| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 2,967 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5404 Posts |
Did some detective work and found the original coin on ebay originally offered by seller Eternitycoin ended April 23rd, 2015. 181722493748. Coin was in an NGC Unc details holder. The spotting on the reverse is a dead giveaway that this is the same coin. Nice homerun if it is now in a Yonge street 63 holder though. Certainly raises some issues about coin grading and philosophies in the year 2015. Before anyone decides to hammer me on this , I support both companies with LOTS of submissions and have so since the 1980s.  I for one would never pay 63 money for this coin no matter whose holder it was in. This coin is yet another excellent example of how we all see coins differently and are able to form our own opinions. Thanks for posting this, these are the kinds of posts that should lead to some more interesting comments. I am becoming more convinced by the day that ALL of the companies ( TPG) involved are increasingly employing GRADE CREEP. One current notable exception is ANACS. They seem to be going the other way. Edited by Pacificoin
05/22/2015 10:51 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1461 Posts |
That's correct, the original coin was in an NGC holder as hairlined. With the exception of one minor line in front of the bust and spot on rev, the coin has no trace of hairlines or cleaning on either obv or rev in hand or on the picture. It was resubmitted to ICCS for a second opinion. It's a great coin. PC, you already knew that prior to your first post.
Edited by TheCoinHunter
05/22/2015 1:00 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5404 Posts |
Actually no I did not know that when I posted my first comment. We have an MS 63 available right now, that I was going to relist and re price (in an ANACS holder) 311334219714 that happens to be sitting on my desk. This just all fell together doing research earlier this morning. I do not need to troll ebay to comment here on the CCF. Far too busy for that. As I stated my spidy senses based on over 40 years of doing this as a business that this 1919 was not quite up to what I consider 63 64 quality. I look for original skin and pop on classic coins and was just not seeing it there, with this coin. All that said excellent job on getting the upgrade from ICCS. I hope that you do well with it. Edited by Pacificoin
05/22/2015 11:08 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
The coin has clearly not been dipped or cleaned but I have a feeling we won't agree. I screen and send many coins for clients to NGC. I would consider it a borderline coin due to a minor hairline in front of the effigy on obv and a small set of marks around the center reverse. Bo no means this is a fully wiped coin. I've seen worse MS state coins get a numerical from NGC and is one of the reasons why I bought the coin. ICCS has always been more forgiving on minor marks. Taking advantage by directing coins to favorable TPGs for certain attributes is nothing new to the business or the collector community. As an example, the practice of Canadian copper being routed to PCGS to obtain higher grades based on color is nothing new to the collector community.
Edited by TheCoinHunter
05/22/2015 12:58 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5404 Posts |
Coin hunter so have I both ways. What I am finding alarming is the prevalence of Grade Creep from almost all of them. Cross grading is not an adventure for the thin skinned or faint of heart. For every submission you win on you are going to lose an equal amount. THAT is the only certainty with TPG submissions. Third party grading continues to evolve at an alarming rate toward MARKET GRADING rather than what we in Canada consider a more technical method. Lately we have been submitting coins through ANACS at an increasing rate due to the cost involved. They always have a special and since we attend a good many U.S. Shows we can also save on the shipping. The cost is then pretty close to ICCS when you compare on an all in basis and the coin gets hard holdered as well. Lately their results have been a touch on the conservative side with a consideration for eye appeal and originality. Also ANACS customer service is top notch. They are just plain easy to deal with. As you stated we may disagree on this one but that is what makes this forum educational, the divergence of opinions and the education that results from it. Have a good one ! JN Edited by Pacificoin
05/22/2015 1:15 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
Not sure it's a 50/50 gain/loss split. I think if you deal long enough with all the TPGs you learn how they grade and what they look for, coins can be sent off to the appropriate source. I also subscribe to buy the coin not the holder theory BUT in this day and age where majority of coins are bought and sold online as well as a market full of counterfeits (and growing) TPGs have become an essential part of the business. I also deal with ANACS (mostly on foreign problem coins) and having some cross grading experience with them, I agree that at times they can be conservative. Cost competitive, no membership required but the turn around times have been problematic. Although sending the 1919 ANACS holder you posted to ICCS could be an interesting exercise in proving that theory. The other problem with ANACS (and this would be more related to US coins)is that those holders still lag behind obtaining max market value for coins. On the topic of technical grading, I completely disagree that ICCS is more of a "technical" TPG as compared to the US TPGs. The opposite holds true! ICCS by far has a highest rate of net grades and probably has the highest rate of grade creep, in comparison to other TPGs. Is that bad? Probably not as long as the net grading is curtailed along with the creep and substituted with detail comments. Grade creep in of itself isn't a problem as long as there is consistency within each TPG. I noticed some collectors now play the creep game with older ICCS holders by resending them hoping for better results(now that's a 50/50 game if there is one). |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
I wouldn't say it was a 'homerun'.
If purchased near the $495 USD mark, means it cost $600.00 Canadian.
Trends for an ms63 is $1500.00 but in today's market you'd be lucky to get $750 for it.
Needless to say, it was good of you to buy it and I must say, I was stewing over that 'Unc details' coin for weeks and weeks but decided it would have to get into an ms64 holder to make it worthwhile for me so I passed on it.
Edited by doubleeagle59
05/22/2015 6:53 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5404 Posts |
I should clarify .....it was an upgrade home run , the money part well.............pretty much right on double eagle. Getting into a 64 holder would be a happy dance home run.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
You don't take chances, you don't find out. I didn't pay the original price for the coin but also hoped for a 64 but figured it wouldn't be a loss. Even in this market 50% trends for an earlier MS grade 50 cent piece in an ICCS holder is bare minimum. Sure it might take a while. I have a storefront and I don't buy too many Canadian coins online as most of my stock comes in through the front door. When I do (be it Canadian or foreign), I expect the coins I buy to yield the following. 50% break even, 15% loss, 20% gains in the %30-%100 percent and the rest (15%) well above normal gains. It works for me.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5404 Posts |
CH you will do well with the coin . The thing about 1919 not only a date set coin , but the best date for a high end type set as well. I think your theories on per cent ages is right on. Also for properly graded early stuff , you are right,50 per cent is a bare min. For sure.
The neat thing about being a coin dealer , you pay your money and take your chances!
|
| |
Replies: 25 / Views: 2,967 |
First Page
Posted 05/22/2015 10:50 am
