For those asking about rattler premiums…
U1chicago
Posts: 6,072 ✭✭✭✭✭
A strong result was achieved at GC tonight. Even with the color and rattler combo, this was more than I expected. It seems like the crack didn’t prevent the bidders either.
4
Comments
The crack is a distraction for sure, but only related to the plastic. The coin was graded on its merits and acknowledged by CAC and has enormous eye appeal as well as being housed in an pcgs ugh which is impactful. It appears the market rewarded the entire package with a generous premium. I cannot argue with these facts.
The price was partially driven by the fact that it was in the first generation rattler holder. So, the fact that the plastic is badly damaged would make it a hard pass for me, as much of the value is tied up in the plastic.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Wow
Much of that is a toning + CAC premium. Since toning tends to be unique, there's really no way to tell how much was paid for the damaged plastic, but I'd have to think it's not a lot. Data points for comparison aren't really out there. One more colorful specimen in 66+ CAC went for over $6K and a less colorful 66+ CAC for $850.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I think a decent portion of the premium was for the rattler. Take the same color, grade, and sticker combo in a new generation PCGS holder and I would predict we would see the final price be around 30%-50% lower. The color is nice but not high end/monster (not the level needed to get almost 10x of the $290 going rate of an untoned 66).
It didn't hurt that it looks like a $20 gold piece.
Looks like a couple three folks really wanted that one. 79-S is a flashy date & mint mark, I bet that coin is pretty incredible in hand.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
Unfortunately, unless you could talk to the top two bidders and find out why they bid what they did, there's no way to know how much of a premium the holder accounted for. Results for rattler holders with generic looking coins in them would be far better indicators of the rattler premium.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’ve watched toners with similar levels of color sell for less, so I’m fairly confident a good deal of the premium was for the rattler. Also the fact that GC noted they usually wouldn’t sell a coin with a crack this large is another indication that the rattler premium was in play (if it was all color and sticker, the coin would be reholdered in a fresh new slab).
Looks to me like it was a testosterone premium. Much more about the battle to win than the holder.
edited for spelling
As you no doubt know, toner results can vary widely, even for reappearances of the identical coin.
I stand by my previous comments. While you're "fairly confident a good deal of the premium was for the rattler", there's still no way to know how much of the premium resulted form the holder. And generic coins in rattlers offer much better indicators. It's better to go with the better evidence.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Or maybe some bidders loved the look of the coin and/or thought it was under-graded.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thus the battle to win it. Holder played a small part IMO.
I do not really understand paying a big rattler premium for one that is severely cracked like that. I recognize that old holders add value, and i'll bid accordingly if theres a coin I want inside, but if they are damaged like that I'm not paying any more than I would if it was a gold shield holder.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
And it's quite possible that testosterone played only a small, if any part. That's the point I was trying to make, We just don't know what the bidders were thinking.
There have been numerous occasions in which posters have speculated about why certain coins have brought seemingly sky-high prices and/or made fun of the bidders. And in some of those instances, I knew the reason and who the winning bidders were. They knew what they were doing and the winning bids were well justified.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not a fan of the obv toning.
I do not see how this auction result can be attributed to the holder much if at all. This is a run of the mill gen 1.2 rattler holder and as it is damaged most holder collectors would not be interested in paying any premium. Now if the bidders were misinformed and thought this was one of the very rare gen 1 or gen 1.1 holders that could account for the strong result.
To me it is a very "meh" looking coin in a damaged holder, worth absolutely no premium to me whatsoever. And who ever won this better have some great storage plans for it because that crack could easily lead to some very unsightly toning if not.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Unbelievable - and a severely cracked holder to boot. Is this what’s referred to as the holder / sticker game?
What a low end dog - looks like somebody spat all over it. Biological attack? Winning bid justified barf barf ? Welcome to the end user Hilton - Take a flying leap and good luck.
The thing is that coin has been in that holder a very long time. We have no idea what it looked like when it went in there. It could have been a pristine lustrous PQ Brilliant Gem as the day it left the mint. Send it in to the conservation dept.
Fortunately, not everyone shares your highly (un)refined taste.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
While I agree that the relative value of the toning and holder is speculative, the fact that the original owner and/or GC didn't reholder the coin suggests they also felt there was a holder premium.
Still, the amount of any premium remains unknown (speculative). That’s why I previously stated that it wasn’t a good example to use to illustrate rattler premiums.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
How do you know that GC did not present reholdering the coin as an option?
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
They might have but either they or the owner decided against it and GC was ok with that. The sentence at the top of the listing also specifically addresses the fact that they normally would reholder it but the desirable holder played a role in not doing so.
So my taste is flawed? Ok - well go bid that cracked ugly stuff up Rofl. Sorry haven’t blocked u but reached the max number…
Bet that gets cracked and winds up in a 67+ or a 68 holder.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I question if it would even get the same high grade now with the dreck on it. How is a horribly cracked holder desireable?
Thanks, I missed the fine print.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
You could possibly know the amount of "holder" premium on the basis of the bidding history. Seems to me if it was relatively low until the last few minutes, you would have a case of holder premium, as the Cullah is not all there for a 2K run up. IMO
BTW, full disclosure. I do not collect Morgans and would never pay a high premium for this sort of toning, but obviously a few collectors did. Maybe one of them was the consignor willing to buy it back if it didn't cross a certain threshold, I have heard of consignors that have done just that.
If reholdered, astute collectors would recognize it as such from the seven digit(leading zero after reholder) certification number. But who has time to pay attention to details like that?
Nice coin.
Collector, occasional seller
But reholdering is easy. GC simply made the bet that whatever value may be lost because of the crack would be countered by the holder. It's easy for the buyer to fix the crack, so while the holder could have little upside, they're just acknowledging that there's little downside to keeping the coin as-is, so this allows them to let the buyers decide how much if any premium the holder is worth. That contrasts with a new holder with a similar crack where there's all but no chance the holder could help the coin, so to maximize its value they'd reholder it up front.
I didn't say that. I said and/or. Some combination of the two elected to not reholder.
I personally find the splotchy obverse toing distracting and the crack would seal the deal as no deal for me.
DONT MAKE ME STOP THIS CAR!
Some agree with you, overall re the toning and the crack, but the fact that TWO for sure bid this up and others were in the bleachers, consider maybe there was more to this one than just meets your eyes.
Absolutely and would definitely recommend against that as an investment buy. I realize rattler mania can drive some people but when it becomes an absurdity it’s time to get off that elevator.
Imo the unattractive obv toning (biological attack?) would cause the coin to be downgraded.
It's not just the pattern, but the color is not appealing enough to warrant the premium alone. It would have to be super flashy luster.
It's a common date. A scarce coin in a rattler, there you have multiple basis for higher valuation.
The others in the bleachers were the smart ones. As far as my “unrefined taste” glad to have it lol.
Likely exchange from where I sit:
GC: Do you want the coin in the cracked holder reholdered?
Consignor: Will doing that affect the sale?
GC: It'll take time for the reholder and resticker and while it'll look much better in a new holder you might lose bidders interested in a rattler with a sticker.
Consignor: Just sell it as is, then.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution