Legand's 1885 Trade Dollar at Long Beach

relayer · February 5, 2003 8:18PM

Don't miss it.

...but be sure to bother the eBay in the next booth while waiting to view it

(edited to conform with content)

LucyBop · February 5, 2003 8:19PM

Huh?

Legend · February 5, 2003 10:09PM

What they did was "bump" us from the normal spot. I'm not too thrilled about that. Instead of being next to PCGS, we're now about 5 long tables down.

I guess that PCGS did not want a major NGC coin next to their table.

Laura Sperber
lsperber1@hotmail.com
www.legendcoin.com

LucyBop · February 5, 2003 10:11PM

Be 'Bump' A Lula?

relayer · February 6, 2003 4:33AM

It will be a major draw at the show.

It appears there was some political manauvering to get a booth near the high traffic area around the coin.

gmarguli · February 6, 2003 5:06AM

I guess that PCGS did not want a major NGC coin next to their table.

And to think that PCGS could have had this coin in their slab and registry set if they had just graded it using thier normal liberal "super-rarity grading standards".

tradedollarnut · February 6, 2003 5:22AM

I'm not certain that the coin display has been "bumped" - seems to me it's in the normal place.

With regards to the coin, it's a fantastic piece of numismatic history. The finest by far of only 5 examples minted and the capstone to the Legend Collection of United States Trade Dollars. Other than the auction viewing, this is the first public display of the coin in almost 30 years!

With regard to the plastic frame it resides in.... does it really matter?

1885 Trade Dollar

EVillageProwler · February 6, 2003 5:39AM

With regard to the plastic frame it resides in.... does it really matter?

Do you think the Eliasberg specimen, with proper documentation but raw, would bring as much? How about if it were in an ICG or even ACG holder? (No insult intended to ICG for mentioning the two together like this...)

I believe it is the Byron Reed 1804 that is in an ICG slab. So many people poo-poo'ed the coin. People even poo-poo'ed the Childs specimen (PCGS PF68), but it's in a PCGS slab and you-know-who gobbled it up!

EVP

keithdagen · February 6, 2003 5:44AM

Do you think the Eliasberg specimen, with proper documentation but raw, would bring as much?

It would bring more -- remember that outside the holder, it was considered a Cameo by certain experts.

EVillageProwler · February 6, 2003 5:45AM

Right... I forgot about that. But, I said that it has proper documentation.

EVP

tradedollarnut · February 6, 2003 5:49AM

It is a cameo. This is a horrible picture [in real life the coin is quite beautiful] but it shows the cameo aspect of the coin:

EVillageProwler · February 6, 2003 5:51AM

The coin is a real dog, but in my world, a dog is a very nice thing indeed!

EVP

keithdagen · February 6, 2003 6:03AM

Why was the coin a Cameo when Eliasberg owned it but a non-Cam when TDN bought it? Isn't that what PCGS shows on the Set Registry?

tradedollarnut · February 6, 2003 6:08AM

It's listed as a PF65 cameo in the Set Registry (under Eliasberg, of course).

dragon · February 6, 2003 6:15AM

TDN,

Very beautiful coin,,,,,do you think that PCGS would not cross it as a PR66 because of the strike, or something else?

dragon

Legend · February 6, 2003 6:56AM

The something else is POLITICS. They like to hide behind the strike as a reason for NOT crossing it (we have seen plenty of PR66 PCGS coins struck like this). There is no legitimate reason that the 1885 should not be a PCGS PR66. It is a very sore spot for us.

Too bad for PCGS. In our opinion, the coin is still what it is-the FINEST 1885!

We feel very strongly that ANY real classic rarity (1913 5C, 1885 $1, etc) does NOT need to be valued by the plastic its in cased in. These coins stand on their own!

We spoke to the LB people. They say our display has NOT moved. That it will be in the same place as all the other displays have been.

Laura Sperber
lsperber1@hotmail.com
www.legendcoin.com

EVillageProwler · February 6, 2003 7:26AM

I mentioned the Childs 1804 dollar earlier. It is graded PF68 by PCGS. Yet, the coin is not fully struck. In fact, for a proof, it is actually weakly struck. Many of the obverse stars are decidedly soft.

So much for ``3rd party'' grading!

EVP

tradedollarnut · February 6, 2003 7:31AM

Dragon: it's important to note that the 1885 trade dollars were not "officially" prepared and thus the care taken in that preparation was not the utmost. All five specimens are somewhat weakly struck on the stars and head and the mirrors are not as deep as on an official proof. I don't believe the strike is the issue as I've seen even weaker struck PCGS PF67 trade dollars!

As Laura says, the grade of the coin is somewhat irrelevant because it is the finest by multiple grades. I like the fact it's a PF66 because it matches the rest of the set. I am certain that in the end it doesn't matter whether the coin is "ranked" as a 66 or not because it does rank number one!

I do believe that PCGS would love to have it in their holder. However, as I've stated, the entire set is PF66 and therefore that is what it will remain. But,please, do stop by and view the coin - it's quite lovely in person!

DesertLizard · February 6, 2003 7:37AM

What a dusky dark dirty coin. I needs a bath in some MS70.

Baley · February 6, 2003 7:50AM

A truly RARRE, amazing and historic coin, to serious numismatists a coin like this ranks right up there with the more famous rarities, and is at the top of a long continuum of "desirability" premium for coins (the other end probably being your pocket change).

I must say I am impressed, humbled and inspired! If I scroll aaaaaalllllllllll the way down on the trade dollar page I see 1885 (5) far and away the king of that series! this from someone who just proudly upgraded the trade dollar in their dansco type set from a common date, raw 1875-s in dirty but original XF to an 1877-S NGC AU58, (the highest mintage in the series at 9+ Million, glad it's authentic, soon to be cracked out and put in the book) thanks for pics of the KEY.

lincolnSence · February 6, 2003 7:55AM

Laura - you mentioned POLITICS. What are the politics? David Hall has said time and time again that PCGS WANTS ALL the good coins in their holders. Please explain, I must be missing something.

dragon · February 6, 2003 8:12AM

TDN,

Thanks for posting that pic, and again, a very beautiful coin!

Too bad about the PCGS 'politics' as they should consider it a privilege to have a coin like that in one of their holders IMO, and it certainly wouldn't look out of place in a PCGS 66 holder IMO. Also, I agree that it really doesn't matter whos holder, or ANY holder a coin like that is in, or what numeric grade they assign to it, it's a world class rarity and the finest known, case closed.

dragon

Legend · February 6, 2003 8:40AM

The politics is in the higher profile coins, NOT every day stuff. Why? The graders DO know an 1804 $1 or 1885 $1 when its in for grading-and therefore know who owns it.

Lets put it this way, without even seeing it, we've been told not even to resubmit our 1913 5C. Now considering the other has a very influtential and well known owner-it made the grade. Our coin is stuck with a PCGS PR64 designation unless we decide to cross it. Our feelings are that we did NOT buy the 1913 because of the holder and that PCGS is behaving badly. We know its the only other one that will ever be for sale, it is technically the second finest, and it looks like a GEM. Raw, this coin ALWAYS carried its value. Do we need PCGS or NGC to tell us otherwise? NOT! But it IS an insult not to have this coin in an GEM holder (remember, it was last graded in 1993).

Laura Sperber
lsperber1@hotmail.com
www.legendcoin.com

tradedollarnut · February 6, 2003 8:55AM

Dragon: I don't know if "politics" is the right word, but I'm realistic about the whole thing. As EVP stated, the Childs 1804 has a very weak strike. If it were a normal proof coin, it would be a hassle to get the PF66 grade due to the strike. Also, I went to the ANA Midwinter with the Eliasberg 1913 nickel in mind. But I didn't like the coin - I thought 64 was the correct technical grade. However, later on I realized that they were "ranking" the major rarities and that technical grade was secondary to where it ranked. Once I realized that, I was ok with the holders the above coins are in.

Frankly, PCGS is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't cross it, they have a very mad Laura to deal with

and also half the numismatists who think that since they rank the others they should also rank this one, too. If they do cross it, then the other half of the numismatists who feel that the ultra rarities should not be ranked but graded on a strictly technical basis will flip them guff. Of course, in my mind, if they're damned no matter what they do, then they might as well cross it!

But seriously, they do need to make up their mind and be consistent. If they are going to rank the rarities - the Childs 1804, the Eliasberg 1913, the Dexter 1804, the Adams 1804 are examples of holder grade exceeding technical grade but matching their rank - then they need to do so consistently. Being consistent in my mind would mean crossing the Eliasberg - Legend 1885. Its grade is wholly consistent with its rank.

gmarguli · February 6, 2003 11:36AM

Lets put it this way, without even seeing it, we've been told not even to resubmit our 1913 5C. Now considering the other has a very influtential and well known owner-it made the grade. Our coin is stuck with a PCGS PR64 designation unless we decide to cross it. Our feelings are that we did NOT buy the 1913 because of the holder and that PCGS is behaving badly.

Sorry, but if PCGS is screwing you on this coin, then cross it out of a PCGS slab. Call David Hall and tell him that you don't like being screwed with and this is why you crossed it out. Let NGC slab the coin and highlight it on their web site and at shows. It'll look just fine in an NGC slab while hanging from a 30 foot poster above the NGC booth.

Maybe PCGS needs a few more slaps in the face in order to understand that you are the customer.

And as alwayes, this coin isn't allowed in the PCGS Registry Type Set, so.....

Nic · February 6, 2003 11:37AM

Very well put TDN. Who could not agree? DH? K

EVillageProwler · February 6, 2003 11:56AM

For what it's worth, I agree with Greg; get it into an NGC holder.

EVP

Nic · February 6, 2003 11:58AM

The coin IS NGC66 if I'm not wrong? K

EVillageProwler · February 6, 2003 11:59AM

I'm talking about the 1913 V nickel.

Nic · February 6, 2003 12:05PM

My mistake, missed Gregs post

. K

tradedollarnut · February 7, 2003 1:50AM

To me, the 1913 and 1885 are two different issues. The issue with the 1885 is that it's already ranked at a grade that is an appropriate grade for the stature, and quality, of the coin. It's an issue of whether to cross it or not.

The issue of whether the 1913 should be increased a grade by grade review is a totally different animal and one that I don't care to address at this time.

EVillageProwler · February 7, 2003 1:58AM

TDN,

I think you should cross the 1913 5c to NGC out of principle. But, then again, I'm not the one who has to deal with any political consequences...

EVP

keithdagen · February 7, 2003 2:13AM

I might share an opinion eerily similar to EVP's, but I shan't confirm or deny it whilst having a submission sitting at PCGS.

Legand's 1885 Trade Dollar at Long Beach

Comments

Leave a Comment