Is This Unethical?
RKKay
Posts: 3,015 ✭✭✭
I recently posted a thread about an aluminum double eagle listed by Heritage in their upcoming Palm Beach Sale as Lot #7322. Here's the description:
1870 $20 Twenty Dollar, Judd-1039, Pollock-1174, High R.7, PR66 Deep Cameo PCGS. A very small number of 1870 proof sets, from the Cent through the Double Eagle, were struck in aluminum, presumably as an offering to well placed collectors of the day. This rare dies trial piece is struck from regular issue dies in aluminum with a reeded edge. The strike is bold although a hint of softness is noted northeast of the shield. Nearly immaculate, a couple of fully retained laminations of mint origin do not distract. An interesting mint-made diagnostic is a curly raised line near the B in LIBERTY, apparently a sturdy thread was struck into the obverse die and left a raised imprint on those pieces struck thereafter. Once this spectacular specimen has left the auction block, another example of Judd-1039 of similar quality may not surface again for many years. Population: 2 in 66, none finer (9/04).(#61288) (Shipping Description: Coin/Currency)
Boiler78 noticed the same coin (yes this very same coin) recently sold in Heritage's June 2004 Long Beach Sale as Lot #6422. Here's the description:
1870 $20 Twenty Dollar, Judd-1039, Pollock-1174, High R.7, PR64 Cameo PCGS. A possibly unique die trial striking from regular issue 1870 Double Eagle dies, but struck in aluminum with a reeded edge. Examples of aluminum strikings are also known for the other gold denominations of this year, which were likely produced as presentation pieces. Specimens are also known in copper and in nickel. The primary source of these important patterns is the 1954 auction of the King Farouk holdings, also the origin of this aluminum representative. A small flip that accompanies attributes the piece to the Palace Collection, although it is not signed like the 1885 $5 aluminum pattern later in the sale.
This specimen appears to have escaped the harsh treatment received by many of the Farouk coins, its bright, watery mirrors being totally void of hairlines. A squiggly hairline planchet crack that angles down from Liberty's upper lip is nearly expected of early aluminum strikings and a few paper thin grease stains are noticed on the portrait. The only post minting blemish we can find is a shallow frost break on Liberty's neck. Of course, these rather trivial distractions are made even more inconsequential by the uniqueness of this important offering.
Ex: Palace Collection (Sotheby's, 1954), lot 1833. (#61288)
Is it unethical to have an entirely different description that makes it more difficult to find the coin's provenance? Is it unethical to have a "Previous Prices Realized for the Grade" with no entry, though this is the same coin they sold six months ago. Is it unethical not to refer the bidder to the coin's previous sale, as they usually do? Or, is it caveat emptor?
1870 $20 Twenty Dollar, Judd-1039, Pollock-1174, High R.7, PR66 Deep Cameo PCGS. A very small number of 1870 proof sets, from the Cent through the Double Eagle, were struck in aluminum, presumably as an offering to well placed collectors of the day. This rare dies trial piece is struck from regular issue dies in aluminum with a reeded edge. The strike is bold although a hint of softness is noted northeast of the shield. Nearly immaculate, a couple of fully retained laminations of mint origin do not distract. An interesting mint-made diagnostic is a curly raised line near the B in LIBERTY, apparently a sturdy thread was struck into the obverse die and left a raised imprint on those pieces struck thereafter. Once this spectacular specimen has left the auction block, another example of Judd-1039 of similar quality may not surface again for many years. Population: 2 in 66, none finer (9/04).(#61288) (Shipping Description: Coin/Currency)
Boiler78 noticed the same coin (yes this very same coin) recently sold in Heritage's June 2004 Long Beach Sale as Lot #6422. Here's the description:
1870 $20 Twenty Dollar, Judd-1039, Pollock-1174, High R.7, PR64 Cameo PCGS. A possibly unique die trial striking from regular issue 1870 Double Eagle dies, but struck in aluminum with a reeded edge. Examples of aluminum strikings are also known for the other gold denominations of this year, which were likely produced as presentation pieces. Specimens are also known in copper and in nickel. The primary source of these important patterns is the 1954 auction of the King Farouk holdings, also the origin of this aluminum representative. A small flip that accompanies attributes the piece to the Palace Collection, although it is not signed like the 1885 $5 aluminum pattern later in the sale.
This specimen appears to have escaped the harsh treatment received by many of the Farouk coins, its bright, watery mirrors being totally void of hairlines. A squiggly hairline planchet crack that angles down from Liberty's upper lip is nearly expected of early aluminum strikings and a few paper thin grease stains are noticed on the portrait. The only post minting blemish we can find is a shallow frost break on Liberty's neck. Of course, these rather trivial distractions are made even more inconsequential by the uniqueness of this important offering.
Ex: Palace Collection (Sotheby's, 1954), lot 1833. (#61288)
Is it unethical to have an entirely different description that makes it more difficult to find the coin's provenance? Is it unethical to have a "Previous Prices Realized for the Grade" with no entry, though this is the same coin they sold six months ago. Is it unethical not to refer the bidder to the coin's previous sale, as they usually do? Or, is it caveat emptor?
0
Comments
1. Heritage for making an obvious effort to obfuscate the provenance of this coin.
2. PCGS. This is Dragon's issue all over again! Another two-point bump from 64 to 66.
This case is an embarrassing indictment of the coin business. I am glad that I collect circulated coins, where the grades are not as easy to manipulate.
Edited to add: I agree, Robert. These are black eyes for the hobby.
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<
Once this spectacular specimen has left the auction block, another example of Judd-1039 of similar quality may not surface again for many years.
...unless the same one turns up again at FUN 2005 in a 67 holder!
<< <i>...unless the same one turns up again at FUN 2005 in a 67 holder! >>
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<
edited to correct the spelling of "sleazy".
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Sleazy is not including the previous sale on the auction page as a "Previous Prices Realized for the Grade".
Unethical is omitting the provenance of a well-known coin that recently was sold by the same auction house.
All is fair in love and coins.
I guess it is possible that Heritage does not know it is the same coin. Certainly, anyone who realizes the coin is the same as the one previously sold (ie. a specialist like boiler78) will not be inclined to pay substantially more than before now that the same coin is a "better" holder, would they?
<< <i>I am glad that I collect circulated coins, where the grades are not as easy to manipulate. >>
I thought I was the only one! Must be something they taught us in med school
******
Joe.
<< <i>I collect circulated coins also.
mmm... circulated coins...
Knowing the history as a bidder will only unnecessarily prejudice you against the coin.
<< <i>Honestly, why does it matter? You either agree with the grade or don't. It's either worth what it sells for or it isn't. >>
In a perfect world.
But in reality, do you really think a coin in a 66 holder would sell for the same price as a coin in a 64 holder from the same TPG if they were, in all other ways, identical?
For better or worse, in the marketplace it DOES matter.
For example: I see an extraordinary MS64 that I know is undergraded. The coin is worth MS65 money and the holder is worth negative 25%. I get the coin upgraded to MS66 through some freak chance. The coin is still worth MS65 money and the holder is worth +50%. The value of the coin didn't change, just the value of the plastic around it.
It doesn't matter what the premium attached to the holder was the last time it sold - it's not in that holder anymore. The price realized for the coin will be the same, but someone will pay more for the holder.
<< <i>The price realized for the coin will be the same, but someone will pay more for the holder. >>
That's the whole point. If this coin is, in reality, a 65, and a private party buys the plastic and later has to sell, no dealer will give him 66 money for it. Many people, whether stupid or not, believe that if a TPG calls it a 66, it's a 66, and a 66 is a 66 is a 66 (in their eyes).
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<
Edited to say that, upon reflection, I don't think that I bid on this coin last time it was sold, but I'll bid on it this time!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<
TDN - That's only true if the buyer thinks like you do. Only the buyer can tell us what he thinks he is getting for his money.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Rick has a good point. I thought 3rd party grading existed to protect the general collecting public (those not possessing above average grading skills). Where's the protection for the collector who buys this coin? I suppose I will be informed here by many that it's "caveat emptor for the collector, he should learn how to grade coins before spending any money". Right? This gradeflation thing is waaaay out of control.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Well, caveat emptor, then. Especially if they can afford to shop for 5 figure pattern coins
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Someone with a bit of the 'inside track'. >>
At the very least, it's quite unsavory!
<< <i>Knowing the history as a bidder will only unnecessarily prejudice you against the coin. >>
You think so!!
OH GOODY!! Let's go hide behind the 'subjective grading' argument.......what's 2 points anyway.
In the July 1998 PCGS pop report there was a PR66 as well as a PR55 J-1039.
Then in the April 2004 pop report there was STILL a PR66 and a PR55 J-1039. No mention of a PR64.
I need to investigate this further.
Let's not forget that some of these same present day players were fined or sanctioned by the FTC and/or other regulatory agencies in the past. Where there's money to be made, there are shady goings-on. Old habits never die. They just change form from time to time.
Rick Kay said it right: Caveat Emptor!
Maybe it is a 66. What makes you think it isn't? The fact that it was graded lower previously. Which means that you think the same company you claim got it wrong this time got it right the time before. Hmmmm.
Net grading for mint caused problems is always touchy. The description states there are laminations - mint caused. Looks like there was a difference of opinion of how much to take off between different grading teams. But that doesn't necessarily mean this is a coin waiting to bury some unsuspecting poor collector.
By that logic, the infamous booger dollar is a rip in a 65 holder because it used to be a 66!
BTW, I don't know the coin at all. I have no opinion on its actual grade or quality. I am merely exploring some folks' presumption that the earlier grade is more accurate than the current one. Or, that grade-flation even plays a role here. Can it simply be a mistake (of being too tight) earlier on?
I don't mean to be a contrarian here, but I do think it's healthy to explore all sides in a thorough fashion.
Regards,
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
If its your coin, it was a 66 all day long and PCGS was totally out to lunch putting it in a 64 holder, but kudos to them that they finally got it right on resubmission.
If its not your coin, its an overgraded dog that will financially bury any of the legions of unsuspecting collectors of proof aluminum pattern gold who most surely will descend upon this auction in massive numbers to bid it to dizzying hights.
CG
Withholding pertinent information that would impact one's assessment of value to an item up for auction is unethical period. Heritage knows the history of this coin and is ethically obligated to share it with the potential bidder.
Ummm, how can something be sleazy but not unethical?
-KHayse
The coin was undergraded as a PR64
The cataloger of the PR66 honestly did not know it was the Farouk PR64.
Kerry wins all three debates.
Anyway, I'd get PCGS to put Farouk on the holder. IMO with a coin that rare, it really doesn't matter what grade it is.
<< <i>Kerry wins all three debates. >>
This is CLEARLY the only un-truth
Something seems missing here!
Was this PR66 pattern cracked out and then graded as a PR64 by PCGS then the owners requested a Presidential review in which it was put back in to a PR66 (now DCAM) graded holder?
Was this a possibility?
That aside, I think it's at the very top of the coolness scale regardless of grade. If it were something I could afford, I'd buy it. I don't give a damn about the holder.
Russ, NCNE
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I would agree with this. The buyer should have access to the fact that the exact same coin was in a PCGS-64 holder and sold for $xx,xxx six months ago.
Question for the masses...
Jeez, Robert, tell us how you really feel!
EVP, you are the one who started class warfare, not me.
To follow up on what Rick Snow mentioned, with something this scarce, how much does the two point grade differential really matter? Andy Lustig said he capped his bid in the prior auction at 65 money, but why would it be worth much more as a 66 if there are only two coins graded and the other is impaired?
CG
A true PCGS PR65 slabbed pattern from what is now considered "long ago" (1996).
That is almost impossible. There aren't four of them out there!! There might be 3 but not 4!
Hmmm - what is most likely is that the coin was originally graded a 66. Then cracked and submitted in search of upgrade, where it received a downgrade and was sold. Then it returned to the original grade.
Because values are relative. Coins often have "close enough" substitutes, so collectors have more of a choice than it might appear. For example, a collector wanting only one aluminum twenty might compare the 1870 in 66 at 30K to an 1868 in 65 at 18K and an 1885 in 67 at 50K. He might decide that the 1870 is his best choice. But if the 1870 were only a 65 and still priced at 30K, he might choose one of the other coins instead. So grade matters.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
But on another note, which would have a bigger impact - being in a 64 holder with only one other known (and impaired, at that), or being in a 66 holder with another 66 plus a 64 and the 55 out there? I would venture to say it would have been better value-wise to have the single unimpaired example!
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>Maybe it is a 66. What makes you think it isn't? The fact that it was graded lower previously. Which means that you think the same company you claim got it wrong this time got it right the time before. Hmmmm. >>
TDN: You took my statement out of context. My statement that "Many people, whether stupid or not, believe that if a TPG calls it a 66, it's a 66, and a 66 is a 66 is a 66" was a hypothetical that assumed the coin was a 65 and was in response to your comment that the former grade is irrelevant because the plastic now says it's a 66. I have no idea, as I don't think I ever viewed the coin in person. Besides, I can't grade, so I just buy the plastic.
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<