Its easy being a dealer

[azda]

list a coin from a well know collection, add half a grade here and there and then double the purchase price and wait for someone to grab the bait

[azda]

[Colin88]

shock , horror !! 

[Peckris 2]

Mind you, the second seller is still asking just below the top end of Spink's estimate.

[1949threepence]

Went for £3,500 hammer in May 2015 - link

Went for £2,200 hammer in September 2019 - link

So it went for less the second time, and it certainly looks aEF, not EF or better..

Both sales by Spink 

Who is the second seller? They've conveniently omitted to mention the drop in price from 2015 to 2019.

Edited November 13, 2019 by 1949threepence

[azda]

12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Went for £3,500 hammer in May 2015 - link

Went for £2,200 hammer in September 2019 - link

So it went for less the second time, and it certainly looks aEF, not EF or better..

Both sales by Spink 

Who is the second seller? They've conveniently omitted to mention the drop in price from 2015 to 2019.

Spink have obviously graded it the same both times, why he thinks he can get away with upping the grade to full EF OR BETTER for a coin from a named collection is beyond me, I bet the seller who bought from Spink in 2015 is spitting feathers that it's dropped like that.

[azda]

2nd seller is wessexcoins

[Peckris 2]

8 hours ago, azda said:

2nd seller is wessexcoins

Ah. The "new MP" 

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Ah. The "new MP" 

The new MP?

[azda]

7 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

The new MP?

Begins with Martin and ends in Platt

[mhcoins]

On 11/14/2019 at 12:03 PM, azda said:

2nd seller is wessexcoins

In Wessex's coins defence, its his opinion on what its worth, and given the prices some other retailers are offering guineas for, you could argue its not excessive. Furthermore its only an asking price, I assume he hasn't sold it for the quoted price, he still needs to find a buyer. It could be in stock for some time ... who knows.

[mhcoins]

Furthermore this in effect is what TPG does aswell. Grading whether its by Spink, baldwins or even ourselves is our opinion, perhaps the buyer felt it was conservatively graded in auction ??? I remember years ago I had a gothic crown which was listed in auction as almost uncirculated. I sold it accordingly, only to find out at a later date its buyer had it graded and it achieved a 67 grade at PCGS. It went from being a 5,000 coin to a 30,000 + coin over night 

Edited November 15, 2019 by mhcoins

[azda]

4 hours ago, mhcoins said:

Furthermore this in effect is what TPG does aswell. Grading whether its by Spink, baldwins or even ourselves is our opinion, perhaps the buyer felt it was conservatively graded in auction ??? I remember years ago I had a gothic crown which was listed in auction as almost uncirculated. I sold it accordingly, only to find out at a later date its buyer had it graded and it achieved a 67 grade at PCGS. It went from being a 5,000 coin to a 30,000 + coin over night 

It seems a common statement from some dealers these days that “they believe it’s undergraded” it’s an easy ploy to increase the price. His 1893 crown was UNC on MA and VF at Spink, although Spink was a little undergraded, but it didn’t merit a UNC tag what so ever. Half a grade here and a grade there all adds up to overpricing in the dealers favour if it sells, just the start a of a continual downward spiral. The integrity of this hobby is being slowly eradicated by greed.

Edited November 15, 2019 by azda

[mhcoins]

No one is being forced to buy from him nor is anyone being forced to agree with his grades. Perhaps a little caution and caveat emptor could be expressed over the grading but he is entitled to make a profit. If someone chooses to buy it, I'd guess it will be based on its provenance and from the look of the coin in the photo or of it in hand, not from his grade he has listed. Many Slaney coins since the sale have gone on and sold for double the original sale prices. Looks like it was a cheap buy at the recent auction but I'd guess this will remain unsold for a long while at the asking price.

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, azda said:

It seems a common statement from some dealers these days that “they believe it’s undergraded” it’s an easy ploy to increase the price. His 1893 crown was UNC on MA and VF at Spink, although Spink was a little undergraded, but it didn’t merit a UNC tag what so ever. Half a grade here and a grade there all adds up to overpricing in the dealers favour if it sells, just the start a of a continual downward spiral. The integrity of this hobby is being slowly eradicated by greed.

If you look at the pictorial examples of different grades in Spink, you can easily come to the conclusion that their grades are very old-fashioned - somewhat lower than the average.

[Rob]

Grading is/was/always will be an inexact science. Consider the item below and the grades assigned. It is an Oxford 1645 F-7 halfcrown with the following provenance and the grades assigned were as follows:

Mrs Street, collection bought by Marsham.

R W Marsham-Townsend 563,  VF

H Montagu (III) 516, VF

G Hamilton-Smith (1913) 95, Unusually good

R C Lockett 2460, Mint State

F Willis 298, VF

Lloyd Bennett, gVF or better.

FWIW, I would give it as not far off as struck. So aEF but a little soft in the strike, with the thin wear lines on the top of some reverse detail clearly showing how little actual wear there is, but visually you couldn't argue convincingly against any of them except the Lockett description, which gives an absolute grade. It just depends on what the focal point is.

Just buy the coin as you see it, because there is no way we are going to get universal agreement on this topic.

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Rob

[azda]

Very true Rob regarding your last sentence, but grading hammered is a whole different beast than milled

[azda]

10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

If you look at the pictorial examples of different grades in Spink, you can easily come to the conclusion that their grades are very old-fashioned - somewhat lower than the average.

It begs the question if modern grading has gone downhill from the previous 50 years, how and when did it change, sooner or later will our VF grading become UNC?, it seems its getting watered down, so why were the gradings of the last 50-60 years so wrong?

I wonder what the Baldwins grade was in 1943 for this guinea was

Edited November 16, 2019 by azda

[1949threepence]

26 minutes ago, azda said:

It begs the question if modern grading has gone downhill from the previous 50 years, how and when did it change, sooner or later will our VF grading become UNC?, it seems its getting watered down, so why were the gradings of the last 50-60 years so wrong?

I wonder what the Baldwins grade was in 1943 for this guinea was

What I find most dishonest about Wessex Coins is not the difference between "about EF" and "EF or better", as that's fairly subjective.

It's the fact they've deliberately omitted to mention the result of the 2019 Spink auction, whilst including the 2015 one, and adding "previously purchased from Baldwin in 1943". 

Of course, they'll be found out eventually by whoever buys the coin (assuming someone does) and they're doing their own reputation more harm than any short term profit can do them good. I certainly wouldn't trust them.    

 

[Rob]

36 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

What I find most dishonest about Wessex Coins is not the difference between "about EF" and "EF or better", as that's fairly subjective.

It's the fact they've deliberately omitted to mention the result of the 2019 Spink auction, whilst including the 2015 one, and adding "previously purchased from Baldwin in 1943". 

Of course, they'll be found out eventually by whoever buys the coin (assuming someone does) and they're doing their own reputation more harm than any short term profit can do them good. I certainly wouldn't trust them.    

 

That's been done by auction houses ad infinitum. You can take practically any coin over the past couple of centuries and find that in any one sale they will miss out part of the provenance.

Marketing is about trying to talk up the item in question, so the last thing you want to do is say the market for these is a bit weak at the moment. I have no problem with this, as I believe it is in everyone's interest to do the necessary due diligence. In the case of sales documented on the internet, if you care about prices, do a modicum of research. If you don't care about prices, the only people who are miffed are the ones who made the checks and concluded they are not buying. There's no point being miffed by proxy.

Another reason for missing recent sale info is that it gives the impression someone is trying to turn it round for a quick profit, which seems to put some people off. Anyone in business is trying/has to do this to make a living. The same goes for a private collector who buys a bulk lot for one or two coins, then wants to sell the surplus. He isn't going to say give me the difference between market value of the coins I want to keep and the cost of the lot, rather try to maximise his return without reference to the fact that he probably got the bulk lot at a huge discount to individual prices in the first place. It's marketing and I don't believe does any harm other than the purchaser to kick themselves for missing the bargain when it sold cheaply. I have bought many coins soon after they were sold for more money than at the sale and will do so in the future. You can't be in all places at the same time.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Rob

[azda]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

What I find most dishonest about Wessex Coins is not the difference between "about EF" and "EF or better", as that's fairly subjective.

It's the fact they've deliberately omitted to mention the result of the 2019 Spink auction, whilst including the 2015 one, and adding "previously purchased from Baldwin in 1943". 

Of course, they'll be found out eventually by whoever buys the coin (assuming someone does) and they're doing their own reputation more harm than any short term profit can do them good. I certainly wouldn't trust them.    

 

Can it be subjective if the coin has/had been graded consistently as AEF since 1943? 

[mhcoins]

if someone says its AEF or GEF it doesn't mean it is, make your own opinion. 

[azda]

14 minutes ago, mhcoins said:

if someone says its AEF or GEF it doesn't mean it is, make your own opinion. 

Which again brings me back to my point, overgrading for more money. Yes of course no one has to buy, but its the consistency of dealers to overgrade which in turn could burn newbies. Lets be clear, I'm not against dealers making money (and to be honest, dealers shouldn't have a monopoly or think they have a monopoly of making a profit), I'm talking about integrity that's slowly being killed off for profits

Edited November 16, 2019 by azda

[1949threepence]

58 minutes ago, Rob said:

That's been done by auction houses ad infinitum. You can take practically any coin over the past couple of centuries and find that in any one sale they will miss out part of the provenance.

Marketing is about trying to talk up the item in question, so the last thing you want to do is say the market for these is a bit weak at the moment. I have no problem with this, as I believe it is in everyone's interest to do the necessary due diligence. In the case of sales documented on the internet, if you care about prices, do a modicum of research. If you don't care about prices, the only people who are miffed are the ones who made the checks and concluded they are not buying. There's no point being miffed by proxy.

Another reason for missing recent sale info is that it gives the impression someone is trying to turn it round for a quick profit, which seems to put some people off. Anyone in business is trying/has to do this to make a living. The same goes for a private collector who buys a bulk lot for one or two coins, then wants to sell the surplus. He isn't going to say give me the difference between market value of the coins I want to keep and the cost of the lot, rather try to maximise his return without reference to the fact that he probably got the bulk lot at a huge discount to individual prices in the first place. It's marketing and I don't believe does any harm other than the purchaser to kick themselves for missing the bargain when it sold cheaply. I have bought many coins soon after they were sold for more money than at the sale and will do so in the future. You can't be in all places at the same time.

I agree with you about doing your own research, and my own motto, at the bottom of all my posts, reflects "caveat emptor". But it's still essentially dishonest, or at any rate being "economical with the truth". If Wessex Coins do get the asking price then it's one hell of a mark up from what they bought it for, including juice. 

It's not illegal, and I wouldn't have much sympathy with a buyer who fell for it and started whining. If it was me, I'd be annoyed more with myself than them, learn from it and move on. Any buyer should have performed, as you say, due diligence. But that still doesn't in any sense negate the sharp practice involved, and it doesn't enhance their reputation as honest brokers.        

7 minutes ago, azda said:

Can it be subjective if the coin has/had been graded consistently as AEF since 1943? 

Yes, it's still opinion based. They don't have to go along with previous gradings. 

[azda]

3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I agree with you about doing your own research, and my own motto, at the bottom of all my posts, reflects "caveat emptor". But it's still essentially dishonest, or at any rate being "economical with the truth". If Wessex Coins do get the asking price then it's one hell of a mark up from what they bought it for, including juice. 

It's not illegal, and I wouldn't have much sympathy with a buyer who fell for it and started whining. If it was me, I'd be annoyed more with myself than them, learn from it and move on. Any buyer should have performed, as you say, due diligence. But that still doesn't in any sense negate the sharp practice involved, and it doesn't enhance their reputation as honest brokers.        

Yes, it's still opinion based. They don't have to go along with previous gradings. 

That’s because if they overgrade they can increase the price. Grading back in the day was consistent.