Perhaps the plug and the file marks together were intended to illustrate the two methods employed to ensure the coin (and each coin) was the exact correct weight, within relatively tight tolerances.. an important consideration in an era of widely varying coin specifications and debasement of coinage.
The polishing of the planchet and dies, and the very early die state and high degree of preservation, would lead one to conclude that this is a presentation specimen, to show that the impact of plugging and filing planchets prior to striking wouldn't reduce the Quality to an unacceptable aesthetic level.
It doesn't prove this was the absolute 1st US silver dollar struck, but it sure demonstrates it is one of the first very few, and certainly the earliest known survivor.
A wonderful coin, however no shock or awe in this particular auction.
I agree.
I think Bruce's coin is spectacular (the 1794 dollar), but aesthetics then were as now and before. I doubt they would present a specimen that was less than superlative in any way.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@7Jaguars said:
I agree.
I think Bruce's coin is spectacular (the 1794 dollar), but aesthetics then were as now and before. I doubt they would present a specimen that was less than superlative in any way.
I suppose that superlative is a relative term and has to be compared to what the standard was at the time.
The film making which created The Wizard of Oz was superlative at the time, today it would be completely disappointing.
Nope, not my point as I was talking about that particular time. They produced some VERY lovely coins at the time, and even THOUSANDS of years before as I am sure readers are aware.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@7Jaguars said:
Nope, not my point as I was talking about that particular time. They produced some VERY lovely coins at the time, and even THOUSANDS of years before as I am sure readers are aware.
Nope, in that particular time minting a silver dollar sized coin with the technology and equipment at the newly established mint is the standard. Not a Spanish Milled Dollar or German Taler.
@7Jaguars said:
Nope, not my point as I was talking about that particular time. They produced some VERY lovely coins at the time, and even THOUSANDS of years before as I am sure readers are aware.
Nope, in that particular time minting a silver dollar sized coin with the technology and equipment at the newly established mint is the standard. Not a Spanish Milled Dollar or German Taler.
Still doesn't explain why they would use such a planchet with so many adjustment marks if it were a presentation piece.
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
@Baley said:
Perhaps the plug and the file marks together were intended to illustrate the two methods employed to ensure the coin (and each coin) was the exact correct weight, within relatively tight tolerances.. an important consideration in an era of widely varying coin specifications and debasement of coinage.
The polishing of the planchet and dies, and the very early die state and high degree of preservation, would lead one to conclude that this is a presentation specimen, to show that the impact of plugging and filing planchets prior to striking wouldn't reduce the Quality to an unacceptable aesthetic level.
It doesn't prove this was the absolute 1st US silver dollar struck, but it sure demonstrates it is one of the first very few, and certainly the earliest known survivor.
A wonderful coin, however no shock or awe in this particular auction.
And recently, we hear some potential evidence that this particular coin was handed to Washington and shown to other historical figures of the time..
@earlyAurum said:
I don't think it is venue. You need a couple of collectors in building sets requiring these types of coins. Without Simpson, Bruce, Pogue and Jung chasing these coins at the same time, these are the results.
I don't think it was the venue either. The 1794 PCGS SP66 $1 is an amazing coin, but I never saw it as an eight figure coin or any where near it. I think it was an example of a bidding war resulting in moon money. As for the 1804 dollar, the market for the others has also weakened so it isn't a surprise the market softened. I agree that the shortage of collectors at that level of the market was a factor.
Regardless of the outcome, I wouldn't be too sad to be left with the three coins that were passed if I was the consignor. The pieces are truly museum quality.
@earlyAurum said:
I don't think it is venue. You need a couple of collectors in building sets requiring these types of coins. Without Simpson, Bruce, Pogue and Jung chasing these coins at the same time, these are the results.
I don't think it was the venue either. The 1794 PCGS SP66 $1 is an amazing coin, but I never saw it as an eight figure coin or any where near it. I think it was an example of a bidding war resulting in moon money. As for the 1804 dollar, the market for the others has also weakened so it isn't a surprise the market softened. I agree that the shortage of collectors at that level of the market was a factor.
Regardless of the outcome, I wouldn't be too sad to be left with the three coins that were passed if I was the consignor. The pieces are truly museum quality.
No, the bid was jumped in part to create publicity as the first coin to auction for eight figures.
R.W. Julian did not write that it was the SP66 coin that was sent to Washington. The 1,758 dollars were delivered on October 15 by Coiner Voigt to Treasurer Dalton, who gave depositor Rittenhouse all 1794 dollars, who then apparently gave a few to Secretary of State Randolph - who then sent one on October 16 to President Washington. No 1794 dollar was in Martha's estate inventory.
The theory of a planchet trial has supporting evidence from Mint documents, and other sources. The Mint had numerous trials in 1794 and many were saved. There was a reference collection of early coins saved by a Mint officer. If the planchet trial theory is correct, and it could be proven, the SP66 would be the first dollar struck.
DeSaussure October 27, 1795: "Great delays were incurred in obtaining the heavy iron work, particularly the rollers; and these were not always fit for use when obtained. Those which are now in use being almost worn out,..." [edit addition]
@tradedollarnut June 17, 2020 "My personal opinion is that it wasn’t even part of the production run - it was created earlier as a specimen to show the feasibility of the silver plug method of weight adjustment."
I wrote this in February 2013, and more supporting evidence has been found since then. Also, only one planchet trial would be needed, no reason to waste a day's wages (in silver content) on a second trial:
""A little long winded, but Captain Henway did ask for “strong opinions.”
There is an attribute of the planchet for the subject 1794 Dollar that has been mentioned, although the significance may have been overlooked. Adjustment marks are common on the 1794-95 Flowing Hair type. For dollars, enough silver plugs have been located that they are no longer “rare” by the Sheldon rarity scale. Sometimes called “experimental,” the plugs were obviously part of an accepted process for 1795. What is significant, and very rare for the type, is adjustment marks on both sides. The Carter 1794 Dollar may be unique for the FH type with adjustment marks on both sides along with a silver plug.
I have purchased and observed many early US silver and gold coins, and have found that adjustment marks are almost always on one side, with a couple of exceptions including the Carter 1794 Dollar. From my experience, adjustment marks appear on about 25% of FH half dollars and dollars, and this approximation may be low considering that some coins probably had adjustment marks that were completely obliterated by the strike.
The early US Mint had reported problems with the rollers that are used to form silver bars into flat strips for planchets. The early horse drawn rolling machinery was the first Mint equipment to convert to steam power, in 1816. The initial rolling and drawing equipment could not hold tolerance for thickness, requiring adjusting for thick planchets or plugs for those rolled too thin. Reasons for rolling variation could include roller deflection and a loose fit of spindle to bushing. Sometimes the rolling and drawing was accurate enough to be within weight tolerances. It appears the Mint erred on the thick side as more FH silver type have adjustment marks than plugs.
Without the adjusting and plugging process for the first couple of years for silver, the Mint could not respond quickly to their depositors, as an underweight planchet would have had to go through the lengthy processes of melting, refining, assaying, rolling, etc. A plug could be fabricated in minutes, using scrap from punching. Considering the planchet punching process, a square will lose more than 21% of weight when punched into a round planchet. Drawing and adjusting will lose more weight. The majority of this scrap silver would have to be re-melted, except for the approximate one quarter of one percent “wastage.” The Mint apparently had some buffer stock by 1796 along with a probable improvement in rolling, and the plugging process was discontinued.
It has been written that silver plugged planchets were the result of mistakes by the adjusters who filed too much silver. I don’t believe this except for rare cases. The adjusting process was among the lowest paid and with the least skill needed of early Mint jobs. It is simple and easy to file silver and gold to within spec limits. Chief Adjuster John Cope would not have tolerated errors to the magnitude of the number of plugged planchets. Rather than being caused by adjusting error, plugged planchets were the result of variability in the rolling process which rolled the silver strips too thin.
Since the Carter 1794 Dollar is probably unique with the silver plug and adjustment marks on both sides, I believe it is most likely an experimental planchet (or a planchet trial for the 1795 “experiment”) used to prove the process of adjusting and plugging planchets to within tolerances, alleviating the lengthy requirement of melting, refining, etc. Questions that would need to be answered by the experiment include – Until the large press is finished, does the current press have enough force to press out adjustment marks to an acceptable level on both sides of a silver dollar planchet? Does the current press have the power to force fit a large silver plug? Once the processes were proven as practicable, the standard methods were to adjust one side of a planchet or to use a silver plug, if weight was out of spec.
I don’t believe the Carter 1794 Dollar planchet was mistakenly over adjusted. The team of six adjusters in October of 1795 was not in place a year earlier when it was struck, and it could have been conceivably adjusted by Chief Coiner Henry Voigt or one of his “artists” as Robert Scot referred to them. The early key Mint employees were quite ingenious and mechanically adept, and it is unlikely they would have made a mistake on this very simple job. Also, the uniqueness of adjusting on both sides strongly indicates experimentation with a not yet standardized process, rather than an error.
It is impossible to effectively polish an adjusted planchet. The Carter 1794 Dollar was not adjusted only towards the edges, as the angle of the file required to do this would have greatly thinned the edges. The coin proves this did not happen. The planchet was filed flat through the centers, and the adjustment marks were obliterated with the well struck centers and portions of the edges, but remain in areas more weakly struck or out of parallel (as in left side obverse facing). I don’t believe the 1794 dollar planchet was polished. If anyone doesn’t believe me, try polishing a filed silver surface. I also don’t believe the planchet was frosted with an acid solution to give a cameo contrast. Robert Scot did not use etching in any of his copperplate or other known engravings. Robert Scot did have vast experience in polishing copperplate to a mirror surface (I actually handled one of his few surviving copperplates). The 1794 dollar has a slight cameo-like contrast to the prooflike fields because the fields were polished as standard process, while the cavities of the die were not polished to the same degree.
I also don’t think it was a trial strike, the two copper examples were used for that purpose, as they also did with some 1794 copper half dollar die trials. Likewise, I don’t believe it was a presentation striking, the Mint employees were smarter than to use a plugged planchet with both sides adjusted for presentation purposes. It was a special coin though, for the people who may have used it as evidence to prove a process, just as a number of die trials from 1794 were saved.
If it was an experimental planchet, there is no reason to believe it is not a “coin,” as a number of experimental 1793 and onward coins are known. Many experimental dies, planchets, and designs became part of the “regular series” of coins.
To answer the OP question, an experimental planchet used to prove a proposed process would bring it much closer to the first strike, but there could have been one or two other experimental planchets struck prior. With over 92% of the 1794 dollars delivered currently unknown, the evidence to accurately compare die stage does not exist.
In summary, I believe the unique attributes of a silver plug combined with adjusting on both sides of the Carter 1794 Dollar indicate an experimental planchet, used as proof of process to validate that the adjusting and plugging methods could mitigate variability with the rolling process, enabling more expedient delivery of coins to depositors.""
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@7Jaguars said:
Nope, not my point as I was talking about that particular time. They produced some VERY lovely coins at the time, and even THOUSANDS of years before as I am sure readers are aware.
Nope, in that particular time minting a silver dollar sized coin with the technology and equipment at the newly established mint is the standard. Not a Spanish Milled Dollar or German Taler.
Still doesn't explain why they would use such a planchet with so many adjustment marks if it were a presentation piece.
Its possible they assumed that the initial die setup and subsequent force would be sufficient for striking the planchet as made.
In any case the portrait hair detail in relief as compared to the other '94's is the convincing evidence of a very special coin made for a very special purpose.
@Nysoto said:
R.W. Julian did not write that it was the SP66 coin that was sent to Washington. The 1,758 dollars were delivered on October 15 by Coiner Voigt to Treasurer Dalton, who gave depositor Rittenhouse all 1794 dollars, who then apparently gave a few to Secretary of State Randolph - who then sent one on October 16 to President Washington. No 1794 dollar was in Martha's estate inventory.
The theory of a planchet trial has supporting evidence from Mint documents, and other sources. The Mint had numerous trials in 1794 and many were saved. There was a reference collection of early coins saved by a Mint officer. If the planchet trial theory is correct, and it could be proven, the SP66 would be the first dollar struck.
DeSaussure October 27, 1795: "Great delays were incurred in obtaining the heavy iron work, particularly the rollers; and these were not always fit for use when obtained."
@tradedollarnut June 17, 2020 "My personal opinion is that it wasn’t even part of the production run - it was created earlier as a specimen to show the feasibility of the silver plug method of weight adjustment."
I wrote this in February 2013, and more supporting evidence has been found since then. Also, only one planchet trial would be needed, no reason to waste a day's wages (in silver content) on a second trial:
""A little long winded, but Captain Henway did ask for “strong opinions.”
There is an attribute of the planchet for the subject 1794 Dollar that has been mentioned, although the significance may have been overlooked. Adjustment marks are common on the 1794-95 Flowing Hair type. For dollars, enough silver plugs have been located that they are no longer “rare” by the Sheldon rarity scale. Sometimes called “experimental,” the plugs were obviously part of an accepted process for 1795. What is significant, and very rare for the type, is adjustment marks on both sides. The Carter 1794 Dollar may be unique for the FH type with adjustment marks on both sides along with a silver plug.
I have purchased and observed many early US silver and gold coins, and have found that adjustment marks are almost always on one side, with a couple of exceptions including the Carter 1794 Dollar. From my experience, adjustment marks appear on about 25% of FH half dollars and dollars, and this approximation may be low considering that some coins probably had adjustment marks that were completely obliterated by the strike.
The early US Mint had reported problems with the rollers that are used to form silver bars into flat strips for planchets. The early horse drawn rolling machinery was the first Mint equipment to convert to steam power, in 1816. The initial rolling and drawing equipment could not hold tolerance for thickness, requiring adjusting for thick planchets or plugs for those rolled too thin. Reasons for rolling variation could include roller deflection and a loose fit of spindle to bushing. Sometimes the rolling and drawing was accurate enough to be within weight tolerances. It appears the Mint erred on the thick side as more FH silver type have adjustment marks than plugs.
Without the adjusting and plugging process for the first couple of years for silver, the Mint could not respond quickly to their depositors, as an underweight planchet would have had to go through the lengthy processes of melting, refining, assaying, rolling, etc. A plug could be fabricated in minutes, using scrap from punching. Considering the planchet punching process, a square will lose more than 21% of weight when punched into a round planchet. Drawing and adjusting will lose more weight. The majority of this scrap silver would have to be re-melted, except for the approximate one quarter of one percent “wastage.” The Mint apparently had some buffer stock by 1796 along with a probable improvement in rolling, and the plugging process was discontinued.
It has been written that silver plugged planchets were the result of mistakes by the adjusters who filed too much silver. I don’t believe this except for rare cases. The adjusting process was among the lowest paid and with the least skill needed of early Mint jobs. It is simple and easy to file silver and gold to within spec limits. Chief Adjuster John Cope would not have tolerated errors to the magnitude of the number of plugged planchets. Rather than being caused by adjusting error, plugged planchets were the result of variability in the rolling process which rolled the silver strips too thin.
Since the Carter 1794 Dollar is probably unique with the silver plug and adjustment marks on both sides, I believe it is most likely an experimental planchet (or a planchet trial for the 1795 “experiment”) used to prove the process of adjusting and plugging planchets to within tolerances, alleviating the lengthy requirement of melting, refining, etc. Questions that would need to be answered by the experiment include – Until the large press is finished, does the current press have enough force to press out adjustment marks to an acceptable level on both sides of a silver dollar planchet? Does the current press have the power to force fit a large silver plug? Once the processes were proven as practicable, the standard methods were to adjust one side of a planchet or to use a silver plug, if weight was out of spec.
I don’t believe the Carter 1794 Dollar planchet was mistakenly over adjusted. The team of six adjusters in October of 1795 was not in place a year earlier when it was struck, and it could have been conceivably adjusted by Chief Coiner Henry Voigt or one of his “artists” as Robert Scot referred to them. The early key Mint employees were quite ingenious and mechanically adept, and it is unlikely they would have made a mistake on this very simple job. Also, the uniqueness of adjusting on both sides strongly indicates experimentation with a not yet standardized process, rather than an error.
It is impossible to effectively polish an adjusted planchet. The Carter 1794 Dollar was not adjusted only towards the edges, as the angle of the file required to do this would have greatly thinned the edges. The coin proves this did not happen. The planchet was filed flat through the centers, and the adjustment marks were obliterated with the well struck centers and portions of the edges, but remain in areas more weakly struck or out of parallel (as in left side obverse facing). I don’t believe the 1794 dollar planchet was polished. If anyone doesn’t believe me, try polishing a filed silver surface. I also don’t believe the planchet was frosted with an acid solution to give a cameo contrast. Robert Scot did not use etching in any of his copperplate or other known engravings. Robert Scot did have vast experience in polishing copperplate to a mirror surface (I actually handled one of his few surviving copperplates). The 1794 dollar has a slight cameo-like contrast to the prooflike fields because the fields were polished as standard process, while the cavities of the die were not polished to the same degree.
I also don’t think it was a trial strike, the two copper examples were used for that purpose, as they also did with some 1794 copper half dollar die trials. Likewise, I don’t believe it was a presentation striking, the Mint employees were smarter than to use a plugged planchet with both sides adjusted for presentation purposes. It was a special coin though, for the people who may have used it as evidence to prove a process, just as a number of die trials from 1794 were saved.
If it was an experimental planchet, there is no reason to believe it is not a “coin,” as a number of experimental 1793 and onward coins are known. Many experimental dies, planchets, and designs became part of the “regular series” of coins.
To answer the OP question, an experimental planchet used to prove a proposed process would bring it much closer to the first strike, but there could have been one or two other experimental planchets struck prior. With over 92% of the 1794 dollars delivered currently unknown, the evidence to accurately compare die stage does not exist.
In summary, I believe the unique attributes of a silver plug combined with adjusting on both sides of the Carter 1794 Dollar indicate an experimental planchet, used as proof of process to validate that the adjusting and plugging methods could mitigate variability with the rolling process, enabling more expedient delivery of coins to depositors.""
Thank you for a highly informative and most exceptional post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@earlyAurum said:
I don't think it is venue. You need a couple of collectors in building sets requiring these types of coins. Without Simpson, Bruce, Pogue and Jung chasing these coins at the same time, these are the results.
I don't think it was the venue either. The 1794 PCGS SP66 $1 is an amazing coin, but I never saw it as an eight figure coin or any where near it. I think it was an example of a bidding war resulting in moon money. As for the 1804 dollar, the market for the others has also weakened so it isn't a surprise the market softened. I agree that the shortage of collectors at that level of the market was a factor.
Regardless of the outcome, I wouldn't be too sad to be left with the three coins that were passed if I was the consignor. The pieces are truly museum quality.
No, the bid was jumped in part to create publicity as the first coin to auction for eight figures.
@earlyAurum said:
I don't think it is venue. You need a couple of collectors in building sets requiring these types of coins. Without Simpson, Bruce, Pogue and Jung chasing these coins at the same time, these are the results.
I don't think it was the venue either. The 1794 PCGS SP66 $1 is an amazing coin, but I never saw it as an eight figure coin or any where near it. I think it was an example of a bidding war resulting in moon money. As for the 1804 dollar, the market for the others has also weakened so it isn't a surprise the market softened. I agree that the shortage of collectors at that level of the market was a factor.
Regardless of the outcome, I wouldn't be too sad to be left with the three coins that were passed if I was the consignor. The pieces are truly museum quality.
No, the bid was jumped in part to create publicity as the first coin to auction for eight figures.
What was the bidding before the jump?
I just watched the video of the auction (again) and it looked as if Laura Sperber bid $5,500,00 hammer, in order to top someone else’s bid of $5,250,000 hammer, and then raised her own bid to $8,525,000 hammer. See below.
@earlyAurum said:
I don't think it is venue. You need a couple of collectors in building sets requiring these types of coins. Without Simpson, Bruce, Pogue and Jung chasing these coins at the same time, these are the results.
I don't think it was the venue either. The 1794 PCGS SP66 $1 is an amazing coin, but I never saw it as an eight figure coin or any where near it. I think it was an example of a bidding war resulting in moon money. As for the 1804 dollar, the market for the others has also weakened so it isn't a surprise the market softened. I agree that the shortage of collectors at that level of the market was a factor.
Regardless of the outcome, I wouldn't be too sad to be left with the three coins that were passed if I was the consignor. The pieces are truly museum quality.
No, the bid was jumped in part to create publicity as the first coin to auction for eight figures.
What was the bidding before the jump?
I just watched the video of the auction (again) and it looked as if Laura Sperber bid $5,500,00 hammer, in order to top someone else’s bid of $5,250,000 hammer, and then raised her own bid to $8,525,000 hammer. See below.
@earlyAurum said:
I don't think it is venue. You need a couple of collectors in building sets requiring these types of coins. Without Simpson, Bruce, Pogue and Jung chasing these coins at the same time, these are the results.
I don't think it was the venue either. The 1794 PCGS SP66 $1 is an amazing coin, but I never saw it as an eight figure coin or any where near it. I think it was an example of a bidding war resulting in moon money. As for the 1804 dollar, the market for the others has also weakened so it isn't a surprise the market softened. I agree that the shortage of collectors at that level of the market was a factor.
Regardless of the outcome, I wouldn't be too sad to be left with the three coins that were passed if I was the consignor. The pieces are truly museum quality.
No, the bid was jumped in part to create publicity as the first coin to auction for eight figures.
What was the bidding before the jump?
I just watched the video of the auction (again) and it looked as if Laura Sperber bid $5,500,00 hammer, in order to top someone else’s bid of $5,250,000 hammer, and then raised her own bid to $8,525,000 hammer. See below.
Thanks! I only saw two bidders over $4 million. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the bidding strategy.
We’ve discussed the bidding strategy here many times, and we'll never know if the coin would have brought more or less if Laura had not jumped the bid. What’s interesting to me now is that the jumped bid 7 years ago may have influenced the bidders this time around. Fair or not, it’s sort of an asterisk next to the old price record. Good lesson to learn.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
What’s interesting to me now is that the jumped bid 7 years ago may have influenced the bidders this time around. Fair or not, it’s sort of an asterisk next to the old price record. Good lesson to learn.
I was thinking this as well.
But I also think it’s too soon to tell if it’s a lesson to be learned.
Thanks for the video link Mark. It was great to watch. Nice to see Laura in action and her interview afterwards. I like Martin's interview as well and how he is referred to as Curator of the Cardinal Collection Education Foundation.
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
@Zoins said:
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
Since it was obviously artificially done, I don't think it accomplished anything other than adding another few million to the purchase price.
@Zoins said:
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
Since it was obviously artificially done, I don't think it accomplished anything other than adding another few million to the purchase price.
I'm guessing it didn't hurt for Legend to be known as the dealer that broke the barrier.
@Zoins said:
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
Since it was obviously artificially done, I don't think it accomplished anything other than adding another few million to the purchase price.
I'm guessing it didn't hurt for Legend to be known as the dealer that purchased the coin.
I think it probably did hurt some. It cuts against her image of being numismatically omnipotent, clairvoyant, or authoritative. Would you hire someone to advise you or represent you who allowed her client to bid several million more than necessary to win an item at auction?
@Zoins said:
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
Since it was obviously artificially done, I don't think it accomplished anything other than adding another few million to the purchase price.
I'm guessing it didn't hurt for Legend to be known as the dealer that purchased the coin.
I think it probably did hurt some. It cuts against her image of being numismatically omnipotent, clairvoyant, or authoritative. Would you hire someone to advise you or represent you who allowed her client to bid several million more than necessary to win an item at auction?
That's now, but we are recently in a different situation now with many major collectors having left and Covid. There were many years before these happened.
@Zoins said:
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
Since it was obviously artificially done, I don't think it accomplished anything other than adding another few million to the purchase price.
I'm guessing it didn't hurt for Legend to be known as the dealer that purchased the coin.
I think it probably did hurt some. It cuts against her image of being numismatically omnipotent, clairvoyant, or authoritative. Would you hire someone to advise you or represent you who allowed her client to bid several million more than necessary to win an item at auction?
That's now, but we are recently in a different situation now with many major collectors having left and Covid. There were many years before these happened.
Covid wasn't around in 2013. She had the high bid at $5.5 million and inexplicably upped it to $8.525 million (before buyer's premium). That's what I'm referring to in my post. I would never try to make a comparison of the 2013 market to today especially with a unique coin. Who would bid against himself (or herself)?
@Zoins said:
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
Since it was obviously artificially done, I don't think it accomplished anything other than adding another few million to the purchase price.
I'm guessing it didn't hurt for Legend to be known as the dealer that purchased the coin.
I think it probably did hurt some. It cuts against her image of being numismatically omnipotent, clairvoyant, or authoritative. Would you hire someone to advise you or represent you who allowed her client to bid several million more than necessary to win an item at auction?
That's now, but we are recently in a different situation now with many major collectors having left and Covid. There were many years before these happened.
Covid wasn't around in 2013. She had the high bid at $5.5 million and inexplicably upped it to $8.525 million (before buyer's premium). That's what I'm referring to in my post. I would never try to make a comparison of the 2013 market to today especially with a unique coin. Who would bid against himself (or herself)?
I understand what you're getting at but there's more going on here than simple bidding.
If this was a "gateway" sale for other coins, which I believe is what the attempt was, it may have other consequences. If it gets out that a 10 million dollar widget is held for 6-8 years and then fails to sell at a 25% or so loss (not including inflation), then it shows rather poorly I would imagine on such coins as investment articles.
I wish the poster child bit would just be left out, complete with all the marketing implications.
And for the OP author, you missed the point of what I was trying to say, so no need for rudeness.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@7Jaguars said:
If it gets out that a 10 million dollar widget is held for 6-8 years and then fails to sell at a 25% or so loss (not including inflation), then it shows rather poorly I would imagine on such coins as investment articles.
Laura has posted coins losing 30% is a good investment return relative to stocks on her April 5, 2020 Hot Topics blog article:
Coin collectors do not realize how well they have it. Say you have a coin that you paid $20,000.00 for. Today the best we can pay is $14,000.00. That is a 30% loss. The stock market is offering me $3.99 for GEL (a pipe line that I paid $21.00 for) . That’s like a 76% LOSS! I can say that is NOT an extreme as I know of many other stacks (like Macys down 67%) that are now down and out. My beloved XOM that I am in at $87.00 is now $39.49-a 54% LOSS (which will be more this week)! I think overall coins have held up surprisingly well. I do not know of ANY coins that have gone down 75%!
@Boosibri said:
I’m sure @bidask can do better and only lose 15%.
Kidding, Laura’s logic in that post makes no sense.
It works if you're comparing to those specific down and out stocks, but I don't know anyone that owns those stocks. The ones I, and people I know, hold have done much better than that.
@Boosibri said:
I’m sure @bidask can do better and only lose 15%.
Kidding, Laura’s logic in that post makes no sense.
It works if you're comparing to those specific down and out stocks, but I don't know anyone that owns those stocks. The ones I, and people I know, hold have done much better than that.
Yeah, I dont think comparing two specific poor investments to each and then extrapolating those returns to the entirety of the asset classes makes the slightest bit of sense. But hey, if she wants to rationalize her returns that way, have at it.
In the shallow end of the pool I expect to take a 20% hit, but I get enough enjoyment from the hobby that it doesn't bother me. If I were playing in the deep end, a 30% (or even 20%) hit would be unacceptable. I don't enjoy the hobby THAT much and have too much respect for money and what it takes folks to earn it.
@oldabeintx said:
In the shallow end of the pool I expect to take a 20% hit, but I get enough enjoyment from the hobby that it doesn't bother me. If I were playing in the deep end, a 30% (or even 20%) hit would be unacceptable. I don't enjoy the hobby THAT much and have too much respect for money and what it takes folks to earn it.
It comes down to how much money you have and how you want to enjoy it.
A few million is a lot for many, but in the several $100K range, people lose that on expensive cars all the time, and they are on a treadmill of buying a new depreciating car every few years. I'd love to be on that treadmill but can't afford it!
@Boosibri said:
I’m sure @bidask can do better and only lose 15%.
Kidding, Laura’s logic in that post makes no sense.
It works if you're comparing to those specific down and out stocks, but I don't know anyone that owns those stocks. The ones I, and people I know, hold have done much better than that.
How did the 1794 SP66 dollar perform compared to the S&P500?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Some have noted that there are fewer "whales" collecting. However there are still guys with collections worth hundreds of millions of dollars (hansen and tyrant are two that are public) and these other big players did not make the minimum bid. It would be interesting to know why they passed.
@Boosibri said:
I’m sure @bidask can do better and only lose 15%.
Kidding, Laura’s logic in that post makes no sense.
It works if you're comparing to those specific down and out stocks, but I don't know anyone that owns those stocks. The ones I, and people I know, hold have done much better than that.
How did the 1794 SP66 dollar perform compared to the S&P500?
I don't know. I just know people keep telling me coins aren't investments.
I've also watched the video that Mark Feld posted because I wanted to see Pogue bidding on a coin. Pogue made a cut bid at $5.25 million and then Laura bid $5.5 million. The auctioneer asked for $6 million and that's when Laura made her "shock and awe" bid of over $8 million even though she was currently the high bidder at $5.5 million. I understand the reasons for doing so, but I would not have done it. I feel that the coin sold for more than it could have. Great coin though. Only time will tell what happens now.
@skier07 said:
Can someone kindly explain the strategy of Laura increasing her bid from 5.5 to 8 million dollars?
Ego. She wanted to be the first to pay $10,000,000 for a US coin and now she's buried in it IMO.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Gazes said:
Some have noted that there are fewer "whales" collecting. However there are still guys with collections worth hundreds of millions of dollars (hansen and tyrant are two that are public) and these other big players did not make the minimum bid. It would be interesting to know why they passed.
@Gazes said:
Some have noted that there are fewer "whales" collecting. However there are still guys with collections worth hundreds of millions of dollars (hansen and tyrant are two that are public) and these other big players did not make the minimum bid. It would be interesting to know why they passed.
Tyrant is not buying anything right now - will be interesting to see what this means for his collection, and Hansen mostly buys cheap / what he thinks is a good deal.
It would be interesting to know who Tyrant is. I read BBC and they they talk about how some of the businesses are faring with Covid.
There have been different strategies used to bid at auction since forever. A large increment advance is one. Others involve bidding fast, bidding slow, using multiple proxy bidders at different levels, standing and holding your arm up and daring anyone to bid against you, making "secret" bids by scratching your nose or winking at the auctioneer, placing advance "book" bids while also bidding in the room, being on the phone with yourself while pretending to be talking to a cautious or aggressive client, etc.
The move toward robust internet bidding in the past 5-10 years has probably taken away from some of the fun and shenanigans of the saleroom.
@Zoins said:
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
Since it was obviously artificially done, I don't think it accomplished anything other than adding another few million to the purchase price.
I'm guessing it didn't hurt for Legend to be known as the dealer that broke the barrier.
Those extra few million were cheaper than some Super Bowl ads and arguably longer lasting “bang for the buck” advertising if one wants to look at it that way.
I also agree with some previous comments suggesting that ‘it’s all relative’ ..... many of us can afford to lose a certain percentage as we buy and sell and buy and sell ... and it’s just part of the fun of playing in our chosen coin hobby pools ... obviously Legend and TDN aren’t hurting as a result of this one auction pass ... and as TDN already indicated he’s quite content with his current Box of 3 and will happily move on to some other collections and let some time pass .... The Best coins will always have a rarified market and even if some future bidders aren’t ‘coin enthusiasts’—and just in it as an investment—there were over 2,800 Billionaires in the world last year ... many of them quite eccentric and into collecting The Best ‘Things’ regardless of item.
Despite swimming in the shallow end I’ve come to appreciate Legend for their commitment to The Best stuff — because it sure makes the hobby more exciting in my opinion...and I think there is a trickle down aspect to it all that ultimately benefits many of the smaller fish.
Comments
Perhaps the plug and the file marks together were intended to illustrate the two methods employed to ensure the coin (and each coin) was the exact correct weight, within relatively tight tolerances.. an important consideration in an era of widely varying coin specifications and debasement of coinage.
The polishing of the planchet and dies, and the very early die state and high degree of preservation, would lead one to conclude that this is a presentation specimen, to show that the impact of plugging and filing planchets prior to striking wouldn't reduce the Quality to an unacceptable aesthetic level.
It doesn't prove this was the absolute 1st US silver dollar struck, but it sure demonstrates it is one of the first very few, and certainly the earliest known survivor.
A wonderful coin, however no shock or awe in this particular auction.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Why would the best coin possible have so many adjustment marks? Seems there is zero evidence your 1794 coin is the same one.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
I agree.
I think Bruce's coin is spectacular (the 1794 dollar), but aesthetics then were as now and before. I doubt they would present a specimen that was less than superlative in any way.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I suppose that superlative is a relative term and has to be compared to what the standard was at the time.
The film making which created The Wizard of Oz was superlative at the time, today it would be completely disappointing.
Latin American Collection
Nope, not my point as I was talking about that particular time. They produced some VERY lovely coins at the time, and even THOUSANDS of years before as I am sure readers are aware.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Nope, in that particular time minting a silver dollar sized coin with the technology and equipment at the newly established mint is the standard. Not a Spanish Milled Dollar or German Taler.
Latin American Collection
Still doesn't explain why they would use such a planchet with so many adjustment marks if it were a presentation piece.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
And recently, we hear some potential evidence that this particular coin was handed to Washington and shown to other historical figures of the time..
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I don't think it was the venue either. The 1794 PCGS SP66 $1 is an amazing coin, but I never saw it as an eight figure coin or any where near it. I think it was an example of a bidding war resulting in moon money. As for the 1804 dollar, the market for the others has also weakened so it isn't a surprise the market softened. I agree that the shortage of collectors at that level of the market was a factor.
Regardless of the outcome, I wouldn't be too sad to be left with the three coins that were passed if I was the consignor. The pieces are truly museum quality.
No, the bid was jumped in part to create publicity as the first coin to auction for eight figures.
R.W. Julian did not write that it was the SP66 coin that was sent to Washington. The 1,758 dollars were delivered on October 15 by Coiner Voigt to Treasurer Dalton, who gave depositor Rittenhouse all 1794 dollars, who then apparently gave a few to Secretary of State Randolph - who then sent one on October 16 to President Washington. No 1794 dollar was in Martha's estate inventory.
The theory of a planchet trial has supporting evidence from Mint documents, and other sources. The Mint had numerous trials in 1794 and many were saved. There was a reference collection of early coins saved by a Mint officer. If the planchet trial theory is correct, and it could be proven, the SP66 would be the first dollar struck.
DeSaussure October 27, 1795: "Great delays were incurred in obtaining the heavy iron work, particularly the rollers; and these were not always fit for use when obtained. Those which are now in use being almost worn out,..." [edit addition]
@tradedollarnut June 17, 2020 "My personal opinion is that it wasn’t even part of the production run - it was created earlier as a specimen to show the feasibility of the silver plug method of weight adjustment."
I wrote this in February 2013, and more supporting evidence has been found since then. Also, only one planchet trial would be needed, no reason to waste a day's wages (in silver content) on a second trial:
""A little long winded, but Captain Henway did ask for “strong opinions.”
There is an attribute of the planchet for the subject 1794 Dollar that has been mentioned, although the significance may have been overlooked. Adjustment marks are common on the 1794-95 Flowing Hair type. For dollars, enough silver plugs have been located that they are no longer “rare” by the Sheldon rarity scale. Sometimes called “experimental,” the plugs were obviously part of an accepted process for 1795. What is significant, and very rare for the type, is adjustment marks on both sides. The Carter 1794 Dollar may be unique for the FH type with adjustment marks on both sides along with a silver plug.
I have purchased and observed many early US silver and gold coins, and have found that adjustment marks are almost always on one side, with a couple of exceptions including the Carter 1794 Dollar. From my experience, adjustment marks appear on about 25% of FH half dollars and dollars, and this approximation may be low considering that some coins probably had adjustment marks that were completely obliterated by the strike.
The early US Mint had reported problems with the rollers that are used to form silver bars into flat strips for planchets. The early horse drawn rolling machinery was the first Mint equipment to convert to steam power, in 1816. The initial rolling and drawing equipment could not hold tolerance for thickness, requiring adjusting for thick planchets or plugs for those rolled too thin. Reasons for rolling variation could include roller deflection and a loose fit of spindle to bushing. Sometimes the rolling and drawing was accurate enough to be within weight tolerances. It appears the Mint erred on the thick side as more FH silver type have adjustment marks than plugs.
Without the adjusting and plugging process for the first couple of years for silver, the Mint could not respond quickly to their depositors, as an underweight planchet would have had to go through the lengthy processes of melting, refining, assaying, rolling, etc. A plug could be fabricated in minutes, using scrap from punching. Considering the planchet punching process, a square will lose more than 21% of weight when punched into a round planchet. Drawing and adjusting will lose more weight. The majority of this scrap silver would have to be re-melted, except for the approximate one quarter of one percent “wastage.” The Mint apparently had some buffer stock by 1796 along with a probable improvement in rolling, and the plugging process was discontinued.
It has been written that silver plugged planchets were the result of mistakes by the adjusters who filed too much silver. I don’t believe this except for rare cases. The adjusting process was among the lowest paid and with the least skill needed of early Mint jobs. It is simple and easy to file silver and gold to within spec limits. Chief Adjuster John Cope would not have tolerated errors to the magnitude of the number of plugged planchets. Rather than being caused by adjusting error, plugged planchets were the result of variability in the rolling process which rolled the silver strips too thin.
Since the Carter 1794 Dollar is probably unique with the silver plug and adjustment marks on both sides, I believe it is most likely an experimental planchet (or a planchet trial for the 1795 “experiment”) used to prove the process of adjusting and plugging planchets to within tolerances, alleviating the lengthy requirement of melting, refining, etc. Questions that would need to be answered by the experiment include – Until the large press is finished, does the current press have enough force to press out adjustment marks to an acceptable level on both sides of a silver dollar planchet? Does the current press have the power to force fit a large silver plug? Once the processes were proven as practicable, the standard methods were to adjust one side of a planchet or to use a silver plug, if weight was out of spec.
I don’t believe the Carter 1794 Dollar planchet was mistakenly over adjusted. The team of six adjusters in October of 1795 was not in place a year earlier when it was struck, and it could have been conceivably adjusted by Chief Coiner Henry Voigt or one of his “artists” as Robert Scot referred to them. The early key Mint employees were quite ingenious and mechanically adept, and it is unlikely they would have made a mistake on this very simple job. Also, the uniqueness of adjusting on both sides strongly indicates experimentation with a not yet standardized process, rather than an error.
It is impossible to effectively polish an adjusted planchet. The Carter 1794 Dollar was not adjusted only towards the edges, as the angle of the file required to do this would have greatly thinned the edges. The coin proves this did not happen. The planchet was filed flat through the centers, and the adjustment marks were obliterated with the well struck centers and portions of the edges, but remain in areas more weakly struck or out of parallel (as in left side obverse facing). I don’t believe the 1794 dollar planchet was polished. If anyone doesn’t believe me, try polishing a filed silver surface. I also don’t believe the planchet was frosted with an acid solution to give a cameo contrast. Robert Scot did not use etching in any of his copperplate or other known engravings. Robert Scot did have vast experience in polishing copperplate to a mirror surface (I actually handled one of his few surviving copperplates). The 1794 dollar has a slight cameo-like contrast to the prooflike fields because the fields were polished as standard process, while the cavities of the die were not polished to the same degree.
I also don’t think it was a trial strike, the two copper examples were used for that purpose, as they also did with some 1794 copper half dollar die trials. Likewise, I don’t believe it was a presentation striking, the Mint employees were smarter than to use a plugged planchet with both sides adjusted for presentation purposes. It was a special coin though, for the people who may have used it as evidence to prove a process, just as a number of die trials from 1794 were saved.
If it was an experimental planchet, there is no reason to believe it is not a “coin,” as a number of experimental 1793 and onward coins are known. Many experimental dies, planchets, and designs became part of the “regular series” of coins.
To answer the OP question, an experimental planchet used to prove a proposed process would bring it much closer to the first strike, but there could have been one or two other experimental planchets struck prior. With over 92% of the 1794 dollars delivered currently unknown, the evidence to accurately compare die stage does not exist.
In summary, I believe the unique attributes of a silver plug combined with adjusting on both sides of the Carter 1794 Dollar indicate an experimental planchet, used as proof of process to validate that the adjusting and plugging methods could mitigate variability with the rolling process, enabling more expedient delivery of coins to depositors.""
Thi stype of > @brg5658 said:
Its possible they assumed that the initial die setup and subsequent force would be sufficient for striking the planchet as made.
In any case the portrait hair detail in relief as compared to the other '94's is the convincing evidence of a very special coin made for a very special purpose.
Thank you for a highly informative and most exceptional post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What was the bidding before the jump?
I just watched the video of the auction (again) and it looked as if Laura Sperber bid $5,500,00 hammer, in order to top someone else’s bid of $5,250,000 hammer, and then raised her own bid to $8,525,000 hammer. See below.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks! I only saw two bidders over $4 million. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the bidding strategy.
We’ve discussed the bidding strategy here many times, and we'll never know if the coin would have brought more or less if Laura had not jumped the bid. What’s interesting to me now is that the jumped bid 7 years ago may have influenced the bidders this time around. Fair or not, it’s sort of an asterisk next to the old price record. Good lesson to learn.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I was thinking this as well.
But I also think it’s too soon to tell if it’s a lesson to be learned.
weirdest auction ever.
Thanks for the video link Mark. It was great to watch. Nice to see Laura in action and her interview afterwards. I like Martin's interview as well and how he is referred to as Curator of the Cardinal Collection Education Foundation.
As for the price, I think there was a desire to break the $10M mark not just for this coin but to open the way for other coins. Others haven't followed so this remains the only to have done so.
Since it was obviously artificially done, I don't think it accomplished anything other than adding another few million to the purchase price.
I'm guessing it didn't hurt for Legend to be known as the dealer that broke the barrier.
I think it probably did hurt some. It cuts against her image of being numismatically omnipotent, clairvoyant, or authoritative. Would you hire someone to advise you or represent you who allowed her client to bid several million more than necessary to win an item at auction?
That's now, but we are recently in a different situation now with many major collectors having left and Covid. There were many years before these happened.
Covid wasn't around in 2013. She had the high bid at $5.5 million and inexplicably upped it to $8.525 million (before buyer's premium). That's what I'm referring to in my post. I would never try to make a comparison of the 2013 market to today especially with a unique coin. Who would bid against himself (or herself)?
I understand what you're getting at but there's more going on here than simple bidding.
If this was a "gateway" sale for other coins, which I believe is what the attempt was, it may have other consequences. If it gets out that a 10 million dollar widget is held for 6-8 years and then fails to sell at a 25% or so loss (not including inflation), then it shows rather poorly I would imagine on such coins as investment articles.
I wish the poster child bit would just be left out, complete with all the marketing implications.
And for the OP author, you missed the point of what I was trying to say, so no need for rudeness.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Laura has posted coins losing 30% is a good investment return relative to stocks on her April 5, 2020 Hot Topics blog article:
https://www.legendnumismatics.com/hot_topics/selling-to-legend-numismatics/
I’m sure @bidask can do better and only lose 15%.
Kidding, Laura’s logic in that post makes no sense.
Latin American Collection
It works if you're comparing to those specific down and out stocks, but I don't know anyone that owns those stocks. The ones I, and people I know, hold have done much better than that.
Yeah, I dont think comparing two specific poor investments to each and then extrapolating those returns to the entirety of the asset classes makes the slightest bit of sense. But hey, if she wants to rationalize her returns that way, have at it.
Latin American Collection
In the shallow end of the pool I expect to take a 20% hit, but I get enough enjoyment from the hobby that it doesn't bother me. If I were playing in the deep end, a 30% (or even 20%) hit would be unacceptable. I don't enjoy the hobby THAT much and have too much respect for money and what it takes folks to earn it.
It comes down to how much money you have and how you want to enjoy it.
A few million is a lot for many, but in the several $100K range, people lose that on expensive cars all the time, and they are on a treadmill of buying a new depreciating car every few years. I'd love to be on that treadmill but can't afford it!
.> @Zoins said:
How did the 1794 SP66 dollar perform compared to the S&P500?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Some have noted that there are fewer "whales" collecting. However there are still guys with collections worth hundreds of millions of dollars (hansen and tyrant are two that are public) and these other big players did not make the minimum bid. It would be interesting to know why they passed.
I don't know. I just know people keep telling me coins aren't investments.
I've also watched the video that Mark Feld posted because I wanted to see Pogue bidding on a coin. Pogue made a cut bid at $5.25 million and then Laura bid $5.5 million. The auctioneer asked for $6 million and that's when Laura made her "shock and awe" bid of over $8 million even though she was currently the high bidder at $5.5 million. I understand the reasons for doing so, but I would not have done it. I feel that the coin sold for more than it could have. Great coin though. Only time will tell what happens now.
I guess until it sells for more than last time, there will be endless armchair quarterbacking about the buying strategy in 2013.
But regardless, it’s such a unique and spectacular piece of history that the players probably won’t lose sleep over it.
Can someone kindly explain the strategy of Laura increasing her bid from 5.5 to 8 million dollars?
Ego. She wanted to be the first to pay $10,000,000 for a US coin and now she's buried in it IMO.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
will be interesting to see.
I never saw Hansen buying anything above 2.5 Million.
It would be interesting to know who Tyrant is. I read BBC and they they talk about how some of the businesses are faring with Covid.
There have been different strategies used to bid at auction since forever. A large increment advance is one. Others involve bidding fast, bidding slow, using multiple proxy bidders at different levels, standing and holding your arm up and daring anyone to bid against you, making "secret" bids by scratching your nose or winking at the auctioneer, placing advance "book" bids while also bidding in the room, being on the phone with yourself while pretending to be talking to a cautious or aggressive client, etc.
The move toward robust internet bidding in the past 5-10 years has probably taken away from some of the fun and shenanigans of the saleroom.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the bid, it might not have been her idea or decision. And it’s not
her coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Could also be a shock bid, meant to discourage other bidders. I've done the same, but with far fewer zeros.
Those extra few million were cheaper than some Super Bowl ads and arguably longer lasting “bang for the buck” advertising if one wants to look at it that way.
I also agree with some previous comments suggesting that ‘it’s all relative’ ..... many of us can afford to lose a certain percentage as we buy and sell and buy and sell ... and it’s just part of the fun of playing in our chosen coin hobby pools ... obviously Legend and TDN aren’t hurting as a result of this one auction pass ... and as TDN already indicated he’s quite content with his current Box of 3 and will happily move on to some other collections and let some time pass .... The Best coins will always have a rarified market and even if some future bidders aren’t ‘coin enthusiasts’—and just in it as an investment—there were over 2,800 Billionaires in the world last year ... many of them quite eccentric and into collecting The Best ‘Things’ regardless of item.
Despite swimming in the shallow end I’ve come to appreciate Legend for their commitment to The Best stuff — because it sure makes the hobby more exciting in my opinion...and I think there is a trickle down aspect to it all that ultimately benefits many of the smaller fish.