Why Slabs are more popular in US than UK

To me, a simple answer. The US is a much larger country, physically.
The 'sight unseen' market has rewarded reliable and consistent
third-party grading for taking much of the risk out of buying coins
'remotely'.

That is, by mail, phone or internet, buying an NGC MS-64 Antietam Half
Dollar carries a high degree of quality assurance, even without a
physical visit.

Now if the entire marketplace was geographically no larger than
Michigan...a physical visit to the coin before purchase would make more
sense than supporting a third-party grading service.

Alan
'just my theory'

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:16:12 -0500, Alan Williams
wrote:

To me, a simple answer. The US is a much larger country, physically.
The 'sight unseen' market has rewarded reliable and consistent
third-party grading for taking much of the risk out of buying coins
'remotely'.

That is, by mail, phone or internet, buying an NGC MS-64 Antietam Half
Dollar carries a high degree of quality assurance, even without a
physical visit.

Now if the entire marketplace was geographically no larger than
Michigan...a physical visit to the coin before purchase would make more
sense than supporting a third-party grading service.

Alan
'just my theory'

I don't think it's the physical size, I think it's the size in money spent
and marketing. More collectors vying for the same coins creating the
minute grade splits worth $1000's creating the need for experts who can at
least get a grade "right" 7 times out of 10.

"Alan Williams" wrote in message
...
To me, a simple answer. The US is a much larger country, physically.
The 'sight unseen' market has rewarded reliable and consistent
third-party grading for taking much of the risk out of buying coins
'remotely'.

That is, by mail, phone or internet, buying an NGC MS-64 Antietam Half
Dollar carries a high degree of quality assurance, even without a
physical visit.

Now if the entire marketplace was geographically no larger than
Michigan...a physical visit to the coin before purchase would make more
sense than supporting a third-party grading service.

Alan
'just my theory'

Too simple - too neat.

USA: Area - 9,629,091 sq km
Australia: 7,686,850 sq km
UK: 244,820 sq km

We Aussies have also rejected slabbing out of hand. The only start-up
slabbing company closed down (I *think* they're defunct. We certainly don't
hear of them any more.)

Maybe you need to put "population per unit area" into the equation. (We're
still less than 20 million)

I think its not down to a physical characteristic as much as an issue of
collective personality. We Colonials share much of Mother England's traits -
disdain for slabs is probably one of them.

The USA is truly the land of commerce - of free enterprise. Slabs promote
that ideal, at the expense of the aesthetics of the collector. We
Commonwealthers are much more Traditionalist. Bugger the sale value! I want to
feel the history of the coin through my fingertips. What!? A 300% price jump
for one undetectable grade point increase? Don't be silly, old man!

We left-pondians (and lower-pondians) are very different to youse 'Merkins.
We both meekly and subserviently accepted the change from
pounds/shilling/pence to decimal currency. Can you imagine such unanimous
(almost) acceptance from the USofA on (just about) ANY issue of such gravitas?
I can't. Try proposing that the US treasury abolish the cent and/or the
dollar bill. Try discussing that proposal on this small-scale venue.

Slabs (like the .45) are the great equalisers. Anyone can invest profitably
in old coins, because the slab commodifies (izzat a word?) them. Aussies and
Poms don't want that crass level of commercialisation - wheras Yanks
by-and-large don't even notice that aspect of the trend.

Enough generalisations and blanket statements.

Whadd'ya reckon, huh?

--
Jeff R.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:57:12 +1100, "Jeff R."
wrote:


"Alan Williams" wrote in message
...
To me, a simple answer. The US is a much larger country, physically.
The 'sight unseen' market has rewarded reliable and consistent
third-party grading for taking much of the risk out of buying coins
'remotely'.

That is, by mail, phone or internet, buying an NGC MS-64 Antietam Half
Dollar carries a high degree of quality assurance, even without a
physical visit.

Now if the entire marketplace was geographically no larger than
Michigan...a physical visit to the coin before purchase would make more
sense than supporting a third-party grading service.

Alan
'just my theory'

Too simple - too neat.

USA: Area - 9,629,091 sq km
Australia: 7,686,850 sq km
UK: 244,820 sq km

We Aussies have also rejected slabbing out of hand. The only start-up
slabbing company closed down (I *think* they're defunct. We certainly don't
hear of them any more.)

Maybe you need to put "population per unit area" into the equation. (We're
still less than 20 million)

I think its not down to a physical characteristic as much as an issue of
collective personality. We Colonials share much of Mother England's traits -
disdain for slabs is probably one of them.

The USA is truly the land of commerce - of free enterprise. Slabs promote
that ideal, at the expense of the aesthetics of the collector. We
Commonwealthers are much more Traditionalist. Bugger the sale value! I want to
feel the history of the coin through my fingertips. What!? A 300% price jump
for one undetectable grade point increase? Don't be silly, old man!

We left-pondians (and lower-pondians) are very different to youse 'Merkins.
We both meekly and subserviently accepted the change from
pounds/shilling/pence to decimal currency. Can you imagine such unanimous
(almost) acceptance from the USofA on (just about) ANY issue of such gravitas?
I can't. Try proposing that the US treasury abolish the cent and/or the
dollar bill. Try discussing that proposal on this small-scale venue.

Slabs (like the .45) are the great equalisers. Anyone can invest profitably
in old coins, because the slab commodifies (izzat a word?) them. Aussies and
Poms don't want that crass level of commercialisation - wheras Yanks
by-and-large don't even notice that aspect of the trend.

Enough generalisations and blanket statements.

Whadd'ya reckon, huh?

Actually, I really liked your analogies.

Those are the kind of generalizations and blanket statements that can
make an American proud. Almost brought tears to my eyes :-)

Ron

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:16:12 -0500, Alan Williams
wrote:

To me, a simple answer. The US is a much larger country, physically.
The 'sight unseen' market has rewarded reliable and consistent
third-party grading for taking much of the risk out of buying coins
'remotely'.

The problem with this theory is Canada. Canada is also quite
big, yet is apparently nowhere near as slab-crazy as the US is.

I also have a nice simple hypothesis into the matter, and can be
stated as thus: Slabs help perpetuate an absurd price/grade
scheme.

Of course, when you think about it, this is not too simple. The
best explanation is that when (Sheldon) numerical graded got
established, there was supposed to be a simple relationship
between grade and price, a linear formulation where value = basal
value * grade, where the basal value is the value of a basal
state coin. This worked briefly for 1794 large cents, but
quickly failed, both for rarity, condition census coins, and many
other purposes. But the scheme, which correlated old word grades
into numerical grades, had the best uncirculated coin worth
7/6ths the amount of the least best uncirculated coin, and thus
occupied 60-70 in the scale.

Sheldon originally used the grades 60, 65, and 70 for
uncirculated. Of course, the grade of a coin falls along a
continuum (more exactly, it's a multidimensional continuum based
on many factors which complicates things so we'll ignore that for
now), and, to a certain extent, we can imagine coins that fall
somewhere between a 65 and a 70, or between a 60 and a 65. And
thus was born 63 and 67. But we still have a continuum and so
eventually we got 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, and 69 also. And some
companies have used fractional grades also!

But there's a big problem in all this. No one grades exactly
alike. Let's take a look at the condition census of the 1793 S-1
large cent, in CQR (17th ed), Penny Prices (1st ed), and the
Breen-Borkart encyclopedia:

CQR: 63-60-55-50-45-45 (3 45's total)
PP: 63-55-50-50-45-45 (4 45's total)
BrB: 61-60-50-50-50-50
NGC: finest _seen_ is 62 (not necessarily equivalent to #1 on
condition census, also not EAC standards)

And as is obvious, they differ, even though all are using EAC
standards. But this should not be a surprise. We all see coins
differently, and, as we add finer and finer gradations to our
continuum, where the coins go on that continuum becomes less and
less precise. The crackout game is more evidence for this.
Further, even the most reputable slabbing companies will quite
often grade coins differently from one another, or even at
different times with the same service.

Now, to make money as a coin dealer, you must sell coins at a
higher price than what you buy them at (at least on average).
There are of course plenty of ethical ways of doing this, but
also more than enough ways to stretch ethics or get rid of them
entirely. And thus comes the practice of buying at one grade and
selling at a higher one. So let's say you have a coin you want
to buy from a dealer (we are still in the pre-slab/pre-ANACS
era). Dealer says it's a 65 and offers it at a 65 price. You
buy, and agree with the grade and price. A couple of years go
buy, prices go up, and you want to sell, we'll say to the same
dealer (in a different holder). Dealer says its a 64 and offers
to buy at a 64 price, which is much much less than a 65 price.
You can try to argue grade with him, but how much will that do?
Do you really think you can reliably tell a 64 from a 65? So you
don't sell, eventually selling to someone else. Many people go
through the same thing. This gets everyone thinking, "hmm, if
any 65 I buy can only be resold for 64 money which is much much
less, why buy a 65 at the present price when I can wait for a
collapse or buy an imperceptibly worse 64 at 10 times less cost
and much less downside if that's downgraded at resale." Of
course, if this were to come to past, it would not be good
financially for dealers of high-grade material.

So how to fool most of the people most of the time? Well, some
big-shot dealers get together and decide to start grading and
certifying said grades of coins. Now, instead of the dealer
grading some coin, some of his friends now do it, either as a
second job in some cases or else after having to quit dealing
(but who says they can't become a dealer again upon stopping
grading; nice little revolving door even with a dealer/grader
"independence"). So now you can still buy that 65 at a 65 price
which is much much higher than a 64 piece would bring. But of
course the big-shot dealers can no longer buy at one grade and
sell at a higher one, and a nice compromise. Or is it? The
wholesale/retail split will increase with grade, so not all is
lost for the dealer. And, with such an absurd grade/price scheme
being perpetuated, it only needs to be taken one step further.
It's already being claimed that small differences in grade bring
large differences in price. So why not, even smaller
differences? This, now, you can buy from a dealer a 65 that is
"strong for a grade" and "essentially a 66" and "undergraded,"
according to the dealer at a price that is mere multiples of the
guide price for a 65. Of course, when it's time to sell,
suddenly that 65 is "weak for the grade," and only worth a small
fraction of the 65 guide price.

(Note: I do not in any way claim that all dealers are like this.)

And the theory makes sense. What other country's numismatic
market has such a grade/price scheme?

snip

*****
[1] Oh wait, I forgot this is a family newsgroup. Instead, let's
say "the fluffy bunny family's wayward brother will help you get
your foot in the door of his concrete and short dock company."
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143

Any new collector reading Ed's post should print it out and read it each
time they are considering buying a high MS coin at silly money.

Anyone that has already been sucked into the myth that coins can be
graded with a microscope and that high MS coins are worth multiples of
the alleged lesser coins have too much to loose if they don't defend the
current grading system in the USA, so don't expect a change of attitude
any time soon. Billy


"Ed. Stoebenau" wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:16:12 -0500, Alan Williams
wrote:

To me, a simple answer. The US is a much larger country, physically.
The 'sight unseen' market has rewarded reliable and consistent
third-party grading for taking much of the risk out of buying coins
'remotely'.

The problem with this theory is Canada. Canada is also quite
big, yet is apparently nowhere near as slab-crazy as the US is.

I also have a nice simple hypothesis into the matter, and can be
stated as thus: Slabs help perpetuate an absurd price/grade
scheme.

Of course, when you think about it, this is not too simple. The
best explanation is that when (Sheldon) numerical graded got
established, there was supposed to be a simple relationship
between grade and price, a linear formulation where value = basal
value * grade, where the basal value is the value of a basal
state coin. This worked briefly for 1794 large cents, but
quickly failed, both for rarity, condition census coins, and many
other purposes. But the scheme, which correlated old word grades
into numerical grades, had the best uncirculated coin worth
7/6ths the amount of the least best uncirculated coin, and thus
occupied 60-70 in the scale.

Sheldon originally used the grades 60, 65, and 70 for
uncirculated. Of course, the grade of a coin falls along a
continuum (more exactly, it's a multidimensional continuum based
on many factors which complicates things so we'll ignore that for
now), and, to a certain extent, we can imagine coins that fall
somewhere between a 65 and a 70, or between a 60 and a 65. And
thus was born 63 and 67. But we still have a continuum and so
eventually we got 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, and 69 also. And some
companies have used fractional grades also!

But there's a big problem in all this. No one grades exactly
alike. Let's take a look at the condition census of the 1793 S-1
large cent, in CQR (17th ed), Penny Prices (1st ed), and the
Breen-Borkart encyclopedia:

CQR: 63-60-55-50-45-45 (3 45's total)
PP: 63-55-50-50-45-45 (4 45's total)
BrB: 61-60-50-50-50-50
NGC: finest _seen_ is 62 (not necessarily equivalent to #1 on
condition census, also not EAC standards)

And as is obvious, they differ, even though all are using EAC
standards. But this should not be a surprise. We all see coins
differently, and, as we add finer and finer gradations to our
continuum, where the coins go on that continuum becomes less and
less precise. The crackout game is more evidence for this.
Further, even the most reputable slabbing companies will quite
often grade coins differently from one another, or even at
different times with the same service.

Now, to make money as a coin dealer, you must sell coins at a
higher price than what you buy them at (at least on average).
There are of course plenty of ethical ways of doing this, but
also more than enough ways to stretch ethics or get rid of them
entirely. And thus comes the practice of buying at one grade and
selling at a higher one. So let's say you have a coin you want
to buy from a dealer (we are still in the pre-slab/pre-ANACS
era). Dealer says it's a 65 and offers it at a 65 price. You
buy, and agree with the grade and price. A couple of years go
buy, prices go up, and you want to sell, we'll say to the same
dealer (in a different holder). Dealer says its a 64 and offers
to buy at a 64 price, which is much much less than a 65 price.
You can try to argue grade with him, but how much will that do?
Do you really think you can reliably tell a 64 from a 65? So you
don't sell, eventually selling to someone else. Many people go
through the same thing. This gets everyone thinking, "hmm, if
any 65 I buy can only be resold for 64 money which is much much
less, why buy a 65 at the present price when I can wait for a
collapse or buy an imperceptibly worse 64 at 10 times less cost
and much less downside if that's downgraded at resale." Of
course, if this were to come to past, it would not be good
financially for dealers of high-grade material.

So how to fool most of the people most of the time? Well, some
big-shot dealers get together and decide to start grading and
certifying said grades of coins. Now, instead of the dealer
grading some coin, some of his friends now do it, either as a
second job in some cases or else after having to quit dealing
(but who says they can't become a dealer again upon stopping
grading; nice little revolving door even with a dealer/grader
"independence"). So now you can still buy that 65 at a 65 price
which is much much higher than a 64 piece would bring. But of
course the big-shot dealers can no longer buy at one grade and
sell at a higher one, and a nice compromise. Or is it? The
wholesale/retail split will increase with grade, so not all is
lost for the dealer. And, with such an absurd grade/price scheme
being perpetuated, it only needs to be taken one step further.
It's already being claimed that small differences in grade bring
large differences in price. So why not, even smaller
differences? This, now, you can buy from a dealer a 65 that is
"strong for a grade" and "essentially a 66" and "undergraded,"
according to the dealer at a price that is mere multiples of the
guide price for a 65. Of course, when it's time to sell,
suddenly that 65 is "weak for the grade," and only worth a small
fraction of the 65 guide price.

(Note: I do not in any way claim that all dealers are like this.)

And the theory makes sense. What other country's numismatic
market has such a grade/price scheme?

snip

*****
[1] Oh wait, I forgot this is a family newsgroup. Instead, let's
say "the fluffy bunny family's wayward brother will help you get
your foot in the door of his concrete and short dock company."
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:45:15 -0600, Ed. Stoebenau
wrote:
I also have a nice simple hypothesis into the matter, and can be
stated as thus: Slabs help perpetuate an absurd price/grade
scheme.
snip

Excellent summary, Ed. There's also technical grading vs. 'market
grading', which leaves lots of room for hijinks.

To be fair, though, it's capitalism... grading services and dealers
couldn't exist without their customers who demand their 'products'.

Those customers who obsess over condition, however, tend to be more
'object fetishist' than numismatist, in my experience. Others are into
coins only as speculation ('investment'), and don't even care to look
at a coin, as long as the market accepts that the grade is reliable,
and high. Both have little to do with numismatics.

Chuck
http://tinyurl.com/45hrw

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:07:31 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:45:15 -0600, Ed. Stoebenau
wrote:
I also have a nice simple hypothesis into the matter, and can be
stated as thus: Slabs help perpetuate an absurd price/grade
scheme.
snip

Excellent summary, Ed. There's also technical grading vs. 'market
grading', which leaves lots of room for hijinks.

To be fair, though, it's capitalism... grading services and dealers
couldn't exist without their customers who demand their 'products'.

---snip---

Yep, and like any market they may crash someday (especially those
70's). Or never.

Ron

I cringe when I see those auctions for MS or PR70's. Not that I
wouldn't mind a set of them but I have kids to feed,,,,,

I have a few examples of PR70's but only from my own submissions.
Don't even plan on selling them, just part of my hoard,, lol. I'll
let my kids worry about it someday.

Ron

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:03:28 GMT, "note.boy"
wrote:

Any new collector reading Ed's post should print it out and read it each
time they are considering buying a high MS coin at silly money.

Anyone that has already been sucked into the myth that coins can be
graded with a microscope and that high MS coins are worth multiples of
the alleged lesser coins have too much to loose if they don't defend the
current grading system in the USA, so don't expect a change of attitude
any time soon. Billy


"Ed. Stoebenau" wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:16:12 -0500, Alan Williams
wrote:

To me, a simple answer. The US is a much larger country, physically.
The 'sight unseen' market has rewarded reliable and consistent
third-party grading for taking much of the risk out of buying coins
'remotely'.

The problem with this theory is Canada. Canada is also quite
big, yet is apparently nowhere near as slab-crazy as the US is.

I also have a nice simple hypothesis into the matter, and can be
stated as thus: Slabs help perpetuate an absurd price/grade
scheme.

Of course, when you think about it, this is not too simple. The
best explanation is that when (Sheldon) numerical graded got
established, there was supposed to be a simple relationship
between grade and price, a linear formulation where value = basal
value * grade, where the basal value is the value of a basal
state coin. This worked briefly for 1794 large cents, but
quickly failed, both for rarity, condition census coins, and many
other purposes. But the scheme, which correlated old word grades
into numerical grades, had the best uncirculated coin worth
7/6ths the amount of the least best uncirculated coin, and thus
occupied 60-70 in the scale.

Sheldon originally used the grades 60, 65, and 70 for
uncirculated. Of course, the grade of a coin falls along a
continuum (more exactly, it's a multidimensional continuum based
on many factors which complicates things so we'll ignore that for
now), and, to a certain extent, we can imagine coins that fall
somewhere between a 65 and a 70, or between a 60 and a 65. And
thus was born 63 and 67. But we still have a continuum and so
eventually we got 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, and 69 also. And some
companies have used fractional grades also!

But there's a big problem in all this. No one grades exactly
alike. Let's take a look at the condition census of the 1793 S-1
large cent, in CQR (17th ed), Penny Prices (1st ed), and the
Breen-Borkart encyclopedia:

CQR: 63-60-55-50-45-45 (3 45's total)
PP: 63-55-50-50-45-45 (4 45's total)
BrB: 61-60-50-50-50-50
NGC: finest _seen_ is 62 (not necessarily equivalent to #1 on
condition census, also not EAC standards)

And as is obvious, they differ, even though all are using EAC
standards. But this should not be a surprise. We all see coins
differently, and, as we add finer and finer gradations to our
continuum, where the coins go on that continuum becomes less and
less precise. The crackout game is more evidence for this.
Further, even the most reputable slabbing companies will quite
often grade coins differently from one another, or even at
different times with the same service.

Now, to make money as a coin dealer, you must sell coins at a
higher price than what you buy them at (at least on average).
There are of course plenty of ethical ways of doing this, but
also more than enough ways to stretch ethics or get rid of them
entirely. And thus comes the practice of buying at one grade and
selling at a higher one. So let's say you have a coin you want
to buy from a dealer (we are still in the pre-slab/pre-ANACS
era). Dealer says it's a 65 and offers it at a 65 price. You
buy, and agree with the grade and price. A couple of years go
buy, prices go up, and you want to sell, we'll say to the same
dealer (in a different holder). Dealer says its a 64 and offers
to buy at a 64 price, which is much much less than a 65 price.
You can try to argue grade with him, but how much will that do?
Do you really think you can reliably tell a 64 from a 65? So you
don't sell, eventually selling to someone else. Many people go
through the same thing. This gets everyone thinking, "hmm, if
any 65 I buy can only be resold for 64 money which is much much
less, why buy a 65 at the present price when I can wait for a
collapse or buy an imperceptibly worse 64 at 10 times less cost
and much less downside if that's downgraded at resale." Of
course, if this were to come to past, it would not be good
financially for dealers of high-grade material.

So how to fool most of the people most of the time? Well, some
big-shot dealers get together and decide to start grading and
certifying said grades of coins. Now, instead of the dealer
grading some coin, some of his friends now do it, either as a
second job in some cases or else after having to quit dealing
(but who says they can't become a dealer again upon stopping
grading; nice little revolving door even with a dealer/grader
"independence"). So now you can still buy that 65 at a 65 price
which is much much higher than a 64 piece would bring. But of
course the big-shot dealers can no longer buy at one grade and
sell at a higher one, and a nice compromise. Or is it? The
wholesale/retail split will increase with grade, so not all is
lost for the dealer. And, with such an absurd grade/price scheme
being perpetuated, it only needs to be taken one step further.
It's already being claimed that small differences in grade bring
large differences in price. So why not, even smaller
differences? This, now, you can buy from a dealer a 65 that is
"strong for a grade" and "essentially a 66" and "undergraded,"
according to the dealer at a price that is mere multiples of the
guide price for a 65. Of course, when it's time to sell,
suddenly that 65 is "weak for the grade," and only worth a small
fraction of the 65 guide price.

(Note: I do not in any way claim that all dealers are like this.)

And the theory makes sense. What other country's numismatic
market has such a grade/price scheme?

snip

*****
[1] Oh wait, I forgot this is a family newsgroup. Instead, let's
say "the fluffy bunny family's wayward brother will help you get
your foot in the door of his concrete and short dock company."
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143