@Weiss said:
I would have offered a half-raised eyebrow smile if my local B&M had shown it to me, then asked if he'd gotten any new '21 Peace dollars in.
Does literally nothing for me.
I bet you have some really nice '21 Peace dollars!
I've been looking to pick up one but it's hard to finding one that I like and fits my budget.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
Im correcting myself:
Hansen was right not to bid. I dont believe this was a correct auction process on this coin. Once again.
@Justacommeman said:
After watching that video how many timeouts did each bidder get?
m
and who was each bidder, is the question.
Indeed.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@messydesk said:
Congrats to the buyer. $8.4 MM "feels right" for that coin, not that I have any business getting near that velvet rope. How does this compare with the estimates made in threads both before this sale the original Pogue sale in which it was passed?
Don't know that there were any official estimates published anywhere and don't recall if there were others estimating what it would bring, but the Greysheet had a bid of $6 Million and the PCGS price guide was $6.5 Million.
Those seemed slightly low considering that Stack's Bowers later announced after it went unsold at the Pogue auction at $6.4 Million hammer in 2016 that there was a legitimate underbid of $6.2 Million for a total of $7,285,000.
I thought it would be doing well if it reached or went above that figure. The price shows some strength in the market, at least for that coin. Lots of other strong prices in the auction mixed with some that brought well below their own previous auction price or did not sell. Kind of like a normal market.
From what I have been told and from what I saw in 2016, there was no underbid then in 2016 at all, it was all a show.
The coin was just officially "not for sale", even if at auction and everybody was told this in advance.
@messydesk said:
Congrats to the buyer. $8.4 MM "feels right" for that coin, not that I have any business getting near that velvet rope. How does this compare with the estimates made in threads both before this sale the original Pogue sale in which it was passed?
Don't know that there were any official estimates published anywhere and don't recall if there were others estimating what it would bring, but the Greysheet had a bid of $6 Million and the PCGS price guide was $6.5 Million.
Those seemed slightly low considering that Stack's Bowers later announced after it went unsold at the Pogue auction at $6.4 Million hammer in 2016 that there was a legitimate underbid of $6.2 Million for a total of $7,285,000.
I thought it would be doing well if it reached or went above that figure. The price shows some strength in the market, at least for that coin. Lots of other strong prices in the auction mixed with some that brought well below their own previous auction price or did not sell. Kind of like a normal market.
From what I have been told and from what I saw in 2016, there was no underbid then in 2016 at all, it was all a show.
The coin was just officially "not for sale", even if at auction and everybody was told this in advance.
If it was a show, were people prevented from making bids?
Even if it's a show, sometimes it's can still be fun to bid.
I had been present at both the Pogue auction and this weeks sale of the 1822 half eagle. At Pogue it was clear a reserve was present the way it proceeded. This sale seemed very real to me, at least that's what I said to a couple of collectors and dealers who huddled after the lot. A hardy congratulations to the new owner. I thought in today's bullish leaning market the price was spot on for such an important rarity. Was fun to be there and worth the trip. Nice having dinner with TDN, Matt from Legend and John Brush at the show. It was also nice to see Laura Sperber at the show as well. Had a celebratory toast with the Brian, Jason, Wayne and the Stacks team. They confirmed strong bidder, underbidder and that the coin was for the record was completely unreserved.
@GoBust said:
I had been present at both the Pogue auction and this weeks sale of the 1822 half eagle. At Pogue it was clear a reserve was present the way it proceeded. This sale seemed very real to me, at least that's what I said to a couple of collectors and dealers who huddled after the lot. A hardy congratulations to the new owner. I thought in today's bullish leaning market the price was spot on for such an important rarity. Was fun to be there and worth the trip. Nice having dinner with TDN, Matt from Legend and John Brush at the show. It was also nice to see Laura Sperber at the show as well. Had a celebratory toast with the Brian, Jason, Wayne and the Stacks team. They confirmed strong bidder, underbidder and that the coin was for the record was completely unreserved.
great, but who was the underbidder ? Anybody knows ? A real bid requires the winning bidder AND the underbidder.
...From what I have been told and from what I saw in 2016, there was no underbid then in 2016 at all, it was all a show.
The coin was just officially "not for sale", even if at auction and everybody was told this in advance.
Either that is not the case or Stack's Bowers was lying or misleading in their Press Release from May 26, 2016. I tend to doubt they would do that, but I could be wrong. The phone bidder would have been verified as legitimate first so it would not be just anyone faking it.
.
.
Pogue IV Auction Sells 61 Coins, Surpasses $16 Million:
"The only collectible specimen of the extremely rare 1822 half eagle, or $5 gold piece, received a phone bid of $6,200,000, which, inclusive of the buyer’s premium, would have equated to a $7,285,000 price realized, a bid surpassed among gold coins by only the 1933 double eagle $20 gold piece that brought $7,590,000 in 2002. The 1822 half eagle was retained by the consignor after it did not meet their reserve price. Only two other examples of this rarity exist, both in the Smithsonian Institution."
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@GoBust said:
I had been present at both the Pogue auction and this weeks sale of the 1822 half eagle. At Pogue it was clear a reserve was present the way it proceeded. This sale seemed very real to me, at least that's what I said to a couple of collectors and dealers who huddled after the lot. A hardy congratulations to the new owner. I thought in today's bullish leaning market the price was spot on for such an important rarity. Was fun to be there and worth the trip. Nice having dinner with TDN, Matt from Legend and John Brush at the show. It was also nice to see Laura Sperber at the show as well. Had a celebratory toast with the Brian, Jason, Wayne and the Stacks team. They confirmed strong bidder, underbidder and that the coin was for the record was completely unreserved.
great, but who was the underbidder ? Anybody knows ? A real bid requires the winning bidder AND the underbidder.
Sorry @privaterarecoincollector I didn't receive any information as to who the winner or underbidder were. It was a dealer on the phone representing the winning collector is all that I know.
@GoBust said:
I had been present at both the Pogue auction and this weeks sale of the 1822 half eagle. At Pogue it was clear a reserve was present the way it proceeded. This sale seemed very real to me, at least that's what I said to a couple of collectors and dealers who huddled after the lot. A hardy congratulations to the new owner. I thought in today's bullish leaning market the price was spot on for such an important rarity. Was fun to be there and worth the trip. Nice having dinner with TDN, Matt from Legend and John Brush at the show. It was also nice to see Laura Sperber at the show as well. Had a celebratory toast with the Brian, Jason, Wayne and the Stacks team. They confirmed strong bidder, underbidder and that the coin was for the record was completely unreserved.
great, but who was the underbidder ? Anybody knows ? A real bid requires the winning bidder AND the underbidder.
Sorry @privaterarecoincollector I didn't receive any information as to who the winner or underbidder were. It was a dealer on the phone representing the winning collector is all that I know.
You represented the collector who had the winning bid and got the 1822 5 ?
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
In my opinion to determine the value of a coin you need to know who are the underbidders.
On the 1804 10 there were a few.
On the Brasher Doubloon there was only me all the way from 6 Million hammer and up.
Who were the underbidders on the 1822 5 and were there actually any, this is my question.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
And 6 months ago the common sense still was that this is a 3.5 Million USD coin.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
And 6 months ago the common sense still was that this is a 3.5 Million USD coin.
To me, this is one of the most desirable US coins. It's good to see get a price fitting with my perception of its station.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
And 6 months ago the common sense still was that this is a 3.5 Million USD coin.
Pfffft. No way, no how. Settle down.
Like I said, I’d have split it for sport at $4.4M all in.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
How did you figure a fair price for the Paquet?
1.) it brought 660k in 1986 / 1987 which seemed to be a similar market as 1982.
2.) it is a high grade coin, which have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
3.) it is a big gold coin, which again have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
4.) it is a sub-type, which is good too.
If you apply all of this you end up with a multiplier somewhere between 10 - 20 based on the auction result in the 80ies, with the 10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ being at the high end with 20x.
Some comparables in the same series of sales might be:
5 USD 1823 estimated PCGS 67, sold for 52.800 USD, I think thats a 600k - 800k USD coin today, thats 12 - 15x
5 USD 1821 estimated PCGS PR 65, sold for 198.000 USD, I think thats a 2 - 2.5 Million USD coin today, thats 10 - 12 x
10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ ex Garret at 130k, thats a 3 Million USD coin today, thats 24x
5 USD 1795 PCGS 65 ex Garret at 60k, thats a 900k USD coin today, thats 15x
4 USD 1880 coiled hair stella at 74.250 PR 66 / 67, thats 2 Million today, 15x
4 USD 1879 coiled hair stella at 88.000 PR 67, thats 2 Million today, 13x
20 USD UHR, PR 68 at 242.000 USD, thats a 15x
20 USD Quintuple Stella, 93.500 USD, today 2-3 Million, thats a 20-30x
Of course there is no exact science to evaluate a coin, but whatever metrics you apply, you always end up somewhere between 10-20x. So 10x would be cheap and 20x would be expensive in my opinion.
I would apply a lower multiplier to the 1822 because its dated gold and an AU coin, so my multiplier there since 1982 is 5 - 10 with 5 cheap and 10 expensive. If you take the middle thats 5 - 5.5 Million USD and thats what I think it should have brought at auction.
But Im also happy it brought more, it means all my coins are also worth more now.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
And 6 months ago the common sense still was that this is a 3.5 Million USD coin.
Pfffft. No way, no how. Settle down.
Like I said, I’d have split it for sport at $4.4M all in.
This just confirms my 5 -5.5 number today. I didnt say 3.5 Million today. Im saying 3.5 Million 9 months ago and 5.5 Million today.
You were an underbidder at the 10 1804, at 4.4 you might have been an underbidder at the 1822 too.
And we both prefer the 1804 ten over the 1822 5 I believe, its just a much more beautiful coin and not less rare:
There are 4 made, 3 known, 1 in Bass (PR 63), 1 in Tyrant (PR 65) and this one.
You could very well argue too that only one is really available to collectors.
Tyrant is gone for a very long time and so is Bass, and anyways Bass is hairlined.
So if the 1822 5 is 9 Million now, so is the 1804...
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
How did you figure a fair price for the Paquet?
1.) it brought 660k in 1986 / 1987 which seemed to be a similar market as 1982.
2.) it is a high grade coin, which have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
3.) it is a big gold coin, which again have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
4.) it is a sub-type, which is good too.
If you apply all of this you end up with a multiplier somewhere between 10 - 20 based on the auction result in the 80ies, with the 10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ being at the high end with 20x.
Some comparables in the same series of sales might be:
5 USD 1823 estimated PCGS 67, sold for 52.800 USD, I think thats a 600k - 800k USD coin today, thats 12 - 15x
5 USD 1821 estimated PCGS PR 65, sold for 198.000 USD, I think thats a 2 - 2.5 Million USD coin today, thats 10 - 12 x
10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ ex Garret at 130k, thats a 3 Million USD coin today, thats 24x
5 USD 1795 PCGS 65 ex Garret at 60k, thats a 900k USD coin today, thats 15x
4 USD 1880 coiled hair stella at 74.250 PR 66 / 67, thats 2 Million today, 15x
4 USD 1879 coiled hair stella at 88.000 PR 67, thats 2 Million today, 13x
20 USD UHR, PR 68 at 242.000 USD, thats a 15x
20 USD Quintuple Stella, 93.500 USD, today 2-3 Million, thats a 20-30x
Of course there is no exact science to evaluate a coin, but whatever metrics you apply, you always end up somewhere between 10-20x. So 10x would be cheap and 20x would be expensive in my opinion.
I would apply a lower multiplier to the 1822 because its dated gold and an AU coin, so my multiplier there since 1982 is 5 - 10 with 5 cheap and 10 expensive. If you take the middle thats 5 - 5.5 Million USD and thats what I think it should have brought at auction.
But Im also happy it brought more, it means all my coins are also worth more now.
The 1804 Ten in proof did 100x by the way since 1982. Crazy.
compared to this resale for the smaller 1 pound that sold as NGC PR 63 heavy hairlined at 1.3 Million USD.
1) The Edward VIII Pattern Sovereign (ex. Hemisphere and R. E. Gibson collections) - Realized a hammer price of £430,000 (approximately $729,000 at the time) in May 2014 (uncertified and described as hairlined over both sides). Brokered by the Royal Mint for £1,000,000 ($1.3 million) in January 2020 (when it was described as having been certified PR63 Cameo).
Did you try for this one? Not sure if you've mentioned it already.
Will you be going for the 1933 DE?
Many, if not most potential bidders, likely prefer not to publicize their interest. When you ask that question on a public forum, you chance putting them on the spot.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Did you try for this one? Not sure if you've mentioned it already.
Will you be going for the 1933 DE?
Many, if not most potential bidders, likely prefer not to publicize their interest. When you ask that question on a public forum, you chance putting them on the spot.
Well, the question was posed to TDN on the same coin and he answered it.
And one can always answer ambiguously, like "haven't decided yet".
Did you try for this one? Not sure if you've mentioned it already.
Will you be going for the 1933 DE?
Many, if not most potential bidders, likely prefer not to publicize their interest. When you ask that question on a public forum, you chance putting them on the spot.
Well, the question was posed to TDN on the same coin and he answered it.
And one can always answer ambiguously, like "haven't decided yet".
I realize that the question has been asked (and answered) in other instances. And It’s fine and dandy if it turns out they the person being asked doesn’t mind answering.
But that’s not always the case, so there’s a good chance that you’re putting someone on the spot. If they think they might or know that they will pursue the coin, they have a number of options, if asked about their interest. They can choose not to answer, be evasive, lie or tell the truth. Under the circumstances, many people would not want to be put in a position to have to make one of those choices.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Did you try for this one? Not sure if you've mentioned it already.
Will you be going for the 1933 DE?
Many, if not most potential bidders, likely prefer not to publicize their interest. When you ask that question on a public forum, you chance putting them on the spot.
Well, the question was posed to TDN on the same coin and he answered it.
And one can always answer ambiguously, like "haven't decided yet".
I realize that the question has been asked (and answered) in other instances. And It’s fine and dandy if it turns out they the person being asked doesn’t mind answering.
But that’s not always the case, so there’s a good chance that you’re putting someone on the spot. If they think they might or know that they will pursue the coin, they have a number of options, if asked about their interest. They can choose not to answer, be evasive, lie or tell the truth. Under the circumstances, many people would not want to be put in a position to have to make one of those choices.
Noted. PRCC is free to PM me if it's an issue.
Also, you've quoted my question, so if you delete your quote, I can go ahead and delete my question then
@privaterarecoincollector said:
I just dont see how its a 8.4 Million USD coin, meaning every other deal I saw I prefer over this one, including the 1804 ten, the Gem Brasher Doubloon and the PCGS 67 20 USD Paquet.
I rather would have the Gem Brasher Doubloon at 10 Million than this one at 8.4, actually the Brasher looks cheap now, like all other big coins that sold recently.
People value coins differently and have different preferences.
The 1822 HE has a price adjustment for being the only one available to collectors.
The other coins mentioned don't have that going for them.
compared to this resale for the smaller 1 pound that sold as NGC PR 63 heavy hairlined at 1.3 Million USD.
1) The Edward VIII Pattern Sovereign (ex. Hemisphere and R. E. Gibson collections) - Realized a hammer price of £430,000 (approximately $729,000 at the time) in May 2014 (uncertified and described as hairlined over both sides). Brokered by the Royal Mint for £1,000,000 ($1.3 million) in January 2020 (when it was described as having been certified PR63 Cameo).
Silly me, I’d be tempted to have NGC put this in a black holder to better highlight the coin.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
compared to this resale for the smaller 1 pound that sold as NGC PR 63 heavy hairlined at 1.3 Million USD.
1) The Edward VIII Pattern Sovereign (ex. Hemisphere and R. E. Gibson collections) - Realized a hammer price of £430,000 (approximately $729,000 at the time) in May 2014 (uncertified and described as hairlined over both sides). Brokered by the Royal Mint for £1,000,000 ($1.3 million) in January 2020 (when it was described as having been certified PR63 Cameo).
compared to this resale for the smaller 1 pound that sold as NGC PR 63 heavy hairlined at 1.3 Million USD.
1) The Edward VIII Pattern Sovereign (ex. Hemisphere and R. E. Gibson collections) - Realized a hammer price of £430,000 (approximately $729,000 at the time) in May 2014 (uncertified and described as hairlined over both sides). Brokered by the Royal Mint for £1,000,000 ($1.3 million) in January 2020 (when it was described as having been certified PR63 Cameo).
Congrats on a beautiful pattern!
This part of the auction description is great. King Edward VIII couldn't get his own coins. Of course, by 1937, Edward VIII was no longer king, having abdicated in 1936. Perhaps this is a reason QE2 won't abdicate?
Heritage wrote:
By all measures, then, bidders should consider the opportunity presented here to be truly once-in-a-lifetime. A surviving letter exchanged between the Duke of Windsor and his brother, George VI, reveals that even Edward himself was refused his request to obtain a set for himself, and we, therefore, feel it is fitting to state that this is the coin that even a "king" couldn't have. An absolute paragon in the field of British numismatics, and the undisputed star of the Paramount Collection.
Did you try for this one? Not sure if you've mentioned it already.
Will you be going for the 1933 DE?
Many, if not most potential bidders, likely prefer not to publicize their interest. When you ask that question on a public forum, you chance putting them on the spot.
Well, the question was posed to TDN on the same coin and he answered it.
And one can always answer ambiguously, like "haven't decided yet".
I realize that the question has been asked (and answered) in other instances. And It’s fine and dandy if it turns out they the person being asked doesn’t mind answering.
But that’s not always the case, so there’s a good chance that you’re putting someone on the spot. If they think they might or know that they will pursue the coin, they have a number of options, if asked about their interest. They can choose not to answer, be evasive, lie or tell the truth. Under the circumstances, many people would not want to be put in a position to have to make one of those choices.
Noted. PRCC is free to PM me if it's an issue.
Also, you've quoted my question, so if you delete your quote, I can go ahead and delete my question then
No @privaterarecoincollector I was just an interested observer watching some history unfold. Congrats on the new purchase, looks fabulous. I'm not sure about all the metrics from my viewpoint, almost too many variables. Great collectors compete to buy great coins...and voila price discovery at that moment in time. I do agree its more comforting when their are more than two bidders at the end.
@GoBust said:
No @privaterarecoincollector I was just an interested observer watching some history unfold. Congrats on the new purchase, looks fabulous. I'm not sure about all the metrics from my viewpoint, almost too many variables. Great collectors compete to buy great coins...and voila price discovery at that moment in time. I do agree its more comforting when their are more than two bidders at the end.
At least more than one. So far I only know of one here.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
How did you figure a fair price for the Paquet?
1.) it brought 660k in 1986 / 1987 which seemed to be a similar market as 1982.
2.) it is a high grade coin, which have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
3.) it is a big gold coin, which again have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
4.) it is a sub-type, which is good too.
If you apply all of this you end up with a multiplier somewhere between 10 - 20 based on the auction result in the 80ies, with the 10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ being at the high end with 20x.
Some comparables in the same series of sales might be:
5 USD 1823 estimated PCGS 67, sold for 52.800 USD, I think thats a 600k - 800k USD coin today, thats 12 - 15x
5 USD 1821 estimated PCGS PR 65, sold for 198.000 USD, I think thats a 2 - 2.5 Million USD coin today, thats 10 - 12 x
10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ ex Garret at 130k, thats a 3 Million USD coin today, thats 24x
5 USD 1795 PCGS 65 ex Garret at 60k, thats a 900k USD coin today, thats 15x
4 USD 1880 coiled hair stella at 74.250 PR 66 / 67, thats 2 Million today, 15x
4 USD 1879 coiled hair stella at 88.000 PR 67, thats 2 Million today, 13x
20 USD UHR, PR 68 at 242.000 USD, thats a 15x
20 USD Quintuple Stella, 93.500 USD, today 2-3 Million, thats a 20-30x
Of course there is no exact science to evaluate a coin, but whatever metrics you apply, you always end up somewhere between 10-20x. So 10x would be cheap and 20x would be expensive in my opinion.
I would apply a lower multiplier to the 1822 because its dated gold and an AU coin, so my multiplier there since 1982 is 5 - 10 with 5 cheap and 10 expensive. If you take the middle thats 5 - 5.5 Million USD and thats what I think it should have brought at auction.
But Im also happy it brought more, it means all my coins are also worth more now.
So basically you used the exact same method that I did but added criteria based upon your own bias and desires to raise the value of your coin and lower the value of the 1822. Hmmmm.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
How did you figure a fair price for the Paquet?
1.) it brought 660k in 1986 / 1987 which seemed to be a similar market as 1982.
2.) it is a high grade coin, which have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
3.) it is a big gold coin, which again have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
4.) it is a sub-type, which is good too.
If you apply all of this you end up with a multiplier somewhere between 10 - 20 based on the auction result in the 80ies, with the 10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ being at the high end with 20x.
Some comparables in the same series of sales might be:
5 USD 1823 estimated PCGS 67, sold for 52.800 USD, I think thats a 600k - 800k USD coin today, thats 12 - 15x
5 USD 1821 estimated PCGS PR 65, sold for 198.000 USD, I think thats a 2 - 2.5 Million USD coin today, thats 10 - 12 x
10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ ex Garret at 130k, thats a 3 Million USD coin today, thats 24x
5 USD 1795 PCGS 65 ex Garret at 60k, thats a 900k USD coin today, thats 15x
4 USD 1880 coiled hair stella at 74.250 PR 66 / 67, thats 2 Million today, 15x
4 USD 1879 coiled hair stella at 88.000 PR 67, thats 2 Million today, 13x
20 USD UHR, PR 68 at 242.000 USD, thats a 15x
20 USD Quintuple Stella, 93.500 USD, today 2-3 Million, thats a 20-30x
Of course there is no exact science to evaluate a coin, but whatever metrics you apply, you always end up somewhere between 10-20x. So 10x would be cheap and 20x would be expensive in my opinion.
I would apply a lower multiplier to the 1822 because its dated gold and an AU coin, so my multiplier there since 1982 is 5 - 10 with 5 cheap and 10 expensive. If you take the middle thats 5 - 5.5 Million USD and thats what I think it should have brought at auction.
But Im also happy it brought more, it means all my coins are also worth more now.
So basically you used the exact same method that I did but added criteria based upon your own bias and desires to raise the value of your coin and lower the value of the 1822. Hmmmm.
No.
I am assuming the growth in value over time is lower for low grade coins compared to high grade coins and all historical data is supporting this.
Brian Kendrella affirmed to that the underbidder was a person (not a Mac Pogue reserve) and the winning bid was a collector. So there were two bidders. Hope this helps @privaterarecoincollector. So those two bidders made the markey for this unique in p private hands coin. Before the bid jumped from 3.2 million to 6 million a couple of collectors discussed splitting it and Dell Loy was still in the hunt. I think the jump bid surprised and thinned the bidders considerably to the remaining two. I did not ask Brian if the bids from 6 million and up were only two bidders, but my impression was that it was only two at that point.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
@GoBust said:
Brian Kendrella affirmed to that the underbidder was a person (not a Mac Pogue reserve) and the winning bid was a collector. So there were two bidders. Hope this helps @privaterarecoincollector. So those two bidders made the markey for this unique in p private hands coin. Before the bid jumped from 3.2 million to 6 million a couple of collectors discussed splitting it and Dell Loy was still in the hunt. I think the jump bid surprised and thinned the bidders considerably to the remaining two. I did not ask Brian if the bids from 6 million and up were only two bidders, but my impression was that it was only two at that point.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
Simply deferring to TDN who so opined.
Im fine with this story too. Lets agree its worth 8.4 Million and it sold for the right price. Its good for all my coins I realize.
@Gazes said:
One thought while reading this thread---a common theme is Hansen can do what he wants but his stated goal.....
Most of us have had goals and most of them have changed over time. Even some high profile collectors on this forum have said one thing and then changed their path at some time (almost all of them actually).
I dont know what Hansen's current goal is but he has every right to revise, modify or ratify it without seeking anyone's approval.
Of course he does. And since he publicly stated his goal and hasn’t publicly changed it, we have the right to comment on it as if it’s still in place.
He has also said that he would not ever put himself in a position where he would pay anything to get a particular coin.
In fairness, it isnt like the 1822 $5 sold for an unexpectedly high price. It seemed per TDN's summary to be right in the middle of the expected range. I just wonder if Hansen is more interested in quantity on the registry vs. adding the rarities.
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
How did you figure a fair price for the Paquet?
1.) it brought 660k in 1986 / 1987 which seemed to be a similar market as 1982.
2.) it is a high grade coin, which have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
3.) it is a big gold coin, which again have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
4.) it is a sub-type, which is good too.
If you apply all of this you end up with a multiplier somewhere between 10 - 20 based on the auction result in the 80ies, with the 10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ being at the high end with 20x.
Some comparables in the same series of sales might be:
5 USD 1823 estimated PCGS 67, sold for 52.800 USD, I think thats a 600k - 800k USD coin today, thats 12 - 15x
5 USD 1821 estimated PCGS PR 65, sold for 198.000 USD, I think thats a 2 - 2.5 Million USD coin today, thats 10 - 12 x
10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ ex Garret at 130k, thats a 3 Million USD coin today, thats 24x
5 USD 1795 PCGS 65 ex Garret at 60k, thats a 900k USD coin today, thats 15x
4 USD 1880 coiled hair stella at 74.250 PR 66 / 67, thats 2 Million today, 15x
4 USD 1879 coiled hair stella at 88.000 PR 67, thats 2 Million today, 13x
20 USD UHR, PR 68 at 242.000 USD, thats a 15x
20 USD Quintuple Stella, 93.500 USD, today 2-3 Million, thats a 20-30x
Of course there is no exact science to evaluate a coin, but whatever metrics you apply, you always end up somewhere between 10-20x. So 10x would be cheap and 20x would be expensive in my opinion.
I would apply a lower multiplier to the 1822 because its dated gold and an AU coin, so my multiplier there since 1982 is 5 - 10 with 5 cheap and 10 expensive. If you take the middle thats 5 - 5.5 Million USD and thats what I think it should have brought at auction.
But Im also happy it brought more, it means all my coins are also worth more now.
So basically you used the exact same method that I did but added criteria based upon your own bias and desires to raise the value of your coin and lower the value of the 1822. Hmmmm.
Maybe I am really wrong on the 1822 5, it should be worth less because its not a high grade but then its the only one and its needed in every single PCGS date and variety set.
Comments
I bet you have some really nice '21 Peace dollars!
I've been looking to pick up one but it's hard to finding one that I like and fits my budget.
I'd love to see yours if you can post any.
these are all my thoughts
and who was each bidder, is the question.
Indeed.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
From what I have been told and from what I saw in 2016, there was no underbid then in 2016 at all, it was all a show.
The coin was just officially "not for sale", even if at auction and everybody was told this in advance.
If it was a show, were people prevented from making bids?
Even if it's a show, sometimes it's can still be fun to bid.
I had been present at both the Pogue auction and this weeks sale of the 1822 half eagle. At Pogue it was clear a reserve was present the way it proceeded. This sale seemed very real to me, at least that's what I said to a couple of collectors and dealers who huddled after the lot. A hardy congratulations to the new owner. I thought in today's bullish leaning market the price was spot on for such an important rarity. Was fun to be there and worth the trip. Nice having dinner with TDN, Matt from Legend and John Brush at the show. It was also nice to see Laura Sperber at the show as well. Had a celebratory toast with the Brian, Jason, Wayne and the Stacks team. They confirmed strong bidder, underbidder and that the coin was for the record was completely unreserved.
great, but who was the underbidder ? Anybody knows ? A real bid requires the winning bidder AND the underbidder.
So the only question I have here is really: who was the underbidder ?
For example I know all 3 underbidders on my 1804 ten.
Who was the winner?
I’m devastated that no one has said I made a mistake by not winning it!
Even after I had it on my list of most desirable individual coins!
Either that is not the case or Stack's Bowers was lying or misleading in their Press Release from May 26, 2016. I tend to doubt they would do that, but I could be wrong. The phone bidder would have been verified as legitimate first so it would not be just anyone faking it.
.
.
Pogue IV Auction Sells 61 Coins, Surpasses $16 Million:
https://stacksbowers.com/News/Pages/PressReleases.aspx?ArticleID=Pogue-IV-Sale-Passed-16-Million
.
.
Quoted from the above:
"The only collectible specimen of the extremely rare 1822 half eagle, or $5 gold piece, received a phone bid of $6,200,000, which, inclusive of the buyer’s premium, would have equated to a $7,285,000 price realized, a bid surpassed among gold coins by only the 1933 double eagle $20 gold piece that brought $7,590,000 in 2002. The 1822 half eagle was retained by the consignor after it did not meet their reserve price. Only two other examples of this rarity exist, both in the Smithsonian Institution."
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
You have made a terrible, life altering mistake in not bidding til you won the 1822.
You are going about collecting all wrong and should only follow the conflicting advice of all who are not you.
We shall now have a secret meeting and vote on whether you are to be thrown out of the hobby.
Hope that alleviates your devastation.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
should only follow the conflicting advice of all who are not you.
That is a great quote.
Sorry @privaterarecoincollector I didn't receive any information as to who the winner or underbidder were. It was a dealer on the phone representing the winning collector is all that I know.
You represented the collector who had the winning bid and got the 1822 5 ?
The sale price may have been right on the money. An added bid may not have been though so assuming the coin sold for the correct price anyone bidding over that price is arguable overpaying. More to the point a prudent bidder recognizes the bidding may not stop there. In such a circumstance it can make sense to avoid inflating the price and take a chance on buying it directly from the winning bidder. In this auction we don't know who the winning bidder was but it may well have been "investor/s" who are more interested in turning the coin than keeping it.
How do you know what is a fair price for this coin ? It hasnt sold at auction since 1982.
In my opinion to determine the value of a coin you need to know who are the underbidders.
On the 1804 10 there were a few.
On the Brasher Doubloon there was only me all the way from 6 Million hammer and up.
Who were the underbidders on the 1822 5 and were there actually any, this is my question.
And 6 months ago the common sense still was that this is a 3.5 Million USD coin.
To me, this is one of the most desirable US coins. It's good to see get a price fitting with my perception of its station.
Pfffft. No way, no how. Settle down.
Like I said, I’d have split it for sport at $4.4M all in.
How did you figure a fair price for the Paquet?
1.) it brought 660k in 1986 / 1987 which seemed to be a similar market as 1982.
2.) it is a high grade coin, which have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
3.) it is a big gold coin, which again have outperformed the coin market in general since 1987.
4.) it is a sub-type, which is good too.
If you apply all of this you end up with a multiplier somewhere between 10 - 20 based on the auction result in the 80ies, with the 10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ being at the high end with 20x.
Some comparables in the same series of sales might be:
5 USD 1823 estimated PCGS 67, sold for 52.800 USD, I think thats a 600k - 800k USD coin today, thats 12 - 15x
5 USD 1821 estimated PCGS PR 65, sold for 198.000 USD, I think thats a 2 - 2.5 Million USD coin today, thats 10 - 12 x
10 USD 1795 PCGS 66+ ex Garret at 130k, thats a 3 Million USD coin today, thats 24x
5 USD 1795 PCGS 65 ex Garret at 60k, thats a 900k USD coin today, thats 15x
4 USD 1880 coiled hair stella at 74.250 PR 66 / 67, thats 2 Million today, 15x
4 USD 1879 coiled hair stella at 88.000 PR 67, thats 2 Million today, 13x
20 USD UHR, PR 68 at 242.000 USD, thats a 15x
20 USD Quintuple Stella, 93.500 USD, today 2-3 Million, thats a 20-30x
Of course there is no exact science to evaluate a coin, but whatever metrics you apply, you always end up somewhere between 10-20x. So 10x would be cheap and 20x would be expensive in my opinion.
I would apply a lower multiplier to the 1822 because its dated gold and an AU coin, so my multiplier there since 1982 is 5 - 10 with 5 cheap and 10 expensive. If you take the middle thats 5 - 5.5 Million USD and thats what I think it should have brought at auction.
But Im also happy it brought more, it means all my coins are also worth more now.
This just confirms my 5 -5.5 number today. I didnt say 3.5 Million today. Im saying 3.5 Million 9 months ago and 5.5 Million today.
You were an underbidder at the 10 1804, at 4.4 you might have been an underbidder at the 1822 too.
And we both prefer the 1804 ten over the 1822 5 I believe, its just a much more beautiful coin and not less rare:
There are 4 made, 3 known, 1 in Bass (PR 63), 1 in Tyrant (PR 65) and this one.
You could very well argue too that only one is really available to collectors.
Tyrant is gone for a very long time and so is Bass, and anyways Bass is hairlined.
So if the 1822 5 is 9 Million now, so is the 1804...
Anyways not for sale
The 1804 Ten in proof did 100x by the way since 1982. Crazy.
BTW I bought this one. I thought it sold cheap.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-edward-viii-gold-proof-pattern-5-pounds-1937-pr67-ultra-cameo-ngc-/a/3096-30339.s?ic2=mybidspage-lotlinks-12202013&tab=MyBids-101116
compared to this resale for the smaller 1 pound that sold as NGC PR 63 heavy hairlined at 1.3 Million USD.
1) The Edward VIII Pattern Sovereign (ex. Hemisphere and R. E. Gibson collections) - Realized a hammer price of £430,000 (approximately $729,000 at the time) in May 2014 (uncertified and described as hairlined over both sides). Brokered by the Royal Mint for £1,000,000 ($1.3 million) in January 2020 (when it was described as having been certified PR63 Cameo).
Building a Gold coin portfolio...
Did you try for this one? Not sure if you've mentioned it already.
Will you be going for the 1933 DE?
Many, if not most potential bidders, likely prefer not to publicize their interest. When you ask that question on a public forum, you chance putting them on the spot.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well, the question was posed to TDN on the same coin and he answered it.
And one can always answer ambiguously, like "haven't decided yet".
I realize that the question has been asked (and answered) in other instances. And It’s fine and dandy if it turns out they the person being asked doesn’t mind answering.
But that’s not always the case, so there’s a good chance that you’re putting someone on the spot. If they think they might or know that they will pursue the coin, they have a number of options, if asked about their interest. They can choose not to answer, be evasive, lie or tell the truth. Under the circumstances, many people would not want to be put in a position to have to make one of those choices.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Noted. PRCC is free to PM me if it's an issue.
Also, you've quoted my question, so if you delete your quote, I can go ahead and delete my question then
People value coins differently and have different preferences.
The 1822 HE has a price adjustment for being the only one available to collectors.
The other coins mentioned don't have that going for them.
Silly me, I’d be tempted to have NGC put this in a black holder to better highlight the coin.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Wow- congratulations- beautiful coin!
Congrats on a beautiful pattern!
This part of the auction description is great. King Edward VIII couldn't get his own coins. Of course, by 1937, Edward VIII was no longer king, having abdicated in 1936. Perhaps this is a reason QE2 won't abdicate?
This one scares me with 12 more in the backroom of the shop.
no issues
No @privaterarecoincollector I was just an interested observer watching some history unfold. Congrats on the new purchase, looks fabulous. I'm not sure about all the metrics from my viewpoint, almost too many variables. Great collectors compete to buy great coins...and voila price discovery at that moment in time. I do agree its more comforting when their are more than two bidders at the end.
At least more than one. So far I only know of one here.
So basically you used the exact same method that I did but added criteria based upon your own bias and desires to raise the value of your coin and lower the value of the 1822. Hmmmm.
No.
I am assuming the growth in value over time is lower for low grade coins compared to high grade coins and all historical data is supporting this.
Brian Kendrella affirmed to that the underbidder was a person (not a Mac Pogue reserve) and the winning bid was a collector. So there were two bidders. Hope this helps @privaterarecoincollector. So those two bidders made the markey for this unique in p private hands coin. Before the bid jumped from 3.2 million to 6 million a couple of collectors discussed splitting it and Dell Loy was still in the hunt. I think the jump bid surprised and thinned the bidders considerably to the remaining two. I did not ask Brian if the bids from 6 million and up were only two bidders, but my impression was that it was only two at that point.
Simply deferring to TDN who so opined.
Ok, lets agree to this story. I am fine with it.
Im fine with this story too. Lets agree its worth 8.4 Million and it sold for the right price. Its good for all my coins I realize.
Maybe I am really wrong on the 1822 5, it should be worth less because its not a high grade but then its the only one and its needed in every single PCGS date and variety set.
So lets just agree its worth the 8.4 Million.
So whats the 1933 20 worth then ? A coin that sold for 8 Million when a PCGS 65 1795 Ten was 500k USD ?
20 Million ?