Options
Gene Gardner had Two Top 1858-S Quarters!
Analyst
Posts: 1,438 ✭✭✭
It seems that 1858-S quarters are not talked about very often. The only known unc., the PCGS-62 Richmond-Gardner coin, and the AU-58 Eliasberg-Gardner piece were both offered last week. Perhaps now is the time for a discussion about 1858-S quarters in general.
1858-S Seated Quarters Are Extreme Condition Rarities in Grades Above Very Fine!
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
0
Comments
I would have thought that the market was oversaturated with high end liberty seated coins with the recent auction history but apparently not since 2010 as the article points out. However, I do think that all of these high end coins that have sold or are for sale does negatively effect the price of graded coins that are lower on the food chain.
The 58-s has always been overshadowed by the 60-s, then 59-s. I think they have great value but if there is that demand, prices have not yet reflected this.
I was happy to get my lowly VF30 from Brian Greer in 2008. Today he has another for sale in the same grade and at the same price. When will there be some price appreciation? Guess I answered my own question it the first paragraph; assuming the return button is working for me with the new forum software; we shall see shortly.
Freddie
Nope; paragraph breaks don't work for me either - uggggg!
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
Second - paragraph breaks don't work for me either - maybe it's a Chrome vs. IE thing.
Third - the linked writeup was very detailed, and for once I had the time and patience to read through something and actually digest it. I find it intriguing the coins drop in the 2nd auction. The AU example that went at $11k and then $7k 4 months later. Tells me there were two bidders, one won the first time, and the second time there wasn't a bidder interested in paying up, even though the coin is the 2nd best for the issue. But in the MS-62 example, going for $45k in 2005 and then $35k in May, 2015. Given the number of people who really like the seated series, I'm surprised that the finest known depreciated like that. Sure, the market peaked in 2008 or so, but has it really fallen 20% below 2005 levels in this series? It's not my series so I don't know, but it seems odd. Are there an unusual number of high quality collections that have come to market in 2014 and 2015? There have been several, but is it so much more than typical years? I usually get caught up in the auction of the moment (drooling, since I can't play at those levels) but it seems that every few months there is some big auction event, yes?
Successful BST (me as buyer) with: Collectorcoins, PipestonePete, JasonRiffeRareCoins
Successful BST (me as buyer) with: Collectorcoins, PipestonePete, JasonRiffeRareCoins
When I did my surveys of seated quarters back in the 1970's the 1858-s was WAY down the list among all scarce seated quarters. With a mintage of 121,000, you wouldn't think this coin was in the same league as the tougher S mints where they do have 100-200 specimens remaining (The big 6: 1872-s, 60-s, 71-s, 64-s, 66-s, 67-s). Note that the 61-s and 59-s do not make this list imo because they have a lot more specimens available in AG-VG grades. I've never been a fan of the 59-s unless a full Fine, or preferably VF. I know that the S mints with mintages of 20,000 to 56,000 are generally in that 100-200 specimens known range. How can the early S mints with 80,000-120,000 be in that same league? People saved 1855-s quarters probably because they were new. They apparently did the same with 56-s, 57-s and even 59-s. The attraction seemed to wear off by the time the 56,000 mintage 1860-s came out. And when the nation was in crisis from 1860-1872 nothing much got saved out of San Fransisco...certainly not in high grade. The only fluke in this series is the 1872-s with 83,000 minted. Either that number is wrong or most got melted. It's rarity makes it act like a mintage of 15,000-25,000. It is the rarest S mint quarter ever minted imo....possibly as rare as the 70-cc and/or 71-cc.
I consider the 58-s to be mid-range of all seated quarters. That's not saying much. I'd put much less heralded dates as the 1842 LD, 1847-0, 1851, 1852, 1859-0 as probably scarcer. And the 42 LD, 47-0, 51 are much scarcer. Dates similar to the 1858-s include some of the 1840's Philly mints, 1841, 1857-s, 1862-s, 1871, etc. I'd rank the 1849-0 as 2X to 4X rarer than the 1858-s.
In the LSCC 1993 club survey of member owned specimens the 1858-s came in next to last among the 1855 to 1873 S-mints (ie the most plentiful). Only the near common and perennially over-rated 1855-s showed more specimens. That doesn't seem to be a coincidence. The toughest S mints had half or less the ownership numbers as the 58-s. The ownership numbers track my rankings pretty well. When you consider the 1841 Philly quarter is a good match for the 1858-s it can't be very special in lower grades. Nearly identical mintages of the 58-s and 41 at 121K vs. 120K....and the 1841 had an additional 17 years of attrition including the silver coin meltings of 1850-1852. I won't argue that problem free XF/AU 58-s specimens are tough. Still, the 1993 LSCC survey showed 6 specimens in XF, which was middle of the road among all the scarcer S mints. The 1859-s and 1860-s had 3 each in XF. Unc 58-S's ARE essentially non-existant. I don't think I'd call any of the currently TPG graded uncs as true mint state. In years past they were all considered AU's. I'd probably place the 1858-s in the range of 300-500 specimens known, and probably closer to 350-400.
In my mind there are no true FULL uncs for the 59-s, 60-s, and 61-s. The 58-s is on the border but I'd say no for now. One of my requirements is full field luster. I don't see that on this 58-s obverse. An AU 58-s can be found if you are persistent. The neat thing about 3 of these 4 guys is that they had ample mintages, ample specimens survive in all grades, yet no one saved a fully mint state, full luster unc. You can't say that about the 64-s, 66-s, 67-s, 71-s, and 72-s with a half dozen to dozen uncs known of each. It's strange.
One cannot hang their hat on the pop reports because there is no real reason to submit an AG-Fine 1858-s quarter to the TPG's. But there is every reason to submit a 72-s, 70-cc, 66-s, etc. I can say with 99% certainty that there are more than 235 1858-s quarters in existence. When Heritage sold my gem 1867-s quarter back in 2004 I asked them to note in the description that per the PCGS pop report it was the lowest pop date among ALL seated quarters...tied with the 60-s....lower than all the CC's. Of course I knew that no one really cared about submitting a F-VF 67-s back then so the pops were skewed. You could bet a lot higher % of the 1860-s or 1870-cc would be submitted. In circs, the pop reports can only show us comparisons of dates of similar rarity and price. And while the pops "can" work ok for the unc coins, the circs are a mixed bag. I don't talk about the 58-s quarter much because for the most part, it's an overrated coin imo. Problem free, and high grade coins are another story. The problem with the 58-s in all grades is that it is competing against another 50-60 dates/mints in the series that are every bit as good or better.
The underbidder on the unc 58-S in the Richmond sale ran Gene about $10K, and did not participate this time around. It's a thin market, and one bidder more or less makes all the difference. Unless someone is building another unc set of quarters, they don't *have* to have this coin.
And if someone is building an Unc set, they might not accept anything but a full blown, no questions unc. I know I would. Gene was building a finest available set. So whether AU58 or MS62 this was the finest available to him. The 1860-s is incredibly tougher than the 58-s, whether in lower grades or higher circ grades. The only thing they share is that 0-2 uncs of each are currently accounted for. I consider the 60-s 3X tougher than the 58-s. That would apply to VF-XF grades too. In seated quarters going from 350 known, to 200 known, to 100-150 known are major tier (and price) changes. I don't consider them similar at all, especially since the number of set builders/date hoarders might only be 100-250 people....not counting dealers A slight demand change makes all the difference. Dealers stock a lot of the available floating inventory. The finest known seated quarter market was under pressure from Gene, Thomas, Rudolph, and others in the 2004-2008 period. That's why an 1852-0 MS63 worth $25K around 2002-2004 made its way to $125K in 2008. And then back again to $45K-$50K when one or two guys dropped out after 2008. It only takes 2-3 guys to juice the market for pop tops. This 1858-s falling from $45K to $35K didn't fare so badly.
I don't fully buy into the fact that because the MS62 1858-s was graded in 1995 that it beat the grade inflation era (usually thought to be 1997 and on). Maybe it did or maybe it didn't. Pittman and Eliasberg seemed to jump start the gradeflation....at least they made it more famous. I recall tracking the finest known 1842-0 sd quarter from Norweb in 1987/88. It was one of the 3 coins on my hot list for that sale (gem 40 wd and 72-s quarters were on that list too). The 42-0 sd was catalogued as AU. I graded it AU55....not even 58. It sold for a 55 price at around $4,000 to dealer Martin Paul. No one in the room saw that coin as unc, except possibly Martin....and I'm not so sure even he saw it as unc. I'd have gladly paid $10K to $12K at that time for a no rub MS61 coin. Others probably would have too. NGC graded the coin MS63! It traded for around $12K as I recall. Today the coin is stickered and crossed to PCGS as I recall. I've seen plenty of other better date seated coins in 61-64 holders from the pre-1996 days that I would not have called unc. It's quite possible that grading started to slip as early as 1993-1995. The market needed something to jump start it from that horrible 1990-1993 crash.
I'm not dissing anyone with a nice FINE 1858-s quarter. They can be challenging to find problem free and original. Then again, so is an 1841 seated quarter or half dollar. I do think that at one time this MS62 1858-s could have been in an AU58 holder. That topic seems vaguely familiar to me from some old Gobrecht Journals. And considering that 6 out of the 30 specimens in the 1993 survey were XF or better (20%), it's at least possible that 20% x 350 = 70 would suggest that a lot more 20 XF 1858-s quarters are out there. 30-35 would be my guess. There are still mini-hoards of seated coins put away in the 1970's and 1980's. If I had remained a collector of better date circ seated quarters I'd have had 10-20 of some of these S mints. At one time I had 10 of the 1867-s quarters (F-XF). I would not have had most of them graded nor allowed my hoards to become public knowledge. Others thinking like I did must still be out there. Everyone was after the same dozen or two higher profile dates. There's still no good reason for long time collectors/speculators to bring these hoards out into the open...unless they are getting ready to pass their torch.
FastFreddie: "The 58-s has always been overshadowed by the 60-s, then 59-s.
So, FastFreddie agrees with one of the main points in the article. I recollect many occasions when an 1859-S that appears in an auction became a topic of conversation among collectors, dealers and fans. There also has been considerable talk about 1860-S quarters. Before I wrote that article, I did not recollect a conversation occurring about an 1858-S quarter.
FastFreddie: "Great article. I would have thought that the market was oversaturated with high end Liberty Seated coins with the recent auction history but apparently not since 2010 as the article points out."
Yes, demand for Liberty Seated coins is very healthy. The coins are being absorbed. Markets for pre-1860 Proofs were due for an adjustment, anyhow.
FastFreddie: "However, I do think that all of these high end coins that have sold or are for sale does negatively effect the price of graded coins that are lower on the food chain."
This is a curious point. Why does FastFreddie think so? Have collectors been upgrading via the Gardner sales and then selling their duplicates?
While doing research, I found that some of the Gardner-Eliasberg coins in the Gardner IV sale actually brought more in 1996 or 1997 than they did in 2015!
The Incredible Gene Gardner Coin Collection, Part 7 – The Final Auction
FredF (not FastFreddie?):
When coins are part of a great collection, they tend to bring higher prices than they do when they have been recently offered and are offered as un-attached parts of an auction. Please read my article on the meaning of auction prices.
What are Auction Prices?
Also, at least 14 coins in the Gardner III sale wil be re-offered in Houston:
Curiously, Gardner Coins & Nicole Dimes Re-Appear in Houston
Roadrunner: "Pittman and Eliasberg seemed to jump start the gradeflation"
Yes, when Pittman and Eliasberg coins were submitted to the TPGs, they often received grades that were higher than most experts at the time figured many of the respective coins deserved.
Roadrunner:
Such club suveys may be very meaningful in regard to rare die varieties. There are many collectors around the nation, however, who own 19th century silver coins in Fair-02 to Fine-12 grades. These can often be found at coin shops, at small coin shows, on E-Bay, at local coin club meetings, etc. There is one telemarketing firm that promotes not-gradable 19th century silver coins. Most buyers are not members of the LSCC.<<br>
Roadrunner:
I stand by my reasoning in my article. Among other points, I emphasized that PCGS has graded approximately 80 1858-S quarters and NGC just 38! These totals include much double-counting. Some collectors just crack them out and throw the inserts away. In any event, I invite all to read my article, consult other sources, and draw their own conclusions:
1858-S Seated Quarters Are Extreme Condition Rarities in Grades Above Very Fine!
insightful10@gmail.com
My numbers are based on hard surveys done over a 5 year period, identifying every specimen that came to market in numis periodicals, auctions, and dealer fixed price lists....while being careful to week out duplicates from Coin World ads week to week. I did that survey over all denominations of seated material as well as early bust coinage. In that way, I could compare "appearance rarity" across multiple series. The 58-s quarter is strictly middle of the pack among seated quarters when all grades are considered. Double submissions to PCGS on AG-VF seated quarters? Not very likely imo. It's a different story if you're trying to push a rare date from XF45 to AU50 or AU58 to MS61 or pushing a higher MS grade from 63 to 64, or 64 to 65, etc. I figure the grading services can figure out the difference between a VF20 or VF25 seated quarter. And it's not like that kind of grade bump is much extra money. I just don't see a huge number of re-submissions on most better date circ seated quarters.
The premium price for better date slabbed seated quarters is from PCGS, not NGC. That's where the money is made....hence more PCGS submissions. I've seen 30-100% premiums for PCGS holders. I'd only go to NGC if I felt a coin was potentially "genuine" or borderline at PCGS. PCGS allows less problem on their circs. At least that's what I've seen. The majority of 1858-s quarters in existence have no need to ever go to the grading services. I suspect 75% or more of them are still raw.
1841 79
1842 68
1842-o 76 (sm date)
1846 88
1848 77
1849-o 77
1850 75
1852-0 75
1855-s 75
1857-s 77
1858-s 78
1859-o 77
1860-s 70
1864-s 90
1865-s 72
1867-s 65
1868 77
1870-cc 54
1871-s 55
1871-cc 41
1872-cc 67
1872-s 40
1877-cc 791
Anyone who collects seated quarters knows that there is a lot BS in that above list. Coins are submitted when it is makes good financial sense to. 59-0 quarters in VG-VF don't really need to be submitted, and most aren't. 64-s quarters? Most all of those should be submitted, same with 60-s and 49-0. The 41, 48 are not rarer than a 64-s....not even close. What is true is that 41, 48, 57-s, and 58-s are somewhat comparable imo for total extant populations. So no big surprise that they have similar pop #'s. What I also think happens is that a base amount of these are submitted to make sets. If there's 75-125 seated quarter sets being built out there, then those are the base numbers I'd expect to see for many of the dates. Dates that carry potential arbitrage might be submitted again in hopes of a higher grade...but probably not an 1841.
The 1855-s showing up so close to many other better dates (49-0, 52-0, 64-s) is a joke on all of us. When I did my surveys it was one of the first "better" dates to get axed because it was showing up as often as the 1877-cc...yet priced like a key date. Seated quarter collectors have known for 40 years how common and overrated that date is...especially for the premium price it often commands. With a mintage of nearly 400,000 (huge by early mm quarter standards) and being 1st year of issue, it's no surprise many survive. The date is worth submitting though when VF or better and problem free.
All the pop reports can tell you is how the very scarcest coins show up less than the others (ie 72-s, 71-s, 70-cc, 71-cc, etc.). Or which dates don't have many uncs, no matter how many were resubmitted. Or which dates are really pretty common (1853 A&R, 1854, 1858, 1861, 1877, 1877-cc etc.). That's really about it for pop report circ value. I've stated around here for the past 13 years that the 1872-s seated quarter is potentially the rarest collectible date....and it still has the lowest total pop. The pop report is somewhat good for dates that just don't show up hardly at all. But, there's also more financial/authentication reasons to submit a 70-cc or 71-cc quarter than a much less costly 72-s.
And for those who still don't get it, the scarcest dates on the list above are not half as common as those other dates. The ratio can be as high as 5X-10X....not 2X. If that were really true, then all of them would be priced within 2X of all those others dates. And that's clearly not the case. The prices tend to follow the actual rarity...or 5X-10X the price of those other commoner dates with the same pops.
Pop report
Have fun with the pop report....just don't hang your hat on it. It's a tool, not a calculator. And looking at some of these lopsided pops, I can understand why the price guides are sometimes way off. If you want to believe that a 65-s quarter is tougher than a 42-0 sd, 49-0, or 52-0 and on par with a 60-s....be my guest. It is tougher than the 58-s though...up to 30% tougher. But the pop report probably tells me why I see crazy prices asked for circ 58-s and 65-s quarters for starters. Is it just a coincidence that so many dates on the pop report fall between 65 to 150? The number 77 shows up a lot....lucky I guess.
Roadunner:
1) I did not say that there was a "huge number"! 2) I was referring to both PCGS and NGC. 3) I pointed out that many collectors of well circulated coins prefer them to be raw! Such collectors often buy AG-03 to VF-20 grade coins in holders and then crack them out, not to seek upgrades, but to place alongside other raw coins in their own respective collections.
Please consider a repeat of two parts of a post above. I quote Roadrunner and I mention PCGS & NGC data.
Roadrunner:
I responded:
So, PCGS and NGC together have graded less than 120 1858-S quarters. Suppose, as Roadrunners says, that this total does not include much double-counting. He thus implies that maybe PCGS & NGC together have graded 115 or 120? Roadrunner is also suggesting that there are more than 300 1858-S quarters! If twenty-five are not-gradable, is he saying that more than half of them (150+ ?) have never been submitted to PCGS or NGC?
Also, particularly before 2005, the same exact coins were often offered over and over again in auctions and/or fixed price lists (FPLs). The sellers often wished to give the impression that an offered coin was 'new' to the marketplace, 'fresh,' even if it had already been in recent auctions or FPLs. In the present, too, coins often re-appear soon after being publicly offered:
Curiously, Gardner Coins & Nicole Dimes Re-Appear in Houston
insightful10@gmail.com
I'll say it again. NGC has roughly equal or more submissions vs. PCGS across the entire 19th century MS/PF type coin arena (61-69). It makes no sense that PCGS has 80 of the 1858-s and NGC only 38. That's telling me collectors don't desire those coins as much....and prefer to submit to PCGS. I would just ignore the NGC data as it is nonsense. If an NGC XF45 1858-s quarter brought more money than say a PCGS XF40 then collectors would submit to NGC. But the lower grade PCGS coin is worth more and is more liquid. There is no question that there are more than 300 of the 58-s 25c in existence....it's a slam dunk.
I also feel strongly that 75% of the circs have yet to be graded....regardless if there are 0% or 50-100% TPG resubmissions. Why you ask? Because unless the coin is worthy of a high grade premium (VF25 and higher), there's no great reason to submit them. There's no financial windfall. And you can always send them in the down the road if you want. What's the rush unless your seated collecting days are over and you're getting out? And it's really at the VF35/EF40 and higher level where the 58-s really starts to see a large premium increase. On the better date unc coins, or even common dates, I suspect up to 75% in existence have been graded....the exact opposite of the circs.
lThe majority of those collecting, hoarding, or speculating in seated quarters care little about getting them slabbed until it's possibly time to sell out their holdings for good. I got my raw 1858-s (purchased in Dec 2010) sent to a TPG because it was a bit "too bright" XF/AU detailed coin with a potential value of anywhere from $2K to $4K depending on if and what it graded. A couple of top graders I showed it to felt it could easily go XF45. So there was heavy financial input to get it graded. Ending up with a "no grade" was disappointing. But that shot had to be taken. At that same show in 2010 I bought a raw XF45 1857-0 quarter with original golden surfaces and sparkling luster....for $150. That coin is not worth grading at the present time even if some people ask $250-$375 for slabbed PCGS XF45 examples.
I know about the crack out game and re-submissions. I basically did that full time for 18 months from 1987-1989. I must have cracked out 500 19th MS/PF type coins worth in the low 7 figures. My submission fees in that period ran $25,000...and I was a small fry in the crack out game. The seated circ game is not likely a big source of crack outs and resubmissions. But guys like Greer, TomB, Rhedden, Rich Uhrich, and others can comment on that if they want. I don't ever recall cracking out or resubmitting an already graded circ seated coin over the past 29 years....not even once. I just never made sense....uncs are a different story.
For better date seated coins I cracked out, the old flips ALWAYS went back. My 1867-s 25c (MS66, MS67, MS67) was graded 3X during my 18 yrs of ownership...and the old tags all went back and were deleted from the reports. Yes, some people actually do that. And if you have a better date coin, you don't want the price being diluted by a host of erroneous resubmissions. That certainly must be true for XF-unc 1858-s quarters. I resubmitted the 58-s above twice (PCGS and NGC) only because I didn't want to settle for a no grade the first time through. Had it come back graded, anything from VF to XF, I would have stood by that.
As far as coins being offered over and over again prior to 2005? I was extremely careful not to list duplicates of any dates in my surveys, not even a lowly 1853 A&R quarter. And if I messed up doing that with the 1858-s, you can bet I would have done it to the same percentage among all the other 1855 to 1873 scarcer S mints. It's somewhat ironic that someone who hasn't collected seated quarters for 20-40 years, analyzed them, surveyed them when almost no one else was (ie pop reports in the 1970's) feels that writing about them and watching them at auction is equivalent. How about doing a multi-year survey first rather than accepting what others put out? The pop reports are a horrible survey on circ seated quarters with more bad data coming out of it than good data. I will note that Dave Bowers used my LSCC New Orleans seated quarter data that I compiled in the mid-1980's in cataloging the Eliasberg unc O mint seated quarters. The only complaint I had was that he misquoted everything I said. He did later apologize for that in a personal letter. That data still holds up today suggesting my surveying techniques and controls were pretty darn good.
The fact that my survey compared the 1858-s against all better date seated half dimes through dollars made it that much more potent....and the likelihood of errors was minimized. The fact remains that the 58-s showed up way more often than the top half dozen S mint quarters. Logic suggested I focus on the 1860-s, 64-s, 66-s, 67-s, 71-s and 72-s which showed up much less often than the 55-s, 56-s, 57-s, 58-s, 59-s, 61-s, 62-s. And in many cases the more frequently appearing coins were priced higher either due to lower mintages or some belief that early quarters with the "big S" mintmark "must" be rarer. The price guides of the 1970's and 1980's certainly did give preferential treatment to those early S mints....possibly because they were rare in unc and Breen, Taxay and others called them unknown or nearly so in unc. So if it's rare in unc, it must be rare in VG-XF too, right? Not always. We all know the 1858-s is rare in unc, even in AU. The question is how does it stand up in circ grades of Fair-VF?
The irony of my survey was that within the first year or less the 1858-0 (520K mintage) was showing up half as often as the 1858-s (120K) . I didn't expect that. But I learned to understand that the mintages of the 57-0, 58-0, and 59-0 quarters didn't jive with their appearances in grades of VF-XF and higher, and especially real uncs. Today, the 58-0 is considered a rarity in MS with probably only a dozen or so coins known....the mintages would never suggest such a thing. I've owned 3 1858-0's in unc (61, 62, 65)...including Gene's favorite PCGS MS64+ (NGC MS65 in 1990 when I sold it...purchased at auction by me in 1983 for $4300).
Any nice choice/gem seated coin I've ever owned has eventually reached the grade I expected, even if I wasn't the one rewarded with the next grade higher. While I've never liked how this works, it's the reality of the market place. Gene's PCGS MS66+ 1858-0 dime was mine for 22 yrs before he got it. I tried several times from 1998-2004 to get that crossed from NGC MS66 to PCGS 66. It doesn't feel good seeing that as a PCGS 66+ today. I know some will say the "solution" is to crack out everything NGC. But, is that really a solution?
R. Hedden: "There are too many lower grade examples hiding in different places to simply round them all up and count them, though. Roadrunner's observations from the 1970s are valuable, as low-grade "S" mint quarters from 1855-1872-s have surely been the targets of recent hoarding in this series"
Is Hedden suggesting that some people are hoarding S-mint Liberty Seated quarters? This is news to me. Who is doing that?
R. Hedden: "They are among the most obvious Seated coins to hard because they were underpriced for many years prior to 2005 or so, and there are only a few hundred of each issue around. It would not surprise me one bit if someone who's reading this has a hoard of 25 or more raw 1858-S quarters in low grades."
In my article on the unrecognized importance of 1846 dimes, I noted that a collector on the West Coast hoarded 1844 dimes. Heritage sold most or all of that hoard in one lot. This, though, was a peculiar exception, not standard behavior by collectors of seated coins. I, for one, would be surprised if someone "has a hoard of 25 or more raw 1858-S quarters in low grades." Indeed, I am puzzled by Hedden's point. Please provide a further explanation. Are there many concrete examples of such hoarding behavior regarding any Liberty Seated coins?
The Unrecognized Importance of 1846 Dimes
R. Hedden: " My only 1858-S is just a Fine with some contact marks. It would probably slab, despite some rough handling in its past. Coins like that don't make the population reports. It came to me out of a collection that was formed in the 1940s and 1950s."
Real events such as this one were incorporated into my reasoning. Hedden has been a knowledgeable and dedicated collector for a long time. It is not surprising to me that he has a circulated 1858-S quarter that was never submitted to PCGS or NGC. Please re-consider a point that I made in a post above, which is germane:
He thus implies that maybe PCGS & NGC together have graded 115 or 120? Roadrunner is also suggesting that there are more than 300 1858-S quarters! If twenty-five are not-gradable, is he saying that more than half of them (150+ ?) have never been submitted to PCGS or NGC?
Roadrunner: "I also feel strongly that 75% of the circs have yet to be graded....regardless if there are 0% or 50-100% TPG resubmissions. Why you ask? Because unless the coin is worthy of a high grade premium (VF25 and higher), there's no great reason to submit them. There's no financial windfall"
PCGS was founded in 1986 and NGC in 1987! Since the 1990s, most buyers of 'rare date' seated coins have wanted their coins to be PCGS or NGC graded. As I said, I honestly believe that some such people crack them out. They figure, however, that a circ seated coin is unlikely to have serious problems if it received a numerical grade from PCGS.
In Heritage auctions, just about every circulated Liberty Seated coin is PCGS or NGC certified. Furthermore, for years, this has been true, for the most part, in Stack's-Bowers and Goldbergs auctions, too. Moreover, at major coin shows, dealers in circulated seated coins usually, not always, have truly rare pieces PCGS or NGC graded before selling them. I am surprised that Roadrunner theorizes that 75% of all circulated 1858-S quarters "have yet to be" submitted to PCGS or NGC. I disagree. Have readers of this thread seen many raw 1858-S quarters at coin shows or in dealer-inventories publicized outside of coin shows?
A larger pool of buyers will be interested in a VG or Fine 1858-S that is PCGS graded than one that is raw. Many buyers will wonder why a raw 1858-S quarter is not in a PCGS or NGC holder? When they see a raw rare U.S. coin being offered, a substantial percentage of potential customers will be suspicious of the coin without even looking closely at it!
The rise in the number of collectors of rare U.S. coins and the importance of the PCGS
Are you ever wrong? Does someone even have it more right than you?. Does actual feedback from an exceptionally well-informed LSCC member have meaning for you?
How about "That's an interesting and meaningful perspective. Research by specialists always helps inform us all as, inevitably, we change or opinions."
Jim O'Donnell said something very wise to me - it's not what you see on the bourse floor, it's what you don't see.
Had I not decided to gravitate to finest known gem O and S mint seated quarters in the 1980's, I'd be sitting on a pile of a few hundred rare S, O, and P mint circ quarters by now....and none except a few pop tops might have ever been slabbed. Why let the cat out of the bag? Even by 1976 I had 10 of the 1867-s quarters in Fine-XF....and that's a lot better date than a 58-s. Some idiot hoarded the 1844 dime based on a low population and it's perceived rarity. My original 1970's survey crossed that date off very early as being quite available for its inflated price. At one time I owned over 20 1858-0 seated dimes....I like the date. It's probably as scarce as the 1844...at much less a price. So rather than a couple hundred of 1844 dimes in existence as many thought 30-40 years ago, there were 3X that. Fancy that. Who knew? I did for one...and only requiring minimal effort over few months to figure it out. One guy ended up with 500-600 pieces! I had a couple dealers in the 1970's who wanted to buy every 1842-0 sd, 1851-0, 1852-0, 1860-s, 1864-s, 1866-s, 1871-s, and 1872-s quarter I could find. No limits. Bob Emmer of PSG was one such dealer. I think he's deceased now. I recall in 1976 when World Wide Coin Investments (BJ Searls?) bought a hoard of seated quarters to market via Coin World. They sold every tough S mint before I even got to talk to them. Had to be dozens of the very best dates in the group. They sold them for peanuts. I bought all 7 of the 1867-s quarters they had left in F-VF....for an average of $60 each. All of them original coins with nice surfaces. Yes, seated collectors/speculators like hoards. If one is good, 3 or 6 are better.
I've heard of a hoard of several dozen 1870-cc halves. Not sure if those are broken up yet. A dealer friend of mine knows where there are 2 rolls of BU 1889-cc Morgan dollars. So tell me why the elderly owner (once a former dealer) hasn't gotten those slabbed yet? It should be obvious. I knew a half dozen collectors and dealers back in the 1970's who were hoarding the best S and O mint seated quarters. They were after the top 12-25 coins in the set...the 1858-s in grades below VF weren't on anyone's list.
I was tempted in the 1980's to hoard every decent unc 1867-s quarter in existence. I could have easily done that with no more than a $25K investment from 1986-1997. And I kick myself to this day for not doing so and cornering the market. I had the knowledge, motive, and opportunity. I gave up on $50K in profits (6X increase) by not doing so. It was easy money had I done it. And I knew it was a no brainer. But the collector in me let some "other people" have one. I knew there were likely only a half dozen in existence. The Norweb MS63/64 sold for 30% less than I would have paid. It hurt to let that one go buy...it would have been my 2nd and 2nd finest known. To this day I only consider 4-5 unc pieces not impaired.
I sort of feel "hoarding" comes second nature to seated quarter collectors and the toughest dates. After all, they were cheap from the 1970's through around 2003....it was free money. Why not buy every one as it showed up? That was my first thought. I have no doubt others thought similarly. I loved 1847-0 quarters at one point. Probably owned 6 nice ones at one time. Even Mr. Eureka liked that date and gave me his two XF/AU pieces for $185 each back in 1988. I was happier owning a pile of the best dates rather than a set. I never wanted a full seated set because there were too many dates that didn't have the potential of say an 1847-0, 1867-s or 1872-s. I'd have been happy owning several dozen of the rarest S and O mints....the bluest of blue chips.
Hope everyone has been well and had a good Thanksgiving!!
Roadrunner, in the third paragraph of the post where you cited several unheralded issues as being more rare than the '58-S, wouldn't you include the '43-O to that list?
Hope everyone has been well and had a good Thanksgiving!!
In the 1970's the 43-0 did show up slightly less often than the 58-s. Some of that was probably due to the higher price and perceived scarcity of the 58-s (ie any dealer who had one would have advertised it for sale...and maybe not his 43-0). In Good/XF/Unc they were priced in 1974 as:
43-0 $6 $35 $375
58-s $22 $125 $350
Note that in unc, the 43-0 was the highest price of any WD variety from 1840-1850 other than the 49-0. Someone knew it got tougher in unc. The unc price on the 58-s was nuts, a symbol of the unc pricing of that era. The 59-s, 60-s, 61-s had unc prices listed at $350-$375 and basically didn't exist. The much commoner 55-s and 57-s were unpriced in Coin World trends suggesting they were the rarities of the group. They couldn't have been further off base.
Ironically, the 43-0 has the highest mintage of any seated quarter from 1838-1852 at nearly 1 MILL. Talk about confusing. The New Orleans' quarters survival rate is pretty miserable. I considered the 47-0 about 30-50% better than the 43-0 and 58-s at that time. It can be debated whether the 40-0 wd, 43-0, 44-0, 58-0, 59-0 are equal to or better than the 58-s....there's not a huge difference between them in total pieces extant....collector demand/perceptions is another matter. Original mintages (rather than survival rates) still seem to drive a significant amount of demand.
NERCG (Jim Halperin's Co.) promoted the 1843-0 in the 1974-1975 period. I recall them having a VG priced at $49! It might not fetch that much today. I never saw a real unc of the 43-0 until the Eliasberg collection came along in 1996/1997. The very first seated quarter I ever bought was an 1843-0 lg "o" in VG - and having a pair of huge "X's" carved out in each obverse field. I owned that coin for over 30 years, the longest I've ever owned any seated quarter. I'd have lost money on it if not for it being a large O variety. Ironically, I found another one of those just a couple years ago at my local B&M ($8 for a raw, problem free/all wear P01).
Col. Jessup: "Analyst, Are you ever wrong? Does someone even have it more right than you?. Does actual feedback from an exceptionally well-informed LSCC member have meaning for you?"
I was under the impression that we were having a healthy discussion in this thread. It is fair for me to put forth counter-points and ask follow-up questions. I very much appreciate Roadrunner's remarks in this thread and in other threads. I hope that we continue to exchange thoughts, interpretations, opinions and reflections. I was never claiming that I bat 1.000. Part of the point of theorizing is discover new knowledge. Empirical research and experience are not the only factors. There will always be missing data. Logical arguments and debates are parts of the process of furthering knowledge and research. I am offended by the implication that I never admit that I am wrong.
I wish to thank Boosibri for pointing out, in a different thread, that I was wrong about the rarity of a couple of Clasic Head quarter eagles. His insights certainly led me to re-think my interpretations of two dates in that series, which he and I agree is underrated.
I am not ready to agree with Roadrunner's conclusions that there are more than 300 1858-S quarters around or that more than 75% of them have never been submitted to PCGS or NGC. While the Colonel is welcome to disagree with me, his personal attacks on me are not constructive.
Roadrunner: "Thank you Colonel Jessup for a bit of logic. Someone understands that a few decades of actually doing it counts for something."
This sounds like a personal attack as well. In this forum, it is curious that I am often insulted by the people who I am debating. I am not insulting anyone.
Besides, I have been examining auction lots for more than twenty-five years. I frequently talk to leading dealers, collectors and others involved. I have written hundreds of analytical articles. I am sensitive to the suggestion that I am not "actually doing it." Who is Roadrunner and what exactly has he been doing? When he revealed that he was mentioned by QDB in a few reflections in the Eliasberg '97 catalogue, I found out it his last name for the first time. No one had ever mentioned his real name to me, although he had published articles in the LSCC Journal.
Roadrunner: "Had I not decided to gravitate to finest known gem O and S mint seated quarters in the 1980's, I'd be sitting on a pile of a few hundred rare S, O, and P mint circ quarters by now....and none except a few pop tops might have ever been slabbed."
The tastes, interests and buying habits of collectors often change over time. Furthermore, I do not know what Roadrunner means by ! Would he really have had a substantial number of 1858-S quarters at one time and seriously considered keeping them for thirty-five years? If so, I honestly believe that such behavior would be very unusual, a statistical anomaly.
Roadrunner: "At one time I owned over 20 1858-0 seated dimes....I like the date.
Again, it is my honest believe that Roadrunner's proclivities in this regard are unusual. Even if someone did have twenty 1858-S quarters, would he have kept them for thirty-five years? What is the probability of that? Let us recollect that PCGS & NGC report grading less than 120 1858-S quarters, which are not all different coins, and Roadrunner says that there are more than 300! Why would anyone think that is inappropriate for me to argue this point? I did spend hours researching 1858-S quarters before I wrote my article on the Gardner pieces.
Roadrunner: "I sort of feel "hoarding" comes second nature to seated quarter collectors and the toughest dates. After all, they were cheap from the 1970's through around 2003....it was free money
As prices for many coins skyrocketed from 2001 or so to 2007 or so, it is easy to say now that the prices then were very low. From 2000 to 2002, people did not think so and many were concerned that prices would drop further. At many of the major auctions that I have attended during the past 25+ years, there were people who said that the "prices are crazy" or "unbelievable," even for coins that would later be auctioned for more than twice as much!
In Nov. 1995, the numismatists in attendance were shocked that the Rogers-Foxfire- Pogue 1797 half sold for more than $500k. Most were expecting a price in the $250k to $400k range. This same coin sold for more than $1.5m in May 2015. Coins at the prices then were not considered "free money"!
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 4: 18th Century Rarities Lead First Auction
QDB has written about the times, many decades ago, when he offered Choice Proof Trade dollars for $30 each and not many people were interested. The reality that market prices for many rare coins have risen dramatically during some time periods is not a reason to believe that many people hoarded such coins in past periods.
Roadrunner: "I had a couple dealers in the 1970's who wanted to buy every 1842-0 sd, 1851-0, 1852-0, 1860-s, 1864-s, 1866-s, 1871-s, and 1872-s quarter I could find. No limits"
Could it have been true that these dealers had collector-clients who were building sets of seated quarters? I know one dealer who is always extremely eager to buy 1911-D quarter eagles, perhaps without limit. He has clients and he knows other dealers who have clients who are putting together sets of Indian Head quarter eagles. Though not rare overall, the 1911-D is the key to the set of Indian Head quarter eagles; it is relatively scarce.
insightful10@gmail.com
Could it have been true that these dealers had collector-clients who were building sets of seated quarters? I know one dealer who is always extremely eager to buy 1911-D quarter eagles, perhaps without limit. He has clients and he knows other dealers who have clients who are putting together sets of Indian Head quarter eagles. Though not rare overall, the 1911-D is the key to the set of Indian Head quarter eagles; it is relatively scarce.
Most of the dealers looking for multiples on dates specifically told me they were speculating with them for the long term . There weren't that many seated quarter sets being assembled in the 1970's. My take on talking to many dealers and collectors was that there was a large component of speculation....not any different than what we saw 20th century key dates go through from 2002-2008 when it seemed that dealers had numerous duplicates and were swapping coins between themselves.
I don't think my desire to accumulate multiples of better seated dates was all that unusual. The price guides were stupid in the 1970's through 1990's (rarer seated dates were often priced under much less common ones, often related to mintages and their age...if you can believe it). Why wouldn't you buy every one you ran across as it was an automatic win if you bought anywhere near the typical price guide values? Even if you have a dozen 1872-s quarters, they could be used any time down the road to get any other better date you wanted.
We have seen the popularity/creation of key date coin collecting in the past 15 years. That's pretty much most of what they own. Why do you think they did that? Why is it so hard to conclude that the same thing has been occurring with key/semi-key seated dates for the past 35-40 years?
I very much appreciate Roadrunner's remarks in this thread and in other threads. I hope that we continue to exchange thoughts, interpretations, opinions and reflections. I was never claiming that I bat 1.000. Part of the point of theorizing is discover new knowledge. Empirical research and experience are not the only factors. There will always be missing data. Logical arguments and debates are parts of the process of furthering knowledge and research. I am offended by the implication that I never admit that I am wrong.
The empirical research and experience of LSCC is, IMNSHO, very likely to be considered definitive in this area. How many LSCC members did you consult in your research before you published?
Literally thousands of years of practical (in the trenches, a=s=s=e=s to elbows, the "I had to have that. Oh crap, I lost money (again))" tends to sharpen one's knowledge base.
So I guess that now you know who he is. And "what exactly" he has been doing. Since you found this out, ever PM him? Read his articles? Asked QDB about him? Please regard these questions as rhetorical. I don't mean to imply any lack of thoroughness on your part, because you do state that "there will always be missing data".
Consider it, if you wish, to be not a personal attack, but a professional attack on the thoroughness and reliability of your research methodology, at least in this one particular collecting niche.
Attempts to get surviving coin populations via the census method are doomed to fail. In coin series which have been subjected to hoarding of better dates and conditions, such as the Liberty Seated series, do you really think the hoarders are going to reveal what they own? Not a chance unless the hoarders are very, very dumb.
You, sir, quite specifically, will NOT be invited to the next meeting of the 1909 VDB Matte Proof Penny Society
What has RR been doing? For one I have been attending major auctions since 1974. There's not a lot of experience still left of those that were foraging for dated seated coinage in the 1970's and 1980's...before pop reports. It was an ideal period to study the series and calculate pops where so few dealers, collectors, and price guides had any clue. Since January 2002 I've probably posted over 1,000 pages of analysis on this forum from seated coins, to type coins, to gold coins, gold and silver bullion, to market trends, etc. I think I have a pretty good handle on "markets" of all sorts...they do tend to interrelate. Fwiw I never had made it a point to put my real name out there. Publicity isn't my bag. Heck, Colonel Jessup and New Jersey Coin Crank posted around for quite some time before I figured out who they were. Some people still don't know "who" they are. And of course I knew of them years before they posted here (think early 1980's for CJ).
Again, it is my honest believe that Roadrunner's proclivities in this regard are unusual. Even if someone did have twenty 1858-S quarters, would he have kept them for thirty-five years? What is the probability of that? Let us recollect that PCGS & NGC report grading less than 120 1858-S quarters, which are not all different coins, and Roadrunner says that there are more than 300! Why would anyone think that is inappropriate for me to argue this point? I did spend hours researching 1858-S quarters before I wrote my article on the Gardner pieces.
I'd have never kept a "pile" of 58-s quarters unless they were in VF35 or higher grades, they weren't the real blue chips. There were 2-4 dozen other dates in the series that cost less and were rarer. I can't emphasize enough not to rely on the current pop reports for circ coinage...except possibly for the most key/expensive dates. And even then, you'll still get crap. Look at how many 1901-s Barber quarters have been graded. On that information alone a newbie would conclude that the 1901-s is one of the 3 most common circ Barber quarters in the series. The 58-s is much rarer than the 01-s...though not exempt from similar "counting" errors. Only 796 1901-s Barber quarters have been graded by PCGS....most of them circs. Yet I would suggest that even with a 50% resubmission rate, the extant population is closer to 3,000-5,000. How can that be? We've been told "nearly every" good coin has been to PCGS, and usually multiple times? Dates are either expensive enough to keep resubmitting over and over again for a slight grade change OR they are not worth enough to never bother submitting in the first place...and then there's the hoards of them whose owners have no reason to send them in....especially if in a set or in a plastic coin tube of duplicates. How can one survey all/most/or at a minimum a statistical "pile" of 1858-s quarters in a "couple of hours" to come to a conclusion on how many exist? I wish it was that easy.
I've stated before that 85% of seated quarters are scarcer than the 1901-s quarter. I'd be interesting in seeing Analyst's survival estimates on the 1901-s quarter. We typically see 0.05-0.5% survival rates in better date seated quarters and dimes. Maybe we can get some linkage between 1874-cc dimes to 1858-s and 1901-s quarters.
Roadrunner: "I sort of feel "hoarding" comes second nature to seated quarter collectors and the toughest dates. After all, they were cheap from the 1970's through around 2003....it was free money...
I was there in the 1975-2002 period buying "free money" better date seated coins whenever possible. Fwiw, I contacted CW Trends editor Keith Zainer in the mid-1980's to try and fix some of the huge holes in Coin World Trends seated pricing (or was it the early 1990's?). I contacted CW again maybe in the early 2000's to try and do it again. I just couldn't bear to see heralded dates like the 72-s get the short end of the stick. A number of the scarcer O mint seated quarters were stupidly priced in XF/AU/Unc....even after 30 yrs of the LSCC getting the word out. Fwiw, I was LSCC #140.
As prices for many coins skyrocketed from 2001 or so to 2007 or so, it is easy to say now that the prices then were very low.
You missed my point entirely. Better date seated, especially the circs were stupidly priced the entire time from 1974-2002....independent of what the general coin market was doing. You didn't need a crystal ball to figure that out. The listed prices of the top 30-50 or so seated quarters probably never went down over those some 30 years. Prices were stupid low. But, the "key date" speculators that "don't exist" jumped in from around 2003-2008 and did a nice push higher on better date seated....up to triples and quadruples. CW Trends and other sources finally came out with huge revamps in a lot of their pricing. Better date seated material churned forward year after year from 1974-2002 despite market down turns. 1874-cc dimes or 1872-s quarters never got easy to find or dropped in price. Fwiw, when I bought my only 1858-s quarter ever in 2011 (a lightly cleaned XF45 for $1050...later flipped for $2,000). I got it for CDN AU money which at the time was around $1100. XF money was $650 or so. They couldn't even get the pricing right on a date that trades fairly frequently.
Speaking of 1874-cc dimes, that coin came up #1 on my early surveys of all "available" seated coinage....even outdistancing the 1878-s half dollar. Now I can't say the 74-cc is rarer, but it was priced too low in comparison (78-s half was 4X-7X higher than 74-cc 10c in 1974....not so today though at 2.5-3.5X now). It only took 35-40 years for the price guides to get it right and give the 74-cc it's due. Up until the past 5-8 years buying any 74-cc dimes or 72-s quarters (along with dozens of other dates) was indeed "free money." I got my first lesson in "free money" from Kam Ahwash in 1975 when I found my first 1852-0 25c at a local shop for $20 (Fine-12). I flipped it to Kam at his offered price of $200. Good money for the time. And lots of flips to follow. My 1858-s in 2011 was "free money"....thanks to the CDN.
From 2000 to 2002, people did not think so and many were concerned that prices would drop further.
Not from me. From the bottoming in gold in 1999-2001 around the mid-$200's and the creation of $200 TRILL in otc bank derivatives by 2002, it was pretty clear the coin and bullion markets were likely headed much higher. Dealer/analyst/LSCC founder Maurice Rosen had a watershed article in his summer 2002 RNA where it was being suggested that gold could run from $300 to $1200 within 6-10 years....it did. I re-entered both the coin and bullion markets quite heavily in 2002, probably influenced by that RNA article and knowing what kind of insane bets the bankers were laying out....gold was at $315/oz when I first bought MS63-64 $20 Saints/Libs. In 2002 I bought heavily at Stacks's Vermeulle sale as well as Goldberg's June Long Beach sale which had some very fresh and original seated coins (I purchased the ex-James Stack/James Pryor 1855 half MS65 at $14K+, the ex-James Stack/James Pryor 1874-s half in PCGS MS65 for around $22K, a MS64+ ogh 1849 quarter (it became the first MS65 at PCGS). Both the ogh halves upgraded to MS66 when resubmitted for regrade a short time later. RR was doing a lot in the 2002-2004 period. But things were already getting heated by 2004-2005 so I bought less in seated and gem type and more in the generic gold area. I pretty much stopped buying all seated and silver type coins around 2006-2007 other than to flip them. They were just too high to continue buying safely, imo. The prime buying time was 1996-2003....not 2004-2008.
Over the years I've owned some nicer seated quarters including the finest knowns for 1856-0, 1858-0, 1866-s, 1867-s quarters. The last 2 are still the finest knowns, the 58-0 is probably still the best...Gene thought so. I had a standing offer starting in 1983 to buy any raw gem O mint seated quarter for $4K minimum. In the 1980's I only was able to buy 2....I can say that a lot of lousy coins were sent to me on approval. I also owned 1840 wd MS64, 1853 NA MS67, 1868-s MS64, 1869-s MS65. I passed on the "finest known" 1860-0 in MS65 at $4K back in 1984 as I didn't like it. I still don't like it all that much today...despite the MS66+ holder. In those days, the problem wasn't having enough money, it was almost always that the coins were not quite up to par, often over-graded. I like to think that my surveys were done before better date seated hoarding got too far along. 10 years after I started my surveys, it still seemed like 95% of dealers knew nothing about seated coins and just went by Red Book and Coin World Trends. The KCDR was the first seated price guide with some reasonable accuracy that I saw published....that was around 1988-1990. I don't recall who the source of that pricing was.
So now you know a little bit about what RR was doing from 1974-2011. I can't say I did it mostly right or even close to that. Lots of regrets. But, I did do it, despite mistakes, hard knocks, lessons learned, etc. I didn't get to 26,000+ posts by posting one liners. Most of that stuff is from analyzing things....a 45 year data base.
Link to item
Interesting update on the Gardner PCGS MS62 CAC 1858-s.... it is presently for sale in Heritage's inventory. I don't know if they bought it in the auction themselves, or if it came back to them from the purchaser, but it is not presently residing in anyone's collection.
Link to item
From the Heritage photos the coin looks to have 10-15% obverse luster and approx 50% reverse luster. The straight on photo of the obv only shows luster around the stars, basically nothing in the left and right obv fields. Can a photo be that lacking?
So here's the question - who knows more of those kind of guys, Analyst or RR?