Some interesting Latin American rarities coming to Stacks in August

JohnnyCache

These were presented on Instagram recently and appear to be included in an upcoming Stacks Bowers auction.
I think it will be interesting to watch how well, or not, they end up performing in the auction.

 

 

 

 

threefifty

I've seen the Greenland dollar mentioned here several times lately. I guess this forum collectively willed one to auction!

Boosibri

At least 3 of the 4 look a little “conservey” which means 4 of 4 probably are.

PillarDollarCollector

The Colombian 8 reales is my favourite all 4 are great coins thanks for sharing!!!

Boosibri

TwoKopeiki

I've been pooling cash - there are quite a few varieties i'll be going after. The amount of cleaned / improperly conserved material based on some of the certificate runs i've checked is a bit disheartening. Still more than enough for me to go after with much gusto.

bidask

@TwoKopeiki said:
I've been pooling cash - there are quite a few varieties i'll be going after. The amount of cleaned / improperly conserved material based on some of the certificate runs i've checked is a bit disheartening. Still more than enough for me to go after with much gusto.

TwoKopeiki

Also, while I appreciate using Yonaka vs Calico as a reference when attributing these pieces, it created a bit of a mess in the registry where for a number of dates, the new coin ID with a Yonaka attribution is showing up as a variety of the previously graded coin number with a Calico attribution.

Boosibri

I just saw the nasty planchet void at E in Ferdinand on the 1759 Pillar. Pictures don’t do that crater justice after seeing the video.

scubafuel

The video made it look like an attempted hole. But it's hard to tell without having it in hand.

JohnnyCache

@Boosibri said:
I just saw the nasty planchet void at E in Ferdinand on the 1759 Pillar. Pictures don’t do that crater justice after seeing the video.

@scubafuel said:
The video made it look like an attempted hole. But it's hard to tell without having it in hand.

I have to completely agree, it was the first thing I thought when I saw the video clip and Brian is spot on that the still pictures don't do a good job capturing it.

Also, regardless of the origin of the flan defect /small crater/ possible attempted piercing, why is the coloration so different from the rest of the coin's surface.

I would think that if the damage existed/was created when the coin was struck, or sometime shortly thereafter, perhaps due to a planchet defect that later popped out, wouldn't that area tone similar to that of the rest of the coin, or at least more closely than it appears to have?

That area just looks very different in the video. Any have any further thoughts on that aspect?

*Double wording /spelling / clarity edits

TwoKopeiki

You know I'm usually not the one to bash coins, but the uniform grey color and flat luster on many of these pieces seem to point to some very old cleaning. I hope I'll change my mind when I get a chance to preview these in-hand.

pruebas

Wow! Tough crowd here.

Few coins are perfect or even close to it. And those that are will be priced accordingly.

If you can afford a collection consisting of only perfect coins, more power to you. Likewise if you live long enough to find and buy all those perfect coins.

MrEureka

@pruebas said:
Wow! Tough crowd here.

Few coins are perfect or even close to it. And those that are will be priced accordingly.

If you can afford a collection consisting of only perfect coins, more power to you. Likewise if you live long enough to find and buy all those perfect coins.

The trick isn’t to find perfect coins. The trick is to find the best ones.

pruebas

@MrEureka said:

@pruebas said:
Wow! Tough crowd here.

Few coins are perfect or even close to it. And those that are will be priced accordingly.

If you can afford a collection consisting of only perfect coins, more power to you. Likewise if you live long enough to find and buy all those perfect coins.

The trick isn’t to find perfect coins. The trick is to find the best ones.

The coins presented here are among the finest of their respective types. Perhaps not the absolute finest, but close. And they will be rightly fought-over when sold, with the winners not losing a bit of sleep due to their alleged “conservey” nature.

At the right price, I’d gladly own any of them. And I suspect S. P. Rutherford felt the same way.

PillarDollarCollector

Lets just let the markets speak for themselves we will know the results soon enough and then we can judge based on results vs speculation. I like the coins but if some vets here feel they may have some issues well that should be pointed out but again lets see the results that is what matters.

PillarDollarCollector

I like the 1759 but yes there is a problem on the letter E and maybe should have graded authentic based on other coins I have seen over the last few years. Buy the coin and not the holder always should be in any buyers mind.

PillarDollarCollector

Pruebas you feel like the damage to the letter E (Ferdnd) is normal and that the grade is correct? I have seen coins with similar damage grade authentic.

SimonW

I expect none of you to bid on that terrible, pot-holed piece of garbage. I will bid, very low of course, just to get that garbage off the market. I will keep it tucked away so nobody else will ever be offended by its pitted nature again. 😜

PillarDollarCollector

@SimonW said:
I expect none of you to bid on that terrible, pot-holed piece of garbage. I will bid, very low of course, just to get that garbage off the market. I will keep it tucked away so nobody else will ever be offended by its pitted nature again. 😜

It is far from been garbage but the damage seems like the coin should have got a details grade. No matter can't afford it either way. It is a museum piece never the less a great trophy coin for sure.

Boosibri

@pruebas said:

@MrEureka said:

@pruebas said:
Wow! Tough crowd here.

Few coins are perfect or even close to it. And those that are will be priced accordingly.

If you can afford a collection consisting of only perfect coins, more power to you. Likewise if you live long enough to find and buy all those perfect coins.

The trick isn’t to find perfect coins. The trick is to find the best ones.

The coins presented here are among the finest of their respective types. Perhaps not the absolute finest, but close. And they will be rightly fought-over when sold, with the winners not losing a bit of sleep due to their alleged “conservey” nature.

At the right price, I’d gladly own any of them. And I suspect S. P. Rutherford felt the same way.

My mindset, which doesn’t have to be others, is that when I look at my collection and when it sells, I don’t want there to be any compromise for quality. Quality doesn’t mean highest grade, but exceptional for what it is. And each of those coins listed feel like compromises in quality in ways that aren’t about grade.

pruebas

@Boosibri said:

@pruebas said:

@MrEureka said:

@pruebas said:
Wow! Tough crowd here.

Few coins are perfect or even close to it. And those that are will be priced accordingly.

If you can afford a collection consisting of only perfect coins, more power to you. Likewise if you live long enough to find and buy all those perfect coins.

The trick isn’t to find perfect coins. The trick is to find the best ones.

The coins presented here are among the finest of their respective types. Perhaps not the absolute finest, but close. And they will be rightly fought-over when sold, with the winners not losing a bit of sleep due to their alleged “conservey” nature.

At the right price, I’d gladly own any of them. And I suspect S. P. Rutherford felt the same way.

My mindset, which doesn’t have to be others, is that when I look at my collection and when it sells, I don’t want there to be any compromise for quality. Quality doesn’t mean highest grade, but exceptional for what it is. And each of those coins listed feel like compromises in quality in ways that aren’t about grade.

And that is your prerogative. I am not saying that's bad. And I wasn't only referring about the TPG grade.

But why publicly denigrate the coins from someone else's collection? That person, whomever s/he is, is proud of those coins and happy to have been able to acquire and enjoy them. Who knows if that person is reading this or not, but does it really matter?

Also, it's pretty amazing in itself that they have survived almost 300 years in the state they have given people's propensity to clean things, poor storage methods of old, and all the wars and other world events that have happened.

All I am suggesting is to think about how jaded (spoiled?) folks are. These are important coins and some deserve respect, at least publicly, lest you depress the prices realized.

TwoKopeiki

@TwoKopeiki said:
Also, while I appreciate using Yonaka vs Calico as a reference when attributing these pieces, it created a bit of a mess in the registry where for a number of dates, the new coin ID with a Yonaka attribution is showing up as a variety of the previously graded coin number with a Calico attribution.

By the way, this is what i meant about the mess in the registry:

All of the new PCGS numbers associated with Yonaka's attribution are now showing up as varieties of the previous Calico standard.

bosox

If it is like the Canadian series, PCGS adds varieties to the registry sets as they become identified and published in the Charlton Standard Catalog. IMO, they do so both for us collectors and because it drives re-grades. Because they do not have experts on staff in all these series, it sometimes takes them a while to sort the varieties out correctly and particularly to get the weighting factors to reflect reality.

I have found in the past that they do listen when presented with polite suggestions for improvements backed by some facts, such as published material, sales results, photos, etc.

PillarDollarCollector

I collect by dates and varieties so I find it helpful and hopefully they will label more coin varieties I need so I know what is out here. Sellers often have bad images (eBay for example some are just truly bad clarity) and it may very well be a variety I need but I will never know since I will not contact all sellers and ask for better images just to tell them after no I have that variety already. Places like HA, GC, Stacks have great images I can very well see what variety I am buying no matter how small the detail of said variety.

TwoKopeiki

@bosox said:

In this particular case the issue is that it is not a new variety, but rather a different catalog used for numbering of the same coins.

For example:

Coin # 407359 1810-Mo TH 8 R Calico-1213
Is the same date/mint/variety as
Coin # 945472 1810-Mo TH 8 R Yon-M8-110

I assume all of the Rutherford submissions listed Yonaka catalog number, which were simply treated as a new varieties without any kind of validation against existing coins. Just sloppy data input and creating noise in the registry. And the cleanup would be pretty significant, if they decide to ever combine these into a single coin number as Rutherford's submission is massive across dates and varieties

bosox

Even if the cleanup is substantial, wouldn't the registry be better off if PCGS did it? My point is that I doubt they will expend the effort without encouragement from the registry set owners.

That said, it may take some sort of published and accepted cross reference between the two systems to entice them to try. Also, if it got too complex they probably would not do it. I think that is why they will not identify Canadian coin obverse portrait varieties. It is complex and there is some liability on getting them wrong.