The key is what would the best buyer pay for a real 63 Lincoln in 70 DCAM. That value minus the value of the coin at hand raw is the value of the plastic. Even if the coin were only worth $100, doesn't mean the current auction bid price is too high. It would only be too high if the price is exceeding what a legit 70 should go for. What is that value in you opinion?
It would only be too high if the price is exceeding what a legit 70 should go for. What is that value in you opinion?
No opinion. I refuse to tread where coins with dozens upon dozens of underpops sell for 200 times the price of those underpops. IMO, that's not a valid or stable pricing model.
BUT.... since you suggest factoring in the grade guaranty into the price of the plastic, shouldn't you also factor in the risk of more 70's being made and driving the value down? Or the risk of a really nice $200 PF69DCAM being upgraded and handed back in lieu of $40k? Or of PCGS declaring the value to be an example of irrational auction fever and thus not completely covered by the guaranty? Or them taking the legal tact that since a 70 is perfect under magnification [which this coin is not] that all knowledgable buyers after the coin turned aren't due anything because it's blatantly obvious that the coin is not a 70?
Wow! Taking all that risk into account on the price realized of this one, a real 70 must be worth a 'pretty penny'!
Could more 70s be made driving down the value of a current pop 1? Yes, that is a valid risk, but not unique to the risk of this coin. The risk we are addressing is if the coin is not a true 70, will the buyer lose because it is not a true 70?
What if PCGS makes a nice 69 into a 70 and hands that back instead of 40K? That is not really a risk. As long as the substitute is a true 70 (perfect under 5x with deep cameo), then the buyer should be satisfied. Better coin, same plastic. Of course that might suggest more 70s exist, but as discussed in one, not specific to this case.
What if PCGS says the auction results are irrational auction fever and refuses to pay? That is a risk, but is a risk of PCGS default, and thus similar for all coins. The auction results are the only recent pricing data available. How could PCGS prove a lower price. Also, the price of similar pop one material could be cited in support of the high number. Finally looking at DHRC website could be used to show a high value for pop 1 material. PCGS might not pay anyway. The risk of default must be priced into the amount paid for the plastic guarantee. But, again not unique to this coin.
Can PCGS say the coin was clearly not a 70 when purchased and thus refuse to pay. They could, but that would be a default. PCGS clearly guarantees copper from turning. If there are imperfections the guarantee covers. The guarantee protects buyers who are not experts from grading mistakes. This coin would be covered. I don't think there would be a question about it.
Now what is a real 70 worth in plastic? That remains the question. In my opinion, nothing like 40K. My top bid for the coin was 15K, and that was blown away several weeks ago. I think a few more might be made, and even if not, the popularity of low pop proof Lincoln collecting could easily wane from here. I would think a true 70 could be bought much cheaper a few years from now. But, that is my opinion only. The value for a low pop will always be determined by the strongest buyer, and not by the average buyer.
IMHO the bidding so far on the 1963DCAM PR70 at Heritage confirms that currently a pop 1 Lincoln cent graded perfect for the year 1963 IS worth over $40,000! I really hope that the buyer of this one works with PCGS to get the holder OFF the market. This coin obviously is NOT worth $100 in the condition it is. Comparing this proof cent to the true rarities (1909VDB & 1990 no S) is a joke. Steve
I'm curious, couldn't PCGS go ahead and put an end to this? Let's assume the coin isn't a PR70. With all the attention I'm sure PCGS has looked at it and made a decission. If that's the case, why allow the coin to gain value, making it more expensive to buy it back under their guarentee?
If they don't get their hands on it this time, it may be a $75,000 coin next year. Do you think PCGS will be a bidder to cut their losses?
Yes, they do. But that's for a coin that is the grade assigned when you bought it and then it turns. Not for a coin that turned already and then you buy it. I suspect that there is a legal difference there when a knowledgable buyer is involved. Just like the case quoted on the other forum - the auction house 'lost' but there were no damages awarded because the buyer should have known that $40k coins don't sell for $3500. In this instance, the coin is assigned a grade of PF70 but a person with any coin knowledge whatsoever can immediately see at first glance that the coin is not a PF70. And yet the person decides to buy it anyway....because of the insert.....then how is the person harmed in any way if the coin remains as is? If I were a judge I'd rule that he wasn't harmed in any way and thus due no money. The only person that could have collected on the PCGS insurance was the original collector - yet he wasn't harmed because he sold it at a huge profit to Troy.
Perhaps one of our fine attorney members could jump in and give their opinion.....
I don't think you are right. The guarantee applies regardless of when you buy the piece. Though that would be a good Q&A question for DH. I also don't think you are correct, about the expertise of the buyer. Very few have the ability to distinguish a proof 70 from a lessor grade (I sure don't). It is reasonable to assume that anyone could collect on the guarantee. The only issue might be fraud. Say A owns the coin at $40,000, and puts it up for auction. A enters into a side deal with B and C to bid the coin up to an artificially high price (well above what the next best bidder would pay), say $75,000. Then the winner, say C, submits it to PCGS to try and collect 75K. The 35K profit is then split between A and C. I am sure that in a case like that, PCGS would not pay nor would they have to pay. But, baring fraud, it would seem the guarantee should apply. It would be interesting to hear from a lawyer.
Very few have the ability to distinguish a proof 70 from a lessor grade
Typetone: You are confusing the level of expertise to consistently distinguish between a PF69 and a PF70 with the level of expertise needed to definitively declare a coin with visual flaws is not a PF70.
Those are two entirely different sets of circumstances and certainly require two different levels of knowledge.
But you know what? I've decided I don't much care anymore. Stewart and I were wonding why this coin bothered us so much and I decided that for me it was because it was symbolic of runaway Registry madness and was costing me money and/or opportunities. The submittors who get their coins upgraded, such as the 'professional' that made the 1877 Trade Dollar in MS65, point at this very coin as justification for their outrageous pricing on other pop 1 coins. Well, they can continue to ask for the moon and I will continue to say no. Mr Troy and the new buyer can be proud in their choice of coins and I won't let it bother me anymore. If it costs PCGS money, well....I guess that's the cost of catering to the new crowd of collectors where microscopic differences and insert grades mean much more than eye appeal and pride in ownership.
People buy number 1 spots in everything, why not coins? You can pretty much make a duplicate set of John Troy's Lincolns, except for this pop 1 coin/insert. If you own this coin/insert, you can work your way to the top spot. The one thing about "registry madness" is that it can correct itself. The same thing is going on with the 1959 PR69DC which is already at $18k plus the juice -- an equally disturbing figure for the coin.
Here are two ways it can correct itself:
1. PCGS buy back this coin and never make another 1963 PR70DC, taking a $50k hit.
2. PCGS decides that this coin is the new PR70DC "standard" for 1963, and makes three or four more over the next couple of years. This would seriously devalue this particular coin to where I think even $5k would be the upper limit of bidding, and yes that is still just for the insert.
Great points. You have been in the coin market a lot longer than I have. In your experience, did things get this out of hand in the last couple of coin market bull runs? BTW, is that 1877 Trade Dollar nicer than yours? If not, then who cares? Everybody knows you have the world's premier collection anyway.
The thing about registry madness is that it seems to apply mostly to the top pop/low pop coins. It might be that there are still many wonderful value areas at the one undergrade level. Even the 63 proof Lincoln might be a nice value in 69DCAM.
Greg: I never saw the 1877, so I cannot say with any certainty. Legend viewed it for me and I asked two questions: How much? And when I was told how much, I asked: Is it God's gift to 1877's? They said no, so I said no. The coin was worth $20k but I would have paid $25k to acquire it and that is what was relayed. Later, the dealer sold it for less than my offer to someone else, probably to make a point....'shut up, pay the price or don't get the coin'. Well, I'll never do business with that individual again.....too bad for him considering I'd backed Legend purchases from him in the amount of $1.5M over the past couple of years!
Greg, my 1963 in PR69DC is looking better all the time!!! I put together a solid set of proof Roosevelt dimes with every PR70DC available. For that series the 1975 PR70DC is the pop 1/0 stopper (at least for now). It is the 1963 Lincoln of that series, but I bought it at about 1/20th of the price of the 1963. When I decided to bring my wheat proofs on through the memorials, I didn't pick up one single PR70DC because the prices are super outrageous to me.
<< <i>The same thing is going on with the 1959 PR69DC which is already at $18k plus the juice >>
There's also a '71-S in 69DCAM that's at $13,000.00 plus the juice. Earlier holder that wouldn't have a prayer of going DCAM if it were cracked out and submitted today.
Doug - You have to realize that John Troy bought his 1959 69 D Cameo and his 1971 s Proof 69 D Cameo from Carl Selby for enough money to cause Mr. Selby to break up his set.Mr. Troy is only one of many new Lincoln cent collectors with enormous balls as well as the money to back it up.This 18k figure could be his reserve as well as the 15K for the 71 s. As Bruce told you this is the reason I can not and will not collect certain Lincoln cents in certain grades. And I will not get into talking about "Gerry" and the new prices of Lincolns.Oh I forgot to mention about Gerry's pop 1 1964 in Proof 70 D Cameo.And from Shylocks photo his 1964 looks at least 3 points better than this 1963.
As Bruce told you this is the reason I can not and will not collect certain Lincoln cents in certain grades.
We all already know that both of you collect COINS and not inserts. However, you would like for your inserts to match the quality of your coins, which doesn't always happen. When you see an inferior coin graded higher, it really irritates both of you because you have been seeking out the best coins for years and years. I totally understand and have to agree.
For the 1959, I have a PR69CAM (not DC), which I think is really a DC. I bought it for pennies compared to this one at auction. I may still try to pick up the undergrade at the auction which is a PR68DC and still at $356.50 (which includes the BP!)
There has been a lot of discussion about PCGS and its grade guarantee but no discussion about Heritage's auction description. Please see my post made on Dec 23rd. cheers, alan mendelson
We can yell and scream all we want, but this coin is now 51K bid without the juice. It is the key certified proof coin in the entire Lincoln series, according to the market. Am I wrong? Which certified Lincoln proof is worth more? And please no pontificating about how stupid the bidders are buying an overgraded coin. Just show me another certified Lincoln proof which would bring higher money. Stewart, anything in your collection?
Until recently there was no reason to not bid this much. The image looked great and the decription said it was flawless. Now they have added the close up images showing many flaws. Did the bidders even know what the coin looked like? Not everyone reads these boards and many would not have a clue to the history of this coin.
As for your question about the value. There is no doubt that if there was a true PR70DCAM 1963 it would be "worth" this much, unless PCGS happened to grade more than a few of them.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
The bids taking the coin up to its current level just came in, after the images were available. In any event, do you believe there are other proof Lincolns of any date or grade that would bring over 50K in auction right now.
<< <i>Until recently there was no reason to not bid this much. The image looked great and the decription said it was flawless. Now they have added the close up images showing many flaws. Did the bidders even know what the coin looked like? >>
The new images were added nine days ago when the coin was bid at half what it is now.
No comment on this particular coin, but I do have a comment in general. Just because one or two bidders believe a coin to be a certain value does not grant the coin in question the title of "the key coin" for the series. I believe that a key coin must have deep and sustained demand to earn that title....
This is amazing to me! The '33 Double Eagle didn't get this much attention as the '63 Lincoln has on these forums.
Obviously a couple of individuals believe there is still value in the '63 Lincoln. Whether they're collecors remains to be seen. What remains to be seen too is what happens when it becomes available again.
My opinion of a "key" Lincoln Proof cent would be a coin which has been recognized "through the years" as a coin with low quantities not only minted, but remaining. A proof coin with maybe 1000 to 2000 examples. Certainly my choices as the rarest of the Lincoln proofs would be the 1909VDB and the 1990 no S, both with under 200 examples available. I personally don't consider pop 1 examples in PCGS holders of certain high grades of certain years as a good basis to determine a "key" Lincoln cent. We all know there is likehood that other "perfect" 1963 Lincoln proofs will come on the market in the future. Price and value do not make a "key" coin to me. History and TRUE rarity do. JMHO. Steve
Forgetting this coin for a minute. Are there other extant Lincoln proofs which could command 50K in auction today? For example, what's the best 1909 VDB matte proof in existance. What would it sell for?
The best 1909 VDB Matte Proof has nothing to do with this. This (the 1963) coin is not of superb quality, but has a holder with a big number on it. If PCGS took an earlier date and slapped it in a PR70 holder, it may very well be worth much more. This has nothing to do with the coin in question, just the insert.
What if PCGS took 5 superb 1963 PR69DCAMs and reholdered them as PR70DCAM's. What would the spotted coin now worth over 50k be worth then?
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Still a lot. Probably 15K to 20K. This coin now is famous, and identifiable. Who says a spot makes a coins less valuable. Infamy creates value as well. The other four would probably be worth less. But, back to the question. Are there other 50K Lincoln proofs out there.
I think I would agree. If you are correct about the undergrade price for an 09 VDB, then a 67RD would probably go for 100K+. So, the better of the two pieces would probably be the king of proof Lincolns. The 64 in 70DCAM would probably be the king of the proof memorials. Guess that make the 63 a jack!!
If it takes "two to tango", how did it go to 51k with only one extra bidder. They would have to be bidding against someone. This is one interesting auction.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
If it was shill bidding, or even somebody just screwing around, the coin has still met the reserve if said reserve is $35K. It got bid to $51K and only one bidder dropped out. That means that there is a bidder who exceeded the reserve by a wide margin with his proxy, and would now be at the reserve.
I know there has been a lot of criticism of the coin, but would a copper expert (not me, I don't touch copper) please comment on what pcgs grading standards say about carbon spots and their impact on the grade?? if we had spots on proof washingtons we might describe them as toning. cheers, alan mendelson
Your comment several posts ago about Heritage's description of the coin is thought provoking. Heritage's assertion that "there are no handling marks or other flaws of any significance to be found" is insane. Helen Keller or Ray Charles could have written a more accurate description. I know that all auction houses tend to puff the coins they are auctioning, but Heritage went the extra mile for the consigner in their description of this coin. That said, I don't blame Heritage--I think many auction houses would have written a similar statement.
Comments
Greg
No opinion. I refuse to tread where coins with dozens upon dozens of underpops sell for 200 times the price of those underpops. IMO, that's not a valid or stable pricing model.
BUT.... since you suggest factoring in the grade guaranty into the price of the plastic, shouldn't you also factor in the risk of more 70's being made and driving the value down? Or the risk of a really nice $200 PF69DCAM being upgraded and handed back in lieu of $40k? Or of PCGS declaring the value to be an example of irrational auction fever and thus not completely covered by the guaranty? Or them taking the legal tact that since a 70 is perfect under magnification [which this coin is not] that all knowledgable buyers after the coin turned aren't due anything because it's blatantly obvious that the coin is not a 70?
Wow! Taking all that risk into account on the price realized of this one, a real 70 must be worth a 'pretty penny'!
Let's consider your risks one at a time.
Could more 70s be made driving down the value of a current pop 1? Yes, that is a valid risk, but not unique to the risk of this coin. The risk we are addressing is if the coin is not a true 70, will the buyer lose because it is not a true 70?
What if PCGS makes a nice 69 into a 70 and hands that back instead of 40K? That is not really a risk. As long as the substitute is a true 70 (perfect under 5x with deep cameo), then the buyer should be satisfied. Better coin, same plastic. Of course that might suggest more 70s exist, but as discussed in one, not specific to this case.
What if PCGS says the auction results are irrational auction fever and refuses to pay? That is a risk, but is a risk of PCGS default, and thus similar for all coins. The auction results are the only recent pricing data available. How could PCGS prove a lower price. Also, the price of similar pop one material could be cited in support of the high number. Finally looking at DHRC website could be used to show a high value for pop 1 material. PCGS might not pay anyway. The risk of default must be priced into the amount paid for the plastic guarantee. But, again not unique to this coin.
Can PCGS say the coin was clearly not a 70 when purchased and thus refuse to pay. They could, but that would be a default. PCGS clearly guarantees copper from turning. If there are imperfections the guarantee covers. The guarantee protects buyers who are not experts from grading mistakes. This coin would be covered. I don't think there would be a question about it.
Now what is a real 70 worth in plastic? That remains the question. In my opinion, nothing like 40K. My top bid for the coin was 15K, and that was blown away several weeks ago. I think a few more might be made, and even if not, the popularity of low pop proof Lincoln collecting could easily wane from here. I would think a true 70 could be bought much cheaper a few years from now. But, that is my opinion only. The value for a low pop will always be determined by the strongest buyer, and not by the average buyer.
Greg
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
$47,000 and climbing...........
Stewart
If they don't get their hands on it this time, it may be a $75,000 coin next year. Do you think PCGS will be a bidder to cut their losses?
Yes, they do. But that's for a coin that is the grade assigned when you bought it and then it turns. Not for a coin that turned already and then you buy it. I suspect that there is a legal difference there when a knowledgable buyer is involved. Just like the case quoted on the other forum - the auction house 'lost' but there were no damages awarded because the buyer should have known that $40k coins don't sell for $3500. In this instance, the coin is assigned a grade of PF70 but a person with any coin knowledge whatsoever can immediately see at first glance that the coin is not a PF70. And yet the person decides to buy it anyway....because of the insert.....then how is the person harmed in any way if the coin remains as is? If I were a judge I'd rule that he wasn't harmed in any way and thus due no money. The only person that could have collected on the PCGS insurance was the original collector - yet he wasn't harmed because he sold it at a huge profit to Troy.
Perhaps one of our fine attorney members could jump in and give their opinion.....
10% profit so far. Conclusive evidence that the modern bashers are wrong!
Russ, NCNE
I don't think you are right. The guarantee applies regardless of when you buy the piece. Though that would be a good Q&A question for DH. I also don't think you are correct, about the expertise of the buyer. Very few have the ability to distinguish a proof 70 from a lessor grade (I sure don't). It is reasonable to assume that anyone could collect on the guarantee. The only issue might be fraud. Say A owns the coin at $40,000, and puts it up for auction. A enters into a side deal with B and C to bid the coin up to an artificially high price (well above what the next best bidder would pay), say $75,000. Then the winner, say C, submits it to PCGS to try and collect 75K. The 35K profit is then split between A and C. I am sure that in a case like that, PCGS would not pay nor would they have to pay. But, baring fraud, it would seem the guarantee should apply. It would be interesting to hear from a lawyer.
Greg
Typetone: You are confusing the level of expertise to consistently distinguish between a PF69 and a PF70 with the level of expertise needed to definitively declare a coin with visual flaws is not a PF70.
Those are two entirely different sets of circumstances and certainly require two different levels of knowledge.
But you know what? I've decided I don't much care anymore. Stewart and I were wonding why this coin bothered us so much and I decided that for me it was because it was symbolic of runaway Registry madness and was costing me money and/or opportunities. The submittors who get their coins upgraded, such as the 'professional' that made the 1877 Trade Dollar in MS65, point at this very coin as justification for their outrageous pricing on other pop 1 coins. Well, they can continue to ask for the moon and I will continue to say no. Mr Troy and the new buyer can be proud in their choice of coins and I won't let it bother me anymore. If it costs PCGS money, well....I guess that's the cost of catering to the new crowd of collectors where microscopic differences and insert grades mean much more than eye appeal and pride in ownership.
So be it........
Here are two ways it can correct itself:
1. PCGS buy back this coin and never make another 1963 PR70DC, taking a $50k hit.
2. PCGS decides that this coin is the new PR70DC "standard" for 1963, and makes three or four more over the next couple of years. This would seriously devalue this particular coin to where I think even $5k would be the upper limit of bidding, and yes that is still just for the insert.
Great points. You have been in the coin market a lot longer than I have. In your experience, did things get this out of hand in the last couple of coin market bull runs? BTW, is that 1877 Trade Dollar nicer than yours? If not, then who cares? Everybody knows you have the world's premier collection anyway.
Greg
The thing about registry madness is that it seems to apply mostly to the top pop/low pop coins. It might be that there are still many wonderful value areas at the one undergrade level. Even the 63 proof Lincoln might be a nice value in 69DCAM.
Greg
Greg, my 1963 in PR69DC is looking better all the time!!! I put together a solid set of proof Roosevelt dimes with every PR70DC available. For that series the 1975 PR70DC is the pop 1/0 stopper (at least for now). It is the 1963 Lincoln of that series, but I bought it at about 1/20th of the price of the 1963. When I decided to bring my wheat proofs on through the memorials, I didn't pick up one single PR70DC because the prices are super outrageous to me.
<< <i>The same thing is going on with the 1959 PR69DC which is already at $18k plus the juice >>
There's also a '71-S in 69DCAM that's at $13,000.00 plus the juice. Earlier holder that wouldn't have a prayer of going DCAM if it were cracked out and submitted today.
Russ, NCNE
Doug - You have to realize that John Troy bought his 1959 69 D Cameo and his 1971 s Proof 69 D Cameo from Carl Selby for enough money to cause Mr. Selby to break up his set.Mr. Troy is only one of many new Lincoln cent collectors with enormous balls as well as the money to back it up.This 18k figure could be his reserve as well as the 15K for the 71 s.
As Bruce told you this is the reason I can not and will not collect certain Lincoln cents in certain grades.
And I will not get into talking about "Gerry" and the new prices of Lincolns.Oh I forgot to mention about Gerry's pop 1 1964 in Proof 70 D Cameo.And from Shylocks photo his 1964 looks at least 3 points better than this 1963.
Stewart
We all already know that both of you collect COINS and not inserts. However, you would like for your inserts to match the quality of your coins, which doesn't always happen. When you see an inferior coin graded higher, it really irritates both of you because you have been seeking out the best coins for years and years. I totally understand and have to agree.
For the 1959, I have a PR69CAM (not DC), which I think is really a DC. I bought it for pennies compared to this one at auction. I may still try to pick up the undergrade at the auction which is a PR68DC and still at $356.50 (which includes the BP!)
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
Greg
Until recently there was no reason to not bid this much. The image looked great and the decription said it was flawless. Now they have added the close up images showing many flaws. Did the bidders even know what the coin looked like? Not everyone reads these boards and many would not have a clue to the history of this coin.
As for your question about the value. There is no doubt that if there was a true PR70DCAM 1963 it would be "worth" this much, unless PCGS happened to grade more than a few of them.
The bids taking the coin up to its current level just came in, after the images were available. In any event, do you believe there are other proof Lincolns of any date or grade that would bring over 50K in auction right now.
Greg
<< <i>Until recently there was no reason to not bid this much. The image looked great and the decription said it was flawless. Now they have added the close up images showing many flaws. Did the bidders even know what the coin looked like? >>
The new images were added nine days ago when the coin was bid at half what it is now.
Russ, NCNE
Obviously a couple of individuals believe there is still value in the '63 Lincoln. Whether they're collecors remains to be seen. What remains to be seen too is what happens when it becomes available again.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Forgetting this coin for a minute. Are there other extant Lincoln proofs which could command 50K in auction today? For example, what's the best 1909 VDB matte proof in existance. What would it sell for?
Greg
What if PCGS took 5 superb 1963 PR69DCAMs and reholdered them as PR70DCAM's. What would the spotted coin now worth over 50k be worth then?
Still a lot. Probably 15K to 20K. This coin now is famous, and identifiable. Who says a spot makes a coins less valuable. Infamy creates value as well. The other four would probably be worth less. But, back to the question. Are there other 50K Lincoln proofs out there.
Greg
Greg, there are two PR67red 09VDB's. I can assure you they would not change hands for $50k. The "undergrade" in 66red goes for $30k+.
Russ, NCNE
I think I would agree. If you are correct about the undergrade price for an 09 VDB, then a 67RD would probably go for 100K+. So, the better of the two pieces would probably be the king of proof Lincolns. The 64 in 70DCAM would probably be the king of the proof memorials. Guess that make the 63 a jack!!
Greg
<< <i>Okay, something very strange is going on. The coin just dropped to $35,000.00 - $40,250.00 with the juice. >>
I think one of the bidders must have read some of the threads. Obviously they were bidding sight "unseen".
Isn't the $35K the reserved price? Look like the coin will be "un-sold"
<< <i>Isn't the $35K the reserved price? >>
That's what Stewart claims.
Russ, NCNE
> If it takes "two to tango", how did it go to 51k with only one extra bidder.
Could be "shill bidding?"
<< <i>Could be "shill bidding?" >>
If it was shill bidding, or even somebody just screwing around, the coin has still met the reserve if said reserve is $35K. It got bid to $51K and only one bidder dropped out. That means that there is a bidder who exceeded the reserve by a wide margin with his proxy, and would now be at the reserve.
Met reserve = coin sold.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Didn't Stewart assert the reserve was $38k? >>
I don't think that's what he originally said, but I could be wrong. If it were $38K, though, that's where the coin would be sitting right now.
Russ, NCNE
> if said reserve is $35K. It got bid to $51K and only one bidder dropped out..........
If the other bidder were an insider .....................
indeed, the coin is too famous
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
Your comment several posts ago about Heritage's description of the coin is thought provoking. Heritage's assertion that "there are no handling marks or other flaws of any significance to be found" is insane. Helen Keller or Ray Charles could have written a more accurate description. I know that all auction houses tend to puff the coins they are auctioning, but Heritage went the extra mile for the consigner in their description of this coin. That said, I don't blame Heritage--I think many auction houses would have written a similar statement.
Mark