1796 Liberty Cap Cent S-84 PCGS MS-66+ RB CAC (Ex. Naftzger, Pogue) at Great Collections

wrighty

Questions and observations:
This is obviously an important coin with a great pedigree. Between this and the 1893-s Jack lee coin earlier this year Great Collections seems to be attracting some higher end coins. It last sold in 2017 for $705,000, will it exceed that price? The market for top pop rare coins is hot but does that market extend to early copper as well? I look forward to the boards thoughts.

NickelMike

Yep, new record. Lots and lots of money out there looking for something to do/buy.

pcgscacgold

I will guess record price. Nice looking coin, CAC approved and the people at the top have a lot of spending money to burn.

CopperLad

Beautiful coin.
And somewhere, an EAC Guy is hoping to crack it out.

winesteven

Absolutely gorgeous coin. Any collector with interest in being the custodian of a great and beautiful early copper coin, and has sufficient assets, would bid aggressively. I’d be shocked if this lovely coin does not set a record!

If my income and assets were at least 100 times higher than they are, I’d be among the bidders fighting to get this coin in my collection!

From a consignors point of view, I understand why GC is getting more and more big ticket coins, as the consignor typically receives the hammer price (maybe plus a few percent). With only a 10% buyers fee, that allows for more of the “all in” price to be the hammer price! From a buyers point of view, the buyers premium makes absolutely NO difference, as one just lowers the hammer to adjust for a higher buyers fee (to the detriment of the consignor).

On the other hand, a consignor has to take into account other important factors, such as how many qualified potential buyers will see the coin. Verbal descriptions by the auction house are also a positive asset, as is photo quality. As such, a thoughtful consignor can truly have difficulty making a choice.

Steve

MsMorrisine

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1090362/1796-Liberty-Cap-Cent-S-84-PCGS-MS-66-RB-CAC-Ex-Naftzger-Pogue

asheland

That’s an insanely beautiful coin!

Steven59

Pretty amazing for it to be in that condition.

hummingbird_coins

I was the first bidder ($100 max bid)

winesteven

Hey!!!
1. When this coin sold for $705,000 4-1/2 years ago at Stacks, the coin did NOT have a CAC. I would be shocked if this coin had not been submitted to CAC prior to that sale. Apparently, it was resubmitted to CAC at some point after that sale, as it now has the coveted CAC. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the conversations/negotiations to convince J.A. that this key coin which apparently didn’t merit the CAC (for either not being solid as a 66 (CAC ignores plus grades), or more likely “surface” issues, now getting that CAC! Wow, what a key change!
2. I also see the holder has changed from what I feel is a nicer Pedigree label, to the standard label shown in the o.p. with only the mention of Pogue. I wonder why? I know from prior posts that some collectors will not buy a coin with certain pedigrees shown on fancy labels, but I would think for a coin as special as this, the buyer would prefer having that prior more handsome label. See below:

Steve

cameonut2011

@winesteven said:
Hey!!!
1. When this coin sold for $705,000 4-1/2 years ago at Stacks, the coin did NOT have a CAC. I would be shocked if this coin had not been submitted to CAC prior to that sale. Apparently, it was resubmitted to CAC at some point after that sale, as it now has the coveted CAC. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the conversations/negotiations to convince J.A. that this key coin which apparently didn’t merit the CAC (for either not being solid as a 66 (CAC ignores plus grades), or more likely “surface” issues, now getting that CAC! Wow, what a key change!

All of the reason more the “CAC only” crowd’s approach makes no sense to me. Many would treat it as if it didn’t exist before the beaning. I’d have to ask the CAC only crowd: Is the coin the “Mercedes” of early copper, dreck, or only half dreck?

For the record, it looks like an amazing coin to me worthy of a strong bid.

Zoins

Very nice coin! Thanks for posting it @wrighty!

It’s a very interesting situation with CAC and the insert. The cert number didn’t change and it’s hard to imagine CAC didn’t look at it before the Pogue sale as many Pogue coins were beaned, so it’s logical to conclude they changed their mind on the coin.

Zoins

Here’s a question, which provenance is more noteworthy for this coin, Naftzger or Pogue?

1. Naftzfer had a seminal early cent collection, but also had many lesser coins associated with his provenance.
2. Pogue’s coins are top notch but he wasn’t an EAC specialist.

winesteven

@hummingbird_coins said:
I was the first bidder ($100 max bid)

At the moment, I’m the underbidder!

MFeld

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:
Hey!!!
1. When this coin sold for $705,000 4-1/2 years ago at Stacks, the coin did NOT have a CAC. I would be shocked if this coin had not been submitted to CAC prior to that sale. Apparently, it was resubmitted to CAC at some point after that sale, as it now has the coveted CAC. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the conversations/negotiations to convince J.A. that this key coin which apparently didn’t merit the CAC (for either not being solid as a 66 (CAC ignores plus grades), or more likely “surface” issues, now getting that CAC! Wow, what a key change!

All of the reason more the “CAC only” crowd’s approach makes no sense to me. Many would treat it as if it didn’t exist before the beaning. I’d have to ask the CAC only crowd: Is the coin the “Mercedes” of early copper, dreck, or only half dreck?

For the record, it looks like an amazing coin to me worthy of a strong bid.

If I remember correctly, at least some of the Pogue coins (a number of which had CAC stickers) were reholdered prior to being auctioned. And they thus lost their CAC stickers. So it’s possible that this coin had already been stickered at one time, previously.

winesteven

@MFeld said:

If I remember correctly, the Pogue coins (a number of which had CAC stickers) were reholdered prior to being auctioned, and thus lost their CAC stickers. So it’s possible that this coin had already been stickered at one time, previously.

But:
1. When they reholdered to get that fancy pedigree label, had it had a CAC, it would have been VERY simple to have gotten that CAC sticker reapplied before that Stacks auction.
2. Regardless, it was not necessary to change the holder and label to get the CAC back.

I think this is the first time ever I disagree with a point Mark is making, lol.

Steve

cameonut2011

@MFeld said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:
Hey!!!
1. When this coin sold for $705,000 4-1/2 years ago at Stacks, the coin did NOT have a CAC. I would be shocked if this coin had not been submitted to CAC prior to that sale. Apparently, it was resubmitted to CAC at some point after that sale, as it now has the coveted CAC. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the conversations/negotiations to convince J.A. that this key coin which apparently didn’t merit the CAC (for either not being solid as a 66 (CAC ignores plus grades), or more likely “surface” issues, now getting that CAC! Wow, what a key change!

All of the reason more the “CAC only” crowd’s approach makes no sense to me. Many would treat it as if it didn’t exist before the beaning. I’d have to ask the CAC only crowd: Is the coin the “Mercedes” of early copper, dreck, or only half dreck?

For the record, it looks like an amazing coin to me worthy of a strong bid.

If I remember correctly, at least some of the Pogue coins (a number of which had CAC stickers) were reholdered prior to being auctioned. And they thus lost their CAC stickers. So it’s possible that this coin had already been stickered at one time, previously.

Wouldn’t that have been advertised in the original auction lot description if that were the case? A reholder does not change the serial number so it would have still been CAC approved and listed in CAC’s database even though the physical sticker had been shed.

MFeld

@winesteven said:

@MFeld said:

If I remember correctly, the Pogue coins (a number of which had CAC stickers) were reholdered prior to being auctioned, and thus lost their CAC stickers. So it’s possible that this coin had already been stickered at one time, previously.

But:
1. When they reholdered to get that fancy pedigree label, had it had a CAC, it would have been VERY simple to have gotten that CAC sticker reapplied before that Stacks auction.
2. Regardless, it was not necessary to change the holder and label to get the CAC back.

I think this is the first time ever I disagree with a point Mark is making, lol.

Steve

If memory serves me correctly (again), though theoretically, it would have been “very simple to have gotten that CAC sticker reapplied”, it wasn’t done. I don’t recall whether there was a time constraint or some other reason. Hopefully, someone else who was aware of the situation can confirm.

winesteven

@MFeld said:

If memory serves me correctly (again), though theoretically, it would have been “very simple to have gotten that CAC sticker reapplied”, it wasn’t done. I don’t recall whether there was a time constraint or some other reason. Hopefully, someone else who was aware of the situation can confirm.

Perhaps, but as I noted above, it was not necessary to change the holder and label to get the CAC back if it even did have a CAC in the first place.

cameonut2011

If any one is interested in the original write up for the provenance and history:

https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-6QP9L/1796-liberty-cap-cent-liberty-cap-sheldon-84-liberty-cap-rarity-3-mint-state-66-rb-pcgs

winesteven

@cameonut2011 said:
If any one is interested in the original write up for the provenance and history:

https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-6QP9L/1796-liberty-cap-cent-liberty-cap-sheldon-84-liberty-cap-rarity-3-mint-state-66-rb-pcgs

NO mention at all in that write-up about the coin having a CAC, but is not currently on the label! If any of us had a coin of that value, and it had a CAC, but due to time constraints didn’t have time to get it back, are there any of us that honestly wouldn’t have insisted that it be prominently noted in the write-up?

Zoins

@MFeld said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:
Hey!!!
1. When this coin sold for $705,000 4-1/2 years ago at Stacks, the coin did NOT have a CAC. I would be shocked if this coin had not been submitted to CAC prior to that sale. Apparently, it was resubmitted to CAC at some point after that sale, as it now has the coveted CAC. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the conversations/negotiations to convince J.A. that this key coin which apparently didn’t merit the CAC (for either not being solid as a 66 (CAC ignores plus grades), or more likely “surface” issues, now getting that CAC! Wow, what a key change!

All of the reason more the “CAC only” crowd’s approach makes no sense to me. Many would treat it as if it didn’t exist before the beaning. I’d have to ask the CAC only crowd: Is the coin the “Mercedes” of early copper, dreck, or only half dreck?

For the record, it looks like an amazing coin to me worthy of a strong bid.

If I remember correctly, at least some of the Pogue coins (a number of which had CAC stickers) were reholdered prior to being auctioned. And they thus lost their CAC stickers. So it’s possible that this coin had already been stickered at one time, previously.

If this happened it would be a huge miss in the sale process.

Is there any photo available of the slab before the Pogue insert?

breakdown

I think Mark has it right. My memory is that some groups of Pogue coins were sent to CAC, some stickered and some didn’t. And then they were resubmitted or reholdered and then auctioned without stickers.
And I checked The Pogue III catalog. None of the copper coins indicates whether CAC approved or not. So bidders knew some coins had passed CAC but couldn’t know which ones when they bid.

pcgscacgold

I like the gold shield label much better than the other one. I would assume the gold shield also comes with the security features currently offered.

cameonut2011

@breakdown said:
I think Mark has it right. My memory is that some groups of Pogue coins were sent to CAC, some stickered and some didn’t. And then they were resubmitted or reholdered and then auctioned without stickers.
And I checked The Pogue III catalog. None of the copper coins indicates whether CAC approved or not. So bidders knew some coins had passed CAC but couldn’t know which ones when they bid.

Not true if it was merely a reholder. The serial numbers would stay the same. Removal of the sticker doesn’t remove it from the CAC database.

MFeld

@cameonut2011 said:

@breakdown said:
I think Mark has it right. My memory is that some groups of Pogue coins were sent to CAC, some stickered and some didn’t. And then they were resubmitted or reholdered and then auctioned without stickers.
And I checked The Pogue III catalog. None of the copper coins indicates whether CAC approved or not. So bidders knew some coins had passed CAC but couldn’t know which ones when they bid.

Not true if it was merely a reholder. The serial numbers would stay the same. Removal of the sticker doesn’t remove it from the CAC database.

Then perhaps it was regrades, as opposed to re-holders. Whatever the process, a number of the coins which were stickered at one time, weren’t later.

amwldcoin

Maybe it was lightly conserved? Perhaps an opinion was given as to why the coin God wouldn't approve it and it was addressed but there was not enough time to resubmit.

cameonut2011

@MFeld said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@breakdown said:
I think Mark has it right. My memory is that some groups of Pogue coins were sent to CAC, some stickered and some didn’t. And then they were resubmitted or reholdered and then auctioned without stickers.
And I checked The Pogue III catalog. None of the copper coins indicates whether CAC approved or not. So bidders knew some coins had passed CAC but couldn’t know which ones when they bid.

Not true if it was merely a reholder. The serial numbers would stay the same. Removal of the sticker doesn’t remove it from the CAC database.

Then perhaps it was regrades, as opposed to re-holders. Whatever the process, a number of the coins which were stickered at one time, weren’t later.

Thanks. That seems like an epic blunder by Stacks-Bowers. Then again, these were the same geniuses that botched the sale of the 1854-s $5, conducted a sale during the earliest COVID shutdowns among panic, were forced to change venue three times, and continued with a sale that was unclear would or could legally occur under California’s emergency orders at a fire sale price. I’m baffled they have any consignors left.

Nic

Mark is correct.
The Pogue coins were graded by PCGS and all sent to CAC. Many did not sticker which upset the consignor. All were then sent back to PCGS for re-holder prior to the auction.
At the sale, the coins that had passed could be found in the CAC database, though were not advertised as such.

ricko

Aside from the CAC discussion, that is one beautiful and incredibly well preserved copper coin. What an amazing piece of numismatic history to hold in hand. Cheers, RickO

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:
Here’s a question, which provenance is more noteworthy for this coin, Naftzger or Pogue?

1. Naftzfer had a seminal early cent collecting, but also had many lesser coins associated with his provenance.
2. Pogue’s coins are top notch but he wasn’t an EAC specialist.

Among early copper collectors I’d say #1. Among general collectors I’d say #2. I think both are very noteworthy and important.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:
Here’s a question, which provenance is more noteworthy for this coin, Naftzger or Pogue?

1. Naftzfer had a seminal early cent collection, but also had many lesser coins associated with his provenance.
2. Pogue’s coins are top notch but he wasn’t an EAC specialist.

Among early copper collectors I’d say #1. Among general collectors I’d say #2. I think both are very noteworthy and important.

Makes sense. It will be interesting to see if this ends up with a EAC collector or a more general collector.

It appears Pogue was more noteworthy to the current owner as that is the only name on the insert, but that can also simply be because Naftzger wasn’t on the Pogue insert.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:
It appears Pogue was more noteworthy to the current owner as that is the only in the insert, but that can also be because Naftzger was on the Pogue insert.

I find it surprising that the pedigree was truncated.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:
It appears Pogue was more noteworthy to the current owner as that is the only in the insert, but that can also be because Naftzger was on the Pogue insert.

I find it surprising that the pedigree was truncated.

It’s different but it’s not surprising to me anymore. Recently, I’ve even seen Eliasberg get truncated in favor of the current owner only.

braddick

@cameonut2011 said:
If any one is interested in the original write up for the provenance and history:

https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-6QP9L/1796-liberty-cap-cent-liberty-cap-sheldon-84-liberty-cap-rarity-3-mint-state-66-rb-pcgs

Ahhh, that's boring!
I want to read more about this CAC or not CAC stuff.

breakdown

@Nic said:
Mark is correct.
The Pogue coins were graded by PCGS and all sent to CAC. Many did not sticker which upset the consignor. All were then sent back to PCGS for re-holder prior to the auction.
At the sale, the coins that had passed could be found in the CAC database, though were not advertised as such.

Nic, thanks for clearing this up. I remembered that the consignor had the coins reholdered but forgot the part about being able to look them up in CAC. There were a number of interesting things about the Pogue auctions - the issue with the CAC review was one of them.

winesteven

So with all that's been said, no one has stated that THIS coin was one of those that had a CAC and could be looked up to show that it did. We do know though, that it NOW has a CAC, and everything else being equal, SHOULD sell for a higher price now than it did 4-1/2 years ago when NO CAC sticker was on the holder (whether it was in the CAC system or not).

Steve

cameonut2011

@winesteven said:
So with all that's been said, no one has stated that THIS coin was one of those that had a CAC and could be looked up to show that it did. We do know though, that it NOW has a CAC, and everything else being equal, SHOULD sell for a higher price now than it did 4-1/2 years ago when NO CAC sticker was on the holder (whether it was in the CAC system or not).

Steve

If it was listed in the database at the time, merely having a sticker reapplied should be of no import. Since the market is stronger, it may very well exceed the original number. Of course it fetched $705k against a $160k-$200k house estimate, so I wouldn’t take that as a given.

winesteven

Looking at the photo of the slab in the online listing 4-1/2 years ago showed NO CAC sticker. Since absolutely NO mention of it being approved by CAC appeared in the detailed description, I would not have checked the database, and I can guarantee I'm not the only person to be under the impression that coin had NOT been approved by CAC at that time. We still don't know for a fact that that coin was approved by CAC at that time!

cameonut2011

@winesteven said:
Looking at the photo of the slab in the online listing 4-1/2 years ago showed NO CAC sticker. Since absolutely NO mention of it being approved by CAC appeared in the detailed description, I would not have checked the database, and I can guarantee I'm not the only person to be under the impression that coin had NOT been approved by CAC at that time. We still don't know for a fact that that coin was approved by CAC at that time!

Very true but all of the top collectors and dealers including many that are experts in their own right viewed the coin and bid more than 3x the high end estimate for it. It looks these bidders saw it for the quality coin it is. It is not clear that a sticker would have made a major difference. This was a heavily promoted and anticipated sale; not as much chance of a bean worthy CACless coin slipping by unnoticed.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@winesteven said:
Looking at the photo of the slab in the online listing 4-1/2 years ago showed NO CAC sticker. Since absolutely NO mention of it being approved by CAC appeared in the detailed description, I would not have checked the database, and I can guarantee I'm not the only person to be under the impression that coin had NOT been approved by CAC at that time. We still don't know for a fact that that coin was approved by CAC at that time!

Very true but all of the top collectors and dealers including many that are experts in their own right viewed the coin and bid more than 3x the high end estimate for it. It looks these bidders saw it for the quality coin it is. It is not clear that a sticker would have made a major difference. This was a heavily promoted and anticipated sale; not as much chance of a bean worthy CACless coin slipping by unnoticed.

I’d venture the top collectors knew none of the coins had CAC on SB and may have been doing their own research on the CAC website.

fathom

This coin value/relevance/ condition is not sticker dependent.

The cards speak. Plastic, label, sticker be damned, at some point a coin is a valued treasure as in this case.

amwldcoin

How many people here really believe a green bean is going to make any difference in what that coin sells for???

winesteven

@amwldcoin said:
How many people here really believe a green bean is going to make any difference in what that coin sells for???

Yes, I'm getting beat up, but I'll throw a similar question out to you: If they applied to CAC and it failed, are there people here who would bid less if they knew it was a "C" coin for a plain 66 (I'm NOT saying it is, but separately, CAC ignores plus grades), OR if they KNEW if failed to get a CAC because something had been done to the surfaces big enough to have kept it from getting a CAC?

jughead1893

If I had waited half my life to bid on this coin I would happy if it didnt get a sticker.It would take out the bidders who have been told"if it doesnt have a sticker you dont want it."

ianrussell

@winesteven said:
Hey!!!
1. When this coin sold for $705,000 4-1/2 years ago at Stacks, the coin did NOT have a CAC. I would be shocked if this coin had not been submitted to CAC prior to that sale. Apparently, it was resubmitted to CAC at some point after that sale, as it now has the coveted CAC. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the conversations/negotiations to convince J.A. that this key coin which apparently didn’t merit the CAC (for either not being solid as a 66 (CAC ignores plus grades), or more likely “surface” issues, now getting that CAC! Wow, what a key change!
2. I also see the holder has changed from what I feel is a nicer Pedigree label, to the standard label shown in the o.p. with only the mention of Pogue. I wonder why? I know from prior posts that some collectors will not buy a coin with certain pedigrees shown on fancy labels, but I would think for a coin as special as this, the buyer would prefer having that prior more handsome label. See below:

Hi Steve,

This coin was CAC-approved all along, but was not mentioned in the Pogue catalog as being CAC approved.

Here is a quote from John Albanese about the matter:

This beauty was stickered first time thru at CAC. Stacks made a decision to remove
the stickers off ALL CAC coins at the time. At auction lot viewing, they were passing
around a list of the CAC approved coins for those that asked I know this happened
early on and not sure if this was the policy for the remainder of the Pogue sale.

(Back to Ian)
In regard to holder preference, many people prefer the regular blue label over a once-off type label for a collection like Pogue or Simpson. That being said, the coin is much more important than the label, and trust me when I say if you have this coin in your hand, the coin will wow you; you won't even be looking at the label.

• Ian

Zoins

@ianrussell said:
trust me when I say if you have this coin in your hand, the coin will wow you; you won't even be looking at the label.

Except for possibly thinking how much better the label would look with your name on it!

cameonut2011

@ianrussell

Thank you and JA both for the clarification!

cameonut2011

So now that we know that the CAC sticker was baked into the sales price all along, the question becomes who was advising Brent Pogue or if Pogue acted on his own to request this? It seems like a very foolish move.

cameonut2011

@ianrussell said:
In regard to holder preference, many people prefer the regular blue label over a once-off type label for a collection like Pogue or Simpson. That being said, the coin is much more important than the label, and trust me when I say if you have this coin in your hand, the coin will wow you; you won't even be looking at the label.

• Ian

No doubt the coin speaks for itself… As to the label, any insight on why the provenance was shortened to remove Naftzger? I know it isn’t a big deal as it is readily traceable but it seemed interesting that such an important pedigree was dropped from the label.

pcgscacgold

Great to get the background and hear it was stickered earlier. Great to have the CAC sticker on high end coins.