Ebay Throws ANACS Under the Bus

I have about a dozen coins in ANACS holders, all of them the little white type from some years back. The grades are accurate in my opinion, and well within what NGC or PCGS would have considered as an appropriate grade for the coin at the time it was slabbed. I highly doubt the value of the coin will be lowered by anything eBay has to say about which grading services are prefered.

At one time, in the beginning at least, ICG graded coins were more conservatively graded than any of the other services, NGC and PCGS included. But when that didn't seem to gain them much traction in the market place it was taken as a green light by NGC and PCGS to let their own standards relax slightly in an effort to encourage resubmissions. Whether it was a matter of documented internal policy, no one on the outside can say. But it's pretty self-evident that the grading criteria has in fact changed over the last 10 years, and it has been most pronounced (in my opinion) in grades between VF30 and AU53, though to be sure the mint state grades have drifted a little too.

I have not paid enough attention to the newer ANACS holders to comment on the grading. However, the holder itself simply looks cheap in my opinion. They would have been far better off to have retained the original holder and simply increased its dimensions. When viewed from the edge (especially) the old ANACS holders looked nice, and appeared to be made from better plastic than what was found in any of the other non-PCGS or non-NGC holders out there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

How did E-Bay's decision devalue most coins trading in the marketplace when most of the $2,500+ coins already reside in PCGS or NGC plastic?

I really think this is much to do about nothing. I just checked Heritage's archives and there have been about 16,000 ANACS coins auctioned in their history that have reached the $1,000 mark. From a cursory scroll through, most of those seemed to be under $2,500. Realistically, how many coins is the new E-Bay policy excluding? Most high dollar value coins already reside in PCGS and NGC plastic.

Furthermore, all most all of the $2,500 ANACS coins were in the old small white holders. How many of them have since been crossed to PCGS or NGC? And to provide a little scale, Heritage has sold over 300,000 coins worth more than $1,000 graded by NGC & PCGS.

And since all non PCGS & NGC coins are treated as raw coins, E-Bay sellers will simply use the raw coin description codes rather than the numerical codes in their listings and descriptions.

P
F
AG
G
VG
F
VF
XF
AU
BU
CH BU
GEM BU
PREMIUM GEM BU
ULTRA GEM BU

There a few guys who have posted in this thread who I genuinely feel for because I know they own ANACS coins worth more than $2,500. Personally, I have never seen a coin in an ANACS or ICG holder worth more than $2,500. And the reason they have never been in my collection is probably the same reason for E-Bay's policy change.

 

Here are a couple;
1854-D $3 GOLD INDIAN AU55 ANACS #190596250847 BIN $32,500.00
1795 Draped Bust Dollar (1st Gen Holder) ANACS-AU55 #400188230681 BIN $26,975.00

And there are currently at least 60 more listed for over $2500.

 

It's worse than just censoring the numerical grade. Ebay is saying that ANACS/ICG/PCI can't even be mentioned by name in listings. Well, I happen to like all three of those grading companies. I would like to search for their slabs. Ebay is telling me I can't. I have a problem with that.

 

Ebay is a private business and can do anything they want. They auctioned a kidney once as I recall.

 

Sure they can. Just as Coke can introduce New Coke.

 

From all indications it appears that ANACS will be eligible for inclusion by May 30th... Now we will see if eBay decides to revise the list or not.

 

Are you sure about that? You mean I will no longer be able to search on ANACS to display all of the coins listed in ANACS holders? Sounds like restraint of free-trade to me, could be ANACS makes more suing eBay than they ever did slabbing coins. The prohibition is liebel as well, implying that there is something fraudlent about coins in ANACS holders. Of course to press a law suit, ANACS will have to demonstrate some material damage to their company from the changes, so may be a year or two before they file. But they would be nuts to not pursue a legal remedy in my opinion.

 

Like Ruben mentioned above.......it's their ball.

 

I think you're reading way to far into this.

First off, ANACS does not own the coins listed on eBay, the sellers do. ANACS' only contribution was receiving the coins from an owner for grading and slabbing, so any law suit by ANACS is moot, as they would have no standing in such a suit.

Secondly, eBay is a free enterprise like any other business and can make any policy they wish for their users to follow. If one doesn't wish to follow said policies, they can go elsewhere to sell/buy, there is no commitment to using eBay whatsoever.

Finally, there is no libel whatsoever against ANACS. There is no implication by the new policy that ANACS is a fraudulent service. eBay has established standards that TPGs must meet in order for coins in their holders can be listed. eBay feels, obviously, that this new policy is going to help reduce fraudulent listings, and thus reduce the number of SNADS as they pertain to numismatic items.

 

Have to disagree on several points. eBay, because of its market dominance, functions as a monoply. Name a single serious online competitor that occupies the same market with the same number of listings. You can't because there aren't any. If you took eBid, all the other auction sites, added in Teletrade and even Heritage plus Bowers, the total number of coins sold is a fraction of what eBay handles. As such, they are a monoply and proving restraint of trade that was meant to benefit either eBay or their partners, --in this case PCGS and NGC-- would be something any company seriously affected by the change would be expected to pursue. This is especially true given that ANACS charges less for submissions for essentially the same service as NGC or PCGS performs.

As for the prohibition on ANACS as a search arguement, the change is meant to directly and specifically destroy ANACS as a company. There is no other way to interpret the action. Were eBay to prohibit the search terms "mint packaging" or some other equally spurious prohibition, they might stand a chance in defending themselves.

 

Here's another way to interpret the action: Ebay is giving ANACS the incentive to become a better company.

 

I like that theory!

 

Which has what to do with anything? They are a free enterprise and can make policy as they see fit, no different than a power company, phone company, or cable company. FYI, Frontier Communications has the monopoly on phone service in western N.Y. and they audit their policies regularly and change them as they see fit. If their customers don't like their policy, they can always go to magic jack, or digital phone service from the cable company.

Again, being a monopoly has nothing to do with nothing.

I would tend to think that Heritage and Teletrade occupy a larger part of the numismatic market than eBay. So there's two, serious online competitors.

In what way? ANACS has made their money off the submission of the coins from the owners of those coins. How is ANACS going to be destroyed, or lose major revenues from this change in policy?

As I stated, ANACS does not own the coins that are listed on eBay, the sellers own them, or possess property rights to sell them on behalf of the owner, i.e. consignment.

Your statement has no merit whatsoever, and would only hold water if ANACS was buying, grading, slabbing, and listing said coins on eBay. They are not. Private individuals are.

Again ANACS' only contribution to these coins is that at some point an owner submitted the coin to ANACS for grading and slabbing.

How many sellers are making kickbacks to PCGS or NGC for selling coins slabbed in their respective holders on eBay?

I'm willing to bet there are none.

 

I don't even know it has to do with gradeflation. I think eBay wanted to allow a better apples to apples comparison when it comes to the various TPGs. The one qualification that ANACS does not meet (by their own admission) is the ability to verify serial numbers online. They have indicated they will have this available by May 30. I'd imagine ANACS will then be in the good graces of eBay, and everyone will just move on.

People are honestly overreacting here. This isn't a 'power move' by eBay to drive the market. eBay wants all the TPGs to meet a fairly simple standard. The fact is ANACS isn't there yet, but by their own admission is working to get there.

 

However, eBay has to realize is that ANACS was one of, if not THE, first TPG. It also would benefit eBay to have experienced numismatists on staff, who have a better understanding of the top 4, and the bottom feeders, like SGS, and who has standards and knowledge to grade coins, and who's just slapping a 70 grade on every label, or consistently over-grading coins.

 

The email said "numeric grade". So you could say BU, AU, EF, XF, whatever - just no specific number. Doesn't seem like it would affect details grades at all - other than the $2500 rule.

I'm concerned about the under $2500 listing price because I have at least one raw CC double eagle - if the price of gold rises, the $2500 boundary for raw coins could become a problem, but right now I don't suppose it matters so much other than the boom in details and genuine grades for valuable US coins, e.g., 1850 double eagles, etc.

 

eBay consulted with 'noted numismatist' John Albanese when they made their criteria. So they didn't make a decision in complete ignorance.