The serial number appears to have changed from the gold foil label. Apparently Forsyth submitted it as a regrade. I guess he was hoping for a plus. Here’s to hoping it stickers again (that’s what really matters right?)...
Of note, the cert # on the original holder is only seven digits; and PCGS' current database does not support that older format. The owner undoubtedly wanted the cert # updated to the current eight-digit format.
The serial number appears to have changed from the gold foil label. Apparently Forsyth submitted it as a regrade. I guess he was hoping for a plus. Here’s to hoping it stickers again (that’s what really matters right?)...
Of note, the cert # on the original holder is only seven digits; and PCGS' current database does not support that older format. The owner undoubtedly wanted the cert # updated to the current eight-digit format.
Steve
I can't imagine the PCGS database doesn't support 7 digits. I've searched for these fine and the PCGS cert verification website says 7 digit certification numbers work.
PCGS Cert Verification App: Before you buy any PCGS graded coin, quickly verify its authenticity and quality by scanning or entering the coin's 7 or 8 digit certification number.
About the 7 digits and 8 digits numbers, all you need to do is to add a zero in front of the 7 digits on the label. Otherwise, I have found that most of the 7 digits coins come up just fine. If the coin number doesn't come up, that means there's a problem with the PCGS database.
Completely agree 100% with TomB here. That holder is unattractive, overpowering and undignified in appearance IMO. If I owned a coin in that style holder I would actually pay to have it removed and reholdered, or just have a nice custom Capital holder made for it with the gold wreath and the pedigree in gold lettering, etc.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
@cardinal said:
Yes, there are collectors that want their names up in lights, and there are others that do not care.
I think that if the provenance is historically prominent, then it should be referenced. On that basis, I had the label of this submission to show:
Augustin Dupre made it, and Benjamin Franklin owed it!
Nice piece! Regarding aliases such as "Cardinal" and "Knoxville"
Umm..
What's the issue with Cardinal and Knoxville?
Check out my introduction of the June 2005 auction catalog of the Cardinal Collection, and you’ll get your answer.
Thanks for the reference. It's great you've published so much research. Are there any other members of the Cardinal Foundation?
This seems relevant:
@cardinal wrote:
I followed a similar path in forming the Cardinal Collection, assembling a library, performing my own research, and ultimately creating a database of over 30,000 individual appearances of early dollars. Embracing an idea from Bowers, I chose to share my research in anonymity, using the pseudonym “Cardinal Collection,” as a tribute to my home state of Ohio. Bowers had written that we, as coin collectors, are not truly “owners” of coins, but actually temporary conservators of pieces of history. In taking that statement to heart, I realized that these “pieces of history” really are “bigger” than any one collector. So, who was I to impose my personal name on them? To that end, I created the Cardinal Collection Educational Foundation as a vehicle for publishing research on early coinage. Published to date have been An Introduction to Early Dollars (2003), Early Dollars: A Pocket Guide to Major Varieties (2003), The Flowing Hair Silver Dollars of 1794: An Historical and Population Census Study (2004), and Early Dollars: the Attribution Wizard to Die Varieties (2005), with The Early Silver Dollars of the United States: A Definitive Study forthcoming.
That's an interesting reference to Bowers and anonymity because he has, not only his name, but his photo and signature on his custom PCGS slabs inserts. He's the only collector I know of that has his (or her) photo (and signature) on their PCGS inserts. Are there any others?
I think its interesting that if there is a CAC thread, immediately there are a barrage of posts that "i buy the coin, not the sticker". The design of the slab is way down on my list of priorities.
@Gazes said:
I think its interesting that if there is a CAC thread, immediately there are a barrage of posts that "i buy the coin, not the sticker". The design of the slab is way down on my list of priorities.
Often big sales will have custom inserts like Pogue and Newman. The Rarities slab would just be an extension of that.
@Gazes said:
I think its interesting that if there is a CAC thread, immediately there are a barrage of posts that "i buy the coin, not the sticker". The design of the slab is way down on my list of priorities.
No one is saying buy gold foil label holders (or some other iteration of plastic) only. I do agree that plastic should not be a major priority.
The slab should still be a high priority, in my opinion, as it can severely detract from, or enhance, the beauty of the coin. What’s a collection of beautiful coins if they are framed by fugly slabs?
@GoldenEgg said:
The slab should still be a high priority, in my opinion, as it can severely detract from, or enhance, the beauty of the coin. What’s a collection of beautiful coins if they are framed by fugly slabs?
The grade on the slab on the other hand....
The good thing is that the slab can be easily changed.
The serial number appears to have changed from the gold foil label. Apparently Forsyth submitted it as a regrade. I guess he was hoping for a plus. Here’s to hoping it stickers again (that’s what really matters right?)...
Of note, the cert # on the original holder is only seven digits; and PCGS' current database does not support that older format. The owner undoubtedly wanted the cert # updated to the current eight-digit format.
Steve
I can't imagine the PCGS database doesn't support 7 digits. I've searched for these fine and the PCGS cert verification website says 7 digit certification numbers work.
PCGS Cert Verification App: Before you buy any PCGS graded coin, quickly verify its authenticity and quality by scanning or entering the coin's 7 or 8 digit certification number.
About the 7 digits and 8 digits numbers, all you need to do is to add a zero in front of the 7 digits on the label. Otherwise, I have found that most of the 7 digits coins come up just fine. If the coin number doesn't come up, that means there's a problem with the PCGS database.
OK, they may have fixed it. I just remember getting a graded Morgan silver dollar in an OGH w/ 7-digit cert #, and when I tried to pull it up in the registry, the number didn't exist. When I added a zero in front, it came up as a completely different coin/denomination; this was 2-3 years ago.
@dbldie55 said:
I liked the presentation of the Forsythe collection at the ANA last year. As long as the owner likes the holders. Heck, I drove 20 hours to see them.
Good point. I think Jerry liked the holders a lot as PCGS indicates he designed the holders himself:
PCGS wrote:
One of the first coins encapsulated in the new, larger holder is the finest known 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, graded PCGS PR66, owned by distinguished numismatist Gerald R. Forsythe who has been credited with the design for the new holder.
@Sonorandesertrat said:
Those holders are marketing tools. Will they be relevant in 20 or 30 years? Someone who is seriously looking for a 1913 Liberty nickel does not need the coin to be in a holder like that.
Holders are a personal choice. While Jerry really enjoyed the holders, it seems the new owner agrees with you.
That being said, the nickel looks a bit small even in the current holder.
@philographer said:
I like old pedigrees. I like knowing where a coin was 100 years ago. I don’t have much of an interest in where a coin was 10 years ago.
P.S. this is not a knock, and it has nothing to do with respect for those who are collecting. It’s more about history vs. current events.
What do you think of Duke's Creek? That's a new pedigree that some consider very notable.
I think a new pedigree is interesting and worthwhile when it's something that hasn't been done before or a greater achievement than what came before.
Just the Rarities holder, or the standard holder as well?
Both are much larger than a nickel.
What about the large format medal holder also in this thread?
Rarities holder. Coins (and medals) should be in the size of holder that makes sense for them. Rarities holder is just kinda dumb.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, though I'm sure Jerry will be happy to hear it
That being said, I do think standard holders should become smaller now that we have the larger holders. The standard holders were designed to hold the 46mm Pan Pac slugs. Those are pretty rare. By limiting the standard size holders to the more popular coins like the 40.6mm Silver Eagle, a lot of plastic could be saved.
I like nothing to do with these extra large holders ... I just won at auction one of the FOSYHTE 5 cent pieces and I paid extra to have it sent back to PCGS to be reholder back into a regular shield size holder. I think these must be a ego thing. These slabs are hard enough to store and a SDB can only hold so many. I had to scale up to a larger box as it is - ( plus SDB's are hard to come by). I miss the days of the old small white ANACS and 1st Gen PCGS holders ... the size were just right and they were more manageable for storage..... plus Coin not the plastic was the focal point
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
@retirednow said:
I miss the days of the old small white ANACS and 1st Gen PCGS holders ... the size were just right and they were more manageable for storage..... plus Coin not the plastic was the focal point
I think moving to a holder that holds an 40.6mm ASE or smaller, vs. the 46mm PPIE octagonal would help.
It might even help to have a holder for 30.61mm half dollar or smaller
@retirednow said:
I miss the days of the old small white ANACS and 1st Gen PCGS holders ... the size were just right and they were more manageable for storage..... plus Coin not the plastic was the focal point
I think moving to a holder that holds an 40.6mm ASE or smaller, vs. the 46mm PPIE octagonal would help.
It might even help to have a holder for 30.61mm half dollar or smaller
That's probably overkill. I think the pan pac is the proper line. That was a denominated US issue. Plus that's the size of existing slab boxes, and imagine how much plastic would be wasted by all those slab boxes getting chucked due to not fitting the new size.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@retirednow said:
I miss the days of the old small white ANACS and 1st Gen PCGS holders ... the size were just right and they were more manageable for storage..... plus Coin not the plastic was the focal point
I think moving to a holder that holds an 40.6mm ASE or smaller, vs. the 46mm PPIE octagonal would help.
It might even help to have a holder for 30.61mm half dollar or smaller
That's probably overkill. I think the pan pac is the proper line. That was a denominated US issue. Plus that's the size of existing slab boxes, and imagine how much plastic would be wasted by all those slab boxes getting chucked due to not fitting the new size.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I agree it's nice to have one holder for coins that most people collect, but I don't think being a denominated US issue is necessarily the line as the 76.20mm quarters are a denominated US issue as well
Regarding ain't being broke, people are complaining about SDB sizes with current holder sizes!
Have not read the whole thread so I apologize if I am repeating but two factors that I consider re proveance---1) did the collector want his/her name on the slab as opposed to a third party wanted a previous owners name on the slab 2) how long did the proveance owner own the coin (ie 20 years vs 2 years).
@Gazes said:
Have not read the whole thread so I apologize if I am repeating but two factors that I consider re proveance---1) did the collector want his/her name on the slab as opposed to a third party wanted a previous owners name on the slab
The owner in the OP is the owner of quite a few top ranked / award winning Registry Sets. From this perspective, it's probably PCGS and the collector that wanted to have his name on the slab.
Given how many top sets Jerry has, I think he can use some marketing make his name more well-known and valued as a provenance.
Apologies for the eye chart but he has a lot of awards!
2) how long did the proveance owner own the coin (ie 20 years vs 2 years).
I'm not sure. There are some good articles for some of the transactions, but I haven't found one when Jerry acquired it yet. That being said, these top coins seem to change hands a lot. Check out this page on 1913 Liberty Nickel pedigrees:
The implication is the pedigree will bring more money. I question the value of a name on a coin when it was just a hole filler until a better coin came along.
I'm guessing there is no chance another 1913 appears but what happens if a coin is discovered that exceeds the coin currently labeled "finest known"? Does PCGS tracking down the owner of the other coin and demand it be returned to be relabeled?
As for pedigree, where does it end? I know Eliasburg, Pittman, Brand and Lilly but don't have a clue about Forsythe and others mentioned.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
There are 2 types of pedigree. One is where it's a famous owner that helps make the coin more important and adds value. For example, an Eliasberg pedigree is awesome. The other type is when the current owner wants to put his name on all his coins. Examples I can think of include Simpson and Pogue. A lot of times when these coins are sold, the new owner may decide to re-holder the coin without these names. I have no problem with either type. Just remove the pedigree if you don't like it.
@pmh1nic said:
I'm guessing there is no chance another 1913 appears but what happens if a coin is discovered that exceeds the coin currently labeled "finest known"? Does PCGS tracking down the owner of the other coin and demand it be returned to be relabeled?
As for pedigree, where does it end? I know Eliasburg, Pittman, Brand and Lilly but don't have a clue about Forsythe and others mentioned.
That's a good list. It seems Pittman and Brand can use some love on Wikipedia. I found the page on Forsythe very interesting and balanced. It seems like Forsythe was very into coins and racing at the same time but got even more into coins after leaving racing. The Eliasberg page is a bit one-dimensional in that it only talks about coins. It would be nice to know more about him outside of coins. The Lilly page is the opposite of Eliasberg in that it mentions coins but it's a bit thin, with other things being covered in much more detail. The Amon Carter page is interesting in that it doesn't mention coins at all.
@ChocoboLee said:
There are 2 types of pedigree. One is where it's a famous owner that helps make the coin more important and adds value. For example, an Eliasberg pedigree is awesome. The other type is when the current owner wants to put his name on all his coins. Examples I can think of include Simpson and Pogue. A lot of times when these coins are sold, the new owner may decide to re-holder the coin without these names. I have no problem with either type. Just remove the pedigree if you don't like it.
I actually consider Simpson and Pogue to add value, but others may differ.
For Simpson, I think it adds value because he collected patterns and not only may he have had the best pattern collection of all time, many of his top patterns have no other known pedigree, so it often seems to be the pinnacle and only pedigree.
Pogue also had a top collection that was acquired over many years and was mentioned as commanding respect from a number of people including @MrEureka and @tradedollarnut. In addition to his ultra-rarities, he also had many coins with no other pedigree like his type set and low ball collection.
Here are some coins.
1896 Barber Shield Cent in Brass - Judd-1768a - PCGS PR65 POP 2/0 CAC - Bob Simpson
Agreed. If there was no other provenance, then I'd keep Simpson/Pogue. But for example if it was previously owned by both Simpson and Eliasberg, I'd prefer just Eliasberg as oppose to Eliasberg-Simpson.
@ChocoboLee said:
Agreed. If there was no other provenance, then I'd keep Simpson/Pogue. But for example if it was previously owned by both Simpson and Eliasberg, I'd prefer just Eliasberg as oppose to Eliasberg-Simpson.
For me, it depends on which collection was more notable. For a regular issue coin, I’d go with Eliasberg, but for a pattern I may actually go with Simpson.
While the Forsythe-designed Rarities holder doesn't seem to have taken off with Liberty Nickel collectors, it seems that Ike dollar collectors like them, so there is life and interest in these!
1971-S Eisenhower Silver Dollar - Working Prototype
grade: PCGS SP67
pedigree: Lee C. Lydston, David Frohman
In addition to agreeing completely with TomB that those holders are an "epic fail", they are so few and far between they are basically a non entity to 99.8% of the coin collecting population IMO. Also, I fail to understand the point of those prong inserts in general for coins with a plain edge? Does anyone actually want to view the edges of a Lincoln cent or Jefferson nickel, etc?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Comments
Pretty sure PCGS adds a 0 to the beginning of old 7 digit holders. I had a few 58's + under reconsideration and that's what they did.
About the 7 digits and 8 digits numbers, all you need to do is to add a zero in front of the 7 digits on the label. Otherwise, I have found that most of the 7 digits coins come up just fine. If the coin number doesn't come up, that means there's a problem with the PCGS database.
I'll take the regular holder.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Or....anybody can make their own label !
WS
Completely agree 100% with TomB here. That holder is unattractive, overpowering and undignified in appearance IMO. If I owned a coin in that style holder I would actually pay to have it removed and reholdered, or just have a nice custom Capital holder made for it with the gold wreath and the pedigree in gold lettering, etc.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Nice piece! Regarding aliases such as "Cardinal" and "Knoxville"
Umm..
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
What's the issue with Cardinal and Knoxville?
Check out my introduction of the June 2005 auction catalog of the Cardinal Collection, and you’ll get your answer.
Thanks for the reference. It's great you've published so much research. Are there any other members of the Cardinal Foundation?
This seems relevant:
That's an interesting reference to Bowers and anonymity because he has, not only his name, but his photo and signature on his custom PCGS slabs inserts. He's the only collector I know of that has his (or her) photo (and signature) on their PCGS inserts. Are there any others?
I think its interesting that if there is a CAC thread, immediately there are a barrage of posts that "i buy the coin, not the sticker". The design of the slab is way down on my list of priorities.
Often big sales will have custom inserts like Pogue and Newman. The Rarities slab would just be an extension of that.
No one is saying buy gold foil label holders (or some other iteration of plastic) only. I do agree that plastic should not be a major priority.
The slab should still be a high priority, in my opinion, as it can severely detract from, or enhance, the beauty of the coin. What’s a collection of beautiful coins if they are framed by fugly slabs?
The grade on the slab on the other hand....
The good thing is that the slab can be easily changed.
OK, they may have fixed it. I just remember getting a graded Morgan silver dollar in an OGH w/ 7-digit cert #, and when I tried to pull it up in the registry, the number didn't exist. When I added a zero in front, it came up as a completely different coin/denomination; this was 2-3 years ago.
I apologize for causing undue confusion.
Steve
Good point. I think Jerry liked the holders a lot as PCGS indicates he designed the holders himself:
Holders are a personal choice. While Jerry really enjoyed the holders, it seems the new owner agrees with you.
That being said, the nickel looks a bit small even in the current holder.
???
Cardinal refers to the coin's owner, which is the Cardinal Collection Education Foundation: http://www.ccefdn.org/
I can think of others like "Stellar", "Just Having Fun", "Missouri", "Duke's Creek", etc.
What do you think of Duke's Creek? That's a new pedigree that some consider very notable.
I think a new pedigree is interesting and worthwhile when it's something that hasn't been done before or a greater achievement than what came before.
Waste of plastic imho.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Just the Rarities holder, or the standard holder as well?
Both are much larger than a nickel.
What about the large format medal holder also in this thread?
Here's what the Rarities holder may have been trying to aim for:
Source: https://www.livemint.com/news/world/gold-coin-double-eagle-and-one-cent-stamp-could-reach-15-mn-each-at-auction-11615515632285.html
Rarities holder. Coins (and medals) should be in the size of holder that makes sense for them. Rarities holder is just kinda dumb.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, though I'm sure Jerry will be happy to hear it
That being said, I do think standard holders should become smaller now that we have the larger holders. The standard holders were designed to hold the 46mm Pan Pac slugs. Those are pretty rare. By limiting the standard size holders to the more popular coins like the 40.6mm Silver Eagle, a lot of plastic could be saved.
I’d prefer a regency revival holder.
I like nothing to do with these extra large holders ... I just won at auction one of the FOSYHTE 5 cent pieces and I paid extra to have it sent back to PCGS to be reholder back into a regular shield size holder. I think these must be a ego thing. These slabs are hard enough to store and a SDB can only hold so many. I had to scale up to a larger box as it is - ( plus SDB's are hard to come by). I miss the days of the old small white ANACS and 1st Gen PCGS holders ... the size were just right and they were more manageable for storage..... plus Coin not the plastic was the focal point
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
I think moving to a holder that holds an 40.6mm ASE or smaller, vs. the 46mm PPIE octagonal would help.
It might even help to have a holder for 30.61mm half dollar or smaller
That's probably overkill. I think the pan pac is the proper line. That was a denominated US issue. Plus that's the size of existing slab boxes, and imagine how much plastic would be wasted by all those slab boxes getting chucked due to not fitting the new size.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I agree it's nice to have one holder for coins that most people collect, but I don't think being a denominated US issue is necessarily the line as the 76.20mm quarters are a denominated US issue as well
Regarding ain't being broke, people are complaining about SDB sizes with current holder sizes!
This is the numismatic equivalent of attaching the gas station bathroom key to a hubcap. Aesthetics aside, at least you won’t lose it.
Whatever works for collectors who play in that end of the pool is fine by me.
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me....
I don't care for either holder.
If you want to show a coin's provenance, add it to the Cert Verification data base listing.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
Define "recent provenance".
Fathom Collection 😉
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Have not read the whole thread so I apologize if I am repeating but two factors that I consider re proveance---1) did the collector want his/her name on the slab as opposed to a third party wanted a previous owners name on the slab 2) how long did the proveance owner own the coin (ie 20 years vs 2 years).
The owner in the OP is the owner of quite a few top ranked / award winning Registry Sets. From this perspective, it's probably PCGS and the collector that wanted to have his name on the slab.
Given how many top sets Jerry has, I think he can use some marketing make his name more well-known and valued as a provenance.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/forsytheg/othersets/1051
Apologies for the eye chart but he has a lot of awards!
I'm not sure. There are some good articles for some of the transactions, but I haven't found one when Jerry acquired it yet. That being said, these top coins seem to change hands a lot. Check out this page on 1913 Liberty Nickel pedigrees:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1040148/1913-liberty-nickel-pedigrees
In this latest transaction, the coin was acquired in February and sold in November (Thanksgiving), but I don't think the label was changed for that.
Here are some articles of note:
February 25, 2021: https://coinweek.com/us-coins/bruce-morelan-acquires-finest-1913-liberty-nickel-legend-buys-finest-sets/
December 29, 2006: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/spokane-businessman-hopes-to-sell-4-million-nickel-for-more/
Was that the previous owner? The Finest Known coin dealership in CA?
The implication is the pedigree will bring more money. I question the value of a name on a coin when it was just a hole filler until a better coin came along.
No, it was just PCGS saying that this coin is the finest known.
Follow me on MyCollect!
Many dreams come true, and some have silver linings.
I'm guessing there is no chance another 1913 appears but what happens if a coin is discovered that exceeds the coin currently labeled "finest known"? Does PCGS tracking down the owner of the other coin and demand it be returned to be relabeled?
As for pedigree, where does it end? I know Eliasburg, Pittman, Brand and Lilly but don't have a clue about Forsythe and others mentioned.
There are 2 types of pedigree. One is where it's a famous owner that helps make the coin more important and adds value. For example, an Eliasberg pedigree is awesome. The other type is when the current owner wants to put his name on all his coins. Examples I can think of include Simpson and Pogue. A lot of times when these coins are sold, the new owner may decide to re-holder the coin without these names. I have no problem with either type. Just remove the pedigree if you don't like it.
Follow me on MyCollect!
That's a good list. It seems Pittman and Brand can use some love on Wikipedia. I found the page on Forsythe very interesting and balanced. It seems like Forsythe was very into coins and racing at the same time but got even more into coins after leaving racing. The Eliasberg page is a bit one-dimensional in that it only talks about coins. It would be nice to know more about him outside of coins. The Lilly page is the opposite of Eliasberg in that it mentions coins but it's a bit thin, with other things being covered in much more detail. The Amon Carter page is interesting in that it doesn't mention coins at all.
I actually consider Simpson and Pogue to add value, but others may differ.
For Simpson, I think it adds value because he collected patterns and not only may he have had the best pattern collection of all time, many of his top patterns have no other known pedigree, so it often seems to be the pinnacle and only pedigree.
Pogue also had a top collection that was acquired over many years and was mentioned as commanding respect from a number of people including @MrEureka and @tradedollarnut. In addition to his ultra-rarities, he also had many coins with no other pedigree like his type set and low ball collection.
Here are some coins.
1896 Barber Shield Cent in Brass - Judd-1768a - PCGS PR65 POP 2/0 CAC - Bob Simpson
No provenance other than Simpson.
1855 $50 Wass Molitor Slug - by Samuel Wass and Agoston Molitor - Kagin-9 - R5 - PCGS MS61 POP 1/1 - Ex. James Newton Howard, Bob Simpson
This one actually has a known provenance, but I'd argue the Simpson one may be stronger over time.
These two Pogue type set coins have no other listed provenance:
1863 Liberty Seated Dollar - PCGS MS67 POP 1/0 - D. Brent Pogue
No provenance other than Pogue.
1866 Liberty Seated Dollar, Repunched Date, DDR - PCGS MS66+ POP 1/2 CAC - D. Brent Pogue
No provenance other than Pogue.
Agreed. If there was no other provenance, then I'd keep Simpson/Pogue. But for example if it was previously owned by both Simpson and Eliasberg, I'd prefer just Eliasberg as oppose to Eliasberg-Simpson.
Follow me on MyCollect!
For me, it depends on which collection was more notable. For a regular issue coin, I’d go with Eliasberg, but for a pattern I may actually go with Simpson.
That 1913 holder would not fit in well with my Liberty Nickel collection so I would have to get it reslabbed
The more provenance the better for me, as long as they represent major collections or well-known expert/owners. Same with any collectible.
While the Forsythe-designed Rarities holder doesn't seem to have taken off with Liberty Nickel collectors, it seems that Ike dollar collectors like them, so there is life and interest in these!
1971-S Eisenhower Silver Dollar - Working Prototype
grade: PCGS SP67
pedigree: Lee C. Lydston, David Frohman
1977-S Eisenhower Silver Dollar - Proof - Struck-Thru and Retained Copper Packing Staple Error
grade: PCGS PR67 DCAM
In addition to agreeing completely with TomB that those holders are an "epic fail", they are so few and far between they are basically a non entity to 99.8% of the coin collecting population IMO. Also, I fail to understand the point of those prong inserts in general for coins with a plain edge? Does anyone actually want to view the edges of a Lincoln cent or Jefferson nickel, etc?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.