At least they did not ask if they could do a test cut on the edge like some real life pawn shops used to do with gold coins!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
$30M sounds about right to me. Pawn Star's Rick Harrison offers $25M without hearing first, from the would be seller how much he wants for the piece? That's entertainment TV for you. Make it up as you go along into a kind of fantasy world, a Las Vegas pawn shop where anything can show up that someone wants to sell.
Anyway, the seller is not asking too much at $30M for the only legal to own 1933 dated double eagle.Opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
FDR meeting with Farouk a few months after export license was issued-mistakenly, (Churchill met with Farouk off camera) Sure was a timely and fortunate accident, especially given the then geopolitical considerations ...
I stand to be corrected, but it was my understanding with regard to ultra expensive coins that Pawn Stars would already have a buyer in place for the coin so in effect the show would be acting as an intermediary.
Interesting.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@ms70 said:
That coin really needed a sticker? LMAO.
There are collectors on here who claim they wouldn't buy such a coin without one.
Hilarious, but true. That little green bean probably adds an additional $10 million. 🤣
It’s worth mentioning that CAC has still not stickered an 1804 dollar. Rarity doesn’t guarantee a sticker so knowing that JA believed your coin is not messed with as well as accurately graded is worth some money, though probably not $10 million!
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@EliteCollection said:
Everything is for sale at a certain price. I won't consider selling it for under $30M at this time, but I would have to really think hard if I did get an offer over $30M.
That maximum rate of 28% on long-term capital gains might take the fun out of selling it.
@EliteCollection said:
Everything is for sale at a certain price. I won't consider selling it for under $30M at this time, but I would have to really think hard if I did get an offer over $30M.
That maximum rate of 28% on long-term capital gains might take the fun out of selling it.
Plus California state tax which is onerous (I think Elite is in CA?).
@EliteCollection said:
Everything is for sale at a certain price. I won't consider selling it for under $30M at this time, but I would have to >really think hard if I did get an offer over $30M.
Would you accept a 2033 postdated, 3rd-party endorsed, out-of-state check ?
@EliteCollection said:
Everything is for sale at a certain price. I won't consider selling it for under $30M at this time, but I would have to >really think hard if I did get an offer over $30M.
On a more serious note....I had to do an analysis years ago for a private bank I worked for on the returns from tangible assets (i.e., PM's, gold, coins, timber, art, etc.). At the time and based on updated select figures that are more recent, I found that it was tough for any non-interest, non-dividend paying asset class to match stocks (and sometimes even bonds) because you had to rely 100% on capital gains.
Unless you were lucky with your timing -- i.e., buying gold or silver coins or other coins before the mega-runup of the 1970's -- many coins seemed to peter out in the mid-single digit range appreciation-wise over many years or decades. And those lucky to have gotten in low and selling high would be the winners. But using rolling time periods to eliminate timing bias or luck, no asset class matched up with U.S. common stocks (foreign stocks were a different matter, because of all the wars that often reduced stocks to nil).
The 1933 you purchased only realized the original buyer 4.7% a year from 2002-22, which lagged the S&P 500 by a huge amount. Of course, there's more than return with our coins as we all know. I doubt someone buying 7- or 8-figure coins is primarily concerned with returns.
My limited experience with what goes on behind the scenes in the production of a TV Show was an appearance on the rebooted Hawaii Five-0. I agree with Ian that one of the best parts is getting to meet the principal players and regardless of staging, how cordial and genuine they are off camera, or at least they were to me.
One of the scenes I had a part in involved a Party Bus. After several takes, Danny and McGarret (Scott Caan and Alex O'Loughlin) stepped on to join us to get out of the rain. I offered my seat, but they declined. Not knowing what else to say, I added, "It's great getting to meet you guys." In response, Alex said, "Nice to meet you too."
@breakdown said:
It’s worth mentioning that CAC has still not stickered an 1804 dollar. Rarity doesn’t guarantee a sticker so knowing that JA believed your coin is not messed with as well as accurately graded is worth some money, though probably not $10 million!
I guess a CAC sticker for ultra-rarities doesn't matter. I am sure the coin could get a CAC sticker if the TPG grade was 1-notch lower. That's what one owner did for a 1927-D Saint.
@breakdown said:
It’s worth mentioning that CAC has still not stickered an 1804 dollar. Rarity doesn’t guarantee a sticker so knowing that JA believed your coin is not messed with as well as accurately graded is worth some money, though probably not $10 million!
I guess a CAC sticker for ultra-rarities doesn't matter. I am sure the coin could get a CAC sticker if the TPG grade was 1-notch lower. That's what one owner did for a 1927-D Saint.
One small abrasion or scratch though, and supposedly JA says it's Details.
Could they have a huge client who wants the most valuable coin? (If a deal is done and filmed in real time, how amazing would that be to be part of?)
In general, it's great exposure for the hobby. It was Elite's idea initially and awesome how it all came together so quickly. We need as much exposure for coins as possible. At GC, we spent money on this endeavor because it's so important to attract collectors in the future.
Elite really wants people to learn more about coins and see a rarity like the 1933. Pawn Stars has a vast viewership - and the majority is outside of the numismatic community.
Rick's shop is impressive. The amount of foot traffic is astonishing. He has knowledge about coins. I wondered if he was going to call Steve Wynn or someone like that, he knows everyone in that town.
I had several conversations with Elite in the lead up to the taping "okay, we need to be prepared that your complete Saint set is not complete anymore" - he would have been a very reluctant seller, but knew that was the purpose of the project.
One other benefit, I got to hang out with Jeff Garrett after the taping - although I've known Jeff for years and we've done some business, I hadn't spent an afternoon with him before the day of the shoot in Vegas. We had a nice dinner at a classic Vegas restaurant after touring the Pawn shop.
The security and insurance was probably the most difficult part to arrange. It's why it was not filmed at his shop. Their team were very helpful and ensured everything went to plan and the coin's time on site was kept to a minimum.
Ian
Thank you for your comments. How did you do at the tables?😀
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@1northcoin said:
This has been a fun thread. Thanks all.
My limited experience with what goes on behind the scenes in the production of a TV Show was an appearance on the rebooted Hawaii Five-0. I agree with Ian that one of the best parts is getting to meet the principal players and regardless of staging, how cordial and genuine they are off camera, or at least they were to me.
One of the scenes I had a part in involved a Party Bus. After several takes, Danny and McGarret (Scott Caan and Alex O'Loughlin) stepped on to join us to get out of the rain. I offered my seat, but they declined. Not knowing what else to say, I added, "It's great getting to meet you guys." In response, Alex said, "Nice to meet you too."
@ms70 said:
That coin really needed a sticker? LMAO.
There are collectors on here who claim they wouldn't buy such a coin without one.
Hilarious, but true. That little green bean probably adds an additional $10 million. 🤣
It’s worth mentioning that CAC has still not stickered an 1804 dollar. Rarity doesn’t guarantee a sticker so knowing that JA believed your coin is not messed with as well as accurately graded is worth some money, though probably not $10 million!
To discuss a coin that I personally graded long before slabs were invented, which would you rather have, the Garrett 1804 Dollar in a PR-40 slab with a Green Bean or even a Gold Bean, or the Garrett 1804 Dollar in its current PR-55 slab?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
@Floridafacelifter said:
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
I don’t feel “so what” about coins being overgraded, and that’s whether they’re common or ultra rarities. When I see a coin that appears to be obviously overgraded, it’s harder for me to appreciate it. That’s because the first and primary thoughts on my mind are “At this grade, this coin should look a lot better.” Or “Why couldn’t (blank grading company) let the coin stand on its own and grade it as it deserved?”
As one general example, if I see a gorgeously toned coin which appears to have received a grade bump of one or two points for its color, I’m thinking more about the overgrade than about the coin’s attractiveness. It taints my view of and appreciation for the coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Floridafacelifter said:
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
I don’t feel “so what” about coins being overgraded, and that’s whether they’re common or ultra rarities. When I see a coin that appears to be obviously overgraded, it’s harder for me to appreciate it. That’s because the first and primary thoughts on my mind are “At this grade, this coin should look a lot better.” Or “Why couldn’t (blank grading company) let the coin stand on its own and grade it as it deserved?”
As one general example, if I see a gorgeously toned coin which appears to have received a grade bump of one or two points for its color, I’m thinking more about the overgrade than about the coin’s attractiveness. It taints my view of and appreciation for the coin.
That makes sense Mark- I guess the point I was trying to make was that I owned the 1804 $ that @CaptHenway mentioned for a number of years and I couldn’t care less what the grade was or if it had a sticker- I was just thrilled to have the opportunity to own such an amazing rarity.
Now on the other hand if I’m looking at a proof Morgan $, which I also collect, and it is obviously overgraded then I’m totally turned off by that.
@Floridafacelifter said:
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
I don’t feel “so what” about coins being overgraded, and that’s whether they’re common or ultra rarities. When I see a coin that appears to be obviously overgraded, it’s harder for me to appreciate it. That’s because the first and primary thoughts on my mind are “At this grade, this coin should look a lot better.” Or “Why couldn’t (blank grading company) let the coin stand on its own and grade it as it deserved?”
As one general example, if I see a gorgeously toned coin which appears to have received a grade bump of one or two points for its color, I’m thinking more about the overgrade than about the coin’s attractiveness. It taints my view of and appreciation for the coin.
That makes sense Mark- I guess the point I was trying to make was that I owned the 1804 $ that @CaptHenway mentioned for a number of years and I couldn’t care less what the grade was or if it had a sticker- I was just thrilled to have the opportunity to own such an amazing rarity.
Now on the other hand if I’m looking at a proof Morgan $, which I also collect, and it is obviously overgraded then I’m totally turned off by that.
I can certainly understand that, even if I haven’t owned an ultra rarity. In fact, while I can’t claim it would be prudent, if I owned one, I’d probably have it removed from its holder and placed into a personalized Capital Plastics holder.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Floridafacelifter said:
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
I don’t feel “so what” about coins being overgraded, and that’s whether they’re common or ultra rarities. When I see a coin that appears to be obviously overgraded, it’s harder for me to appreciate it. That’s because the first and primary thoughts on my mind are “At this grade, this coin should look a lot better.” Or “Why couldn’t (blank grading company) let the coin stand on its own and grade it as it deserved?”
As one general example, if I see a gorgeously toned coin which appears to have received a grade bump of one or two points for its color, I’m thinking more about the overgrade than about the coin’s attractiveness. It taints my view of and appreciation for the coin.
That makes sense Mark- I guess the point I was trying to make was that I owned the 1804 $ that @CaptHenway mentioned for a number of years and I couldn’t care less what the grade was or if it had a sticker- I was just thrilled to have the opportunity to own such an amazing rarity.
Now on the other hand if I’m looking at a proof Morgan $, which I also collect, and it is obviously overgraded then I’m totally turned off by that.
I can certainly understand that, even if I haven’t owned an ultra rarity. In fact, while I can’t claim it would be prudent, if I owned one, I’d probably have it removed from its holder and placed into a personalized Capital Plastics holder.
Haha love that idea! Like the Walton 1913 nickel! Alternatively I could use the 1804 $ for coin tosses- ColonelJessup did drop it on the floor once before it was encapsulated.
@Floridafacelifter said:
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
I don’t feel “so what” about coins being overgraded, and that’s whether they’re common or ultra rarities. When I see a coin that appears to be obviously overgraded, it’s harder for me to appreciate it. That’s because the first and primary thoughts on my mind are “At this grade, this coin should look a lot better.” Or “Why couldn’t (blank grading company) let the coin stand on its own and grade it as it deserved?”
As one general example, if I see a gorgeously toned coin which appears to have received a grade bump of one or two points for its color, I’m thinking more about the overgrade than about the coin’s attractiveness. It taints my view of and appreciation for the coin.
That makes sense Mark- I guess the point I was trying to make was that I owned the 1804 $ that @CaptHenway mentioned for a number of years and I couldn’t care less what the grade was or if it had a sticker- I was just thrilled to have the opportunity to own such an amazing rarity.
Now on the other hand if I’m looking at a proof Morgan $, which I also collect, and it is obviously overgraded then I’m totally turned off by that.
I can certainly understand that, even if I haven’t owned an ultra rarity. In fact, while I can’t claim it would be prudent, if I owned one, I’d probably have it removed from its holder and placed into a personalized Capital Plastics holder.
Haha love that idea! Like the Walton 1913 nickel! Alternatively I could use the 1804 $ for coin tosses- ColonelJessup did drop it on the floor once before it was encapsulated.
I think I’ll leave the coin tosses to you and the Colonel.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Floridafacelifter said:
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
I don’t feel “so what” about coins being overgraded, and that’s whether they’re common or ultra rarities. When I see a coin that appears to be obviously overgraded, it’s harder for me to appreciate it. That’s because the first and primary thoughts on my mind are “At this grade, this coin should look a lot better.” Or “Why couldn’t (blank grading company) let the coin stand on its own and grade it as it deserved?”
As one general example, if I see a gorgeously toned coin which appears to have received a grade bump of one or two points for its color, I’m thinking more about the overgrade than about the coin’s attractiveness. It taints my view of and appreciation for the coin.
That makes sense Mark- I guess the point I was trying to make was that I owned the 1804 $ that @CaptHenway mentioned for a number of years and I couldn’t care less what the grade was or if it had a sticker- I was just thrilled to have the opportunity to own such an amazing rarity.
Now on the other hand if I’m looking at a proof Morgan $, which I also collect, and it is obviously overgraded then I’m totally turned off by that.
I can certainly understand that, even if I haven’t owned an ultra rarity. In fact, while I can’t claim it would be prudent, if I owned one, I’d probably have it removed from its holder and placed into a personalized Capital Plastics holder.
Haha love that idea! Like the Walton 1913 nickel! Alternatively I could use the 1804 $ for coin tosses- ColonelJessup did drop it on the floor once before it was encapsulated.
If the NFL paid me enough money and I had an 1804 they could use it for the coin toss at the Superbowl.
@Floridafacelifter said:
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
I don’t feel “so what” about coins being overgraded, and that’s whether they’re common or ultra rarities. When I see a coin that appears to be obviously overgraded, it’s harder for me to appreciate it. That’s because the first and primary thoughts on my mind are “At this grade, this coin should look a lot better.” Or “Why couldn’t (blank grading company) let the coin stand on its own and grade it as it deserved?”
As one general example, if I see a gorgeously toned coin which appears to have received a grade bump of one or two points for its color, I’m thinking more about the overgrade than about the coin’s attractiveness. It taints my view of and appreciation for the coin.
That makes sense Mark- I guess the point I was trying to make was that I owned the 1804 $ that @CaptHenway mentioned for a number of years and I couldn’t care less what the grade was or if it had a sticker- I was just thrilled to have the opportunity to own such an amazing rarity.
Now on the other hand if I’m looking at a proof Morgan $, which I also collect, and it is obviously overgraded then I’m totally turned off by that.
I can certainly understand that, even if I haven’t owned an ultra rarity. In fact, while I can’t claim it would be prudent, if I owned one, I’d probably have it removed from its holder and placed into a personalized Capital Plastics holder.
Haha love that idea! Like the Walton 1913 nickel! Alternatively I could use the 1804 $ for coin tosses- ColonelJessup did drop it on the floor once before it was encapsulated.
If the NFL paid me enough money and I had an 1804 they could use it for the coin toss at the Superbowl.
There would be a ten minute review to determine the outcome.
Way back in June 2021, this coin was available for lot viewing at Sotheby's. I went there and I was able to have one on one time with me & the 1933 $20. I asked her to marry me but she never answered me. I am still waiting for to say yes, so I can take her home.
@ms70 said:
That coin really needed a sticker? LMAO.
There are collectors on here who claim they wouldn't buy such a coin without one.
Hilarious, but true. That little green bean probably adds an additional $10 million. 🤣
I consider a CAC sticker as a valuable second opinion when selecting a coin of which many are certified, but I would like one of the better ones. For example, if one is seeking a nice MS65 St Gaudens double eagle, finding one with a CAC sticker would likely be worth pursuing. However, when there is only one coin certified (and in this case, one coin in any grade at all) I don't see the sticker adding anything at all. If you are in the market for a 20-30M$ unique coin, why would the opinion of one man have any bearing upon your decision? For that matter, the grade opinion by PCGS is of little importance.
I can certainly understand that, even if I haven’t owned an ultra rarity. In fact, while I can’t claim it would be prudent, if I owned one, I’d probably have it removed from its holder and placed into a personalized Capital Plastics holder.
Remember what happened to George Walton -
On March 9, 1962, Walton died in a car crash en route to a coin show. He had promised the show's promoters that he would exhibit the 1913 Liberty Head nickel there, so it was assumed to have been among the coins in his possession at the time of the fatal crash. US$250,000 worth of coins were recovered from the crash site, including the 1913 Liberty nickel, which was protected in a custom-made holder. When Walton's heirs put his coins up for public auction in 1963, the nickel was returned to them, because the auction house had mistakenly determined the coin to be not genuine.
@ms70 said:
That coin really needed a sticker? LMAO.
There are collectors on here who claim they wouldn't buy such a coin without one.
Hilarious, but true. That little green bean probably adds an additional $10 million. 🤣
I consider a CAC sticker as a valuable second opinion when selecting a coin of which many are certified, but I would like one of the better ones. For example, if one is seeking a nice MS65 St Gaudens double eagle, finding one with a CAC sticker would likely be worth pursuing. However, when there is only one coin certified (and in this case, one coin in any grade at all) I don't see the sticker adding anything at all. If you are in the market for a 20-30M$ unique coin, why would the opinion of one man have any bearing upon your decision? For that matter, the grade opinion by PCGS is of little importance.
Winesteven won't buy coins without stickers. So that and others like him reduce the buyer pool size.
@DisneyFan said:
When Walton's heirs put his coins up for public auction in 1963, the nickel was returned to them, because the auction house had mistakenly determined the coin to be not genuine.
Is that true ? So it wasn't an actual 1913 Liberty Nickel ?
@DisneyFan said:
When Walton's heirs put his coins up for public auction in 1963, the nickel was returned to them, because the auction house had mistakenly determined the coin to be not genuine.
Is that true ? So it wasn't an actual 1913 Liberty Nickel ?
It was. Stack's thought it was not genuine and returned it to the consignor family. Eventually is was determined to be genuine.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@braddick said:
There is a school of thought- by some, not many- that the show is perhaps and somewhat "staged."
(Kind of like roller-derby or whatnot, I suppose.)
I’m sure that a lot of it is staged but it was still interesting to see that it was up for sale and that he was asking $30 million!
@291fifth said:
I stopped watching the show several years ago. Segments like the one you describe one were a prime reason why.
our own pennylady was on seriously selling an ww2 air recon camera --- with film inside! -- and said it was honest bargaiing
there have been other coins & paper money items where the item and people were know to forumites who speculated the items really weren't for sale
$18 mil to $30? I'm guessing it would have happened
The episode with pennylady aired many years back when the emphasis was on buying odd but much less expensive items. Those were the years when I actually watched the show.
@mattniss said:
In 2014, a producer from the show reached out to me after a mutual acquaintance told them about my (now former) collection of original 1st edition Hardy Boys books. After 2 virtual and 1 in-person interview (of which included bringing the items in for review by a team based in LA), I was accepted for the show and went out to Vegas to film my segment.
I can confirm the negotiation was real (the producers picked Chumlee and The Old Man as the "team" for my segment), but the items in question were clearly pre-approved by the producers of the show. They had to do the whole thing where they needed the book expert (Rebecca Romney, who was very nice in person) to come out and review my items, which was all planned out as well. I remember that I actually had to change my outfit to make it seem like she came in the next day to review everything. We ended up not making a deal, and the segment ended up never being aired as a result.
I eventually sold off the collection to a private book collector several years later for 3.5X what was offered to me in the segment by Mr. Harrison, who off camera loved my items. I guess the producers didn't like how it all turned out, as I have no idea how much, if anything, the the lack of a deal influenced the segment not making it onto the show.
Good stuff! During the 'rona era they wanted to bring the Mrs. and me on the show with some Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew original artwork. Something about they didn't want to deal with travel, which I suppose made sense. Nothing much came of it.
@acsb said:
Good stuff! During the 'rona era they wanted to bring the Mrs. and me on the show with some Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew original artwork. Something about they didn't want to deal with travel, which I suppose made sense. Nothing much came of it.
Seems like they think the older children's book series' stuff is a good idea in the producer's room, but not in reality. I wonder if I know you from the HB community if you have original artwork @acsb? Also just noticed your avatar... "Terminal Shock" was one of my favorite of the Digest series as a kid.
Sorry for the off-topic chatter, here's another picture of Rick & the '33:
@acsb said:
Good stuff! During the 'rona era they wanted to bring the Mrs. and me on the show with some Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew original artwork. Something about they didn't want to deal with travel, which I suppose made sense. Nothing much came of it.
Seems like they think the older children's book series' stuff is a good idea in the producer's room, but not in reality. I wonder if I know you from the HB community if you have original artwork @acsb? Also just noticed your avatar... "Terminal Shock" was one of my favorite of the Digest series as a kid.
Sorry for the off-topic chatter, here's another picture of Rick & the '33:
One picture of many (and not even the REALLY good stuff...)
Have to feel for Rick's client though whose 25 million wasn't enough. If he is looking for a consolation prize
Double Eagle there is always the original series. I'll be in Vegas in the immediate near future. Maybe I should bring mine by for Rick to examine on behalf of his client. It too is "one of a kind" and it also has a great story to go with it.
The story includes its having been traced back to having been in the personal collection of its designer James Longacre, making it likely it was one of, if not the first, Double Eagle to have been minted for circulation.
The rest of the story:
Based upon the similarity of auction descriptions and identification of its owners, including in particular a Dr. C.W. Green, the coin’s history is traced through three separate time periods to the present. It was initially identified in the 1870 Longacre Estate Auction as Lot 178 with a description as being a proof and one of the first minted. Specifically the auction description stated, “from the first dies used for the double eagle.” From an original auction catalogue in the possession of prominent coin dealer Rick Snow it was learned that the purchaser was Edward Cogan, a noted coin auctioneer and dealer at the time.
Numismatic legend and author Walter Breen wrote in his “Breen’s Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proofs” that he was aware of a Dr. Green’s ownership of a purported proof $20 1850 double eagle.
In 1949 noted numismatist Max Mehl, and at the time the most prominent coin dealer in the United States, provided an auction description for an 1850 $20 double eagle that was both attributed to prior ownership by Dr. Green, and also of proof appearance. Identified as Lot 719 Max Mehl wrote in his auction description describing the coin, “The most beautiful specimen of this date $20.00 gold piece I have ever seen or that I can find record of. This coin was purchased by Dr. Green as a proof ….. The obverse is brilliant and equal to a brilliant proof. I classify it as a brilliant semi-proof, almost equal to a brilliant proof.”
Numismatic author and researcher, the late Karl Moulton, concluded that the subject 1850 $20 double eagle with its matching and similar auction descriptions and Dr. C.W. Green provenance was one and the same as that sold in the initial 1870 Longacre Estate Auction.
Although Breen in his Proof encyclopedia suggested there may have been up to three such specimens, the only other that is presently known is a proof $20 double eagle piece located in a Paris museum. Through U.S. Mint records that coin appears most certainly to not have been minted from the original dies at the time of the first minting of U.S. $20 gold pieces for circulation. Contemporary accounts confirm that by April of 1850 $20 double eagles were in circulation and there is a written reference to the first double eagles having been struck on March 12, 1850. This leads to confirmation that the Paris museum’s proof specimen which evidently came from an October 1850 minting of a “Set of Gold Master Coins” made initially for the U.S. Committee on the Library was not from the original dies. This leaves the subject 1850
I saw this episode last night. I viewed it as an advertisement for the coin, not a potential sale.
I don’t think that this is “the most desirable coin in the world.” With at least a dozen survivors, it’s certainly not the rarest. The government owns all of the others, which makes it the only piece available to collectors, but it’s not the rarest.
We also know that it is over graded. If a piece with big marks on Ms. Liberty’s leg is an MS-66, CAC, then this must be an MS-67.
This was the usual Pawnstars entertainment program with a much larger than normal item offered "for sale."
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Comments
That coin really needed a sticker? LMAO.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
There are collectors on here who claim they wouldn't buy such a coin without one. (Added) Because God forbid it is a "C" MS65.
Hilarious, but true. That little green bean probably adds an additional $10 million. 🤣
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
At least they did not ask if they could do a test cut on the edge like some real life pawn shops used to do with gold coins!
$30M sounds about right to me. Pawn Star's Rick Harrison offers $25M without hearing first, from the would be seller how much he wants for the piece? That's entertainment TV for you. Make it up as you go along into a kind of fantasy world, a Las Vegas pawn shop where anything can show up that someone wants to sell.
Anyway, the seller is not asking too much at $30M for the only legal to own 1933 dated double eagle.Opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
FDR meeting with Farouk a few months after export license was issued-mistakenly, (Churchill met with Farouk off camera) Sure was a timely and fortunate accident, especially given the then geopolitical considerations ...
(Both appear together in the opening minute)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jssvM9fqufY
Interesting.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Just watched the episode w/ my wife. She enjoyed! I enjoyed! Was a fun watch. @ianrussell you did a great job.
Also - @EliteCollection I hadn't seen the special PCGS label on this one before. Looks great.
--Noah
Noah @ Rarity7
rarity7.com
Instagram (personal) - @numismattack
Instagram (r7) - @rarity7coins
It’s worth mentioning that CAC has still not stickered an 1804 dollar. Rarity doesn’t guarantee a sticker so knowing that JA believed your coin is not messed with as well as accurately graded is worth some money, though probably not $10 million!
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
That maximum rate of 28% on long-term capital gains might take the fun out of selling it.
Plus California state tax which is onerous (I think Elite is in CA?).
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Would you accept a 2033 postdated, 3rd-party endorsed, out-of-state check ?
On a more serious note....I had to do an analysis years ago for a private bank I worked for on the returns from tangible assets (i.e., PM's, gold, coins, timber, art, etc.). At the time and based on updated select figures that are more recent, I found that it was tough for any non-interest, non-dividend paying asset class to match stocks (and sometimes even bonds) because you had to rely 100% on capital gains.
Unless you were lucky with your timing -- i.e., buying gold or silver coins or other coins before the mega-runup of the 1970's -- many coins seemed to peter out in the mid-single digit range appreciation-wise over many years or decades. And those lucky to have gotten in low and selling high would be the winners. But using rolling time periods to eliminate timing bias or luck, no asset class matched up with U.S. common stocks (foreign stocks were a different matter, because of all the wars that often reduced stocks to nil).
The 1933 you purchased only realized the original buyer 4.7% a year from 2002-22, which lagged the S&P 500 by a huge amount. Of course, there's more than return with our coins as we all know.
I doubt someone buying 7- or 8-figure coins is primarily concerned with returns.
This has been a fun thread. Thanks all.
My limited experience with what goes on behind the scenes in the production of a TV Show was an appearance on the rebooted Hawaii Five-0. I agree with Ian that one of the best parts is getting to meet the principal players and regardless of staging, how cordial and genuine they are off camera, or at least they were to me.
One of the scenes I had a part in involved a Party Bus. After several takes, Danny and McGarret (Scott Caan and Alex O'Loughlin) stepped on to join us to get out of the rain. I offered my seat, but they declined. Not knowing what else to say, I added, "It's great getting to meet you guys." In response, Alex said, "Nice to meet you too."
I guess a CAC sticker for ultra-rarities doesn't matter. I am sure the coin could get a CAC sticker if the TPG grade was 1-notch lower. That's what one owner did for a 1927-D Saint.
One small abrasion or scratch though, and supposedly JA says it's Details.
Thank you for your comments. How did you do at the tables?😀
@ ianrussell:
More fun watching an ultra rare coin related Pawn Stars episode than yet another 17th century clock!
Where can we see this episode? Can you text a link?
Was this a comedy photo of you praying in front of Rick?
Edit to add: The conclusion
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
OK, located a photo:
To discuss a coin that I personally graded long before slabs were invented, which would you rather have, the Garrett 1804 Dollar in a PR-40 slab with a Green Bean or even a Gold Bean, or the Garrett 1804 Dollar in its current PR-55 slab?
PR-40 with green or gold sticker.
An 1804 $ and the 1933 $20 don’t need stickers and don’t need to play the plastic game- they stand on their own. IMHO the sticker on the 1933 $20 is more about CAC marketing and promotion than it is about the value or desirability it may lend to the coin.
None of the 1804 $ have stickers because they are all overgraded- so what- they are still 1804 $ and everyone knows they are overgraded.
I am a big fan of CAC and only buy proof gold with a sticker, but the 1804 and 1933 stand on their own and don’t need a sticker.
I don’t feel “so what” about coins being overgraded, and that’s whether they’re common or ultra rarities. When I see a coin that appears to be obviously overgraded, it’s harder for me to appreciate it. That’s because the first and primary thoughts on my mind are “At this grade, this coin should look a lot better.” Or “Why couldn’t (blank grading company) let the coin stand on its own and grade it as it deserved?”
As one general example, if I see a gorgeously toned coin which appears to have received a grade bump of one or two points for its color, I’m thinking more about the overgrade than about the coin’s attractiveness. It taints my view of and appreciation for the coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That makes sense Mark- I guess the point I was trying to make was that I owned the 1804 $ that @CaptHenway mentioned for a number of years and I couldn’t care less what the grade was or if it had a sticker- I was just thrilled to have the opportunity to own such an amazing rarity.
Now on the other hand if I’m looking at a proof Morgan $, which I also collect, and it is obviously overgraded then I’m totally turned off by that.
I can certainly understand that, even if I haven’t owned an ultra rarity. In fact, while I can’t claim it would be prudent, if I owned one, I’d probably have it removed from its holder and placed into a personalized Capital Plastics holder.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Haha love that idea! Like the Walton 1913 nickel! Alternatively I could use the 1804 $ for coin tosses- ColonelJessup did drop it on the floor once before it was encapsulated.
I think I’ll leave the coin tosses to you and the Colonel.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just fortunate that Weitzman didn't etch a shoe into the reverse of the Saint.
If the NFL paid me enough money and I had an 1804 they could use it for the coin toss at the Superbowl.
Why not just do the coin flip while it is in the holder.😀
There would be a ten minute review to determine the outcome.
Way back in June 2021, this coin was available for lot viewing at Sotheby's. I went there and I was able to have one on one time with me & the 1933 $20. I asked her to marry me but she never answered me. I am still waiting for to say yes, so I can take her home.
I consider a CAC sticker as a valuable second opinion when selecting a coin of which many are certified, but I would like one of the better ones. For example, if one is seeking a nice MS65 St Gaudens double eagle, finding one with a CAC sticker would likely be worth pursuing. However, when there is only one coin certified (and in this case, one coin in any grade at all) I don't see the sticker adding anything at all. If you are in the market for a 20-30M$ unique coin, why would the opinion of one man have any bearing upon your decision? For that matter, the grade opinion by PCGS is of little importance.
Remember what happened to George Walton -
On March 9, 1962, Walton died in a car crash en route to a coin show. He had promised the show's promoters that he would exhibit the 1913 Liberty Head nickel there, so it was assumed to have been among the coins in his possession at the time of the fatal crash. US$250,000 worth of coins were recovered from the crash site, including the 1913 Liberty nickel, which was protected in a custom-made holder. When Walton's heirs put his coins up for public auction in 1963, the nickel was returned to them, because the auction house had mistakenly determined the coin to be not genuine.
Winesteven won't buy coins without stickers. So that and others like him reduce the buyer pool size.
Is that true ? So it wasn't an actual 1913 Liberty Nickel ?
It was. Stack's thought it was not genuine and returned it to the consignor family. Eventually is was determined to be genuine.
She is very shrewd when bargaiing.
Good stuff! During the 'rona era they wanted to bring the Mrs. and me on the show with some Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew original artwork. Something about they didn't want to deal with travel, which I suppose made sense. Nothing much came of it.
Seems like they think the older children's book series' stuff is a good idea in the producer's room, but not in reality. I wonder if I know you from the HB community if you have original artwork @acsb? Also just noticed your avatar... "Terminal Shock" was one of my favorite of the Digest series as a kid.
Sorry for the off-topic chatter, here's another picture of Rick & the '33:
The Pawn Stars video is out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P39CJbUH37E
Follow me on MyCollect!
Thank you - that was most enjoyable to watch.
The coin looked nicer in the video than in some of the pictures I’ve seen.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
For those that want to see and learn some good 'ol dealer promo watch that video.
"Its the greatest coin there is".
that’s a pretty nice coin man, no doubt
Thanks to everyone here for an informative, intelligent, and entertaining discussion.
One picture of many (and not even the REALLY good stuff...)
That was a fun video.
Have to feel for Rick's client though whose 25 million wasn't enough. If he is looking for a consolation prize
Double Eagle there is always the original series. I'll be in Vegas in the immediate near future. Maybe I should bring mine by for Rick to examine on behalf of his client. It too is "one of a kind" and it also has a great story to go with it.
The story includes its having been traced back to having been in the personal collection of its designer James Longacre, making it likely it was one of, if not the first, Double Eagle to have been minted for circulation.
The rest of the story:
Based upon the similarity of auction descriptions and identification of its owners, including in particular a Dr. C.W. Green, the coin’s history is traced through three separate time periods to the present. It was initially identified in the 1870 Longacre Estate Auction as Lot 178 with a description as being a proof and one of the first minted. Specifically the auction description stated, “from the first dies used for the double eagle.” From an original auction catalogue in the possession of prominent coin dealer Rick Snow it was learned that the purchaser was Edward Cogan, a noted coin auctioneer and dealer at the time.
Numismatic legend and author Walter Breen wrote in his “Breen’s Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proofs” that he was aware of a Dr. Green’s ownership of a purported proof $20 1850 double eagle.
In 1949 noted numismatist Max Mehl, and at the time the most prominent coin dealer in the United States, provided an auction description for an 1850 $20 double eagle that was both attributed to prior ownership by Dr. Green, and also of proof appearance. Identified as Lot 719 Max Mehl wrote in his auction description describing the coin, “The most beautiful specimen of this date $20.00 gold piece I have ever seen or that I can find record of. This coin was purchased by Dr. Green as a proof ….. The obverse is brilliant and equal to a brilliant proof. I classify it as a brilliant semi-proof, almost equal to a brilliant proof.”
Numismatic author and researcher, the late Karl Moulton, concluded that the subject 1850 $20 double eagle with its matching and similar auction descriptions and Dr. C.W. Green provenance was one and the same as that sold in the initial 1870 Longacre Estate Auction.
Although Breen in his Proof encyclopedia suggested there may have been up to three such specimens, the only other that is presently known is a proof $20 double eagle piece located in a Paris museum. Through U.S. Mint records that coin appears most certainly to not have been minted from the original dies at the time of the first minting of U.S. $20 gold pieces for circulation. Contemporary accounts confirm that by April of 1850 $20 double eagles were in circulation and there is a written reference to the first double eagles having been struck on March 12, 1850. This leads to confirmation that the Paris museum’s proof specimen which evidently came from an October 1850 minting of a “Set of Gold Master Coins” made initially for the U.S. Committee on the Library was not from the original dies. This leaves the subject 1850
I saw this episode last night. I viewed it as an advertisement for the coin, not a potential sale.
I don’t think that this is “the most desirable coin in the world.” With at least a dozen survivors, it’s certainly not the rarest. The government owns all of the others, which makes it the only piece available to collectors, but it’s not the rarest.
We also know that it is over graded. If a piece with big marks on Ms. Liberty’s leg is an MS-66, CAC, then this must be an MS-67.
This was the usual Pawnstars entertainment program with a much larger than normal item offered "for sale."
On order to avoid possible confusion, the Farouk/Elite example is graded 65 CAC, not 66 CAC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.