That '54-S $5
ranshdow
Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭✭
Do you think PCGS would ever cross it and give it it's proper pedigree (Wolfson/DuPont)?
Do you think it would ever have clear title?
0
Comments
which 54-S $5 are you speaking of?
Ron Guth indicates this is still missing. Has it been found?
"Discovery of a Lifetime" or whatever it was called. The NGC slabbed coin.
Of course I'm engaging in conjecture here that it is in fact the DuPont piece.
https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6557/discovery-of-a-lifetime-1854-s-five-dollar/
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The coin does not have original surfaces. No idea what PCGS would do....but im sure it will be tried eventually if it hasn’t already
siliconvalleycoins.com
Nice link and article:
NGC indicates that this is not the DuPont specimen using photos from the 1952 Wolfson sale, so if PCGS says it is, that will be interesting.
A reckless comment totally unsupported by whatchamacallits, you know, facts!
Well here's another, sir. If it wasn't controversial, it would have happened already.
Does anyone have the 1962 Samuel W. Wolfson sale photos that NGC used for comparison to disqualify this as the DuPont coin?
Here's a New York Times article from 1862 of the sale:
https://www.nytimes.com/1962/10/21/archives/news-of-coins-wolfson-collection-sale-lives-up-to-billing.html
I’m under the opinion that NGC researched this to the max and wouldn’t have slabbed it unless it passed muster
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The potential flaw here is that assigning that pedigree to that coin would instantly make it stolen property. It's not a simple matter of attribution.
I know nothing of law, but I wonder if something could be worked out with the DuPont heirs to legitimize title as part of a deal to attribute it. Without that in place, I don't see a way NGC could have assigned that pedigree.
Rick Montgomery, NGC President, said the following. Are you thinking he's not being truthful?
Assumes facts not in evidence... There is an article where NGC goes through the diagnostics and how it made its determination. It should have been posted in the original thread on the coin before the auction.
If the stolen Wolfson/DuPont specimen was found, would it be owned by the DuPont family, their insurance company, or someone else?
Try for 5 minutes thinking of this as NOT the DuPont coin. There is zero evidence that it is and some evidence that it is not. If it is NOT the DuPont coin, every post you made is a silly suggestion: contacting the DuPont family, asking PCGS to assign a pedigree...
I weep for the future of mankind. We live in an unfortunate age where people feel empowered to make up facts without evidence and then ask society to use those facts to effect some change.
"Discovery of a Lifetime", I may just leave it alone.
You must be a new member.
This subject was discussed in detail here when the coin was discovered.
And just to play along with this silly discussion...if it actually was the stolen coin, it has been ALTERED ENOUGH so that at the present time no one could prove it!!
Occam’s razor is applicable here. A detailed analysis of the contact marks might show them to be the same. Consider the possibility that NGC wanted (needed?) a feel good story and some free publicity. I’m less confident that they are not the same than you are.
Too many people nowadays think
“I have a wild idea that the vast majority of people disagree with so therefore it MUST be true!!!”
You may not know what my opinion of the NGC "Discovery Coin" is. Unfortunately, I've not seen a decent image of the Dupont coin. If one existed, I'll guarantee I could prove if it were the stolen coin or not in less than five minutes!
I should think Rick could make the same boast (but he's too much of a gentleman) with a good image as I sold him one of my stereo-zoom Nikon's over a decade ago. I think NGC did their due diligence. I also think if the coin eventually goes to or host, it will be crossed as just another specimen that was discovered and any legal mess will be averted.
What would be really funny is if they refused to cross the coin at any grade. That would open up a new discussion!
How do you know that hasn’t already happened?
A few people that “need” that coin passed on it. Hmm.
When did all this happen? How did I miss the sale. That is one of the few coins I'm missing in my Liberty half-eagle set.
it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide
Lotsa ad hominem commentary here, also some strange inferences about what/how I think. All for posing a premise (e.g. 'proper pedigree') and asking a question (e.g. 'clear title')!
Whether or not you believe or are inclined to consider that this coin is the long lost DuPont coin, the question I pose about title is legit- could the DuPont claimants, or the insurance company, 'bless' or otherwise legitimize title to this coin, if it were attributed as the DuPont coin? Is there a mechanism in US law for that?
Given that the attribution of this coin would be explicitly tied to that outcome, can one really say that NGC had this as a viable option? A choice that can't be made isn't a choice.
This is the same trap in the Langboard's case. Attribution, or in that case, authentication, was inextricably linked to the coins being stolen from the mint, from the point of view of mint records. If a 1964 Peace were ever to turn up, the same would likely be true for that coin if authenticated.
The immediate consequences of these attribution/authentication decisions make it very difficult indeed to consider them in isolation.
Didn't we already have this discussion?
@dbldie55 asked: "DIDN'T WE ALREADY HAVE THIS DISCUSSION?"
Yes. The old discussion was "bumped" too. Apparently, some members missed it.
@ranshdow said:
IF IF IF this coin were "attributed as the DuPont coin", title would automatically pass to either the Duponts or the insurance company, if there was one involved. There is no question of that.
If a TPG "attributed" this coin as the DuPont coin that was stolen, why would that be definitive on the issue of whether it is or is not the DuPont coin?
If the person who has this coin submitted it and it came back from a TPG attributed at the DuPont coin that was stolen, should the person who submitted the coin simply accept what the TPG says as true and turn the coin over to the DuPont family or their insurance company? If so, why?
I would think that the only way to resolve any such dispute about this coin is to place the dispute into the legal system and have a judge or jury decide after a trial that gives each side due process and their proverbial day in court.
While I don’t know it is the DuPont I don’t really see how the Capt, NGC or anybody else can be so confident that it isn’t. Considering the details are so old on the DuPont coin, that one looks processed and the owner isn’t forthcoming with this coins origin. This isn’t a person, it absolutely can be guilty until proven innocent.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I remember when a few people wanted to condemn the Saddle Ridge Hoard as obviously stolen despite the total lack of evidence to support that reckless claim. Those people were dead wrong and looked damned foolish.
Is it just me, or does the term "dipped and stripped" come to anyone else's mind when they look at that coin?
No one looks foolish for being skeptical of something too good to be true. I think people look foolish when they dismiss good questions because they don’t know how to defend their positions. That and saddle ridge has no parallels to this. One is a bunch of common gold hidden for an unknown reasons. The other is an impossibly rare coin with 1 of 3 of the known examples stolen and one found out of no where with no back story. The 54s has been a known mega rarity for over a 100 years. It isn’t like grandpa Willy got lucky and bought a rare coin before it got expensive. Now if it had been passed down since the rush maybe.... but then
Why is it stripped? Why not share the story and add a million dollars worth of provenance? If it was a painting a top shelf auction house would demand to publish the back story.
I get why people like to believe in Magic, I just don’t understand why they act like their assumptions are facts. You simply don’t have anything more than guesses and loose 2nd degree inferences either. The fact NGC didn’t release a detailed opinion paper is suspect and amateurish IMO too. Why the dealers, “experts” and TPGs rather just pretend that the possibility of it being stolen goods isn’t a thing makes me think their judgments are clouded by money, attention and buzz.
That said it could absolutely be a new piece. But we don’t know and a couple of old guys are huffing and puffing without any real skin in the game. This took the pressure off the finder to give up more history. Data and provenance are good things. let’s not pretend they didn’t also go to the 2nd place TPGing company either:
We will most likely never know
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The time to "only ask questions" is over. Remember, it's been auctioned, with a 6-page description, discussing the known examples. I'm not saying you have to agree with the conclusions stated, but there are more than assertions to suggest that the new coin and the Wolfson coin are not the same, and if you have questions about the provenance, you have to deal with those conclusions and not just think it is a merely open question anymore.
PS: the coin has crossed over, not that I care about it.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Thanks for the tip. Here's the link and TrueView. PCGS didn't add the Wolfson / DuPont pedigree.
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36833155
Looks like it showed up in the pop reports last November.
That coin just looks so messed with.
Why would they add a fake pedigree?
The coin was studied by experts, declared NOT the DuPont coin, and slabbed as such. Now crossed to PCGS... after all the scrutiny, I would believe the conclusion to be accurate. Imagine the liability if it were not.... Cheers, RickO
It is never the time to stop asking questions
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The comment is to confirm PCGS’s stance and approval. There seems to be disagreement among forum members.
There IS NO QUESTION in the eyes of the experts that have viewed the coin and compared it to photos of the Dupont coin. The Question has been raised by people who have NO GROUNDS for questioning the provenance. Such a groundless question would not fly in the art community because it would make all of your treasures of questionable provenance and value.
How does a dipped and stripped coin with a pop of 5 wind up being found in the wild under the most unusual of circumstances? It makes no sense to me.
I’ve been told by people a lot smarter than me high up in the numismatic food chain that they wouldn’t touch the coin with a ten foot pole. All though it’s impossible to prove the coin is the DuPont one it’s highly suspicious.
This happens. It's rare, but it happens. Two stories that come to mind are a PR66 Stella that came out of the woodwork (obviously not the same rarity level, but similar situation) and an extremely rare half eagle that brought the known pop from seven to eight. That's just in the last few months.
Dealing in Canadian and American coins and historical medals.
I remember authenticating the 1870-S Half Dime for ANACS. Talk about coming out of the woodwork!
Very easy - same way the high relief $20 ended up in a money clip.
That coin easily could have been a pocket piece for 50 years in the 19th century. Been cleaned by one of the owners along the way and landed with the current person by any means possible.
There are plenty of people, including people in the gold salvage business that wouldn't know an 1854-S from an 1881-S.
Is it statistically unlikely that a rare coin takes such a circuitous route? Yes. On the other hand, statistics don't apply to samples of one.
What are the odds that an 1894-S dime would be used to buy ice cream? But it (allegedly) happened.
The simple fact is that none of the experts that have reviewed it have raised a question about it maybe being the DuPont coin - and NGC was specifically looking as, I'm sure, PCGS was.
How are the "Skins" going to do this year?
LOL. I know what you are getting at, but that question has a (speculative) answer: Skins are going to go 8-8 and miss the playoffs.
Really? Then I'd like to take a moment to suggest that it is quite likely that every coin you own was at one time stolen. If you could please turn them over to your local sheriff while we sort things out, I'd greatly appreciate it.
"After locating images from the Wolfson auction, we were able to determine that the coin in our offices was not the coin that was stolen from the DuPont family,” explained Montgomery.
I know that I should just accept this statement from NGC's President, but the whole provenance issue still bothers me...
The "Discoverer" says that when he bought the 54-s he believed it was a fake, and that "He had shown it to a few collectors and dealers at a recent coin show, but everybody said they thought it was a fake."
So, he knows enough about the 54-s to believe it's fake. And, same for the "collectors and dealers" that he supposedly showed it to. BUT, no one mentioned or thought about the DuPont coin... it Just doesn't pass the smell test.