I’ve noticed many times a coin has been given a value for a lower condition and then given a lower value in higher condition. I recommend that if there is a given value for a coin in say F condition that that should become the minimum value for all conditions higher. I don’t think there would ever be a case of where a coin is more valuable in lower conditions than t would be in higher conditions.
Here is a example
Here we see F is $1.18 VF is $1.70 but XF is $1.08
Is there a way to implement where in this case it would automatically make the minimum value of a coin in XF at least the same amount of the it’s listed in VF.
Hi Matt I think what you say makes a lot of sense, a lot of Numista coin pages have these "errors". I don't know if there is any system to prevent this from happening, but I think it would be logical to implement it.
Many of Numista users use the indicated value as a price reference, both for our collection and for swaps, and many times what you are commenting is misleading.
On the other hand, I think it would not be a bad thing for the system to round off the prices indicated to the value of every 5 cents. That is, if a coin in VF has a value of 0.34 euro, the system could round to 0.35 euro.
Oscar
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Quote: "oynbcn"Hi Matt I think what you say makes a lot of sense, a lot of Numista coin pages have these "errors". I don't know if there is any system to prevent this from happening, but I think it would be logical to implement it.
Many of Numista users use the indicated value as a price reference, both for our collection and for swaps, and many times what you are commenting is misleading.
On the other hand, I think it would not be a bad thing for the system to round off the prices indicated to the value of every 5 cents. That is, if a coin in VF has a value of 0.34 euro, the system could round to 0.35 euro.
Oscar
Thank you for your input I agree it would be nice if things were rounded up to the nearest $0.05 as when I am listing values for my coins I usually do this as well.
Quote: "oynbcn"On the other hand, I think it would not be a bad thing for the system to round off the prices indicated to the value of every 5 cents. That is, if a coin in VF has a value of 0.34 euro, the system could round to 0.35 euro.
Why? This makes no sence at all. If the value it 0.72 €, than that's the value. Not 0.70 € och 0.75 €.
I am much more in line with this:
Quote: "SRV5490"I think the real problem here is with the grading not the pricing.
Just a handful of the Numista users are experts. Most of us guess and estimates. Some area realistic, some are dreamers, and some are pessimistic. "It's probably a VF but I put is as a F", someone might think. "Oh, it's shiny! I put is as XF" another might think. This is most definite the reason for the messed up valuation.
There's actually a pretty good reason for topsy-turvy valuations: for many common types (especially French), the people who have the coin (or note) in high grade are more likely to be locals (and/or savvy collectors) who paid relatively little for it, while the people who have it in low grade are far more likely to be foreigners (and/or naive newbies) who paid a lot more.
It's debatable whether the optimum solution to this is to fix the lower-grade value upward, or to fix the higher-grade value downward. I personally would have kept the values as is - especially since sometimes the values can legitimately be higher in VF than AU, due to condition rarity.
I am wondering if for more common coins (like circulating modern Franc coins), a value such as $0.25 should be given since they will constantly fluctuate (according to percentage) due to their low value.
Also note that the coin values are presented in the user's local currency and the conversion will not always round up to 5c. So even if you enter 1.50$ that may be 1.87Cad$ and 1.48e.
Quote: "Limbru"Also note that the coin values are presented in the user's local currency and the conversion will not always round up to 5c. So even if you enter 1.50$ that may be 1.87Cad$ and 1.48e.
That is a very good point that I hadn't thought about. I am glad we can all discuss this.
Quote: "January First-of-May"There's actually a pretty good reason for topsy-turvy valuations: for many common types (especially French), the people who have the coin (or note) in high grade are more likely to be locals (and/or savvy collectors) who paid relatively little for it, while the people who have it in low grade are far more likely to be foreigners (and/or naive newbies) who paid a lot more.
It's debatable whether the optimum solution to this is to fix the lower-grade value upward, or to fix the higher-grade value downward. I personally would have kept the values as is - especially since sometimes the values can legitimately be higher in VF than AU, due to condition rarity.
maybe a way around, although won't work for all coins, would request for the user to search the coin in NGC price database and , if found, use their price.
The market value is the market value. If 10 people bought a coin in UNC for 5 euros, and 10 people bought the same coin in VF for 7.50 euros, it would be very weird if these prices were to be "corrected" so something else.
A reason could be if the coins were sold on sites where a procentage fee is payed for every sold item on one site, but not the other, then the prices might've been adjusted to this fee by being a little higher than on the other site.
Also, some people over rate their collection, and some people under rate it. So a VF cpin coukd be graded both F and XF depending on who you're asking. If the prices are gonna be "corrected", then there's really no point in having the sumarising value function, is there?
Hello, I agree with the explanations that some of you present here, but those explanations should serve to solve the problem, because no matter how much we say, it is not "normal" that VF quality coins have more value than UNC quality coins. The error still exists, and I think it would be better to try to find a possible solution (or not, that will depend on the Numista Team), than to try to go around looking for the cause of the problem.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Quote: "oynbcn"Hello, I agree with the explanations that some of you present here, but those explanations should serve to solve the problem, because no matter how much we say, it is not "normal" that VF quality coins have more value than UNC quality coins. The error still exists, and I think it would be better to try to find a possible solution (or not, that will depend on the Numista Team), than to try to go around looking for the cause of the problem.
Quote: "oynbcn"[...] no matter how much we say, it is not "normal" that VF quality coins have more value than UNC quality coins.
I've heard that there are collectors who pays hundreds of dollars for graded Poor 1 coins, so of course some coins could be more sought-after in circulated condition than in UNC.
Quote: "SRV5490"If a coin was purchased in XF condition years or even decades ago, it makes sense that the same coin purchased today in VF condition could cost more.
Quote: "SRV5490"If a coin was purchased in XF condition years or even decades ago, it makes sense that the same coin purchased today in VF condition could cost more.
Indeed.
For most of my coins, that I got decades ago before BRL, the buying price is zero.
Either because I inherited them or due to all monetary changes here in Brazil.
I have not been collecting for a long time so I do not consider myself an expert in anything related to numismatics, but with my basic knowledge I believed that it was clear that in a very high percentage of cases, coins in xf have a higher value than coins in vf , and that is the issue we are talking about here. If we want to look for exceptional cases, surely we will find them, but in absolutely all the catalogs that I (and surely you too) have consulted, the value increases as the state of conservation also increases. That I think is a fact that we should agree on (I guess)
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
That "error" is built into the system. We unify values from vastly different markets and people input values using quite a lot of different ways to determine their "buying" prices. It would need many many more people participating in this value system to speedily average irregularities out or to artificially force values which would defeat the purpose of this system in my eyes.
Quote: "ngdawa"I mostly use it for my own purpose of knowing what I payed for the coin/banknote.
I also usually use it for this purpose, but sometimes I try to have it as a reference in a currency in which I do not have much experience. Basically, my comments were intended to try to "improve" this Numista function, but as Idolenz says, I suppose it would be very difficult technically speaking to be able to have prices adjusted to each specific condition of the coin.
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Quote: "ngdawa"I mostly use it for my own purpose of knowing what I payed for the coin/banknote.
I also usually use it for this purpose, but sometimes I try to have it as a reference in a currency in which I do not have much experience.
I do not too, in some rare cases, just to get an idea if the asking price is fair or not. I also check if the payed I payed seems fair in comparison to what the Numista value is.
How much did I paid for a coin is not a relevant measure of how much is it really worth (comparing to a catalog for instance) for a number of reasons.
1/ I'll pay way less for a XF, MS coin form my own country than from another. I can get a MS Brazilian R$1.00 commemorative from the olympics of world cup for around US$ 2.00. That's the same that I'll pay for a XF 50 States quarter or a 2020 America the Beautiful one. A 1991 S proof "Roosevelt Dime" dime, listed here for US$ 3.66 cost me US$10.00 for example.
2/ Many coins have a zero buying value simply because they were not bought at all, but found in change, presents form relatives/friends who traveled to abroad, inheritance from parents or grand-parents, etc...
No matter how good the algorithm is, that, and other reasons, it will mess the statistics.
Quote: "juliofcampos"2/ Many coins have a zero buying value simply because they were not bought at all, but found in change, presents form relatives/friends who traveled to abroad, inheritance from parents or grand-parents, etc...
I really can't understand how complicated people are doing it. If you didn't buy, you didn't pay for it, and then you put nothing in the buying value box. Leave it empty.
Quote: "juliofcampos"3/ if I import a coin, will I include the shipping paid? The exchange rate if I'm not using Euro?
You put the buying value. Not the shipping value. The shipping is different from country to country and seller to seller. Don't mix in the shipping fee. It's only the buying price.
Quote: "juliofcampos"2/ Many coins have a zero buying value simply because they were not bought at all, but found in change, presents form relatives/friends who traveled to abroad, inheritance from parents or grand-parents, etc...
K really can't ubdersgand how complicated people are doing it. If you didn't buy, you didn't payed for it, you put nothing in the buying value box. Leave it empty.
If you have 100 inputs for a given coin value, 20 are left blank, you'll have 100 coins but only 80 values, that will affect the value shown for the coin. The more blanks, the more the error.
Yes, If I paid nothing, the buying value in nothing, but that's why it should not be used to calculate a estimative for the value of the coin.
A second field, where we should put the current value of that coin (as if we had buy it) maybe could help , and also help keep track on the coin value change over time compared to paid value.
