1933 $20 sells for $18,872,250

ernie11

https://coinworld.com/news/us-coins/breaking-news-1933-double-eagle-sells-for-19-5-plus-million-dollars

tradedollarnut

Or a bit less. Shrug

ernie11

Interesting. The article quoted $19,509,750.

cccoins

I think that we need a new guess the final price to see who can figure out the price with the commission structure and overhead premium.

291fifth

Why are different final prices being quoted? What did it actually sell for with all commissions, fees and charges included?

ernie11

@291fifth said:
Why are different final prices being quoted? What did it actually sell for with all commissions, fees and charges included?

The Coin World article was under breaking news and had no details, maybe they got it a bit wrong.

keyman64

Don’t forget the taxes, depending on where the person lives I guess. It could be over $20Mil total.

tradedollarnut

Coin World has changed it now

Crypto

wow double the previous hobby High

Zoins

@Crypto said:
wow double the previous hobby High

It's the coin to have. It transcends the hobby.

I wonder if it was picked up by a coin collector?

ernie11

@tradedollarnut said:
Coin World has changed it now

I updated the thread title, thanks.

tradedollarnut

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:
wow double the previous hobby High

It's the coin to have. It transcends the hobby.

I wonder if it was picked up by a coin collector?

Rumor is not a coin collector

SanctionII

Congrats to the hobby and the new owner.

Zoins

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:
wow double the previous hobby High

It's the coin to have. It transcends the hobby.

I wonder if it was picked up by a coin collector?

Rumor is not a coin collector

Good to know.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was purchased by someone whose other hobbies have items costing even more.

Gazes

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@Crypto said:
wow double the previous hobby High

It's the coin to have. It transcends the hobby.

I wonder if it was picked up by a coin collector?

Rumor is not a coin collector

Any idea if buyer was US citizen?

1peter1223

@Gazes said:

Any idea if buyer was US citizen?

My guess is no .
Maybe a Middle Eastern Prince ?

This coin has A LOT of PR value that comes with purchase . I am sure they can monetize it.
They did pick up the Davinci for $450M .

Zoins

@1peter1223 said:

@Gazes said:

Any idea if buyer was US citizen?

My guess is no .
Maybe a Middle Eastern Prince ?

This coin has A LOT of PR value that comes with purchase . I am sure they can monetize it.
They did pick up the Davinci for $450M .

I wonder if it will be public or if it will disappear again, like previously.

Either way, I’m glad there’s a TrueView now

DelawareDoons

@1peter1223 said:

@Gazes said:

Any idea if buyer was US citizen?

My guess is no .
Maybe a Middle Eastern Prince ?

This coin has A LOT of PR value that comes with purchase . I am sure they can monetize it.
They did pick up the Davinci for $450M .

"Davinci". It's of questionable origins lol

1peter1223

@DelawareDoons said:

"Davinci". It's of questionable origins lol

Yes it is .
So are many uber rare/expensive ancient coins , and others .

SanctionII

What did the stamps sell for?

CaptHenway

@ernie11 said:
Interesting. The article quoted $19,509,750.

The revised story says that Sotheby's originally sent out the $19.5+ million figure, which Coin World duly reported. CW is now reporting the corrected figure.

Batman23

@SanctionII said:
What did the stamps sell for?

From the other thread.

@DelawareDoons said:

@Batman23 said:
What is the final price exactly? You guys are saying 19.5. Sotheby's shows 18.8.

>

I screencapped all 3 results right after the auctions ended.

tradedollarnut

If the coin’s realized price was wrong in that screenshot then maybe the stamps are also?

291fifth

The incorrect reporting of the price realized for such an important item mystifies me. Not a confidence builder.

I wonder if the stamp prices are also incorrect?

tradedollarnut

And the discrepancy raises a question: did Sotheby’s cut a deal to the eventual winner thus giving him an advantage in the bidding?

jmlanzaf

@tradedollarnut said:
And the discrepancy raises a question: did Sotheby’s cut a deal to the eventual winner thus giving him an advantage in the bidding?

They wouldn't have been so blatant, would they?

JBatDavidLawrence

Reading the buyer's fees structure they use made my brain hurt in the first place...

tradedollarnut

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
And the discrepancy raises a question: did Sotheby’s cut a deal to the eventual winner thus giving him an advantage in the bidding?

They wouldn't have been so blatant, would they?

I have no idea what’s allowed or not. All I know is I have never seen a buyers fee recalculated after the fact. And if this is indeed the case, ironically the under bidder was willing to pay more with his losing bid than the winner did with his winning bid

Zoins

@CaptHenway said:

@ernie11 said:
Interesting. The article quoted $19,509,750.

The revised story says that Sotheby's originally sent out the $19.5+ million figure, which Coin World duly reported. CW is now reporting the corrected figure.

Frequent buyer shipping discount?

Zoins

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
And the discrepancy raises a question: did Sotheby’s cut a deal to the eventual winner thus giving him an advantage in the bidding?

They wouldn't have been so blatant, would they?

I have no idea what’s allowed or not. All I know is I have never seen a buyers fee recalculated after the fact. And if this is indeed the case, ironically the under bidder was willing to pay more with his losing bid than the winner did with his winning bid

That’s only if bidders were calculating the BP incorrectly.

CaptHenway

@Zoins said:

@CaptHenway said:

@ernie11 said:
Interesting. The article quoted $19,509,750.

The revised story says that Sotheby's originally sent out the $19.5+ million figure, which Coin World duly reported. CW is now reporting the corrected figure.

Frequent buyer shipping discount?

S & H Green Stamps!

tradedollarnut

“Lots with this symbol indicate that a party has
provided Sotheby’s with an irrevocable bid on the
lot that will be executed during the sale at a value
that ensures that the lot will sell. The irrevocable
bidder, who may bid in excess of the irrevocable
bid, may be compensated for providing the
irrevocable bid by receiving a contingent fee, a
fixed fee or both. From time to time, a Sotheby’s
shareholder may be an irrevocable bidder. If the
irrevocable bidder is the successful bidder, any
contingent fee, fixed fee or both (as applicable)
for providing the irrevocable bid may be netted
against the irrevocable bidder’s obligation to
pay the full purchase price for the lot and the
purchase price reported for the lot shall be net of
any such fees.”

And there you have it. There was indeed an irrevocable bid announcement on this coin. Ironic, isn’t it that the underbidder was willing to pay appx $19,200,000 all in. [btw - that was my exact prediction]

johnny9434

is that without juice?

fathom

Not a collector?...Hmmm.......he is now. His collection worth is in a rarified atmosphere.

vplite99

Interesting, but I don't know why this is good for the hobby. That coin is so far out of my and virtually all coin collectors' worlds.

Zoins

@tradedollarnut said:
“Lots with this symbol indicate that a party has
provided Sotheby’s with an irrevocable bid on the
lot that will be executed during the sale at a value
that ensures that the lot will sell. The irrevocable
bidder, who may bid in excess of the irrevocable
bid, may be compensated for providing the
irrevocable bid by receiving a contingent fee, a
fixed fee or both. From time to time, a Sotheby’s
shareholder may be an irrevocable bidder. If the
irrevocable bidder is the successful bidder, any
contingent fee, fixed fee or both (as applicable)
for providing the irrevocable bid may be netted
against the irrevocable bidder’s obligation to
pay the full purchase price for the lot and the
purchase price reported for the lot shall be net of
any such fees.”

And there you have it. There was indeed an irrevocable bid announcement on this coin. Ironic, isn’t it that the underbidder was willing to pay appx $19,200,000 all in. [btw - that was my exact prediction]

When I read that, It seems like the buyer did pay $19,509,750, it's just that $637,500 was previously invoiced as a contingent or fixed fee?

Is that not the way to read it?

People keep telling me calculating BP is easy

tradedollarnut

Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Zoins

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

Zoins

@vplite99 said:
Interesting, but I don't know why this is good for the hobby. That coin is so far out of my and virtually all coin collectors' worlds.

It's the trickle down theory: rising tide lifts all boats, though boats have been being lifted throughout the Covid-era already.

tradedollarnut

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

That would depend on whether or not the underbidder is experienced enough to understand the nuance of what happened. In a worst case scenario, he throws his hands up in disgust and leaves coin collecting forever

Justacommeman

@tradedollarnut said:
“Lots with this symbol indicate that a party has
provided Sotheby’s with an irrevocable bid on the
lot that will be executed during the sale at a value
that ensures that the lot will sell. The irrevocable
bidder, who may bid in excess of the irrevocable
bid, may be compensated for providing the
irrevocable bid by receiving a contingent fee, a
fixed fee or both. From time to time, a Sotheby’s
shareholder may be an irrevocable bidder. If the
irrevocable bidder is the successful bidder, any
contingent fee, fixed fee or both (as applicable)
for providing the irrevocable bid may be netted
against the irrevocable bidder’s obligation to
pay the full purchase price for the lot and the
purchase price reported for the lot shall be net of
any such fees.”

And there you have it. There was indeed an irrevocable bid announcement on this coin. Ironic, isn’t it that the underbidder was willing to pay appx $19,200,000 all in. [btw - that was my exact prediction]

Ok that made my hair hurt

m

Zoins

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

That would depend on whether or not the underbidder is experienced enough to understand the nuance of what happened. In a worst case scenario, he throws his hands up in disgust and leaves coin collecting forever

Some people who complain about the BP are told to grin and bear it.

How many have given up bidding in auctions with BPs?

To me, it’s a similar situation.

Here, the bidder may just know what hammer price he or she bid and not understand the BP at all.

291fifth

It's time to dump Buyer's Premium and return to a straight commission rate that is always paid for by the consignor.

This won't happen but I wish it would.

CaptHenway

Perhaps the underbidder would have received the same smooch, and his net payment would have been less than the winner's net payment.
That said, this is a hell of a way to run a railroad!

MrEureka

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

That would depend on whether or not the underbidder is experienced enough to understand the nuance of what happened. In a worst case scenario, he throws his hands up in disgust and leaves coin collecting forever

Anyone who provided Sotheby's with a guaranty on an auction lot knew exactly what he was doing, and how the price would be reported.

And FWIW, yes, I understand why he might not like that part of the arrangement, but it has to be that way. Otherwise, it would be way too easy to manipulate auction records in a really big way.

tradedollarnut

@MrEureka said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Agreed.

If I was the underbidder, I’d be royally pissed off to see a price realized under my bid.

Why wouldn't you just worry about the price the winner paid?

If the winner paid $19.5, does it matter how the accounting is done?

That would depend on whether or not the underbidder is experienced enough to understand the nuance of what happened. In a worst case scenario, he throws his hands up in disgust and leaves coin collecting forever

Anyone who provided Sotheby's with a guaranty on an auction lot knew exactly what he was doing, and how the price would be reported.

And FWIW, yes, I understand why he might not like that part of the arrangement, but it has to be that way. Otherwise, it would be way too easy to manipulate auction records in a really big way.

I’m talking about the underbidder- there’s no evidence that he provided any sort of guaranty.

airplanenut

Can someone explain what exactly an irrevocable bid is? I know what the word irrevocable means, but I can't figure out what it means in the broader auction context. After some googling, I'm just as confused as when I started.

Nap

You are assuming that the irrevocable bid was the winning bid, but this is not certain...

William

Our bulletin posted Sotheby's initial quoted price for the coin, which the firm then changed a little after we published the results. It took us some time to update the article, which took longer than usual due to technical difficulties at our end.
William T. Gibbs
Coin World

MsMorrisine

Thank you for all you do CW.

we appreciate our numismedia.

tradedollarnut

@Nap said:
You are assuming that the irrevocable bid was the winning bid, but this is not certain...

The evidence points to just that being the case. Why else would they have re-calculated the buyer’s fee?