The 1894-S dime offered here as part of the Miller Collection is a beautiful Gem-quality coin. Both sides are generally brilliant in the centers with delicate iridescent gold toning toward the borders. Striking detail is razor sharp to full throughout the design, and the fields exhibit a semi-reflective finish. Carefully preserved, there are no marks of consequence on either side, the most useful provenance marker the aforementioned lint mark (as made) on the obverse. When he learned of our sale of this coin as part of the Larry H. Miller Collection, CAC founder John Albanese stated: "Of the 1894-S dimes that I have seen or handled over the years, the Miller specimen is my favorite. Although not the highest graded example of this famous rarity, it has the strongest, most collector-friendly eye appeal." A fitting tribute to the outstanding eye appeal of this coin and its significance as one of the finest known examples of a landmark numismatic rarity._
So likely deserving of the +, and was an easy decision to cross.
Good move on the new owner.
Personally I like this one in our hosts holder.
@marcmoish said:
_The Eliasberg Specimen of the 1894-S Dime
The 1894-S dime offered here as part of the Miller Collection is a beautiful Gem-quality coin. Both sides are generally brilliant in the centers with delicate iridescent gold toning toward the borders. Striking detail is razor sharp to full throughout the design, and the fields exhibit a semi-reflective finish. Carefully preserved, there are no marks of consequence on either side, the most useful provenance marker the aforementioned lint mark (as made) on the obverse. When he learned of our sale of this coin as part of the Larry H. Miller Collection, CAC founder John Albanese stated: "Of the 1894-S dimes that I have seen or handled over the years, the Miller specimen is my favorite. Although not the highest graded example of this famous rarity, it has the strongest, most collector-friendly eye appeal." A fitting tribute to the outstanding eye appeal of this coin and its significance as one of the finest known examples of a landmark numismatic rarity._
So likely deserving of the +, and was an easy decision to cross.
Good move on the new owner.
Personally I like this one in our hosts holder.
Why did you say “So likely deserving of the +...” ?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
The plus doesn't matter except to ensure the coin stays in PCGS plastic longer. I'll invoke the "grading proofs from photos" caveat that we should all be familiar with by now to justify ignoring debate about the grade of the coin among those who haven't studied it in person.
@marcmoish said:
_The Eliasberg Specimen of the 1894-S Dime
The 1894-S dime offered here as part of the Miller Collection is a beautiful Gem-quality coin. Both sides are generally brilliant in the centers with delicate iridescent gold toning toward the borders. Striking detail is razor sharp to full throughout the design, and the fields exhibit a semi-reflective finish. Carefully preserved, there are no marks of consequence on either side, the most useful provenance marker the aforementioned lint mark (as made) on the obverse. When he learned of our sale of this coin as part of the Larry H. Miller Collection, CAC founder John Albanese stated: "Of the 1894-S dimes that I have seen or handled over the years, the Miller specimen is my favorite. Although not the highest graded example of this famous rarity, it has the strongest, most collector-friendly eye appeal." A fitting tribute to the outstanding eye appeal of this coin and its significance as one of the finest known examples of a landmark numismatic rarity._
So likely deserving of the +, and was an easy decision to cross.
Good move on the new owner.
Personally I like this one in our hosts holder.
Why did you say “So likely deserving of the +...” ?
Nice EA for this rarity - was only showing a quote from JA re this piece, did you think it did not deserve the + ??
I carefully studied both the Eliasberg-Miller and Simpson coins in hand. I would concur with PCGS that the Simpson coin is very marginally superior, so the crossover makes sense to me.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
Spoken like a man who's never tried to sell an undergraded coin, much less a seven figure one.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@marcmoish said:
_The Eliasberg Specimen of the 1894-S Dime
The 1894-S dime offered here as part of the Miller Collection is a beautiful Gem-quality coin. Both sides are generally brilliant in the centers with delicate iridescent gold toning toward the borders. Striking detail is razor sharp to full throughout the design, and the fields exhibit a semi-reflective finish. Carefully preserved, there are no marks of consequence on either side, the most useful provenance marker the aforementioned lint mark (as made) on the obverse. When he learned of our sale of this coin as part of the Larry H. Miller Collection, CAC founder John Albanese stated: "Of the 1894-S dimes that I have seen or handled over the years, the Miller specimen is my favorite. Although not the highest graded example of this famous rarity, it has the strongest, most collector-friendly eye appeal." A fitting tribute to the outstanding eye appeal of this coin and its significance as one of the finest known examples of a landmark numismatic rarity._
So likely deserving of the +, and was an easy decision to cross.
Good move on the new owner.
Personally I like this one in our hosts holder.
Why did you say “So likely deserving of the +...” ?
Nice EA for this rarity - was only showing a quote from JA re this piece, did you think it did not deserve the + ??
(edited to add the question marks )
It was unclear to me where the JA quote ended and your words started. I have no opinion on the grade - When/if I saw the coin, it was long ago.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I know that CAC ignores plus' and stars designation, because I have verified it. Therefore it should ticker again, since cac just considers it as PF65 same as it was before.Beautiful rare pedigreed coin, wish I had the funds to own it. Where is the jealous emoji for that.
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
Spoken like a man who's never tried to sell an undergraded coin, much less a seven figure one.
It might make a slight difference if you are top pop by a hair. But those coins are so rare and so well known that the bidders know the pecking order without the help of the plastic.
Do you think that coin is now worth more than before the cross?
I look forward to my first 7 figure coin sale. Maybe in pesos?
@marcmoish said:
_The Eliasberg Specimen of the 1894-S Dime
The 1894-S dime offered here as part of the Miller Collection is a beautiful Gem-quality coin. Both sides are generally brilliant in the centers with delicate iridescent gold toning toward the borders. Striking detail is razor sharp to full throughout the design, and the fields exhibit a semi-reflective finish. Carefully preserved, there are no marks of consequence on either side, the most useful provenance marker the aforementioned lint mark (as made) on the obverse. When he learned of our sale of this coin as part of the Larry H. Miller Collection, CAC founder John Albanese stated: "Of the 1894-S dimes that I have seen or handled over the years, the Miller specimen is my favorite. Although not the highest graded example of this famous rarity, it has the strongest, most collector-friendly eye appeal." A fitting tribute to the outstanding eye appeal of this coin and its significance as one of the finest known examples of a landmark numismatic rarity._
So likely deserving of the +, and was an easy decision to cross.
Good move on the new owner.
Personally I like this one in our hosts holder.
Why did you say “So likely deserving of the +...” ?
Nice EA for this rarity - was only showing a quote from JA re this piece, did you think it did not deserve the + ??
(edited to add the question marks )
It was unclear to me where the JA quote ended and your words started. I have no opinion on the grade - When/if I saw the coin, it was long ago.
Italics did not work for me it seems, pardon me for confusing you - Sir Feldini deserves better.
@MFeld said:
The coin gained a plus on the crossover. I wonder what, if any, the prior crossover attempt history is?
Well, it was an NGC PF-65 (CAC), and it's now a PCGS PF-65+, so that would probably be considered by many, as a straight-crossover.
Steve
Since CAC ignores the plus when making assessments, presumably they would sticker the (former NGC/CAC 65) coin in a PCGS 65+ holder. And I think that for a coin to go from NGC/CAC 65 to PCGS/CAC 65+ is better than a straight crossover. Those who believe otherwise would be dismissing the significance of PCGS + grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Cameonut said:
I would not be a buyer of a tiny dime for 7 figures - I'd go for something much larger at that price point.
What does the BM suffix mean on the grade? PR65+BM
Branch Mint, which seems redundant to me, seeing as how the coin bears a mintmark.
Thanks Mark, I had never seen that before and I agree that it is redundant. I presume this is only for proofs that are normally struck in Philly.
You’re most welcome. I don’t follow moderns, so I’m not sure if the term is used for them. But I’ve seen it for a number of different coins, such as Proof Morgan’s, 1838-O half dollars, 1876-CC dimes, a 1907-D $20 and so on. Come to think of it, I’d like to be able to assemble a registry set of Branch Mint Proof and Specimen coins.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The plus means nothing to me on a coin like that. If I liked it; I'd pay up, regardless. I'd do that even for lesser coins. For a 7-figure rarity; I'd be even more inclined to pay up, if the quality is there, given it's scarcity.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@MFeld said:
Since CAC ignores the plus when making assessments, presumably they would sticker the (former NGC/CAC 65) coin in a PCGS 65+ holder. And I think that for a coin to go from NGC/CAC 65 to PCGS/CAC 65+ is better than a straight crossover. Those who believe otherwise would be dismissing the significance of PCGS + grades.
@Boosibri said:
That is an expensive grading bill...1% of the coins value
No way to know for sure but I suspect arrangements were made not to charge a full 1%. Especially if press releases are involved and other advertising shows up.
@Boosibri said:
That is an expensive grading bill...1% of the coins value
I would like to hear what the logistics and costs were on this; plus you have the shipping company or courier, a grading charge north of $10,000, etc.. There was a top pop. 1870cc $20 that was stolen in transit coming back from a crossover attempt which has yet to resurface.
Not to derail the thread, but I am trying to understand how and why a grade on one rarity that so few can afford to begin with should create the type of hype and interest that does more to hurt Coin Collecting than serve as a statement to create interest in terms of what real people can relate to.
Marcmoish- please understand this is not directed at you. Instead, it represents my general frustration in that this hobby seems incapable of connecting real people that have an interest in coin collecting. There seems to be a general trend that has been on going and accepted that it is about the finest known or graded which has the backlash of diminishing collecting at levels that just fail to meet this expectation.
This is the same coin viewed at different times and opinions are opinions that can and do change over time. More attention needs to be spent on defining what represents quality for the grade. I am not suggesting that stickers satisfy this requirement. And while that question is subjective, so is the grade assigned by the TPG companies to the coin that is the subject of this thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@amwldcoin said:
That's the kind of coin PCGS just might do "gratis" for the bragging rights.
@Boosibri said:
That is an expensive grading bill...1% of the coins value
I agree - PCGS is getting market recognition by having another rarity in their holder - especially since they are poking NGC in the eye in the marketplace. If I were the owner of that coin, I'd at least be asking for a major reduction in the grading fees.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
The idea that PCGS would grade this coin for free is ludicrous. I don’t think PCGS ever graded a million dollar coin for free.
And to think they are poking NGC in the eye in the marketplace is beyond immature.
I can assure you that the submitter of this coin happily paid about $15,000 to have this coin graded.
And if this coin was resubmitted to NGC, I would bet it would come back PF 66
And I would bet PCGS would cross it as a PR 66
Remember the Simpson 94s dime started as a PCGS PR 64, became an NGC PF 66 and now a PCGS PR 66
Anyway this Eliasberg 94s dime is a very nice example with almost no problems
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
I Googled Eliasberg 94-S dime and saw old NGC holder with early serial number. Admittedly I'm assuming that was the holder it was in when submitted for cross. Of course Mark it's possible that the owner just wanted it in PCGS plastic but we also know at least one major dealer who insists certain coins are "just not marketable" in NGC holders.
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
I Googled Eliasberg 94-S dime and saw old NGC holder with early serial number. Admittedly I'm assuming that was the holder it was in when submitted for cross. Of course Mark it's possible that the owner just wanted it in PCGS plastic but we also know at least one major dealer who insists certain coins are "just not marketable" in NGC holders.
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
I Googled Eliasberg 94-S dime and saw old NGC holder with early serial number. Admittedly I'm assuming that was the holder it was in when submitted for cross. Of course Mark it's possible that the owner just wanted it in PCGS plastic but we also know at least one major dealer who insists certain coins are "just not marketable" in NGC holders.
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
@fiftysevener said:
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
I Googled Eliasberg 94-S dime and saw old NGC holder with early serial number. Admittedly I'm assuming that was the holder it was in when submitted for cross. Of course Mark it's possible that the owner just wanted it in PCGS plastic but we also know at least one major dealer who insists certain coins are "just not marketable" in NGC holders.
It is in a better holder from an aesthetic standpoint. Those white prongs are hideous, and I am perplexed as to why NGC stubbornly continues to use them.
@Connecticoin said:
It is in a better holder from an aesthetic standpoint. Those white prongs are hideous, and I am perplexed as to why NGC stubbornly continues to use them.
Although it was in an older NGC holder without prongs. Maybe the new owner wants it in the PCGS regsitry.
@Connecticoin said:
It is in a better holder from an aesthetic standpoint. Those white prongs are hideous, and I am perplexed as to why NGC stubbornly continues to use them.
I’m not perplexed, as I can understand both sides of the debate. Aesthetically, the pronged holders aren’t pleasing. But they allow for a better view of the coin, in particular, the edge and peripheral areas.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Connecticoin said:
It is in a better holder from an aesthetic standpoint. Those white prongs are hideous, and I am perplexed as to why NGC stubbornly continues to use them.
Although it was in an older NGC holder without prongs. Maybe the new owner wants it in the PCGS regsitry.
As odd as it may seem this coin can still go in the NGC registry
@SeattleSlammer said:
Imagine cracking the plastic and popping that tiny 7 figure treasure out — careful, careful! ...... easy does it, easy! — like any other crack job — 😆
And then that sense of accomplishment as you push that baby into that hole in the album and you enjoy your completed set! Like collection used to be.
@Cameonut said:
I would not be a buyer of a tiny dime for 7 figures - I'd go for something much larger at that price point.
What does the BM suffix mean on the grade? PR65+BM
Branch Mint, which seems redundant to me, seeing as how the coin bears a mintmark.
Agreed. The BM designation is silly.
BTW, I don't consider 94-S dimes to be proofs, but that's a separate issue.
>
I’ve only handled two of the high grade 94-S’s and I didn’t think that either one was Proof, but what do I know?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
The coin gained a plus on the crossover. I wonder what, if any, the prior crossover attempt history is?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well, it was an NGC PF-65 (CAC), and it's now a PCGS PF-65+, so that would probably be considered by many, as a straight-crossover.
Steve
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
_The Eliasberg Specimen of the 1894-S Dime
The 1894-S dime offered here as part of the Miller Collection is a beautiful Gem-quality coin. Both sides are generally brilliant in the centers with delicate iridescent gold toning toward the borders. Striking detail is razor sharp to full throughout the design, and the fields exhibit a semi-reflective finish. Carefully preserved, there are no marks of consequence on either side, the most useful provenance marker the aforementioned lint mark (as made) on the obverse. When he learned of our sale of this coin as part of the Larry H. Miller Collection, CAC founder John Albanese stated: "Of the 1894-S dimes that I have seen or handled over the years, the Miller specimen is my favorite. Although not the highest graded example of this famous rarity, it has the strongest, most collector-friendly eye appeal." A fitting tribute to the outstanding eye appeal of this coin and its significance as one of the finest known examples of a landmark numismatic rarity._
So likely deserving of the +, and was an easy decision to cross.
Good move on the new owner.
Personally I like this one in our hosts holder.
Why did you say “So likely deserving of the +...” ?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
yea Insert rolling eyes here.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
The plus doesn't matter except to ensure the coin stays in PCGS plastic longer. I'll invoke the "grading proofs from photos" caveat that we should all be familiar with by now to justify ignoring debate about the grade of the coin among those who haven't studied it in person.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Nice EA for this rarity - was only showing a quote from JA re this piece, did you think it did not deserve the + ??
(edited to add the question marks
)
I carefully studied both the Eliasberg-Miller and Simpson coins in hand. I would concur with PCGS that the Simpson coin is very marginally superior, so the crossover makes sense to me.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Spoken like a man who's never tried to sell an undergraded coin, much less a seven figure one.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It was unclear to me where the JA quote ended and your words started. I have no opinion on the grade - When/if I saw the coin, it was long ago.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I would not be a buyer of a tiny dime for 7 figures - I'd go for something much larger at that price point.
What does the BM suffix mean on the grade? PR65+BM
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
I know that CAC ignores plus' and stars designation, because I have verified it. Therefore it should ticker again, since cac just considers it as PF65 same as it was before.Beautiful rare pedigreed coin, wish I had the funds to own it. Where is the jealous emoji for that.
It might make a slight difference if you are top pop by a hair. But those coins are so rare and so well known that the bidders know the pecking order without the help of the plastic.
Do you think that coin is now worth more than before the cross?
I look forward to my first 7 figure coin sale. Maybe in pesos?
Italics did not work for me it seems, pardon me for confusing you - Sir Feldini deserves better.
Since CAC ignores the plus when making assessments, presumably they would sticker the (former NGC/CAC 65) coin in a PCGS 65+ holder. And I think that for a coin to go from NGC/CAC 65 to PCGS/CAC 65+ is better than a straight crossover. Those who believe otherwise would be dismissing the significance of PCGS + grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Branch Mint, which seems redundant to me, seeing as how the coin bears a mintmark.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks Mark, I had never seen that before and I agree that it is redundant. I presume this is only for proofs that are normally struck in Philly.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
You’re most welcome. I don’t follow moderns, so I’m not sure if the term is used for them. But I’ve seen it for a number of different coins, such as Proof Morgan’s, 1838-O half dollars, 1876-CC dimes, a 1907-D $20 and so on. Come to think of it, I’d like to be able to assemble a registry set of Branch Mint Proof and Specimen coins.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Agreed. The BM designation is silly.
BTW, I don't consider 94-S dimes to be proofs, but that's a separate issue.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The plus means nothing to me on a coin like that. If I liked it; I'd pay up, regardless. I'd do that even for lesser coins. For a 7-figure rarity; I'd be even more inclined to pay up, if the quality is there, given it's scarcity.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
BTW, I don't consider 94-S dimes to be proofs, but that's a separate issue.
I agree. Business strikes. All of them.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Yup, and some would say unfortunate.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
How many registry points?
That is an expensive grading bill...1% of the coins value
Latin American Collection
I didn't realize that.....Thank you.
Steve
No way to know for sure but I suspect arrangements were made not to charge a full 1%. Especially if press releases are involved and other advertising shows up.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Oh my goodness!!!!
That's the kind of coin PCGS just might do "gratis" for the bragging rights.
Certainly a rarity in itself, and a well preserved specimen. Just a pleasure to see it.... Cheers, RickO
I would like to hear what the logistics and costs were on this; plus you have the shipping company or courier, a grading charge north of $10,000, etc.. There was a top pop. 1870cc $20 that was stolen in transit coming back from a crossover attempt which has yet to resurface.
Not to derail the thread, but I am trying to understand how and why a grade on one rarity that so few can afford to begin with should create the type of hype and interest that does more to hurt Coin Collecting than serve as a statement to create interest in terms of what real people can relate to.
Marcmoish- please understand this is not directed at you. Instead, it represents my general frustration in that this hobby seems incapable of connecting real people that have an interest in coin collecting. There seems to be a general trend that has been on going and accepted that it is about the finest known or graded which has the backlash of diminishing collecting at levels that just fail to meet this expectation.
This is the same coin viewed at different times and opinions are opinions that can and do change over time. More attention needs to be spent on defining what represents quality for the grade. I am not suggesting that stickers satisfy this requirement. And while that question is subjective, so is the grade assigned by the TPG companies to the coin that is the subject of this thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I agree - PCGS is getting market recognition by having another rarity in their holder - especially since they are poking NGC in the eye in the marketplace. If I were the owner of that coin, I'd at least be asking for a major reduction in the grading fees.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
The idea that PCGS would grade this coin for free is ludicrous. I don’t think PCGS ever graded a million dollar coin for free.
And to think they are poking NGC in the eye in the marketplace is beyond immature.
I can assure you that the submitter of this coin happily paid about $15,000 to have this coin graded.
And if this coin was resubmitted to NGC, I would bet it would come back PF 66
And I would bet PCGS would cross it as a PR 66
Remember the Simpson 94s dime started as a PCGS PR 64, became an NGC PF 66 and now a PCGS PR 66
Anyway this Eliasberg 94s dime is a very nice example with almost no problems
Hype is unsubstantiated because it was graded by NGC before they used plus grades. This coin looked better in a white background and [like the Newman coins] this was just a publicity stunt that further alienates the collector base of the hobby. I have to wonder who if anyone at PCGS lobbied the owner to make this submission because they could get salesman of the year award
How do you know the coin was last graded by NGC prior to the introduction of plus grades?
And what makes submitting the coin to PCGS a “publicity stunt”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I Googled Eliasberg 94-S dime and saw old NGC holder with early serial number. Admittedly I'm assuming that was the holder it was in when submitted for cross. Of course Mark it's possible that the owner just wanted it in PCGS plastic but we also know at least one major dealer who insists certain coins are "just not marketable" in NGC holders.
Here are two different sets of pictures.😉
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-P97M9/1894-s-barber-dime-proof-65-ngc-cac
https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/8782/stacks-bowers-miller-december-2020-auction-realized-1894-s-barber-dime/
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks Mark I just think the older white insert makes these coins show better and this one could have just been reholdered rather than regraded.
I agree in each case. But I’m confused by the picture of the coin in the older looking holder, in the auction.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It is in a better holder from an aesthetic standpoint. Those white prongs are hideous, and I am perplexed as to why NGC stubbornly continues to use them.
Although it was in an older NGC holder without prongs. Maybe the new owner wants it in the PCGS regsitry.
I’m not perplexed, as I can understand both sides of the debate. Aesthetically, the pronged holders aren’t pleasing. But they allow for a better view of the coin, in particular, the edge and peripheral areas.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
By gaining a plus this is very positive for buyer / bidder interest and for the owner / seller.
Imagine cracking the plastic and popping that tiny 7 figure treasure out — careful, careful! ...... easy does it, easy! — like any other crack job — 😆
As odd as it may seem this coin can still go in the NGC registry
And then that sense of accomplishment as you push that baby into that hole in the album and you enjoy your completed set! Like collection used to be.
>
I’ve only handled two of the high grade 94-S’s and I didn’t think that either one was Proof, but what do I know?