You and TDN put the $50K ~ $100K price tag on it. The math does the rest (1%). When you say the value is "far greater" you contradict the value you asigned to the "box". We always talk about the value being whatever someone is willing to pay for something. In your expert opinion that number was $50K ~ 100K.
But here is another way to ask the question. Do you think the set would have sold for substantially less had the "box" not been included? Was the "box" given more than a sentence in the last auction listing? I doubt it.
That’s twice, now, that you’ve omitted the part of my post regarding a much higher value to the owner of the set.
And I didn’t contradict anything. I simply made reference to non-monetary (historical) value, too. I’m sure others have different opinions about both the dollar and historical value of presentation case. I choose not to call it a “box”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said: Do you think the set would have sold for substantially less had the "box" not been included?
Absolutely. Any story adds to the value. The box tells a magnificent one….
$50K ~ 100K less or $1M ~ $2M less?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Zoins said:
I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Imagine how this thread would have gone if I called it a box!
I do think the original item holding this coins provides a lot of value, it's just that one doesn't enjoy the coins in it any more.
But that brings me to a more important question: is the original case for the Sultan of Muscat known to exist?
A lot of value? The experts on the forum seem to disagree since they assigned a value of $50K ~ $100K.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Zoins said:
I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Imagine how this thread would have gone if I called it a box!
I do think the original item holding this coins provides a lot of value, it's just that one doesn't enjoy the coins in it any more.
But that brings me to a more important question: is the original case for the Sultan of Muscat known to exist?
A lot of value? The experts on the forum seem to disagree since they assigned a value of $50K ~ $100K.
"A lot of value" is notably vague and subjective
And value doesn't have to be just financial. For example, I think the wallet holding the 5 1913 Liberty Nickel coins has a lot of historic value, and it does have some significant financial value for what it is, but not when compared to the coins it held.
You and TDN put the $50K ~ $100K price tag on it. The math does the rest (1%). When you say the value is "far greater" you contradict the value you asigned to the "box". We always talk about the value being whatever someone is willing to pay for something. In your expert opinion that number was $50K ~ 100K.
But here is another way to ask the question. Do you think the set would have sold for substantially less had the "box" not been included? Was the "box" given more than a sentence in the last auction listing? I doubt it.
That’s twice, now, that you’ve omitted the part of my post regarding a much higher value to the owner of the set.
And I didn’t contradict anything. I simply made reference to non-monetary (historical) value, too. I’m sure others have different opinions about both the dollar and historical value of presentation case. I choose not to call it a “box”.
Non-monetary historic value??? What does that mean? Are you saying the "box" is priceless? We're not talking about the original signed copy of the Declaration of Independence. Everything in numismatics has a price. If you were offered the PCGS SP-66 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar (the one that sold for $10M) or this "box" as a gift which would you take? Don't argue "non-monetary historic value" when we're talk about a presentation "box" that is no longer used as a presentation "box".
Back to my original point. The hyperbolic rant by the Colonel was just that, a hyperbolic rant. Your assignment of value (1% of the selling price for the collection) highlights the fact it was a hyperbolic rant. You don't get passed that with terms like "non-monetary historic value". The OP referenced the value of the "box" in relative terms with respect to the collection of coins. The "Wake up and change this load-of-crap characterization before more people are mislead by your statement. " was nonsensical.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
You and TDN put the $50K ~ $100K price tag on it. The math does the rest (1%). When you say the value is "far greater" you contradict the value you asigned to the "box". We always talk about the value being whatever someone is willing to pay for something. In your expert opinion that number was $50K ~ 100K.
But here is another way to ask the question. Do you think the set would have sold for substantially less had the "box" not been included? Was the "box" given more than a sentence in the last auction listing? I doubt it.
That’s twice, now, that you’ve omitted the part of my post regarding a much higher value to the owner of the set.
And I didn’t contradict anything. I simply made reference to non-monetary (historical) value, too. I’m sure others have different opinions about both the dollar and historical value of presentation case. I choose not to call it a “box”.
Non-monetary historic value??? What does that mean? Are you saying the "box" is priceless? We're not talking about the original signed copy of the Declaration of Independence. Everything in numismatics has a price. If you were offered the PCGS SP-66 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar (the one that sold for $10M) or this "box" as a gift which would you take? Don't argue "non-monetary historic value" when we're talk about a presentation "box" that is no longer used as a presentation "box".
Back to my original point. The hyperbolic rant by the Colonel was just that, a hyperbolic rant. Your assignment of value (1% of the selling price for the collection) highlights the fact it was a hyperbolic rant. You don't get passed that with terms like "non-monetary historic value". The OP referenced the value of the "box" in relative terms with respect to the collection of coins. The "Wake up and change this load-of-crap characterization before more people are mislead by your statement. " was nonsensical.
I couldn't even figure out what was being discussed at first!
I'm glad it was clarified later. I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think anyone was mislead
At least this didn't end up like the thread on this wonderful coin:
...But that brings me to a more important question: is the original case for the Sultan of Muscat known to exist?
Based on that earlier post by MFeld it sounds like that case may have been missing since 1867 or before. If not destroyed, it may still be sitting somewhere without any idea of its history waiting to be discovered again.
"...What Watters had acquired, probably in London about 1867, was the remains of a set of United States coins distributed in 1834 by the United States Department of State. Watters had purchased what was left of the set given to the Sultan of Muscat on October 1, 1835..."
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
You and TDN put the $50K ~ $100K price tag on it. The math does the rest (1%). When you say the value is "far greater" you contradict the value you asigned to the "box". We always talk about the value being whatever someone is willing to pay for something. In your expert opinion that number was $50K ~ 100K.
But here is another way to ask the question. Do you think the set would have sold for substantially less had the "box" not been included? Was the "box" given more than a sentence in the last auction listing? I doubt it.
That’s twice, now, that you’ve omitted the part of my post regarding a much higher value to the owner of the set.
And I didn’t contradict anything. I simply made reference to non-monetary (historical) value, too. I’m sure others have different opinions about both the dollar and historical value of presentation case. I choose not to call it a “box”.
Non-monetary historic value??? What does that mean? Are you saying the "box" is priceless? We're not talking about the original signed copy of the Declaration of Independence. Everything in numismatics has a price. If you were offered the PCGS SP-66 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar (the one that sold for $10M) or this "box" as a gift which would you take? Don't argue "non-monetary historic value" when we're talk about a presentation "box" that is no longer used as a presentation "box".
Back to my original point. The hyperbolic rant by the Colonel was just that, a hyperbolic rant. Your assignment of value (1% of the selling price for the collection) highlights the fact it was a hyperbolic rant. You don't get passed that with terms like "non-monetary historic value". The OP referenced the value of the "box" in relative terms with respect to the collection of coins. The "Wake up and change this load-of-crap characterization before more people are mislead by your statement. " was nonsensical.
I couldn't even figure out what was being discussed at first!
I'm glad it was clarified later. I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think anyone was mislead
At least this didn't end up like the thread on this wonderful coin:
You mean with someone offering me a gratuitous insult instead of thanking me for a purchaser provenance, then getting his colloquy with me described (on a less stringently moderated forum) as "Jessup tearing TDN a new one" as I deconstructed other specious "data" he's offered?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
"Is it possible to reassemble the Sultan of Muscat Set?"
Thought about this after running across two other partial 1834 sets that were offered in the past.
Reassemble the actual Sultan of Muscat set? That would be unlikely without a lot of previously unknown documentation turning up to show exactly which examples were in it.
Instead, some have gotten a good part of the way towards putting the similar component coins together.
Check out the 1834 Proof set with gold on the PCGS Registry.
With the recent offering of the 1804 $10 Proof and multiple 1804 Original dollars in the last few years, it would have been possible to complete all of the components, except for the case and maybe the medal, Two of those coins are thought to have possibly come from the Sultan of Muscat set.
Here are some attempts at piecing together an 1834 set. One was broken up individually at the January 2011 Heritage F.U.N. auction.
@Zoins said:
Here's the King of Siam set in its original holder. Given that these coins are now in individual slabs, the holder doesn't matter as much any more for presentation.
Have you become so incognizant of history that you think the long-famous "yellow morocco presentation case" is the equivalent of a TPG holder?
Wake up and change this load-of-crap characterization before more people are mislead by your statement.
The original post made perfect sense to me. Have you become such a lazy reader that you just blast out obnoxious posts without first engaging your brain? There was indeed a "load-of-crap characterization" in this thread -- YOURS.
@Zoins said:
Here's the King of Siam set in its original holder. Given that these coins are now in individual slabs, the holder doesn't matter as much any more for presentation.
Have you become so incognizant of history that you think the long-famous "yellow morocco presentation case" is the equivalent of a TPG holder?
Wake up and change this load-of-crap characterization before more people are mislead by your statement.
The original post made perfect sense to me. Have you become such a lazy reader that you just blast out obnoxious posts without first engaging your brain? There was indeed a "load-of-crap characterization" in this thread -- YOURS.
Are you such a lazy reader that you don't know you're reacting on a 2 year old thread to someone who no longer frequents this forum?
Comments
Do you think the set would have sold for substantially less had the "box" not been included?
Absolutely. Any story adds to the value. The box tells a magnificent one….
That’s twice, now, that you’ve omitted the part of my post regarding a much higher value to the owner of the set.
And I didn’t contradict anything. I simply made reference to non-monetary (historical) value, too. I’m sure others have different opinions about both the dollar and historical value of presentation case. I choose not to call it a “box”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Imagine how this thread would have gone if I called it a box!
I do think the original item holding this coins provides a lot of value, it's just that one doesn't enjoy the coins in it any more.
But that brings me to a more important question: is the original case for the Sultan of Muscat known to exist?
$50K ~ 100K less or $1M ~ $2M less?
A lot of value? The experts on the forum seem to disagree since they assigned a value of $50K ~ $100K.
"A lot of value" is notably vague and subjective
And value doesn't have to be just financial. For example, I think the wallet holding the 5 1913 Liberty Nickel coins has a lot of historic value, and it does have some significant financial value for what it is, but not when compared to the coins it held.
Non-monetary historic value??? What does that mean? Are you saying the "box" is priceless? We're not talking about the original signed copy of the Declaration of Independence. Everything in numismatics has a price. If you were offered the PCGS SP-66 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar (the one that sold for $10M) or this "box" as a gift which would you take? Don't argue "non-monetary historic value" when we're talk about a presentation "box" that is no longer used as a presentation "box".
Back to my original point. The hyperbolic rant by the Colonel was just that, a hyperbolic rant. Your assignment of value (1% of the selling price for the collection) highlights the fact it was a hyperbolic rant. You don't get passed that with terms like "non-monetary historic value". The OP referenced the value of the "box" in relative terms with respect to the collection of coins. The "Wake up and change this load-of-crap characterization before more people are mislead by your statement.
" was nonsensical.
I couldn't even figure out what was being discussed at first!
I'm glad it was clarified later. I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think anyone was mislead
At least this didn't end up like the thread on this wonderful coin:
Based on that earlier post by MFeld it sounds like that case may have been missing since 1867 or before. If not destroyed, it may still be sitting somewhere without any idea of its history waiting to be discovered again.
"...What Watters had acquired, probably in London about 1867, was the remains of a set of United States coins distributed in 1834 by the United States Department of State. Watters had purchased what was left of the set given to the Sultan of Muscat on October 1, 1835..."
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
.> @Zoins said:
You mean with someone offering me a gratuitous insult instead of thanking me for a purchaser provenance, then getting his colloquy with me described (on a less stringently moderated forum) as "Jessup tearing TDN a new one" as I deconstructed other specious "data" he's offered?
"Is it possible to reassemble the Sultan of Muscat Set?"
Thought about this after running across two other partial 1834 sets that were offered in the past.
Reassemble the actual Sultan of Muscat set? That would be unlikely without a lot of previously unknown documentation turning up to show exactly which examples were in it.
Instead, some have gotten a good part of the way towards putting the similar component coins together.
Check out the 1834 Proof set with gold on the PCGS Registry.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/proof-sets/1834-proof-set-gold/alltimeset/214023
With the recent offering of the 1804 $10 Proof and multiple 1804 Original dollars in the last few years, it would have been possible to complete all of the components, except for the case and maybe the medal, Two of those coins are thought to have possibly come from the Sultan of Muscat set.
Here are some attempts at piecing together an 1834 set. One was broken up individually at the January 2011 Heritage F.U.N. auction.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-classic-head-half-cents/1834-eight-piece-proof-set-pr63-through-pr65-ngc-half-cent-through-half-eagle/a/1151-5327.s?ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Auction-Archive-ThisAuction-120115
.
.
https://archive.org/details/HaSale1151catalog/page/n517/mode/2up
.
.
.
.
.
One offered in 2002 was even called a Baby King Of Siam Set. I think it did not meet the reserve.
https://archive.org/details/newyorkanasale202002supe/page/244/mode/2up
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
The original post made perfect sense to me. Have you become such a lazy reader that you just blast out obnoxious posts without first engaging your brain? There was indeed a "load-of-crap characterization" in this thread -- YOURS.
Curious indeed.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All Of Us
Are you such a lazy reader that you don't know you're reacting on a 2 year old thread to someone who no longer frequents this forum?
What an odd 1st post...
Welcome to the forum!