Has anyone looked at the Greysheet? That's why I dis all second tier graders. Sight unseen for coins in these crap-slabs are sometimes 50 something percent or less. THAT'S WHY I SAY STAY AWAY! Unless its seen, nobody wants that CRAP! Now you may think I am wrong, but I hold to this until someone can prove me wrong otherwise.
Your not wrong at all !! second and yes third tier graders over grade there notes all the time And since some of these people that grade actually sell the notes them selves talk about A conflict of interest!!
I think most here will agree, but I don't get your point further than just a off the wall statement. And whats it have to do with Greysheet? I'm confused here. Guy
The thing I am referring to is the price used below Bid for coins slabbed by these firms and bought sight unseen.
I would LMAO if Larry came in and saw your comments and hit you with a liable suit. Jr you have alot to learn in this world yet. Have you even looked at a SEGS coin in hand? I highly doubt it! The only thing I think is crap is your ill advise,unknowledgeable comments on subjects you absolutely no clue on. That is what I think is crap
Well, anybody who buys any coin sight unseen, whether it be graded by SEGS, PCGS or God himself, is an absolute fool to begin with. Guy
Especially if there's no return policy! May God strike you down or at least flunk you out of the Institute.
Greysheet is for sight seen coins Blue sheet is for sight Unseen coins As an Instructor you should get your facts straight
I think the point he,s trying to make is that all TPG,S are not equal, reputation,honesty And integrity is not had by all and just because the package says for example 67 does not mean it is especially if it,s not from (PCGS, PMG for currency and PCGS Or NGC for coin) would personally not consider any other,s
That's what sight unseen means. If you have the option to return it after you have SEEN it, that is sight seen. Even if you haven't seen it when you order it.
If you are referring to the weekly publication on the analysis of the wholesale numismatic dealer market with regards to sight-seen sales and offers to sell published by the Coin Dealer Newsletter, then yes. Firstly, the term "second tier" (or "second rate") is rather subjective and debated even amongst seasoned numismatists. I would be rather surprised if you stated (or even insinuated) that men such as Bill Fivaz, Larry Briggs, Michael Fahey, and Michael Fazzari were "second rate" numismatists when it comes to grading and authentication. Granted, there are those whose grading is so askew from what is generally accepted in the market, but such a statement as the one you made is akin to zealotry. It would move me to question motive as well as accuracy of any information you would supply on the matter of numismatics. Secondly, I would have to ask, do you consider all dealers that sell raw coins in flips with a grade on it to be "second rate" as well? Please refer to the above stated paragraph regarding "second tier" and consider the following from the current CDN CCMI, and realize what kind of people in the numismatic community you are calling "second tier" graders: I am certain this is where you are getting your information from. Now, before attempting to utilize this data, you need to not only understand its intended use, but also how it is derived. You'll notice that there are a number of "disclosures" on the CDN. The bid levels for the CDN in and of itself are derived from a plethora of sight-seen sources. These bid levels are taken from the highest legitimate bids. So, the CDN derives its bids from the high end of the spectrum. Now, the bids also take into consideration certified sight-unseen transactions, with consideration for the certification costs. This skews the bids down, and thus, it is disclaimed that raw sight-seen specimens may sell for higher than the bids disclosed in the CDN. Now, the CCMI (market indicator) compares the certified coin bid levels to the CDN sight-seen levels. This indicator is also only derived from the use of data spanning only ten different series. That's quite unimpressive, really. And within those ten series, only two grades are considered. Now, when you stand back and see that there are generally twenty-one grades to consider over a span of over seventy different series...you have well over 1500 different grade/series ratios. And the CDN market indicator only considers 20 of these? That is barely 1% of the total data that should be considered. If you add in the fact that a specified date is not used, the amount of data considered becomes so minuscule that it becomes unusable. Furthermore, the number of sight-seen certified coins for any given service will skew the CDN bid to that service's particular advantage because the CDN bid utilizes the certified sight-seen figures. If the CDN researchers focus on coins from specific services, then obviously those services will fare better in the CDN CCMI. Remember, the highest legitimate bids are considered in the CDN. And, the CDN bid is the baseline for the CDN CCMI. So, if PCGS and NGC certified coins sampled for the CCMI sell for higher than SEGS and ANACS coins (even possibly from different dates within the series), then the numbers are already skewed in the formers' favor. It is important to remember that the CCMI is based by grade/series, not grade/series/date. There are a number of issues to consider that could possibly skew the CCMI data in any direction. Utilizing 1% of the total market data is really stretching the numbers well beyond anything useful. Everybody's got an opinion, and an opinion can be proven neither right nor wrong...it is an opinion. However, I am of the conviction that your opinion may have been affected by data that is quite clearly insufficient and lacking. That is not to say that the CDN CCMI does not serve a true viable purpose to market watchers. But, it is quite insufficient to be making assumptions and opinions regarding professional entities in the industry.
Please explain how you can agree with the age old mantra of "buy the coin not the plastic" while simultaneously trivializing any coins found in a certain type of plastic?
Excuse me but I think you forget that people do buy pieces from Sellers through online auctions that may have poorly representative or intentionally mis-representative images and poorly written or intentionally mis-representative descriptions for their listings that also have no return policies. The Buyer has merely 'seen' some approximation of the piece through the listing, but has not truly SEEN the piece (in hand) until the piece arrives, at which time, if the piece does not live up to the listed description, they have no recourse to return the piece. Regardless of consumer protection entities insuring Buyers' purchases, the scoundrels can skip town if their intention was a scam. Especially foolish to buy without a return policy, as mentioned.
Krispy, I haven't forgotten anything. That is an example of buying sight unseen. They hadn't seen it but they bought it with no option to return it. Seeing a picture is NOT seeing it. Believe me I think buying sight unseen is foolish as well.
