A study and contrast of two pedigree slabbed coins (Pittman & Bass).

oreville

A study of two pedigrees:

John Jay Pittman: This 1913 Type I Buffalo Nickel in MS-64 was valued at $72 on Collectors Universe but was purchased for $168.00!

Bass: This 1873 closed 3 $2 1/2 gold in AU-53 was valued at $325 on Collectors Universe but was purchased for $243.50 by the same collector. The same collector bought both of them on ebay with competitive bidding within a week of each other. The collector who bought them feels comfortable with the price paid for both despite the fact that one is very "overpriced" and certainly not undergraded.

In one case, the pedigree was acquired at a stiff premium, the other case, a discount. My observation and theory: There is a minimum value for any pedigreed coin regardless of coin's value.

Your comments and analysis are encouraged.

Coppernicus

Oreville - How do these prices compare with greysheet/bluesheet bids/asks? We all know the Price Guide is not always accurate. Maybe the pedigree is not the dominant factor in prices realized. Was the auction on-line or live? Having coin in-hand before bidding makes for more accurate pricing, IMHO.

Mike

Blade

I have seen Bass coins obtain high premiums and others no premium at all. What I find interesting is how much the pedigree adds value even on coins that weren't displayed in the auction catalogs. I wouldn't pay a premium unless the individual coin had a description, optimally a picture. Louis Eliasberg had rolls of coins sold at auction. I am seeing the Eliasberg 1883 no cent liberty nickels sell for 2X-3X value when they were sold in rolls! In the auction catalog, there were sales of entire Kennedy 50c, Ike Dollars etc in very common MS63-MS64 grades. I am sure if this collection came up for sale, it would go for many multiples just for the name, even though these are average coins that were not described in the catalog! Crazy. I would like to own an Eliasberg coin in my type set someday, but it will need to be a featured coin which had a picture in the catalog.

morgannut2

Actually I think there is another variable impacting the 1913 T1, and that is it is in an older green tag PCGS holder. It may have been seen as a strong upgrade by the crackout crew, while the gold was seen as correctly graded. If the gold was in MS 63/64 I'd bet that the coin would have seen a 10-20% bonus for the pedigree.

oreville

Morganut2: The buyer did not view the 1913 T1 as a strong upgrade candidate.

morgannut2

Then the prices make no sense because Pittman is not regarded as having a trained eye, whereas bass at a minimum used the top advisers to pick out coins. The gold coin seems cheap enough for ME to bid ( in fact I would), and I don't own a single gold coin!!!! ( I KNOW I can't grade 'em well.)

stevegee

From my standpoint, when you are buying something with a pedigree, anything, a coin, a painting, a firearm, what is happening is that you are acknowledging and benefiting from the excellent taste of the previous owner. If they really were great collectors, as opposed to accumulators, there will be something unique in their judgement that permitted them to choose something special, and what is special may not even become totally apparent to you the first time you look at the piece. The mere fact that Sheldon or Garrett or anybody owned something does not make it special. If pedigree is really to mean a whole lot, then the coin really should be one that actually came from their SET. Even then, we cannot just allow a ghost to do our thinking for us. Everyone has to look at the piece, draw their own conclusion, and see whether, on that particular example, they happen to agree that somehow that choice was superior, given the grade & variety.

Steve

Conder101

Something to consider, Pittman was known for collecting quality. Bass's collection was more famous for the completeness of his gold collection by date, mint, and die variety. In some cases even die state. While the Bass collection also had very nice coins it didn't have the reputation that Pittman's collection did.

RYK

Both coins are relatively minor coins in each of the forementioned collections. Both are also relatively inexpensive coins. It is hard to extrapolate any meaningful conclusions form your purchase of these coins other than the obvious:

1. You probably could have purchased an MS-64 1913 buff cheaper if you wanted, but paid up a little bit to get the pedigree.
2. You probably got a pretty good deal on the quarter eagle. If I would have known about it, I might have made a bid for it, too.

LanLord

Perhaps I'm off topic here but ...

I like both coins, I like the buffalo more. I'd like to own both coins, but refuse to pay a premium for someones sir-name.

I think the gold coin is the better buy since it appears he got the deal o' the day on that one.

But I really do like them both. From what I can see on the buff, it looks like a sharp strike.

kieferscoins

<< <i>Then the prices make no sense because Pittman is not regarded as having a trained eye, whereas bass at a minimum used the top advisers to pick out coins >>



Conder101 said the exact opposite. Who is right?

Cameron Kiefer

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>

<< <i>Then the prices make no sense because Pittman is not regarded as having a trained eye, whereas bass at a minimum used the top advisers to pick out coins >>



Conder101 said the exact opposite. Who is right?

Cameron Kiefer >>



Conder101 is right (as he usually is).

But I think this whole thread is a little off.

First of all, attempting to draw a conclusion about the value of pedigrees by comparing a total of 2, totally dissimilar coins seems destined to disappoint.

I'll take a wild guess and say that the Buffalo is an eye-appealing coin (as many of Pittman's were) in a green holder that someone assumed would upgrade. I don't have the Pittman catalog with the Buffalos in it, but I assume the coin was appropriately lauded over back in 1996 or 97 when Aker's catalogued it.

The Bass coin looks to be a normalish XF / AU coin in an AU53 holder. I don't see this as an obvious upgrade candidate, nor does it appear particularly eye-appealing for type and grade. And while I also do not own the Bass gold catalog, I would take a wild guess to say that the coin was probably graded as XF in its appearance there.

Pedigree can have a negative value in a case where, for example, the holder says 'Eliasberg MS65' and you go back and look in the catalog and find the coin was called AU58.

oreville

I previously had stated that my observation and theory was:

"There is a minimum value for any pedigreed coin regardless of coin's value."

Does anyone care to discuss this theory and observation?

Coinosaurus

I have only one Bass coin, in a 63 holder and unattributed to Bass, quite likely because the Bass catalog says its only a 60. I'd call it a 62 myself. But I don't really care whether it's a 2 or a 3, because its the finest known regardless

morgannut2

Ley me answer Camerons's question. The reference for my observation on Pittman is found in the write-ups/story section at Heritage's web site. He was a smart trader/buyer who went for super "eye appeal". He got stuck with some hairlined and tooled stuff because of his focus on eye appeal instead of technical condition. But that was more than made up for by his other extraodinarily beautiful raritys. Bass was focused on completeness and was so rich he tried for the best on the market, not eye appeal. The reason this is pertinent, is the way these collectors "looked" at coins, should IMO bear on any premiums. So my answer to the posited theory is that lower end Bass material does not have any premium because many of his coins were just space fillers until he found a better coin. Conversely, the pittman material if technically OK was bought for its' eye appeal in many cases. Hence his former coins bring a premium due to a combination of special appearance with the actual known provenance.

MacCrimmon

<< <i>Does anyone care to discuss this theory and observation? >>


I viewed the entire World group of Pittman and attended virtually the entire auction. Many pieces in the Canadian realm, especially 20th century, were not that extraordinary, but brought fairly decent prices. I was thinking of a 20th c. Vic. type set but deferred to "huge" prices on the majority of the gem material. One Swiss Kanton piece, a Bern 5 batz, I believe, brought an insane $3000 or so. It had drop-dead gorgeous toning, WOW lustre, and superb surfaces, but not $3000 for crying out loud!!! As a point of reference, I've seen 4 or 5 and actually owned one once which was every bit as nice without the toning, and it was only in the $500-600 range.

I still want Pittman's Gun Money large shilling......what a coin -- totally freakish! Maybe someday my wallet and the coin will meet again!!

Dog97

<<<Conder101 said the exact opposite. Who is right?

Cameron Kiefer>>>

Pittman was a tightwad cheapskate like most collectors. He bought weird off the wall material that nobody else was interested in at the time dirt cheap. Like coins he bought for less than $1,000 that later sold for ½ million $$.


My observation and theory:
I can get excited over the 1913 T-1 Buff because as a tightwad cheapskate myself I could own a popular first year of issue and only issued for 1 year at that series coin from a famous collection @ a reasonable price. Everybody likes Buffalo Nickels. Pittman was cool, he was a peon just like me that loved coins. He even mortgaged his house 1 time to buy coins.

But an itsy bitsy circulated gold coin that's so small you need a microscope to see it owned by somebody named after a fish, what was he famous for, and it has a Closed 3, does that mean something, & only has about $40 worth of gold in it.........yawn..zzzzzzz........

MrEureka

"There is a minimum value for any pedigreed coin regardless of coin's value."

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on who's bidding and how they value provenance.

MrEureka

Oreville - Is there anything special about this 73 quarter eagle?