Marketing or numismatics?

breakdown

I have long believed that certain things about coin collecting have more to do with marketing than they do with the advancement of the hobby. That’s okay - dealers are entitled to make money and grading services are allowed to encourage submissions. But I try to avoid allowing these things to dictate how I collect and build my collection. 

Two come to mind immediately for me:
1.  Strike designations.  I never collected Standing liberty quarters or mercury dimes for this reason. The significance of strike in my mind should apply to the entire coin, not just the bands or even the head. 

2.  Plus grades.  It’s hard for me to see how adding  plus grades for all the grades between 60 and 70 has benefited collectors much. Not to mention all the circulated grades.  

Disagree?  Do any others come to mind? 

TurtleCat

I think the plus grade gives the average collector a little more leverage when trying to sell to a dealer who stereotypically (though sadly commonly) will claim it's low end for the grade when buying and high end when selling. Having the fact the TPG thought it was high end on the holder gives a small bit of help to the average seller.

tejas1836

I think all the different special labels such as First Strike, Early Release etc. would fall heavily on the marketing side.

Legend

There are 3 types of coins: low end, solid for the grade, and high end. A + should be very high end w/great eye appeal. For as much as I've seen some questionable + coins, I think it works.

FloridaFacelifter

I like the “+” designations, but FBL, FT, FS, FB, etc., just seems a little too much. What’s next- FBF (full breast feathers) for Morgans or FC (full claw) for CBH? Seems a little silly. But then again my primary focus is not Franklins, Jeffersons, Walkers or Mercury dimes- one of each in proof is all I need for my type set. 

MeantToBeSpent

Full step Jefferson Nickel collecting was around before TPGs (since the late 70's) and I believe the same is true for FB mercs, FBL halves, and FH quarters. (FB Roosies may have been the only newer addition). These are major aspects of the design of the coin and offer a lot of challenge and rarity. Coins without these attributes just don't look the same, and shouldn't be considered in the same ballpark as non-designated ones.

The problem is one shouldn't need a TPG to tell them whether the coin gets the designation or not. It's just obvious by looking at the coin and even a beginner should be able to tell! But over time standards have been applied inconsistently. Sometimes nicks on steps/lines/bands, etc stop it, sometimes they don't.

As for plus grades I'm sure any collector could probably divide all his coins up into the ones he/she thinks are high end or low end for the grade. I'm sure some could accurately decimal grade, ie say ms66.0 to ms66.9 throughout his/her collection. But we get into the same problem of consistency over several different graders or grading events. Such a fine scale as plus grades have in de facto made every single coin an upgrade candidate. Even the best graders might mess up or disagree 5% of the time, and so even if a coin grades ms67 (the correct grade) 90% of the time and ms66+ 5% and ms67+ 5% of the time, the value gained is often worth it for it to be submitted over and over until it gets the ms67+. This has in de facto made almost every coin over-graded (at least at or near the top pop levels).

So to answer the original question I think in an ideal world with consistent standards both things could be purely a positive advancement in numismatics, but unfortunately our world is not ideal and they have been used primary as marketing tools to encourage resubmissions.

sparky64

I haven't seen as many "+" coins as many here but from what I have seen and bought, I'm a fan.
Generally they do seem to stand out to me, having extraordinary luster or eye appeal. 

Pyrite

I likes my plus.

Wabbit

I don't mind FB an Mercs and FH on quarters. The really high grade coins I own, with those designations, are totally amazing, all around.

Catbert

@MeantToBeSpent

I think I get your drift, but a couple of sentences seem contradictory in your post:

RE: plus grades: "Such a fine scale as plus grades have in de facto made every single coin an upgrade candidate"
Then resubmittals: "This has in de facto made almost every coin over-graded (at least at or near the top pop levels)"

So, plus graded coins will be viewed as upgrade candidates, but once submitted they will be overgraded if they upgrade? I'm sure some will fall in this category, but I have trouble with the assertion that most upgrades will be overgraded. I would think the upgrades will be few since the graders won't be inclined to second guess themselves.

Catbert

Regarding the strike designations, you'd think this would be important to a type collector like me. However, I think in isolation, it's meaningless since there are other factors that can inspire my appreciation when looking at the coin in its totality. If I cared about registry points, perhaps I'd have to change my thinking.

MeantToBeSpent

Haha, yeah, after I posted I thought some might find those sentences contradictory. I guess to clarify.... very loosely speaking "every single coin not recently submitted" may be considered an upgrade candidate and "almost every coin offered for sale/auction in a new holder" could be considered over-graded. I re-iterate that this is very loosely speaking (and I probably should never use a work like "every"). Of course each individual coin stands on its own merits. Plus grades just exacerbate this phenomena. And strike designations are just another avenue for TPG's to be overly picky or overly lenient.

I'm glad to hear you don't care about registry points and collect what you want. Many collectors, even of series with strike designations, are the same way too. For me all my Jeffs/Roosies have to meet the min of ms66/ms67 respectively and then if FS/FB coins are available at that level I'll chase them. It means I'll never have a top FS/FB set or a top non-FS/FB set but I will have a truly nice set overall that will fit in the theme of a true gem collection of all mint state coins 1934-date.

breakdown

A lot of good perspectives. 

For plus grades, something I see a lot is juiced pricing for plus grades. For example, if you have a particular coin in CAC/CDN MS64 priced at 5000 and MS65 at 20000, you might see a dealer price an MS 64+ at $18,000.  This seems unjustified, particularly since CAC ignores the + and is only validating the coin at 64. Again, I have no problem with a dealer making a living.  I just don’t see this kind of plus pricing as beneficial to the hobby. 

TurtleCat

breakdown said:

A lot of good perspectives. 

For plus grades, something I see a lot is juiced pricing for plus grades. For example, if you have a particular coin in CAC/CDN MS64 priced at 5000 and MS65 at 20000, you might see a dealer price an MS 64+ at $18,000.  This seems unjustified, particularly since CAC ignores the + and is only validating the coin at 64. Again, I have no problem with a dealer making a living.  I just don’t see this kind of plus pricing as beneficial to the hobby. 

I think the appeal is mostly to registry minded people who are in active competition. They want those minor point enhancers. Even though I participate in the PCGS registry, I'm not interested in competing to that degree. I don't have the money to anyway. But I use the CAC vs + to my advantage. For example, I had an opportunity to get am 1874 G$1 in 66 or 66+. Both CAC. The only real difference was the + on the holder (the other was in an older holder before + was a thing). A significant price difference between the two. I opted for the 66 as to my eye it was just as premium as the other and could reholder as 66+ probably.

So, yes, it is rather silly how the pricing has gone for + grades but you can also use it to your advantage.

Winesteven

breakdown said:

It’s hard for me to see how adding  plus grades for all the grades between 60 and 70 has benefited collectors much. 

Yes, I’m being nit-picking, but 60’s, 61’s and 69’s are ineligible for plus grades.

Nic

breakdown said:

A lot of good perspectives. 

For plus grades, something I see a lot is juiced pricing for plus grades. For example, if you have a particular coin in CAC/CDN MS64 priced at 5000 and MS65 at 20000, you might see a dealer price an MS 64+ at $18,000.  This seems unjustified, particularly since CAC ignores the + and is only validating the coin at 64. Again, I have no problem with a dealer making a living.  I just don’t see this kind of plus pricing as beneficial to the hobby. 

I keep seeing more and more PCGS plus grades as time goes on. Lost meaning to me. Perhaps the required multiple steps to a full point upgrade? CAC coins I have owned before, after several years and auctions, have now upgraded with the plus and automatically get a green bean. They are now graded higher than the CAC coin I replaced them with.

I hope the new service will evaluate the plus grades on a case-by-case basis as the + was not considered before. If not no problem.

Afterall, the coin is what it is.

CACfan

breakdown said:

I have long believed that certain things about coin collecting have more to do with marketing than they do with the advancement of the hobby. That’s okay - dealers are entitled to make money and grading services are allowed to encourage submissions. But I try to avoid allowing these things to dictate how I collect and build my collection. 

Two come to mind immediately for me:
1.  Strike designations.  I never collected Standing liberty quarters or mercury dimes for this reason. The significance of strike in my mind should apply to the entire coin, not just the bands or even the head. 

2.  Plus grades.  It’s hard for me to see how adding  plus grades for all the grades between 60 and 70 has benefited collectors much. Not to mention all the circulated grades.  

Disagree?  Do any others come to mind? 

All of your pet peeves and the like may have started out as dealer god David Hall's marketing strategies yet they nonetheless enhance the collecting experience. I have no complaints both as a full-time dealer and collector. Bring on yet more collecting angles.

Legend

I just bought an MS64+ that is a 64.9+++. The real deal. Now there wad a coin that should have a super premium. NOT all + should. I wonder how some + even get there.

noahlh

Speaking of strike designations, I know the series doesn't get a lot of love but if we're playing the game, I think V nickels should get some love too! A friend who collects them taught me that the left corn cob on the reverse is often gummy and flat, even on MS67s.

My friends and I joke about the future "Full Cob" designation on the series. But it's something to look out for!

For example, these are both 1903 PCGS 67s:

Vincent.Savage

Legend said:

I just bought an MS64+ that is a 64.9+++. The real deal. Now there wad a coin that should have a super premium. NOT all + should. I wonder how some + even get there.

 Many of us collectors have discussed this many times.   Without hard proof to support our thoughts , we’d be tarred & feather for making any accusations .     

 So looking forward to CACG .  In the past I’ve had 66+ Saints with cac that I too have wondered how it got there.    Then I remember  that cac is grading the grade not the plus +
( sigh of relief ) 

   I think it’ll be a good thing the distancing between the + & green bean.  

oldabe

The only strike designation that interests me is FH. A lot of design detail is often lost on the SLQ. The loss of design for other strike designations is trivial compared to the overall quality of the strike.