@RogerB said:
I understand your umbrage at "mutilated." Maybe if we could routinely read and understand Cantonese they would become more like merchant counterstamps on other coins. However, to treat analogous 3-rd party punches differently is inconsistent and unfair to other collectors who have equally valid interests.
I get your point and agree. Always thought it peculiar that chopmarks enjoyed special treatment vs a guy carving his girlfriends initial on the reverse of a half dollar.
To the credit of PCGS, the original genuine holders offered no guidance regarding grade. They have since added the letter (though not a numeric) detail grade.
@cccoins said:
Here are two coins that I bought in details holders as i just couldn’t afford a straight grade example. The 20c piece is one of my absolute favorites in my collection. It just has the right look. I have never regretted either purchase.
Holy.
Cow.
Wow!!!!!!
Thanks for sharing. Two phenomenal coins.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
Buying obviously damaged, but ultra rare varieties...
Answering the OP question, the only "ultra rare variety" I have seen on this thread is Baley's icon coin, discovered on this forum with 4 currently known. The R-5 varieties are only "rare" at least per the Sheldon scale.
One of my favorite auction catalogs is the Ed Price dime/quarter eagle sale. Rather that just being a "Registry quality" collector, getting dealers to find the top pops, Price would search the junk boxes. He discovered at least 2 new bust varieties including the 1803 JR-5 dime, by looking through coins that others would turn their nose up at. He is a true numismatist. He had "damaged" low grade coins including a unique at the time 1796 JR-7 Fair 2 details, along with the finest known draped bust dimes and quarter eagles, some over $1M.
So if you stumble across a new discovery or extremely rare R-8 variety on eBay that has issues, would you bid?
Are you a numismatist, or not?
edit - to answer the question about bidding strategy, look at PR's of extremely rare varieties for whatever series you collect. For the draped bust half dollar series that I collect. true R-7's are about $5K and up, any new discovery should be $20K or more for a low grade details coin.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@sellitstore said:
"Bad breath is better than no breath." -John Hickman(?), currency dealer/auctioneer
This is the quote often heard by buyers justifying buying a rag or sellers trying to sell one.
Thanks for that - I remember meeting John Hickman when I collected National Bank Notes in Iowa. What a character! There was another quote about collectors being ghouls when you had to wait for someone to die so you could add a unique note to your collection.
Interesting to see how many directions this thread went! For anyone that is curious... as it turns out, it was not quite as "ultra" rare as I had originally thought(but still a pretty rare bird). For that reason, I did not go nuclear and ended up not acquiring the item. I have learned a lot from the people that did comment though. Thanks for the replies!
RE: "Chop marks & counterstamps ARE NOT a form of mutilation. "
If the marks are meaningless to the viewer, they are "mutilation" in any sense of the word. If they have meaning - and can be understood - then they might be called something else. FYI - The US Mints considered all chop marked Trade dollars mutilated and accepted only as bullion.
@RogerB said:
RE: "Chop marks & counterstamps ARE NOT a form of mutilation. "
If the marks are meaningless to the viewer, they are "mutilation" in any sense of the word. If they have meaning - and can be understood - then they might be called something else. FYI - The US Mints considered all chop marked Trade dollars mutilated and accepted only as bullion.
Absolutely true. An illiterate, sheltered, uninformed, etc. person cannot be expected to know what a Chinese character is just as an Arab nomad or New Guinea savage would not recognize a "W.S. Lacey" C/S as anything except damage. Fortunately, most here have been exposed to the world.
Furthermore, as you posted, at one time the Mint considered chopped $T as bullion. I believe you. At one time the TPGS body-bagged the pieces. Then, as they became more enlightened they were slabbed as "damaged" and detailed. Today, I think we are moving to a time when every TPGS will just straight grade them as Chopped coins.
When I was collecting half cents by Cohen variety, I once bought an 1805 C-2 which I graded Good-4, porus, net Fair-2 for $1,000. At the time there were 18 known. I later sold it for $1,100 to dealer specialist when I gave up on the collection. Most collectors would have paid no more than $15 for it.
If you are collecting all of the varieties, sometimes you have accept a junky looking coin because that's you will probably ever have a chance to get. It takes a love the series to buy stuff like that, but if your thing at the time, it's okay so long as you not in too deep. In other words don't spend more than you will be comfortable losing.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@cccoins said:
Here are two coins that I bought in details holders as i just couldn’t afford a straight grade example. The 20c piece is one of my absolute favorites in my collection. It just has the right look. I have never regretted either purchase.
Given my love for Twenty Cent Pieces, I probably would have considered that one myself.
I believe that must be the same one that was kicking around in the major auctions in the early 1980s. I think that it was in Auction '82 when it was bought in by the house for yet another time.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I bought this 1838 medal from John Kraljevich, there are 2 known from this die pair. I don't collect these by die variety, but I wanted a nice example of engraving from Moritz Furst, and jumped at the chance to get an extremely rare early gold US medal with a great design from this talented engraver. Many early medals are holed, and given the rarity I am fine with it.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Buying obviously damaged, but ultra rare varieties...
Answering the OP question, the only "ultra rare variety" I have seen on this thread is Baley's icon coin, discovered on this forum with 4 currently known. The R-5 varieties are only "rare" at least per the Sheldon scale.
Well, since I slightly derailed (maybe?) the conversation. This is the coin I bought, and I don't regret it. As an aside, this is the only straight graded chop marked coin graded. There are 2? straight graded without chopmarks. Others would be better to ask about overall rarity.
If, as some assert, a chop marked Trade dollar is "gradeable" than every coin with an intelligible man-made post-production mark should also be "gradeable."
One cannot logically exist without the other being included. That should be clear even to those cloistered ones who worship the alter gods.
@RogerB said:
If, as some assert, a chop marked Trade dollar is "gradeable" than every coin with an intelligible man-made post-production mark should also be "gradeable."
One cannot logically exist without the other being included. That should be clear even to those cloistered ones who worship the alter gods.
Amen, now you get it! They can be. Take any coin, do whatever you wish to it as it does not need to be a recognizable mark (let's punch a stylized "RB" into it) and send it to the TPGS. If you pick the right one (I heard they even slabbed a cardboard milk bottle cap), the coin will be returned in a slab. Now, if you carve off all the legend as on one coin posted here you may finally get the word "mutilated" its label.
@RogerB said:
RE: "Chop marks & counterstamps ARE NOT a form of mutilation. "
If the marks are meaningless to the viewer, they are "mutilation" in any sense of the word. If they have meaning - and can be understood - then they might be called something else. FYI - The US Mints considered all chop marked Trade dollars mutilated and accepted only as bullion.
Absolutely true. An illiterate, sheltered, uninformed, etc. person cannot be expected to know what a Chinese character is just as an Arab nomad or New Guinea savage would not recognize a "W.S. Lacey" C/S as anything except damage. Fortunately, most here have been exposed to the world.
Furthermore, as you posted, at one time the Mint considered chopped $T as bullion. I believe you. At one time the TPGS body-bagged the pieces. Then, as they became more enlightened they were slabbed as "damaged" and detailed. Today, I think we are moving to a time when every TPGS will just straight grade them as Chopped coins.
Was the intent of the US trade dollar anything other than bullion?
@cccoins said:
Here are two coins that I bought in details holders as i just couldn’t afford a straight grade example. The 20c piece is one of my absolute favorites in my collection. It just has the right look. I have never regretted either purchase.
@Baley said:
For all coins, start at 70, then look at coin and subtract points for wear and damage, easy peasy!
No need to parse words and discuss semantics or speculate intent of who "did it" or "when or how it happened"
All grading is a net grading opinion.
What is a "Net grading opinion?" How does it differ from "a grading opinion?" Is the word "net" necessary?
Suggestion: Grading is an opinion. You start with a concept of the "perfect" coin and use that to examine a coin and deduct for different things. You arrive at THE GRADE that remains after deductions. So all grading is what remains from perfection - the coin has been net graded as you post all the time when it really has not.
The problem is this. IMO, calling ALL GRADING "net grading" is silly and confusing. I don't know and have not ever heard a professional grader say they have "net graded" a particular coin EXCEPT in cases where they play like the copper collectors and actually drop the coin's true grade to convey a lower value.
Here is the thing. When a coin is graded normally as most folks do it looks a certain way. it has a certain amount of detail. I can look in a book and see the coin or I can imaging what it looks like. In cases where a coin is ACTUALLY "net graded" as the copper guys like to do, there is no way on this earth that anyone can know how much detail is on the coin. Furthermore, a "net graded" coin (one that was graded PROPERLY in the first place by "netting" down its defects) and then netting it down further will virtually guarantee it will look nothing like what is in the grading guides. A coin net graded by the copper guys as a VF often looks like an XF. Yes, the XF was net graded (by the dictionary definition also) **but it is not "Net Graded!"
Let's try to confine net grading to the system used by the copper guys and not the rest of us.
The point is to know how much to pay, based on how bad you want it, and how much you think you'll be able to get when time comes to sell. It's about a transaction that changes the ownership, not some abstract philosophy discussion.
Say for example, what if i think, IMO, my half dime grades VF details, holed, net 7.
If someone thinks it Nets 6 or lower, no problem, we can agree to disagree, but they'll not buy it. If they think it's 9 or higher, send me a check and it's theirs!
If someone thinks it's simply "VF details, holed", or if they don't want it at any price because it's garbage, all well and good, but their opinion is irrelevant
IMO, your following post has NOTHING to do with I just wrote requesting that the word "NET" be confined to lowering the grade of a coin's ACTUAL CONDITION OF PRESERVATION because it is scratched or has rim dings. Grade the coin by its condition and state its attributes or defects. It was called Technical Grading when it was devised in 1972.
@Baley said: "The point is to know how much to pay, based on how bad you want it, and how much you think you'll be able to get when time comes to sell. It's about a transaction that changes the ownership,
AFAIK, there is no National coin pricing board. What a coin sells for or costs has absolutely nothing to do with anything EXCEPT for two people...the buyer and the seller.
The only thing irrelevant in this thread is the "net grading" foolishness practiced by copper specialists AND those who wish to insist that because we detract from perfection when grading that we are" net" grading a coin. There is a very big difference and there is nothing abstract about it.
The point is to figure out how much to bid on a rare problem coin. You get a picture. You have a price guide. The only thing that matters is How To Net Grade.
The point is to figure out how much to bid on a rare problem coin. You get a picture. You have a price guide. The only thing that matters is How To Net Grade.
LOL, I thought that figuring out how much to offer for any coin is the picture! Price Guide? LOL. That's a really good one. As you know some coins sell at prices unrelated to any price guide - even in slabs of the same grade! Furthermore, add rare and desirable to the equation and - "what price guide?
This is the undeniable fact:
From what I've read in the Copper Grading Guide written by members of the EAC, what I've heard from professional numismatists, and from what I've personally observed on many occasions (starting with a 1794 Large Cent graded by some of the foremost numismatists at the First Grading Roundtable in NYC), net grading a coin and then figuring what to price it is a crap shoot taking more knowledge and experience than 99.7% of folks reading this could ever do consistently with any accuracy! I'm glad to hear that you are in the .3%! You have a lot to offer all of us here.
BTW, the expert dealer's/numismatist's graded that "PHOTOGRADE TEXTBOOK XF"" Large cent everything from VERY FINE ($800) to ABOUT UNCIRCULATED ($3000+) because they were "net grading it to establish its COMMERCIAL VALUE.
The ignorant, rookie "nobody" in the room (that up to then had possibly examined three 1794 Cents in his life) opened the Photograde book and correctly matched the coin to the image of an XF. That's because he knew nothing about its value, Sheldon rarity, etc. He was simply grading it by it's condition: XF, rim dings and scratched,
Net Grading is confusing, extremely variable due to added SUBJECTIVITY, and very silly. Pricing damaged coins is a crap shoot. I can imagine how thick the NET GRADING PRICE GUIDE would need to be...LOL
@cccoins said:
Here are two coins that I bought in details holders as i just couldn’t afford a straight grade example. The 20c piece is one of my absolute favorites in my collection. It just has the right look. I have never regretted either purchase.
Given my love for Twenty Cent Pieces, I probably would have considered that one myself.
I believe that must be the same one that was kicking around in the major auctions in the early 1980s. I think that it was in Auction '82 when it was bought in by the house for yet another time.
Here is what I have on it for it’s provenance:
Provenance:
January, 2010 - Wagner collection
June, 1976 - Bowers and Ruddy - Dr. Edward B. Willing auction, from E.A. Carson collection, Lot 72 - $16,000
November, 1956 - Stacks - B. Frank collection, Lot 622 - $3,300
November, 1946 - Stacks - Charles Deetz collection, Lot 1512 - $1,090
Possible other appearances:
1937 - Stacks
I will look at auction 82’ to see if I can find it.
@cccoins said:
Here are two coins that I bought in details holders as i just couldn’t afford a straight grade example. The 20c piece is one of my absolute favorites in my collection. It just has the right look. I have never regretted either purchase.
Given my love for Twenty Cent Pieces, I probably would have considered that one myself.
I believe that must be the same one that was kicking around in the major auctions in the early 1980s. I think that it was in Auction '82 when it was bought in by the house for yet another time.
Here is what I have on it for it’s provenance:
Provenance:
January, 2010 - Wagner collection
June, 1976 - Bowers and Ruddy - Dr. Edward B. Willing auction, from E.A. Carson collection, Lot 72 - $16,000
November, 1956 - Stacks - B. Frank collection, Lot 622 - $3,300
November, 1946 - Stacks - Charles Deetz collection, Lot 1512 - $1,090
Possible other appearances:
1937 - Stacks
I will look at auction 82’ to see if I can find it.
.
.
Thought I recalled seeing that listed in another auction and found two other appearances of your 1876-CC 20 cent at auction, both from 1989.
First was a January 1989 Stack's auction where it shows as bringing $19,800.00
No way to tell if those were actual sales or buybacks as that was before they started noting such things by marking or omitting them from prices realized. Might take an insider to know if it sold each time. It's possible they were actual sales as the market was moving up fast in 1989. Did not find any other auction sales listed for it after that year.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@cccoins said:
Here are two coins that I bought in details holders as i just couldn’t afford a straight grade example. The 20c piece is one of my absolute favorites in my collection. It just has the right look. I have never regretted either purchase.
Given my love for Twenty Cent Pieces, I probably would have considered that one myself.
I believe that must be the same one that was kicking around in the major auctions in the early 1980s. I think that it was in Auction '82 when it was bought in by the house for yet another time.
Here is what I have on it for it’s provenance:
Provenance:
January, 2010 - Wagner collection
June, 1976 - Bowers and Ruddy - Dr. Edward B. Willing auction, from E.A. Carson collection, Lot 72 - $16,000
November, 1956 - Stacks - B. Frank collection, Lot 622 - $3,300
November, 1946 - Stacks - Charles Deetz collection, Lot 1512 - $1,090
Possible other appearances:
1937 - Stacks
I will look at auction 82’ to see if I can find it.
.
.
Thought I recalled seeing that listed in another auction and found two other appearances of your 1876-CC 20 cent at auction, both from 1989.
First was a January 1989 Stack's auction where it shows as bringing $19,800.00
No way to tell if those were actual sales or buybacks as that was before they started noting such things by marking or omitting them from prices realized. Might take an insider to know if it sold each time. It's possible they were actual sales as the market was moving up fast in 1989. Did not find any other auction sales listed for it after that year.
.
.
Thank you so much for the additional links and information! It’s nice to have a coin that you can trace the ownership on. I have had it for eleven years, and hope to keep it for many more. It’s the one coin I look at every time I go to the vault.
Back in 2002-2008, I bought a huge Seated/Barber/Early Copper collection from a friend that had been assembled in the 1930s-1960s era. The person who formed the collection had an unfortunate tendency to buy incredible, gem quality common dates, but he went after scratched, damaged key dates (like a badly cut-up 1870-cc quarter with VF details). Since that time, I have auctioned off the damaged material (mostly on ebay) and kept the nice circs. and Uncs. I always made a solid profit on the "damaged key dates" while the PCGS MS-xx material has generally lost value over the years.
Never underestimate the potential of a damaged rarity in a no-reserve ebay auction. I remember feeling so bad about one auction in particular that I emailed the buyer, told him he made a mistake, and asked him if he wanted to cancel the auction (seriously). He said that he wanted it, and just didn't have the money for a better example, so I got paid the full amount. Wow.
It’s not a rare variety, but all Bechtler gold coins are rare and super expensive. I’ve shown this coin on the forums several times cause I like it so much. I could have gotten a low grade one for probably a similar price, but I kind of like this one for both the way it looks and for its history. I’m thinking a lower grade undamaged one wouldn’t have the red toning intact. The design isn’t pretty anyway, so what’s a few dents that look like buckshot really hurting. I’ll probably still look for another Bechtler, but it won’t be to upgrade this one, I just want one that is from C. Bechtler next time. I’ll probably go for a straight low grade one that has the N in dollar reversed. I like that one because the N makes that one cool to me, but if I found a high grade damaged one it’s not out of the question, but only if it looks cool to me like this one does
The platinum 1814 half dollar seems to be incredible IMHO. I can vouch that it looks amazing in hand. Certainly, dosen't seem to fit the gist of this thread as a finest known specimen. The exception "P" overstrikes remain an important area of numismatic inquiry. The Smithsonian platinum half dollar has a wedge cut out from it, that is likely considered damage, although I'd speculate likely mint made.
@RogerB said:
I understand your umbrage at "mutilated." Maybe if we could routinely read and understand Cantonese they would become more like merchant counterstamps on other coins. However, to treat analogous 3-rd party punches differently is inconsistent and unfair to other collectors who have equally valid interests.
I get your point and agree. Always thought it peculiar that chopmarks enjoyed special treatment vs a guy carving his girlfriends initial on the reverse of a half dollar.
Chop marks are a normal consequence of the intended purpose of coins, commerce.
PCGS also straight grades merchant counter stamps.
What 3rd party punch isn’t straight graded by PCGS that you feel should be?
@Nysoto said:
I bought this 1838 medal from John Kraljevich, there are 2 known from this die pair. I don't collect these by die variety, but I wanted a nice example of engraving from Moritz Furst, and jumped at the chance to get an extremely rare early gold US medal with a great design from this talented engraver. Many early medals are holed, and given the rarity I am fine with it.
The thing about being holed is that the intention of many of these is to be holed when they were struck. When I see a holed piece like this without the hanger or ribbon, I see an incomplete piece, not a damaged piece. That tends to be okay for numismatists but the hanger is of vital importance to other historians.
1887 Pres. & Mrs. Cleveland Presidential Tour Medal - 25.5mm - DeWitt GC-1888-12 - NGC MS66 - Ex-Brian Dobbins, Brian S. Holt
Here's a political campaign piece I picked up a while back. It's graded NGC MS66 now, but NGC discarded the silk ribbon even though a request was made to return it. I wonder if they had to cut or otherwise destroy the ribbon to get it off.
I have a few medals with ribbons and always keep them even when threadbare.
Here is another very rare variety that I like and will always keep, 1806 T-25/O.122, Tompkins says 21-22 known. This appeared unattributed on eBay around 2003, I was the underbidder, it changed hands a few times and bought last year at just above the 2003 price. The wear on the coin shows off the terminal state with the bi-level crack. and I have seen the same partially drilled hole in the tail feathers on a few other draped bust coins, probably a test hole from an overzealous merchant:
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@Nysoto said:
I have a few medals with ribbons and always keep them even when threadbare.
It was slabbed before I got it, but keep it intact as well.
Here is another very rare variety that I like and will always keep, 1806 T-25/O.122, Tompkins says 21-22 known. This appeared unattributed on eBay around 2003, I was the underbidder, it changed hands a few times and bought last year at just above the 2003 price. The wear on the coin shows off the terminal state with the bi-level crack. and I have seen the same partially drilled hole in the tail feathers on a few other draped bust coins, probably a test hole from an overzealous merchant:
Very nice example. I'm glad they put the drill hole in a good location.
Rare royal 1/2 Reales from Mexico. Most have holes in them in this series since they where carried on ropes or necklaces and things like that. I am fine with it. If you can't afford a problem free coin I am all for owning one that has issues at least you have one.
Comments
Maybe he means, "all grades are net."
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I get your point and agree. Always thought it peculiar that chopmarks enjoyed special treatment vs a guy carving his girlfriends initial on the reverse of a half dollar.
To the credit of PCGS, the original genuine holders offered no guidance regarding grade. They have since added the letter (though not a numeric) detail grade.
Holy.
Cow.
Wow!!!!!!
Thanks for sharing. Two phenomenal coins.
"Bad breath is better than no breath." -John Hickman(?), currency dealer/auctioneer
This is the quote often heard by buyers justifying buying a rag or sellers trying to sell one.
Answering the OP question, the only "ultra rare variety" I have seen on this thread is Baley's icon coin, discovered on this forum with 4 currently known. The R-5 varieties are only "rare" at least per the Sheldon scale.
One of my favorite auction catalogs is the Ed Price dime/quarter eagle sale. Rather that just being a "Registry quality" collector, getting dealers to find the top pops, Price would search the junk boxes. He discovered at least 2 new bust varieties including the 1803 JR-5 dime, by looking through coins that others would turn their nose up at. He is a true numismatist. He had "damaged" low grade coins including a unique at the time 1796 JR-7 Fair 2 details, along with the finest known draped bust dimes and quarter eagles, some over $1M.
So if you stumble across a new discovery or extremely rare R-8 variety on eBay that has issues, would you bid?
Are you a numismatist, or not?
edit - to answer the question about bidding strategy, look at PR's of extremely rare varieties for whatever series you collect. For the draped bust half dollar series that I collect. true R-7's are about $5K and up, any new discovery should be $20K or more for a low grade details coin.
Thanks for that - I remember meeting John Hickman when I collected National Bank Notes in Iowa. What a character! There was another quote about collectors being ghouls when you had to wait for someone to die so you could add a unique note to your collection.
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
Interesting to see how many directions this thread went! For anyone that is curious... as it turns out, it was not quite as "ultra" rare as I had originally thought(but still a pretty rare bird). For that reason, I did not go nuclear and ended up not acquiring the item. I have learned a lot from the people that did comment though. Thanks for the replies!
RE: "Chop marks & counterstamps ARE NOT a form of mutilation. "
If the marks are meaningless to the viewer, they are "mutilation" in any sense of the word. If they have meaning - and can be understood - then they might be called something else. FYI - The US Mints considered all chop marked Trade dollars mutilated and accepted only as bullion.
Absolutely true. An illiterate, sheltered, uninformed, etc. person cannot be expected to know what a Chinese character is just as an Arab nomad or New Guinea savage would not recognize a "W.S. Lacey" C/S as anything except damage. Fortunately, most here have been exposed to the world.
Furthermore, as you posted, at one time the Mint considered chopped $T as bullion. I believe you. At one time the TPGS body-bagged the pieces. Then, as they became more enlightened they were slabbed as "damaged" and detailed. Today, I think we are moving to a time when every TPGS will just straight grade them as Chopped coins.
When I was collecting half cents by Cohen variety, I once bought an 1805 C-2 which I graded Good-4, porus, net Fair-2 for $1,000. At the time there were 18 known. I later sold it for $1,100 to dealer specialist when I gave up on the collection. Most collectors would have paid no more than $15 for it.
If you are collecting all of the varieties, sometimes you have accept a junky looking coin because that's you will probably ever have a chance to get. It takes a love the series to buy stuff like that, but if your thing at the time, it's okay so long as you not in too deep. In other words don't spend more than you will be comfortable losing.
Given my love for Twenty Cent Pieces, I probably would have considered that one myself.
I believe that must be the same one that was kicking around in the major auctions in the early 1980s. I think that it was in Auction '82 when it was bought in by the house for yet another time.
I bought this 1838 medal from John Kraljevich, there are 2 known from this die pair. I don't collect these by die variety, but I wanted a nice example of engraving from Moritz Furst, and jumped at the chance to get an extremely rare early gold US medal with a great design from this talented engraver. Many early medals are holed, and given the rarity I am fine with it.
Well, since I slightly derailed (maybe?) the conversation. This is the coin I bought, and I don't regret it. As an aside, this is the only straight graded chop marked coin graded. There are 2? straight graded without chopmarks. Others would be better to ask about overall rarity.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
If, as some assert, a chop marked Trade dollar is "gradeable" than every coin with an intelligible man-made post-production mark should also be "gradeable."
One cannot logically exist without the other being included. That should be clear even to those cloistered ones who worship the alter gods.
Amen, now you get it! They can be. Take any coin, do whatever you wish to it as it does not need to be a recognizable mark (let's punch a stylized "RB" into it) and send it to the TPGS. If you pick the right one (I heard they even slabbed a cardboard milk bottle cap), the coin will be returned in a slab. Now, if you carve off all the legend as on one coin posted here you may finally get the word "mutilated" its label.
Was the intent of the US trade dollar anything other than bullion?
For all coins, start at 70, then look at coin and subtract points for wear and damage, easy peasy!
No need to parse words and discuss semantics or speculate intent of who "did it" or "when or how it happened"
All grading is a net grading opinion.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Coinstartled said: "Was the intent of the US trade dollar anything other than bullion?"
IMO, since they were made to be accepted in payment ($1) by the Chinese they are not bullion. Ask @RogerB. He'll know the answer.
Wow! Good for you.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
What is a "Net grading opinion?" How does it differ from "a grading opinion?" Is the word "net" necessary?
Suggestion: Grading is an opinion. You start with a concept of the "perfect" coin and use that to examine a coin and deduct for different things. You arrive at THE GRADE that remains after deductions. So all grading is what remains from perfection - the coin has been net graded as you post all the time when it really has not.
The problem is this. IMO, calling ALL GRADING "net grading" is silly and confusing. I don't know and have not ever heard a professional grader say they have "net graded" a particular coin EXCEPT in cases where they play like the copper collectors and actually drop the coin's true grade to convey a lower value.
Here is the thing. When a coin is graded normally as most folks do it looks a certain way. it has a certain amount of detail. I can look in a book and see the coin or I can imaging what it looks like. In cases where a coin is ACTUALLY "net graded" as the copper guys like to do, there is no way on this earth that anyone can know how much detail is on the coin. Furthermore, a "net graded" coin (one that was graded PROPERLY in the first place by "netting" down its defects) and then netting it down further will virtually guarantee it will look nothing like what is in the grading guides. A coin net graded by the copper guys as a VF often looks like an XF. Yes, the XF was net graded (by the dictionary definition also) **but it is not "Net Graded!"
Let's try to confine net grading to the system used by the copper guys and not the rest of us.
The point is to know how much to pay, based on how bad you want it, and how much you think you'll be able to get when time comes to sell. It's about a transaction that changes the ownership, not some abstract philosophy discussion.
Say for example, what if i think, IMO, my half dime grades VF details, holed, net 7.
If someone thinks it Nets 6 or lower, no problem, we can agree to disagree, but they'll not buy it. If they think it's 9 or higher, send me a check and it's theirs!
If someone thinks it's simply "VF details, holed", or if they don't want it at any price because it's garbage, all well and good, but their opinion is irrelevant
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
And anyone will "know how much detail is on the coin" by looking at it in person or by picture 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
IMO, your following post has NOTHING to do with I just wrote requesting that the word "NET" be confined to lowering the grade of a coin's ACTUAL CONDITION OF PRESERVATION because it is scratched or has rim dings. Grade the coin by its condition and state its attributes or defects. It was called Technical Grading when it was devised in 1972.
@Baley said: "The point is to know how much to pay, based on how bad you want it, and how much you think you'll be able to get when time comes to sell. It's about a transaction that changes the ownership,
AFAIK, there is no National coin pricing board. What a coin sells for or costs has absolutely nothing to do with anything EXCEPT for two people...the buyer and the seller.
The only thing irrelevant in this thread is the "net grading" foolishness practiced by copper specialists AND those who wish to insist that because we detract from perfection when grading that we are" net" grading a coin. There is a very big difference and there is nothing abstract about it.
Yeah, we should all grade by images. It would save a lot of postage back and forth.
Read the OP again.
The point is to figure out how much to bid on a rare problem coin. You get a picture. You have a price guide. The only thing that matters is How To Net Grade.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
LOL, I thought that figuring out how much to offer for any coin is the picture! Price Guide? LOL. That's a really good one. As you know some coins sell at prices unrelated to any price guide - even in slabs of the same grade! Furthermore, add rare and desirable to the equation and - "what price guide?
This is the undeniable fact:
From what I've read in the Copper Grading Guide written by members of the EAC, what I've heard from professional numismatists, and from what I've personally observed on many occasions (starting with a 1794 Large Cent graded by some of the foremost numismatists at the First Grading Roundtable in NYC), net grading a coin and then figuring what to price it is a crap shoot taking more knowledge and experience than 99.7% of folks reading this could ever do consistently with any accuracy! I'm glad to hear that you are in the .3%!
You have a lot to offer all of us here.
BTW, the expert dealer's/numismatist's graded that "PHOTOGRADE TEXTBOOK XF"" Large cent everything from VERY FINE ($800) to ABOUT UNCIRCULATED ($3000+) because they were "net grading it to establish its COMMERCIAL VALUE.
The ignorant, rookie "nobody" in the room (that up to then had possibly examined three 1794 Cents in his life) opened the Photograde book and correctly matched the coin to the image of an XF. That's because he knew nothing about its value, Sheldon rarity, etc. He was simply grading it by it's condition: XF, rim dings and scratched,
Net Grading is confusing, extremely variable due to added SUBJECTIVITY, and very silly. Pricing damaged coins is a crap shoot. I can imagine how thick the NET GRADING PRICE GUIDE would need to be...LOL
www.brunkauctions.com
Rare varieties with damage are great tools for learning and studying.
You Also learn to love them for what they are. Something about having coins where there are less than 100 known regardless of grade.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
Here is what I have on it for it’s provenance:
Provenance:
Possible other appearances:
I will look at auction 82’ to see if I can find it.
Here is an updated picture of the 1873 cc 25c no arrows:
I think that it shows better in the PCGS holder.
It was in Auction ‘82 as lot 707. Shows the price realized as $25,000, which could have been a pass.
A couple of coins like this come to my mind..
so on second thought, the Hunley coin is not a rarity.
The 1814 Platinum, ex Logan?
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
"obviously damaged" rare variety why would someone scratch this? A straight graded version would be expensive.
One of 3 know (2 are details) and the hardest of the 4 years that used the 1.2mm Wide CC Rev die (73-76)
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
.
.
Thought I recalled seeing that listed in another auction and found two other appearances of your 1876-CC 20 cent at auction, both from 1989.
First was a January 1989 Stack's auction where it shows as bringing $19,800.00
https://archive.org/details/unitedstatesgold1989stac/page/26/mode/2up
Next was Superior's session of Auction '89 July 1989 where it shows $29,700.00
https://archive.org/details/auction89featuri1989stac/page/176/mode/2up
No way to tell if those were actual sales or buybacks as that was before they started noting such things by marking or omitting them from prices realized. Might take an insider to know if it sold each time. It's possible they were actual sales as the market was moving up fast in 1989. Did not find any other auction sales listed for it after that year.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
ok. you got me. my heart started thumping thinking it was the big ddo. doesn't even appear to be the lesser one.
don't see an mpd or reverse doubling. what am i missing? i see something going on with the obv lettering. broken D, serfi on A and I.
forgot to add links to big TV.
Thank you so much for the additional links and information! It’s nice to have a coin that you can trace the ownership on. I have had it for eleven years, and hope to keep it for many more. It’s the one coin I look at every time I go to the vault.
Back in 2002-2008, I bought a huge Seated/Barber/Early Copper collection from a friend that had been assembled in the 1930s-1960s era. The person who formed the collection had an unfortunate tendency to buy incredible, gem quality common dates, but he went after scratched, damaged key dates (like a badly cut-up 1870-cc quarter with VF details). Since that time, I have auctioned off the damaged material (mostly on ebay) and kept the nice circs. and Uncs. I always made a solid profit on the "damaged key dates" while the PCGS MS-xx material has generally lost value over the years.
Never underestimate the potential of a damaged rarity in a no-reserve ebay auction. I remember feeling so bad about one auction in particular that I emailed the buyer, told him he made a mistake, and asked him if he wanted to cancel the auction (seriously). He said that he wanted it, and just didn't have the money for a better example, so I got paid the full amount. Wow.
well, i see it now. gratz on s-2
- it seems the broken D makes it conclusive. 
It’s not a rare variety, but all Bechtler gold coins are rare and super expensive. I’ve shown this coin on the forums several times cause I like it so much. I could have gotten a low grade one for probably a similar price, but I kind of like this one for both the way it looks and for its history. I’m thinking a lower grade undamaged one wouldn’t have the red toning intact. The design isn’t pretty anyway, so what’s a few dents that look like buckshot really hurting. I’ll probably still look for another Bechtler, but it won’t be to upgrade this one, I just want one that is from C. Bechtler next time. I’ll probably go for a straight low grade one that has the N in dollar reversed. I like that one because the N makes that one cool to me, but if I found a high grade damaged one it’s not out of the question, but only if it looks cool to me like this one does
Mr_Spud
The platinum 1814 half dollar seems to be incredible IMHO. I can vouch that it looks amazing in hand. Certainly, dosen't seem to fit the gist of this thread as a finest known specimen. The exception "P" overstrikes remain an important area of numismatic inquiry. The Smithsonian platinum half dollar has a wedge cut out from it, that is likely considered damage, although I'd speculate likely mint made.
Chop marks are a normal consequence of the intended purpose of coins, commerce.
PCGS also straight grades merchant counter stamps.
What 3rd party punch isn’t straight graded by PCGS that you feel should be?
The thing about being holed is that the intention of many of these is to be holed when they were struck. When I see a holed piece like this without the hanger or ribbon, I see an incomplete piece, not a damaged piece. That tends to be okay for numismatists but the hanger is of vital importance to other historians.
1887 Pres. & Mrs. Cleveland Presidential Tour Medal - 25.5mm - DeWitt GC-1888-12 - NGC MS66 - Ex-Brian Dobbins, Brian S. Holt
Here's a political campaign piece I picked up a while back. It's graded NGC MS66 now, but NGC discarded the silk ribbon even though a request was made to return it. I wonder if they had to cut or otherwise destroy the ribbon to get it off.
I have a few medals with ribbons and always keep them even when threadbare.
Here is another very rare variety that I like and will always keep, 1806 T-25/O.122, Tompkins says 21-22 known. This appeared unattributed on eBay around 2003, I was the underbidder, it changed hands a few times and bought last year at just above the 2003 price. The wear on the coin shows off the terminal state with the bi-level crack. and I have seen the same partially drilled hole in the tail feathers on a few other draped bust coins, probably a test hole from an overzealous merchant:
It was slabbed before I got it, but keep it intact as well.
Very nice example. I'm glad they put the drill hole in a good location.
I picked up a holed half disme from lcs. No regrets
Rare royal 1/2 Reales from Mexico. Most have holes in them in this series since they where carried on ropes or necklaces and things like that. I am fine with it. If you can't afford a problem free coin I am all for owning one that has issues at least you have one.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers