Ebay Throws ANACS Under the Bus

I have to agree with Lehigh96 here. FIRST percentages are deceptive unless you know how they were derived. You can't even calculate statistical difference (which is your argument) based on those numbers alone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I was at the Central States Numismatic Show yesterday and all the TPG's were present. I thought I would stop by the ANACS table and see what was being said. The answer was nothing. People were still filling out submission forms, there was no concern about this by ANACS at all and even the dealers who advertise on eBay didn't seem concerned. In fact, it wasn't even a topic by anyone that I could hear. So the impression I got was "no big deal". It's a hot topic on forums but not with the professionals there. No one really seemed bothered by it. I'll be at the ANA in Colorado Srings next week (to see the Money Museum there) and see if there are any opinions being offered by them. Maybe this is all over-reaction.

 

I hope Anacs + Igc nails eBay!!!
There web site pays No Tax's + get free Electric!
then charges sellers up 35% to sell.

 

Correct.

ANACS is a Grading Company that only grades and attributes coins.

NGC and PCGS are more than just grading companies.

Each Company has a network of Authorized Dealers which can submit coins in bulk for special Labels such as First Strike (Early Release), 40th Anniversary Lables, Portrait Labels, Signature Labels, First Day of Issue Labels, etc.) Of course ANACS does this as well for the TV Folks but I think this is by pre-arranged contract. I do not know for sure.

Both NCG and PCGS have levels of "Collector's" clubs which allow individuals to submit coins for grading.

PCGS and NGC work hard to "promote" Classic and Modern coin collecting through their Registry Set Programs.

Both Companies have online Price "guides" and online "population reports" which are integrated into their Registry Programs.

ANACS does have an online Population program, which you must register to use, but its fairly scattered and since they've been in business since the 70's, with multiple ownership changes, the data is by no means complete. For that matter, the same could be said with regard to PCGS and NGC in that the populations may or maynot be accurate. Population Report accuracy has always been dependent upon folks sending in crackout labels which often times does not occur.

The difference between PCGS, NGC and ANACS is that ANACS will attribute ANY variety whereas the other two "requires" the variety to be published in the CPG thereby elevating the CPG to "Biblical" status. There's really nothing wrong with this as long as folks understand that the CPG is simply a presentation of currently "popular" varieties gathered from other sources of which CONECA tops the list. A perusal of the CONECA list of varieties shws that there's a whole lot more than what appears in the CPG. A whole lot!

ANACS, will attribute these whereas the big two will not.

I fought for years to get PCGS to recognize the Type 2 1971-D Eisenhower Dollar. It's a completely different variety with easily distinguishable pickup points (the same as the 1972 Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 coins) yet they simply would not. Mind you, had they agreed then you fine folks would be getting your 1971-D RDV-006 coins (i.e. Friendly Eagle) attributed for $14. However, since it got put in the latest CPG, you can now get them attrobuted for $14 plus a $24 attribution fee.

I'm of the opinion that this is "not right".

Dang, I allowed myself to get sidetrack with my own agenda!

Nowever, the whole point being that PCGS and NGC, given their specific agenda's, have set requirements for coin attribution whereas ANACS does not. The same could be said of ICG but I do not submit to them so I do not know. I DO know that the OCG coins I submitted for corssover to PCGS crossed at grade.

 

Most people can't tell the difference... but I bet that someone who eats Cheerios every day would notice if they got a bowl of Tasty-o's. The differences are minor... but they can mean a lot.

 

My searches are rarely for a "specific" TPG and instead will "exclude" a specific TPG. For example, when I search for FDI or First Strike™, I specifically exclude NGC ANACS ICG SGS SEGS.

Most of my other searches are ONLY for Series, Date, Type (Proof or Bus Strk), Variety.

I take exception to the new rule only as a SELLER since I do get ANACS coins to sell and like being able to state ANACS MS66 or whatever in the listing Title.

 

Who know how this will play out, or change. But right now the above rule says if it's not PCGS or NGC it will be considered raw.

Today, the rules for raw coins say:

A raw or uncertified coin is defined as any coin not graded by an authorized grading company. Sellers can list these items on eBay as long as:

• A numeric grade (such as MS-65, VF-25) is not included in the title of the listing. A numeric grade can only be included in the item description.
  
• No grading company is referenced in the title or description.

• 
  

This is why many of us conclude the ANACS and ICG will not be allowed in the title or the auction listing.
Lance.

 

SEGS has an outstanding lineup of graders

Larry Briggs
Jeff Oxman
Bill Fivaz
J.R. Grellman
Cindy Grellman
Brian Greer

Check their professional bios

http://www.segsgrading.com/

 

Probably the toughest grading service of them all is Canada's International Coin Certification Service (ICCS) in Toronto. Coins with a trace of wear are graded XF, not AU58 or even MS62 like PCGS and NGC. And they NEVER us the MS70/PR70 grade, because they belive there is no such thing as a perfect coin. They are highly respected -- Canadians and European collectors LAUGH at the "market grading" of PCGS and NGC. And ICCS has NO WEBSITE AT ALL! . Tnb fgvghg

 

Ebay is most definitely a monopoly. The primary indicator is not market share, but abillity and influence to control the market and raise prices virtually without worrying that their customers (the sellers) will (or can) flee elsewhere. As a 14 year eBay seller, when the 2.5% Final value fee was insigificant and we accepted only checks or money orders, the price increases with forced credit cards and 9% final value fee and twisting our arms to offer free postage and unlimited refunds, today's sellers face total charges of 12% to 15% That a 500% increase in a decade! Yet, there is no viable alternative for those wishing to sell their own items in this format. So that's pretty much a classic monopoly.
eBay is not an auction. The eBay user agreement states that they are a venue to conduct “auction-style formats.” Their user statement goes on to state: “you acknowledge that we are not a traditional auctioneer. Instead, our sites are venues to allow anyone to offer, sell, and buy just about anything, at anytime, from anywhere, in a variety of pricing formats and locations, such as stores, fixed price formats and auction-style formats.”
At a real auction, online or live, there is a binding contract between buyer and seller. eBay expressly states that bids DO NOT create a formal contract: "a bid or offer initiates a non-binding transaction representing a buyer’s serious expression of interest in buying the seller’s item and does not create a formal contract between the buyer and the seller.”
eBay thus gets around state and local auctioneer laws that Heritage and Teletrade must follow. Additionally, unlike real auctions where the auction house possesses, describes, and mails or delivers the items, on Ebay the owners andle this themselves, and eBay has no assurance that the item even exists except as a stolen or juiced photo.
Ebay has at least 90% of the market share of this type of "auction style" listing business, having run Yahoo auctions out of business, and bought out competitors (Kijiji,StubHub, Craigslist, up4sale.com, Baazee.com, shopping.com, half.com, Paypal, and many more) or sued them for "trade dress" or "look and feel" infringment (boxlot.com, bidbay.com)

Frank Provasek
Texas Auction License 11259

 

Apples and Oranges. Phone, gas, electric, subways, street cars, and water in most areas since the 1880s have traditionally been "regulated
monopolies" where cities select one company to serve the area because having ten companies run their own water pipes,
telephone poles and electric lines is impossible. And government regulated utility monopolies have always been exempt from anti-trust laws. But since 1996, telephone competition has been allowed, but the exisiting monopoly company must make its lines available for lease to any and all competitors on a fair basis.

 

Hogwash. If they were any kind of monopoly, as it pertains to the numismatic market, then Heritage and Teletrade would be under eBay by now.

Am I to be impressed with your license number?

FYI, I'm not as it has nothing to do with nothing, nor this discussion. Much in the same way you formerly working for Lockheed as an engineer.

 

You are correct; however, perhaps, you should have mentioned at least one of the valid contrarieties that is also present within the field of your final deduction. (I don't believe that your interpretation has sufficient, superior weight in order to obscure the contrasts.)

The exclusion of ANACS would be similar to excluding the French Republic from the Group of Eight. France is no longer the nation that it once was, so let's simply exclude it because there are other countries above its current standards and general prestige. Yep...we shall defend the insurgent minority of young people that might buy, or invest, in France.

To my judgement, the most secure investment in numismatics: die varieties. With physical damage in posteriority to certification, an assigned grade typically loses more value than a proven variety. Besides, there's a higher possibility of favorably crossing a variety than crossing a grade. A possible modification in grading standards might decrease the value of a certified coin, but it won't alter the variety recognition. In parallelism with these sentences, ANACS is indubitably the sole gerent in this base.

I suppose that there are two principal, unethical points that were propagated by eBay:
1. It communicated the introduction of a set of "high standards," by which a company could acquire the most pristine position in a particular category of sales, without presenting the standards. (Last time I checked, time is money.)
2. ANACS is recognized, at least until May 30 of this year (Gregorian calendar), amongst the most passable businesses in part of sales hosted by eBay; however, Paul A. DeFelice announced that they weren't made aware of the new standards that would eliminate the aforementioned business from its current position. (It would still be respectful to not alert PCGS and NGC, because there's no probable reason to believe that they will not remain in their position during the possible "reintroduction" of ANACS.)

 

It doesn't change my mind about buying ANACS or ICG graded coins. Sure maybe some people will avoid them but I don't think you'll see that much of a change. jmho

 

Actually, you agree with me!

I am NOT counting statistical differences. The fact the the ranges overlap...that some ANACS and ICG coins are worth MORE than SOME PCGS and NGC coins in the same grade is the reason you CANNOT use average prices or market share to determine the "best" grading companies. (Like wow, maybe coin buyers value the coins more than the plastic...what a concept) Since you really CANNOT calculate a statistical difference between the 4 top services that applies to a specific coin, that is the reason for NOT banning or restricting ANACS and ICG.

 

I worked 10 years as a test engineer, and testing is very close to grading, so I know what I am talking about regarding statistical error, bad data, bias of expectations, etc. As a licensed auctioneer, I know the difference between ebay and real auctioneers like Teletrade and Heritage.

You don't even list your identity. What credentials and experience do YOU bring to the table?

 

It's interesting that the two services recently eliminated by ebay...ANACS and ICG...just HAPPEN to be the two remaining services that a collector can submit his own raw coins to without going through a "authorized dealer network" or paying to join a "club." And the second tier (but still respectable - and still listed and priced in the Certified Coin Dealer Newsletter or Bluesheet) services eliminated by ebay in 2008 (J.T. Stanton's PCI and Larry Briggs' SEGS -- were ALSO services where the ordinary collector could submit his coins without going through a dealer network or joining a club.

 

Since I never went to college, and directly into the Marine Corps right from high school I can give you the statistical analysis, and engineering. I'm not an auctioneer, nor do I sell on eBay at all, but do purchase from dealers I know personally who have eBay stores.

NFN, you should read post #227, because that seems to clear some of this confusion, and if ANACS is able to meet all of the requirements by the May 30 deadline, and eBay adds them to the list, this is all for naught.

I'm a collector. I don't sell, or flip, nor am I a dealer.

P.S. Nor have I ever professed to be a dealer or something I am not.(No insinuation to anyone either)

 

No. I do NOT agree with you. No offense, but quoting percentages is the truest form of lying. What I was saying is that since you do not know how the numbers were derived, you can't trust them. That DOESN'T mean all the TPG's are the same because they overlap. The numbers mean absolutely nothing, prove nothing and are meant to imply something that can't be proven with simple numbers.