quote:
Originally posted by Eaglenest
1. PCGS is the #1 respected grading service For All U.S. Coins.
2. The Red Book only uses PCGS for their valuations.
3. The 2007, 60th Edition Yeoman is almost current & accurate.
Why then does it state on several gold coin type value pages (ie; 224, 234,246 etc.):
*Note: "Values of common gold coins have been based on the current bullion price of gold, $550 per ounce, and may vary with the prevailingspot price." "The net weight and content listed may be used to recalculate bullion value."
My copy being the 2007 edition I can understand it's late 2006 bullion spot price per ounce, but what does this have to do with PCGS graded/rated coins?
Am I to add the current spot price increase of bullion flucuation/ percentage to an already PCGS certified coin? I thought they stood on their own quality value (VG, EF, AU, MS etc. ?)
My other question is about the categories of the Red Book.
If the book only shows values for say: MS-60 and MS-63, are you supposed to guess what a sellers coin of MS-62 is worth?
Hi, Dave
You asked an awful lot of questions in a short period of time. That's good--some people spend just as long to ask a single question. I will try to answer some.
Not to sound harsh, but all three of your assumptions/interpretations are flawed:
1. PCGS, does occupy the top rung for TPGs currently (based on sight-unseen trading), but many people will give you differing opinions about their relative strengths. PCGS seems to be purposefully undergrading modern coins in order to keep their population reports down and make it look like they're most selective. Instead, maybe they're just most fickle. Many in the CC have said on other threads that ANACS is best for some older coins; thus there are some coin series for which PCGS may not be considered the market leader (others may provide examples). NGC is the "official grading service of the
ANA and the PNG". ICG is like the inverse of PCGS--too many 70's--but may have the most sound policies with respect to blind submissions (not the most sound grading).
2. The
Red Book definitely does not rely exclusively on PCGS-graded coins nor the PCGS price guide. On page 8, it says,
"Coin values shown in this book are retail prices figured from data supplied by the listed contributors approximately two months prior to publication." The list of contributors is long and is intended to represent the spectrum of retail transactions.
3. The
Red Book is famously out of date from the moment it arrives in your hands. Based on the above quote, prices can't be any more recent than Jan 2006 for a 2007-dated volume. It is also famously high. People don't like to pay full retail for something and coins are no exception. Most people use monthly publications like Coin Values or Trends for their current pricing info. On line, I like Numismedia. Delaers use a weekly publication called the Coin Dealer Newsletter (CDN) or greysheet.
As far as your next question about spot price and grading, I think you are confusing grade (which describes the level of preservation) with price. A correctly-graded EF coin will always be EF (don't get us started on changing standards), but the value for that EF coin will change due to many factors. For a common-date EF coin, the biggest of those factors is going to be the price of gold.
The example you cite on page 224, for instance, says that an Indian Head in F is worth $130. The gold content was $66 based on $550 gold, so the numismatic value was about equal to its intrinsic value. Note that in higher grades, the numismatic value increases (and not linearly). Now let's say gold goes up 20%. You can't simply add the additional intrinsic value and expect to buy the coin for $13 more because the gold in the coin is worth $13 more. The coin will probably go up at least 20%. But it's the market (supply/demand) that determines the price, not some formula based on spot price of gold.
Finally, about the price of MS-62. Some publications list prices for in-between grades always or occasionally. And when it's not available, one interpolates.
Read, read, read. Ask, ask, ask.
Posted 08/11/2006 11:20 pm
