Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Need Norweb plate matching help

tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

Which of these two specimens matches the Norweb plate for the original 1827 quarter?


Comments

  • Options
    tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Pcgs coin in upcoming StacksBowers sale. NGC coin in 2008 Heritage sale.

  • Options
    EbeneezerEbeneezer Posts: 264 ✭✭✭

    That was my thought, a cross over to PCGS.

  • Options
    tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not the same coin. After looking at the plates online, I think NGC attributed the wrong provenance

  • Options
    StrikeOutXXXStrikeOutXXX Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 30, 2021 2:45PM

    Either Norweb had 2 of them in the sale, or one of them is attributed wrong. They don't even look like the same coin to me:


    Edit - Norweb II did have 2 of them in the sale, although they are catalogued as an original and a restrike
    https://archive.org/details/norwebcollection0000bowe_y5n1/page/44/mode/2up?q=1827

    Lot 1542 - Original Proof 64 or finer

    Lot 1543 - Restrike Proof 65

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    "You Suck Award" - February, 2015

    Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
  • Options
    amwldcoinamwldcoin Posts: 11,269 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The obvious giveaway they are not the same coin is the rim damage on the 2nd coin between stars 8 + 9.

    @StrikeOutXXX said:
    Either Norweb had 2 of them in the sale, or one of them is attributed wrong. They don't even look like the same coin to me:


  • Options
    cnncoinscnncoins Posts: 414 ✭✭✭✭

    Bruce, I'd need to double check my Norweb Catalogue, but I believe there was only one 1827/3 Original quarter in the Sale.
    I also believe it is the PCGS coin, not the NGC coin. Joe O'Connor would certainly know...

  • Options
    truebloodtrueblood Posts: 609 ✭✭✭✭

    Lot 1542 1827/3 B-1 Original curved base 2 in date. PR64 or finer (gem proof) which matches the top darker one in the photo in the prior post.
    Lot 1543 1827/3 B-2 Square base 2 on reverse. Restike. Proof 65. Of course is not a match

  • Options
    ColonelJessupColonelJessup Posts: 6,442 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 7, 2021 9:39AM

    The Pittman coin was doctored by the buyer soon after the sale. Its cleaning became much less evident. He had cause to be proud of his work. The process was not reversible. In the coin-doctoring cabal, that's called massive huevos on a coin that expensive. I'll check the catalogue at NNP for a good plate. Tom Mulvaney was the photographer (used to teach at Summer Seminar).

    edited to add:
    The hardbound from the sale has no color plate. DWA's description of lot 1283 (Pittman II) reads:

    "1827/3, B-1. Original. Low Rarity-7, Proof.. Previously lacquered and subsequently cleaned. leaving the coin with light to moderate hairlines throughout the fields, which have very little of their original mirror surface"

    The coin brought just under $50K.

    "Weird scenes inside the gold mine" :*

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
  • Options
    NSPNSP Posts: 322 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Steve Tompkins’ “Auction Appearances and Prices Realized” for bust quarters makes note of the fact that the NGC PF62 holder incorrectly lists its coin as being the Norweb coin. The PCGS PF65 CAM coin is actually the Norweb coin.

    Per Tompkins’ “Early United States Quarters” books, the NGC PF62 was stolen from the Yale University Library in 1965. When it resurfaced, it exhibited evidence of cleaning and mishandling.

  • Options
    CurrinCurrin Posts: 1,517 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NSP said:
    Steve Tompkins’ “Auction Appearances and Prices Realized” for bust quarters makes note of the fact that the NGC PF62 holder incorrectly lists its coin as being the Norweb coin. The PCGS PF65 CAM coin is actually the Norweb coin.

    Per Tompkins’ “Early United States Quarters” books, the NGC PF62 was stolen from the Yale University Library in 1965. When it resurfaced, it exhibited evidence of cleaning and mishandling.

    .
    .
    With assistance from @NSP, we are able to solve some of the mystery around coin #7. The coin was incorrectly offer as Ex: Norweb. The NGC insert could still carry the Norweb name. Beware!

    7. 1827/3 25C Original, B-1, PR62 (NGC), Cert #1576757-017, Ex: Brand / Hawn

    Ex: J Bohlen (1867); George Elliot sale (E. Locke Mason 1871); Henry Sampson Sale (1883), James Wilson; James Wilson Sale (Thomas Elder 1908), Virgil Brand; “California” Sale (Kagin’s 1949), Fred Guggenheimer; Fred Guggenheimer Sale (Stack’s 1953), William Owen. He loaned the coin to Yale University for display, stolen in 1965, recovered showing signs of cleaning and mishandling; Public Coin Auction (Quality Sales 1973), Reed Hawn; Reed Hawn Sale (Stack’s 1977), Ellis Robinson; Ellis Robinson Sale (Stack’s 1982); ‘90 Auction (Superior 1990), Charlton Meyer; anonymous consignor / (ANA) US Coin Signature Auction (Heritage 7/2008 as Norweb on insert), lot #1631, Passed, Note: Coin incorrectly labeled Norweb on insert with incorrect provenance in description. Coin has not reappeared in pass 12 years.

    My 20th Century Type Set, With Type Variations---started : 9/22/1997 ---- completed : 1/7/2004

    My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file