"The good old days...."

Nice to see that you get it as well, Coleguy. I'm not sure just what the objective of that index was, but it sure isn't meant to represent the entire coin market. If I were to guess, I'd go with an attempt to show coins as a reliable return on investment. The more investment in coins, the more profit for CU. Just like most of their other actions, it's all about money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's a very important point, and exonerates PCGS a bit regarding building an index only to make themselves look good.

 

I presume those percentages are based on counting the coins in the index. I can understand your concern.

In addition, there's another concern I have with it...

NOT ALL COINS ARE CREATED EQUAL.

Since that index is adding up the values of the coins, high value coins carry more weight. Some carry a LOT more weight.

For instance, they have six Chain cents in there, ranging from F12 up to MS64 ! Have you ever seen an MS chain cent, much less a 64 ? The F12 is a $10,000 - $15,000 coin.

An MS64 ? $500,000 *. (maybe a little more... ).

Those six coins alone carry 100 times as much weight as all the Lincoln cents combined. But I bet there's more collectors for Lincolns than Chains !



* The Husak MS62 just sold for $250,000+.

 

I'll take that challange GDJMSP.

According to the chart, the index went from about 500 in 1977 to about 5500 in 1998. Thats a factor of 11X.

Lets see, how about red book values for an uncirculated/MS60 1889CC Morgan for those years. 1977=$3200; 1998=$6500. Slightly more than 2X. 1893S Morgan $25,000/$27,000. Thats a factor of less than .1X. I've got plenty more if you want them. I'll tell you what, you pick a few different coins and I'll look them up for the benefit of everyone.

 

Are you suggesting that the Red Books are 500% out of whack? I happen to think that comparing red book prices from one year to the next presents at least a ligitimate comparison. Furthermore, was Heritage even around in 1977 and if so under what name. You seem pretty proficient at challanging what I post. How about YOU dig up the prices from those coins for those years to prove YOUR point for a change.

 

Come to think of it, when the ANA came out with the 70 point grading system in 1977, they weren't even using most of the grades that the index is now using so how is it that PCGS was able to determine the value for the grades they are now using?

Are extrapolated values more accurate than the Red Book?

 

Hmmm, The "Good Ole Days" are fleeting. They come and go...

 

The definition of extrapolate is "to infer (unknown information) from known information". Since there are no auction records for MS64 and MS66 coins to support the lower end of that graph, either the numbers were fabricated or the graph is mixing apples with oranges.

And yes, I do disagree with some of the comments you post. If you have noticed, I always try to present verifiable information when I do disagree so that others can draw their own conclusions as to what to believe.

And bias is not an accurate description of my attitude toward TPG's. Contempt or distain would be more fitting and when the opportunity presents itself I'll explain why.

I await your auction figures for the coins in question for the dates given. I hope you don't take it personal when I keep reminding you to post those figures. It's just that I know you are trying to defend the indefensible.

 

Chuckle, I always thought that Nimbus3000 or whatever was a little skewed...

 

Couldn't agree more ! These are the best days of my life.

Ahhhh yes ... the good ol' days... remember when we used to reminisce ?

 

True, the Red Book pricing is slightly off. But, PCGS compiled the indexes we're referring to, so I'm assuming they gathered the numbers from their own price list. Now, how many times have we all been warned not to look at those prices.

I think a realistic challenge here would be to have someone make a real graph with real world prices. Heritage, like what was said, would be a great source. As anyone knows, PCGS price charts are even more inflated than the Red Book on a bad day.
Guy~

 

Even David Hall doesn't price his coins using the PCGS price chart.

The graph posted reveals enough information if you want a general idea of how the market has done since the late 90's. If you want a general idea of how the market has done since 1970, that graph is of no use because the grades currently being used didn't exist back then. However it does show how the 70 point grading scale inflated the prices of surperior uncirculated coins that previously carried a modest premium.

 

I would say that the red book would be a good reference in the matter. I am not saying the the values are correct by any means but look at it this way. If the say coin A is valued at 60 in 1977 and 210 in 2008. I would tend to believe that in 1977 you could but the coin for about 40 and now you can buy the same coin for about 190. The percentage would be the same even though the number are all higher then realized prices.

 

The graph reflects a realistic approximation from the late 90's based on the data used. It does not reflect reality in the early years and lower end coins based on the data used. Sorry for not being more clear about that, but if you recall I am on record as stating that graph does not represent the entire coin market and if it was not weighted, it's bogus. Having dug deeper, I can now state that it's bogus, period. I can also now reaffirm my statement that many graphs are created with the end result predetermined.

The fact that you couldn't find any data going back to 1977 is exactly my point here. There isn't any in the early 70's to fit the coins that make up the index. So why didn't PCGS start that graph when they had sufficient data to make consistant comparisons? Because by going back to 1970 it suggests what someone posted earlier, that the graph looks like a relatively steady increase in values less the spike in the late 80's. That's an illogical comparison and is totally misleading. If you look at that graph starting in 1986 when PCGS was started, and they started getting like information, coin values are a wash after 22 years. Since everything PCGS does is designed to promote their own business and that of their comrades, starting that chart when they had comparable data would look pretty sick, don't you think?

As for the numbers you posted, they do not address the prices for an 1889CC and an 1893S in 1977 and again in 1998 which is the comparison I posted. Of course the numbers from 2001 are going to match the chart. You probably got them from the same source as PCGS. Why don't you just get in touch with PCGS and ask them to supply the price data they used for the coins and years I posted? Fat chance you'll get it though.