I've run into this conundrum. Personally, I would price it high enough that it felt almost ridiculous. That way only someone who REALLY want's it, would buy it. Then I would be happy with what I got out of it. If no one buys it, then I get to keep the beautiful coin. Guide at 64 is $5500, 64+ $6750 and 65 $15,000. If I did not need to sell it and really liked it, I'd ask $16,000 and would be happy if I got it. I might be willing to go down to $14,000, but for less than that, I'd keep it. But, that's just my opinion.
So you’d price the coin based primarily upon a listed price guide value, as opposed to actual prices realized for examples that have actually sold?😮
A willing buyer and willing seller certainly has an impact on the process, but the pricing method presented assumes the market as a whole conducts transactions based on price guides that may or may not be accurate, and assumes realized prices are not worth consideration.
Would the pricing method discussed be the same, if another piece of equal quality sold for the lower end of the range presented, in the last year, but the price guide did not account for that actual sale?
If the answer is yes, I would conclude the seller does not want to sell based on the realized prices in the market, and I would not make an offer.
But there has NOT been a coin of equal quality sold publicly in years. There was a 64 that sold for way over $10K..... due diligence is available via auction records. Be there or be square .
But there has NOT been a coin of equal quality sold publicly in years. There was a 64 that sold for way over $10K..... due diligence is available via auction records. Be there or be square .
When you say "equal quality", what quality/grade do you mean? A couple of (non CAC) PCGS MS65's sold for under $12,000 last year. I don't know how their "quality" compared to that of this coin.
But there has NOT been a coin of equal quality sold publicly in years. There was a 64 that sold for way over $10K..... due diligence is available via auction records. Be there or be square .
That is the point....illogical logic. There is always a "But".
I'd love to hear comments on this conundrum by anyone with ten Bust Halves in their holdings. Skin in the game sharpens the mind. Theory will flow easily; tuition yet to be paid?
The OP should be complimented for stirring the pot
I'd love to hear comments on this conundrum by anyone with ten Bust Halves in their holdings. Skin in the game sharpens the mind. Theory will flow easily; tuition yet to be paid?
The OP should be complimented for stirring the pot
Skin in the game might sharpen the mind, but it might also cloud objectivity.
Holder and stickers aside grading early type at the higher UNC levels is all about the cheek and marks. I simply don't see that as a gem with it's slide marks and cheek discoloration (rub). It looks like a 63+ to 64- (technical grade) to these eyes that got a bump because it is so damn pretty. I would bid 64 money but the real trick is picking which 64 to compare it to. That said if a bidder or dealer decided to factor in opportunity cost on top of the 64 range into the evaluation because it wouldn't be easy to replace, that makes sense to me but I wouldn't play along unless there was a better overton involved as well. The dealer would have to know the buyer to pay that or the collector would have to "have it" for the extra cost to makes sense and I have neither the client or the collection to justify paying opportunity cost
Holder and stickers aside grading early type at the higher UNC levels is all about the cheek and marks. I simply don't see that as a gem with it's slide marks and cheek discoloration (rub). It looks like a 63+ to 64- (technical grade) to these eyes that got a bump because it is so damn pretty. I would bid 64 money but the real trick is picking which 64 to compare it to. That said if a bidder or dealer decided to factor in opportunity cost on top of the 64 range into the evaluation because it wouldn't be easy to replace, that makes sense to me but I wouldn't play along unless there was a better overton involved as well. The dealer would have to know the buyer to pay that or the collector would have to "have it" for the extra cost to makes sense and I have neither the client or the collection to justify paying opportunity cost
That reduces the quandary somewhat. If you can share your observations from the few auction records of the past 5 years, it would likely even better illustrate your point. This seems a space designed to enhance collector knowledge. As a veteran collector, your perspective is like as useful as that of many dealers.
If you were to suspend a technical judgment and make the assumption that the gold bean and great toning suggest very strongly the market perception that a gold bean represents but "too nice to be anything less than high-end 64", what market event data (technical and "eye") would you specifically use in your "algorithm"SWAG guesstimate?
Holder and stickers aside grading early type at the higher UNC levels is all about the cheek and marks. I simply don't see that as a gem with it's slide marks and cheek discoloration (rub). It looks like a 63+ to 64- (technical grade) to these eyes that got a bump because it is so damn pretty. I would bid 64 money but the real trick is picking which 64 to compare it to. That said if a bidder or dealer decided to factor in opportunity cost on top of the 64 range into the evaluation because it wouldn't be easy to replace, that makes sense to me but I wouldn't play along unless there was a better overton involved as well. The dealer would have to know the buyer to pay that or the collector would have to "have it" for the extra cost to makes sense and I have neither the client or the collection to justify paying opportunity cost
That reduces the quandary somewhat. If you can share your observations from the few auction records of the past 5 years, it would likely even better illustrate your point. This seems a space designed to enhance collector knowledge. As a veteran collector, your perspective is like as useful as that of many dealers.
If you were to suspend a technical judgment and make the assumption that the gold bean and great toning suggest very strongly the market perception that a gold bean represents but "too nice to be anything less than high-end 64", what market event data (technical and "eye") would you specifically use in your "algorithm"SWAG guesstimate?
I’m not sure that I agree the market perception assumes that it is too nice be anything other than a highend 64. Many might infer that but when in comes to price spreads in the upper UNC ranges and people’s wallets. Every point has to be earned and the holder still trumps a sticker to a point
Pretty 64s look to bring up to about 7k (plain only 3500+) so i was a dealer i would price it 6500, take 6ish and offer 4-4.25 (with 4500 as my exit strat) if I dealt in that market. That said the gold bean adds to the 63 price and I wouldn’t be the type to add opportunity pricing to that coin. People pricing it at the top of 64 and then adding a cac premium doesn’t make sense to me. Looking at the trueview I think PCGS got it right although a + or 4 wouldn’t necessarily be wrong.
There is a pedigreed 64+ CAC outlier that brought 15k but it is a superior Coin. I don’t think dealers can count on those results. 7500 might be a decent ask if fishing for a buyer and not pressed to move it
at auction it could bring all the money or it could sell strong for a 3.
I've run into this conundrum. Personally, I would price it high enough that it felt almost ridiculous. That way only someone who REALLY want's it, would buy it. Then I would be happy with what I got out of it. If no one buys it, then I get to keep the beautiful coin. Guide at 64 is $5500, 64+ $6750 and 65 $15,000. If I did not need to sell it and really liked it, I'd ask $16,000 and would be happy if I got it. I might be willing to go down to $14,000, but for less than that, I'd keep it. But, that's just my opinion.
So you’d price the coin based primarily upon a listed price guide value, as opposed to actual prices realized for examples that have actually sold?😮
I check the guide and I check the pricing on recent realized transactions. There aren't always recent realized transactions to go from. In that case, I do what I did in the scenario above. I also stated that if I really liked the coin (which in this case, I did) I would price it very high, that way I would be happy if it sells and happy if it did not. I don't price every coin by the guide price.
Depends on how much I need the money. This is a pretty unique piece. For full retail I think it deserves at least 64+ CAC money plus a bump for eye appeal. Wouldn't be out of line to see it in a dealers case for 8k, imo.
Comments
You didn't tell us that there is a True View.
A willing buyer and willing seller certainly has an impact on the process, but the pricing method presented assumes the market as a whole conducts transactions based on price guides that may or may not be accurate, and assumes realized prices are not worth consideration.
Would the pricing method discussed be the same, if another piece of equal quality sold for the lower end of the range presented, in the last year, but the price guide did not account for that actual sale?
If the answer is yes, I would conclude the seller does not want to sell based on the realized prices in the market, and I would not make an offer.
As stated, my opinion, only.
That is the point....illogical logic. There is always a "But".
That is an assumption not based on fact, I think.
I deliberately used the words equal quality to set aside the often used 'But" Rule of discussion.
The OP should be complimented for stirring the pot
If you were to suspend a technical judgment and make the assumption that the gold bean and great toning suggest very strongly the market perception that a gold bean represents but "too nice to be anything less than high-end 64", what market event data (technical and "eye") would you specifically use in your
"algorithm"SWAGguesstimate?at auction it could bring all the money or it could sell strong for a 3.