despite the identical nature of the coin.
(correction: that's 20k minted) In the instance of the anniversary set, "please tell me other than having an independent TPG pedigree the set, how can you determine the set you are purchasing is an anniversary set (either 10k or 250k) and not a coin purchased singly." That's the added value.
Value does not always mean Monetary Value. |
|
Valued Member
United States
84 Posts |
Does anyone find it interesting that not until the 2006 Buffaloes when prices got really out of hand...That this first strike business really picked up... Wasn't "first strike" started more than 10 years ago with ASE... PCGS in their price guide show a premium value for coins label first strike by their company... |
|
Valued Member
United States
256 Posts |
quote:
That's the problem. I have purchased 2 "first strike" coins. 2006 Buffalo & ASE. Because I thought first strike meant, one of the first coins striked.
Now I know better. Does that mean I am upset no. But I trusted the TPG label in this instance. The seller was just repeating was being marketed by the TPG.
You and MANY others. You were thinking this because you were led to believe it. quote:
PCGS previously used a definition indicating that a "first strike" was one of the first coins produced by a certain die.
Edited by SE
12/19/2006 07:15 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
287 Posts |
quote:
Value does not always mean Monetary Value.
I collect coins for myself. I do not collect coins for other people. What I "value" is different from everyone else and it is my choice to grade and purchase coins as my values dictate. If the value of the coin is what I want I will pay extra mometary value for that feature. This is my decision and not influenced by what is printed or told to me. I am very excited and satisfied with my collection because I have accomplished it on my own through trial and error. Sure I have made some mistakes, but the knowledge I have gained through these errors has driven me to be a wiser collector (I hope) My belief is that some advertising will always try to sell you the same coin or type of coin with glitter and hype. We should all educate ourselves to make wise and smart choices by ourselves by trusting our experience and through the help of the EXCELLENT knoweldge of the members of the CC. The CC provides some of the best help. |
|
Valued Member
United States
143 Posts |
I have to agree with kg2blade. I bought 2006 Buffaloes but the FS wasn't a factor to me. I bought based on market:melt (which FELL last week!!) But, FS became a big issue with the ebay market. Maybe, if it goes away, the FS label will go UP as a rarity. Wouldn't THAT be a backfire? The Anniversary ASE's have become a mess because of labeling. Do I want a set of three labeled slabs instead of showing off the coins in the original box? No. But, the poor slob that bought the set to show off and keep now has a "questionable" set (!?!?!) When it comes time to sell most coin dealers will question it's authenticity (as a set) to bring the price down, full knowing the REV Proof is worth more than the set sold for. The whole thing kinda screws the hobby, huh? |
|
Valued Member
United States
84 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Dollar
My belief is that some advertising will always try to sell you the same coin or type of coin with glitter and hype. We should all educate ourselves to make wise and smart choices by ourselves by trusting our experience and through the help of the EXCELLENT knoweldge of the members of the CC. The CC provides some of the best help.
I could not agree more...Well, yes I can...I agree more  quote:
Originally posted by seth
I bought 2006 Buffaloes but the FS wasn't a factor to me. I bought based on market:melt (which FELL last week!!) But, FS became a big issue with the ebay market. Maybe, if it goes away, the FS label will go UP as a rarity. Wouldn't THAT be a backfire?
I can already see the ebay Headlines: FIRST STRIKE, Get them before they are GONE!!! |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 24 / Views: 2,096 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 12/18/2006 07:06 am
