I guess I don't tune into this chatboard enough. The complete Lincoln collection including the 1963 PR70DCAM belonged to our client. He did very, very well.
I was as surprised as everyone at the final hammer on the 1963.
I was most interested in the 1954, 1955, and 1956, all in PR68DCAM, which I had sold the individual a few years earlier for about a small fraction of the final prices realized.
Will EVERYONEplease e-mail John Troy and tell him to send his $39,000 Proof ? Cameo Lincoln cent to David Hall at PCGS guaranteed resubmission.Also ask him to keep the board members posted as to the results
Will everyone who e-mails John Troy please post on this thread until the coin is with the Hep Daddy
Sad to say, but he'd be an idiot to do it now. Let's face facts, he's blown $37k. That's a sunk cost. Right now, the fame (notoriety ?) of the holder is probably worth $2000 or so. That, along with the $100 that the coin is worth brings the combined value up to a whopping $2100!
Since PCGS won't refund the $37k that was "stupid money" but rather the true market value of $1,500 or so, he's better off cracking the holder, putting the insert in a frame on his wall and spending the cent!
But for heaven's sake, don't ever do a showdown with that cent in the set! The one coin taints the entire set.
Nobody has brought up the ethics of the former owner in this transaction. To me this is coin collecting at it's worse. The previous owner should have sent it in to PCGS rather than try to make a killing on an overgraded coin. The auction company had to know it was overgraded but did not mention it. The buyer if he wasn't blind had to know he was buying a PCGS cert # and didn't care. D Hall bragged about the price at registry get together, while Rick Tomaska stood out there in the crowd looking like a deer in the headlights.
Add all of this up and it makes me want find another hobby to associate myself with.
IMO, the seller did nothing wrong. He placed it in auction, where the marketplace determines its value. Heritage is another matter. They have expertise in grading coins and act as a conduit between buyer and seller. IMO, they have the obligation to make the buyer aware of any drawbacks to the coin.
The guy bought the plastic and that is all he bought, he just wanted that little number to add to his set, on another note does ngc have any graded this is just another example that all the number one sets listed at pgcs are not really the best out there Tim
LOOKING FOR 1931-s merc that is nice for the grade and fb
One think that everyone seems to be forgetting is that there must have been an underbidder for it. Personally, I'd offer it to the underbidder and reduce my loses and my reputation.
1. The Lincoln cent collection in the auction had some exceptional pieces, many of which I was very interested in, that I had placed a few years earlier. It was overall one of the 2 or 3 finest 1950 and later proof Lincoln sets in existence.
2. While I wish the client would have approached me when he wanted to sell, he did far better placing them in auction.
3. He paid for the coins. They belonged to him. He needs to do what he feels is in his best interest. I must respect that line.
4. If someone called me to ask my opinion on a particular coin in the set, I would give them my opinion.
5. I ALWAYS make a point stressing the importance of education, and offering my services if they are requested.
6. Was $39,000 too much for the 1963? Only the new owner can answer that question. I'm in the process of putting a Koi pond in my back yard. I've always wanted one. It represents a sizable outlay of cash. But it is a hobby that gives me great pleasure.
7. If having that coin has the effect of significantly raising the level of his set in the Registry, the new owner may be factoring in the additional value accrued to many of the other coins in his set.
Nobody has brought up the ethics of the former owner in this transaction. To me this is coin collecting at it's worse. The previous owner should have sent it in to PCGS rather than try to make a killing on an overgraded coin.
There are a couple of problems with sending in a coin for grade review.
The grading company has a financial incentive to regrade the coin at the same grade. Are they going to cut you a check or hold one of those "round table meetings" to try and get out of paying you?
If they grade the coin differently, you have to come to an understanding of what the value of the grade difference is. Do you think that if the owner of the cent had sent it to David Hall and asked for $37,500 for that 1-point grade difference he would have gotten it? David Hall would still be laughing today if asked for that much money a few months ago.
And as always, I feel that if the grading companies don't care that they undergraded coins that I submit and have to resubmit multiple times in order to get the correct grade, then why should I help them out by taking grossly overgraded coins off the market. It's not my job. That may sound mean, but until the grading services step up and make an effort to grade properly I'm not going to be doing PR work for them.
The buyer if he wasn't blind had to know he was buying a PCGS cert # and didn't care.
Why would he care. It helped him move into the #1 position. I have a guess as to who was the underbidder. Probably the person who owned the now #2 set.
This sale doesn't say anything ugly about coin collecting. It just says a lot about the buyer, and the Registry, and how fools and their money go separate ways...Buyer Beware, right? Maybe $37,000 is chump change to this guy. I don't know him. Maybe he just got done buying a 1933 Saint, so this is just the change he got back from that transaction...who knows?! Maybe he makes 20 grand a year, and has been saving for this coin for like 150 years...who knows?! The bottom line...buy what you want, let other people spend their money how they want. I am sure he thinks it was a good deal. I don't know what color the sky is in his world, but he is entitled to his own line of logic.
"Was $39,000 too much for the 1963? Only the new owner can answer that question"
Come on guys - let's face it- It is not uncommon for specialized dealers to remark that a coin was a "good bargain" at a certain level, or sold at a "fair price". It is much more uncommon for a specialzed dealer to remark that a price was stupid or rediculous, especially where that dealer has an ongoing relationship with the buyer of the particular item or has done business with him/her (I have no idea if Rick has sold the new owner of the $39k coin other coins - my comment is general in nature).
I can tell you that personally I have witnessed the 1963 Lincoln cent sale story being used as a line of comparision to sell nearly any kind of coin in the marketplace. IMHO, MS Lincolns are rising a bit in price, in part, because of that coin (any Lincoln collectors also see this?), ultra rare pattern coins are being marketed for $30k or $35k (or whatever) with the reference to the fact they are cheaper than a 1963 Lincoln cent with spots on it, etc., etc., etc. Dealers who have virtually never even sold a "modern" coin are armed with the 1963 Lincoln cent saga as "evidence" to the fact that whatever it is they are selling is well worth the price. And, the story has grown - the other night I heard the story told with a new sales price of "$78,000" for that Lincoln cent (and I did not even interject, because even half that price still would have proven the point the dealer was trying to convey by raising the 1963 Lincoln story IMHO)
So, the way I see it, most everyone really wants Rick to say publicly that the $39,000 paid for the 1963 Lincoln ranks among the most absurb prices he has ever witnessed in his 20+ year career selling cameo coins. Well, IMHO, my bet is he will not do that out of courtesy for the purchaser Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Mitch, that certainly wasn't the point of my post. What Rick thinks the coin is worth is irrelevant. Nothing personal was meant by that comment. I have purchased coins from Rick and spoken with him on the phone and his coins have been what he sold them to me as.
The process is what disturbs me, which I laid out already.
<< <i>most everyone really wants Rick to say publicly that the $39,000 paid for the 1963 Lincoln ranks among the most absurb prices he has ever witnessed in his 20+ year career selling cameo coins. Well, IMHO, my bet is he will not do that out of courtesy for the purchaser >>
Actually, he already did:
<< <i>There is a point where the premium can get ridiculous! The example of the 1963 Lincoln cent in PCGS PR 70 Deep Cameo is the perfect example >>
I need to add this to my comment about the "ridiculous" price comment in my newsletter for the 1963, in an attempt to keep this in context -
I have made a lifetime habit of paying crazy, some would say ridiculous, prices for certain coins. But so what?!
The point is - I WANTED THE *!?!&*! COIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If a guy has the bucks, and it satisfies a need and makes him happy..........
And..............
What may seem crazy in the present context often turns out differently with the passage of time. There are many other factors to consider regarding this 1963 Lincoln, several of which I suggested in a previous thread.
I would also guess the new owner also has a lot of confidence in the PCGS guarantee behind the coin, if he has a question about the grade.
I would also guess the new owner also has a lot of confidence in the PCGS guarantee behind the coin, if he has a question about the grade.
Perhaps unfounded confidence. David Hall has made it perfectly clear that PCGS will NOT pay for irrational auction exuberance. This would have to be a classic case of such.
Who defines what is "rational" auction exhuberance and "irrational"? Isn't it the purpose of an auction to get bidders into the "competitive spirit", and drive those prices up as much as possible?
The answer to the 39,100 question should be taken at heart, that is if anyone can say they know the type of person this buyer is. He may, very well enjoy sharing his wealth and loves the hobby. This may be the case, if so, my hat's off to this collector.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Comments
I guess I don't tune into this chatboard enough. The complete Lincoln collection including the 1963 PR70DCAM belonged to our client. He did very, very well.
I was as surprised as everyone at the final hammer on the 1963.
I was most interested in the 1954, 1955, and 1956, all in PR68DCAM, which I had sold the individual a few years earlier for about a small fraction of the final prices realized.
Rick
And what do you think the 1964 pr 70 D Cam is worth ?
And the 1998 Proof 70 deep cameo is worth ?
100 K..........done deal ?
Yeah. Sure. Uh. Well. Ummm.
Actually, for the same money I'd rather have that proof Flying Eagle you bought at F.U.N. 'Nuf said?
Hey Guys,
Will EVERYONEplease e-mail John Troy and tell him to send his $39,000 Proof ? Cameo Lincoln cent to David Hall at PCGS guaranteed resubmission.Also ask him to keep the board members posted as to the results
Will everyone who e-mails John Troy please post on this thread until the coin is with the Hep Daddy
Stewart
poolplayer@hotshot.com
Since PCGS won't refund the $37k that was "stupid money" but rather the true market value of $1,500 or so, he's better off cracking the holder, putting the insert in a frame on his wall and spending the cent!
But for heaven's sake, don't ever do a showdown with that cent in the set! The one coin taints the entire set.
Add all of this up and it makes me want find another hobby to associate myself with.
number to add to his set, on another note does ngc have any graded
this is just another example that all the number one sets listed at pgcs are not
really the best out there
Tim
Tom
"Deer in the headlights"?
1. The Lincoln cent collection in the auction had some exceptional pieces, many of which I was very interested in, that I had placed a few years earlier. It was overall one of the 2 or 3 finest 1950 and later proof Lincoln sets in existence.
2. While I wish the client would have approached me when he wanted to sell, he did far better placing them in auction.
3. He paid for the coins. They belonged to him. He needs to do what he feels is in his best interest. I must respect that line.
4. If someone called me to ask my opinion on a particular coin in the set, I would give them my opinion.
5. I ALWAYS make a point stressing the importance of education, and offering my services if they are requested.
6. Was $39,000 too much for the 1963? Only the new owner can answer that question. I'm in the process of putting a Koi pond in my back yard. I've always wanted one. It represents a sizable outlay of cash. But it is a hobby that gives me great pleasure.
7. If having that coin has the effect of significantly raising the level of his set in the Registry, the new owner may be factoring in the additional value accrued to many of the other coins in his set.
You make great points which I am in total agreement with.
There are a couple of problems with sending in a coin for grade review.
The grading company has a financial incentive to regrade the coin at the same grade. Are they going to cut you a check or hold one of those "round table meetings" to try and get out of paying you?
If they grade the coin differently, you have to come to an understanding of what the value of the grade difference is. Do you think that if the owner of the cent had sent it to David Hall and asked for $37,500 for that 1-point grade difference he would have gotten it? David Hall would still be laughing today if asked for that much money a few months ago.
And as always, I feel that if the grading companies don't care that they undergraded coins that I submit and have to resubmit multiple times in order to get the correct grade, then why should I help them out by taking grossly overgraded coins off the market. It's not my job. That may sound mean, but until the grading services step up and make an effort to grade properly I'm not going to be doing PR work for them.
The buyer if he wasn't blind had to know he was buying a PCGS cert # and didn't care.
Why would he care. It helped him move into the #1 position. I have a guess as to who was the underbidder. Probably the person who owned the now #2 set.
Come on guys - let's face it- It is not uncommon for specialized dealers to remark that a coin was a "good bargain" at a certain level, or sold at a "fair price". It is much more uncommon for a specialzed dealer to remark that a price was stupid or rediculous, especially where that dealer has an ongoing relationship with the buyer of the particular item or has done business with him/her (I have no idea if Rick has sold the new owner of the $39k coin other coins - my comment is general in nature).
I can tell you that personally I have witnessed the 1963 Lincoln cent sale story being used as a line of comparision to sell nearly any kind of coin in the marketplace. IMHO, MS Lincolns are rising a bit in price, in part, because of that coin (any Lincoln collectors also see this?), ultra rare pattern coins are being marketed for $30k or $35k (or whatever) with the reference to the fact they are cheaper than a 1963 Lincoln cent with spots on it, etc., etc., etc. Dealers who have virtually never even sold a "modern" coin are armed with the 1963 Lincoln cent saga as "evidence" to the fact that whatever it is they are selling is well worth the price. And, the story has grown - the other night I heard the story told with a new sales price of "$78,000" for that Lincoln cent (and I did not even interject, because even half that price still would have proven the point the dealer was trying to convey by raising the 1963 Lincoln story IMHO)
So, the way I see it, most everyone really wants Rick to say publicly that the $39,000 paid for the 1963 Lincoln ranks among the most absurb prices he has ever witnessed in his 20+ year career selling cameo coins. Well, IMHO, my bet is he will not do that out of courtesy for the purchaser
The process is what disturbs me, which I laid out already.
<< <i>most everyone really wants Rick to say publicly that the $39,000 paid for the 1963 Lincoln ranks among the most absurb prices he has ever witnessed in his 20+ year career selling cameo coins. Well, IMHO, my bet is he will not do that out of courtesy for the purchaser >>
Actually, he already did:
<< <i>There is a point where the premium can get ridiculous! The example of the 1963 Lincoln cent in PCGS PR 70 Deep Cameo is the perfect example >>
Linked.
Russ, NCNE
I need to add this to my comment about the "ridiculous" price comment in my newsletter for the 1963, in an attempt to keep this in context -
I have made a lifetime habit of paying crazy, some would say ridiculous, prices for certain coins. But so what?!
The point is - I WANTED THE *!?!&*! COIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If a guy has the bucks, and it satisfies a need and makes him happy..........
And..............
What may seem crazy in the present context often turns out differently with the passage of time. There are many other factors to consider regarding this 1963 Lincoln, several of which I suggested in a previous thread.
I would also guess the new owner also has a lot of confidence in the PCGS guarantee behind the coin, if he has a question about the grade.
Perhaps unfounded confidence. David Hall has made it perfectly clear that PCGS will NOT pay for irrational auction exuberance. This would have to be a classic case of such.
Who defines what is "rational" auction exhuberance and "irrational"? Isn't it the purpose of an auction to get bidders into the "competitive spirit", and drive those prices up as much as possible?
Just food for thought!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Rick: I believe that in the case of the grade guarantee, PCGS does.
Thus the comment regarding "perhaps unfounded confidence".