Slabbing detrimental to the price

NGC has several options for holdering thicker coins. One option is to use a regular size holder but not suck all the air out, leaving a slight bulge in the plastic.

The other option is to use a double thick holder.

The two options cover every ancient I have encountered.

Any coin that even slightly touches the plastic is removed from the holder and put into a thicker holder (at least we try to catch all of these).

Barry

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I always prefer coins in little paper envelopes. Frank does this and so do a number of dealers on vcoins. I have grown to dislike plastic flips (because they crack) and have also never purchased a slabbed coin. If I did, I would quickly free it.

 

Barry. I didn't save the number of the coin I didn't buy but the one I did was 4632713-001. I looked it up on the NGC site and its just a black shadow, not much to see. I did try my best but shooting slabbed coins is a challenge for such novices as I am:



And of course my memory after less than 24 hours is not stellar, they were Dupondii and not Asses. Honesty I guess I would have graded both as 'near EF' or something similar. I have no idea what the criteria are for NGC, so perhaps I should not have been negative. Maybe NGC 'Choice VF' is the same as my 'near EF'. We all have our own personal interpretations of grade and appearance. But I suppose of more importance to the discussion is how dealers and collectors interpret the value of the assigned grades. The 'AU' coin was priced exactly twice what the 'Choice VF' was, despite my personal feeling that in the end they were just about the same.

Census data really has little applicability for ancients, other than perhaps collecting data on how often a particular type has come up for sale or auction.

I would have paid $45, sold it for $50, $60 on a good day. But keep in mind someone paid minimum of $20 to slab it. I understand that adds cost for the person who initially slabbed it, but thats not a consideration for me. I dont personally add value for the slab.

There is much truth in this statement. There are too many factors involved to get a blanket statement with ancients.

In many cases yes. But also in many cases with ancients as well. Some people are obsessed with grade, others not. For me if I like the coin I could care less about the grade, technical or otherwise. If is worthy of my attention that is all that matters. And to be honest, I prefer a coin with some 'use' to it. The amount of wear means little compared its historical value. I suppose it one of the reasons that after more than three decades as a dealer I am still just one of the 'bottom feeders'. That's OK, I am comfortable with what and who I am!

I dont think so (but I could be wrong). Not here. But keep in mind that while CT is the most prolific place to discuss ancients, the majority do not participate (or know of its existence).

Well, harshly and in all honesty, some people are just sheep. They will go with what others are telling them, despite any outcome. But then again, often some of us see things others do not. This is a rather 'touchy-feely' hobby which is really open to interpretation.

Long story short, I dont like slabs myself. It's a personal thing. But I also understand and appreciate why they exit and why people might want them. And even why they might pay more. But personally I dont pay more for a slabbed coin, and in some cases have paid less for them slabbed than if they were raw.

 

I'm not suggesting that it does. My point is that this is what happened with US coins. The relevance is more that buyers that come from a US coins background may approach purchasing ancients with this mentality (which isn't really applicable).

 

Ken, The Dupondius you illustrated was net graded to CVF, it wasn't a full grade service with strike and surface. My guess is you were comparing this to a full graded AU in which case there may not be much difference.

On Net grade labels, surface, strike, patina etc... are taken into consideration and the grade is reduced to account for these problems. The above coin would have graded CEF 5/2 smoothing had it been full graded, thus not a lot of difference from a full grade AU.

You can't really compare full grade labels with strike and surface to net grade labels. With full grade labels the grade just represents wear, and other issues are accounted for in the strike and surface grade. With Net Grade labels, we consider strike and surface when we look at the coin, but deduct from the grade to account for striking issues and or surface issues. A really porous mint state coin might get net graded VF, whereas full grade it might have been MS 5/1.

Barry Murphy

 

Barry,

No offense here. I appreciate what you and Dave do overall. I really dont know the 'ins and outs' of what you guys do, and maybe you can help us to understand how the market is changing (despite that many of us wish it were not so).

To tell the truth I was actually thinking about 'net grades' when I was composing my response. I felt that while a technical grade might be "AU" it was in essence "EF" or even less. But my opinion isn't really what maters. Yours and Daves are. It might be helpful for us to understand as you mention what one pays for.

It almost, or kind of, or maybe, whatever, sounds like you will get a better grade if you pay the higher slabbing price. I have no clue. As a capitalist, I want to achieve the highest price possible for my coins, but as a collector I wish to keep my integrity intact. Somewhere there is a balance between the two, I am certain.

Keep in mind I have handled less than just ten slabs over the years. I really have a tendency to avoid them at all cost.

 

I've purchased a number of slabbed coins in the past because a) I liked them, b) paid a fair price, and c) as a newer collector, appreciated the fact that they were handled and evaluated by experts.

Even though the slabs were later cracked, NGC reference numbers and information remain in my collecting notes, and I save the labels. For me, the value of the service didn't reside in the plastic, rather in the review.

That said I've better appreciated the physical certification format used by David Sear (a separate certificate that doesn't affect my ability to handle or photograph my coins).

I wonder why NGC couldn't cater to several audiences: those who want the physical presentation and preservation (along with authentication and grading), and those who just want authentication? An alternative, certificate-only option, paired with a public, searchable database of reviewed coins, would be great for collectors like me.