The Pricing Panel

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

Good evening and thanks for the follow up.

All went quiet after my last post which raised the price of poker.

You should probably draw your own conclusions as to why that is.

Troy.

I don't see how you raised the price of poker anywhere, just talked the subject to death.

Sorry that the new catalogue doesn't comply with vague requests for increases in prices.

Rick

You were called out for face to face discussions (as so was the panel) as you seem to position yourself as their defender and voice. The purpose to was hear the voice of the Internet's leading and most active seller of Canadian Paper Money (and one of its top buyers if not the top at present) and a sharing of ideas on how best to capture market information and report it to the market we all serve. This is in the face of growing concern that the online market is not being taken into consideration properly and does not have the right representation on the panel. This concern is shared by many and the evidence is in hand.

The online market and its resulting data (on very rare key issue notes - after all the concern was always stated within the context of this narrow focus) will have it's say and will be accounted for properly, let's just hope not at the cost of the credibility of the entire pricing infrastructure we currently have in place. It would be a better event for the market I believe and those who serve it to bring the 2 worlds together in harmony.

What you saw here was a large part of the market asking as nicely as it could to be listened to and acknowledged. Next time it is extremely doubtful it will be as delicate. This issue is not going away and will not cool down until it is addressed. About a year ago (or slightly more) there was laughter on the street about the online market being as good or important as the B&M market, well from where I am sitting that online market is having a few chuckles of it's own now.

Incidentially I have now ordered more than 100 copies in the last 60 days of the text I seek to improve. I believe I have earned the right to ask questions and raise concerns on several different levels.

Troy

I guess so, Troy.

Should this not be addressed to Mr. Cross, along with a request that you be included in the next panel? As you are not pleased with the catalogue, perhaps you could write your own.

Rick

Actually Rick it was addressed to you as you are the one sticking your neck out consistently on this, throwing the odd tantrum here and there along the way.

Yes I will "write my own" or possibly an electronic version if necessary with the help of several well known people in the industry, I owe the market and all those who use the Internet as their primary buy channel. I believe the online market needs a champion to ensure it gets the respect it deserves.

I intend to deliver by ensuring they have a voice of proper weighting. I could care a less about personally profiting from such an undertaking of creating a price guide which gives them and the data they create proper respect.

At the end of the day what matters to me is that when someone pays $5000 in a competitive auction for a note where only one exists I can look them in eye and tell them I am doing what I can to ensure the price guide reflects the purchase price, not some other version of reality.

I will walk through a sea of people calling this concern and concerns like it "totally stupid" until the concerns are acknowledged as being fully valid. What is to be done about it is a matter for the best minds in the industry to get together face to face to discuss.

Troy

Troy, besides called me names in this site, and little remarks to others you don't like or don't like their viewpoint.
Write your own book, good luck to you.

I am not a defender of Mr. Cross's methods of obtaining prices, he can well defend himself. I am also not a contributor to the catalogues, either coins or notes.

Your motivation for grossly increased prices is based on what? Do you have an inside track of all the sales of all the note sellers in Canada?
Why do you thing others might contribute to you setting prices on notes? Ebay sales are higher now than a year ago, but still only a small portion of the overall sales of notes. No one knows what the total is, all we have in rough guesses.

Ebay sales are weighed in the trends that I do, I report on prices, not where I would like them to be.

Rick

I believe I am in the best position to speak to the online market and yes I have an inside track as to what is happening in the online market if that isn't somehow already obvious to you.

I have also reread my post, please point out where you were called a "name".  If what you mean is when you called this thread "totally stupid" for everyone to see and I then just described your remark as a "tantrum", I apologize, I shouldn't have described your comment in this way; much the same way you should have apologized when you jumped back into this thread after slamming it and leaving.

The fact you are reporting online trends is not comforting to me, particularly after reading what you have had to say in this thread. I have also seen the prices in the trends and have a list of corrections I can send you if you like starting with the 1935 & 1937 $1000. These corrections come from a large sample of data generated in the online and offline world.

My world includes eBay and the online market, it does not exclude the others. I kind of like the B&M market myself, it has been a wonderful place to buy notes wholesale over the last year.

The mission is not to report inflated prices, the mission is to accurately report what is actually happening.

If there is nothing else I will leave it at that.

Troy.

The remark left answered the information left by the previous person, your friend. Remember, the "formal complaint" stuff a while ago.

The pricing panel in the Charlton consists of the following. Louis Chevrier, Harry Eineshauer, Mike Findlay, Nick Gerbinski, Ian Laing, Peter McDonald, Andrew McCaig, Charles Moore, Don Olmstead, and Gilles Pomerleau. All are well known, several of them sell items on eBay.

The editor is Robert Graham, the assistant is Lub Wojtiw.

Some of the contributors include Dick Dunn, Gary Fedora, Brent Mackie and Paul Wallis; All from this group are regulars on this site.

The question asked before. As Troy is not among the names in the book, and neither is mine, who should be on the pricing panel? Then the question, who should (either in the book or in the new electronic version of the book being contemplated) be the contributors, editor or pricing panel.

The part mentioned before, Charlton's has difficulty getting contributors to the paper book or coin book. How can these people be motivated to give information.

Rick

Can someone please define what B&M market stands for? Thanks.

Bricks and Mortar - a classic abbreviation I believe that was exceptionally well used during the high tech emergence of the internet  

Good evening and thanks for the follow up.

All went quiet after my last post which raised the price of poker.

You should probably draw your own conclusions as to why that is.

Troy.

Either you scared everyone off or people simply got tired of your self aggrandizement and seeming inability to understand that others have a fairly good grasp of the market-be it on-line or B&M. Some actually know how to accurately grade a note as well.
It's probably the former.

Either you scared everyone off or people simply got tired of your self aggrandizement and seeming inability to understand that others have a fairly good grasp of the market-be it on-line or B&M. Some actually know how to accurately grade a note as well.
It's probably the former.

Good God man, what have you done?  Oh well; at least the forum will be lively for the next couple of days...but I'm kind of feeling both hot AND cold right now, because I dread what may will be coming

There is always a better way to do everything and if the process and memebership of the Charlton pricing panel can be improved, great. Overall, I think Bob Graham does an outstanding job. It is more timely and accurate than the other catalogues produced for other world notes and better than most single-country catalogues like those for Italy or Britain.

The endless references to the EBay or on-line 'world' as if it is beating down the walls of the rest of the market is really a bit much. We all know that eBay is a factor in sales and will be a factor and will likely grow. But it is characterized by different standards and most knowledgeable collectors I know are very careful and very wary of eBay after being burned with overgraded notes and refund problems - problems I have personally experienced that far exceed the similar problems I encounter with mail orders.

As with auctions, single sales are not the new catalogue price. Dealer lists, auctions and show sales are necessarily known to be unreliable comparisons - how do you know that UNC that sold at TOREX was really UNC or a pressed AU ? How do you know that UNC I sold was not a pressed AU ?

eBay sales really are harder to integrate into pricing as we all know they are more fickle and fluid, less reliable. What if one took a major eBay sellers results and used them as a partial basis for pricing and that eBay seller was a more conservative grader than the average market ? Then cat prices would be factored lower. Conversly, if the grading was too loose the factor would be to increase cat prices when they should not be.

There are not 'two worlds', there are several : auctions, shows, mail order, eBay, private sales, etc. No one really knows who is biggest because there are no idpendent records. Some collectors are bigger players than some dealers.

Troy - one must always be wary of someone offering to be  champion of a field that they are making money from. There would be little credibility in me saying I should dominate pricing. It would be self-serving and transparently corrupt.

Anyone can publish a book of prices but it would simply be seen as a self-serving attempt to justify their own prices based on their own grading. Unless judiciously averaged in with many other sources, there is no credibility. There could be a published eBay sales results but based on my experience, and many others, it would be suspect and regarded as a eBay thing, ie. who know what the notes really were graded like. Some eBayers don't grade the notes so there is really NO BASIS for charting those sale as who know what the heck the grade was ??!!

At a minimum eBay sellers could, if they think their sales amount to a useful data base, sumbit the results to Bob Graham each spring. They can be given fair weight - like any other source, none of which are singularly reliable unto themselves.

Enough for now...

OleDon

Hear Hear, OleDon!

eBay sales should probably NOT be factored into catalogue prices, or if they are, they should be weighted as a very small percentage of overall sales.  Prices should be set by the experts in the field, not by someone who is selling the 1954 $50 note they found wedged in their Grandma's dresser drawer, who has absolutely NO IDEA how to grade a note or how common/uncommon a note may be.

I also have been burned on eBay.  I bought a supposedly UNC note from a seller with a 100% positive feedback rating, where the note was most obviously pressed, probably was an EF!  Luckily it was a low-priced asterisk note, so I didn't even mind that much.

I have also bought on eBay from a supposedly reputable seller in the Prairies, where, from all appearances, the grading was according to the CPMS standards published in Charlton's.  No mention was made that CCGS grading was being used.  Imagine my surprise when I received a note described as UNC that had prominent creases, and was cut so far off centre that part of the design was missing!

I am on the road this evening on a lousy PC in a hotel lobby so I will reply tomorrow night but post a brief reply to Don below, anything else that requires a reply or action of some other kind will be addressed shortly.

I am starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel  "At a minimum eBay sellers could, if they think their sales amount to a useful data base, sumbit the results to Bob Graham each spring. They can be given fair weight - like any other source, none of which are singularly reliable unto themselves"

If eBay produces the sale of a note where only 1, 2 or a few are known to exist the expectation is that this data is captured and reported. Same theme on notes which are simply known as rare, in this case the sale will need to be weighted with other sales.

It has taken a lot of energy to get to this point, let's build on it and get a reporting process in place and get on with it. Disclosure needs to be given as to how the process will work and what exactly will happen with the data.

I can recommend a few online online sellers who the panel may want to consider as contributors from the online market segment.

Troy