A PF 68 seated half that got away. UPDATED. $20K profit! and the rest of the story.
roadrunner
Posts: 28,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
1890 PF68 NGC Kaufman
1890 PF68 Cameo PCGS
Here's a crossover that's gonna make the current owner some money. Not only did it go up to CAMEO but it became only the 2nd or so Proof seated half to go 68 at PCGS....and possibly the only Cameo or DCAM. Of course, I owned it for 3 years and never saw the potential. We'll chalk this one up to experience folks. There's more to the story to those interested.
roadrunner
1890 PF68 Cameo PCGS
Here's a crossover that's gonna make the current owner some money. Not only did it go up to CAMEO but it became only the 2nd or so Proof seated half to go 68 at PCGS....and possibly the only Cameo or DCAM. Of course, I owned it for 3 years and never saw the potential. We'll chalk this one up to experience folks. There's more to the story to those interested.
roadrunner
0
Comments
Did it have more contrast in hand?
I've seen NGC give cameo's to coins where the center figures are 75% or more frosted yet nice toning arcs cover the rest. It looks like PCGS did the same here. Though admittedly I'm a bit surprised as I thought PCGS was a bit tougher in that respect. I don't see a problem with the CAM designation since personally I think it adds only a little additional value at the 5 figure level. If it is responsible for additional eye appeal, it will receive the added value regardless. Most toned CAM proofs have fairly stunning eye appeal. I have an 1866 NGC PF Cameo with similar type bulls eye toning where the figures are not fully exposed due to toning. I'd rather have such a coin than a dipped out DCam. And many (or most) of those started from a toned Cameo.
roadrunner
And I didn't even own it!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Holy CRAP that's gorgeous. And im definitely interested in the "more to the story" >>
I agree.
not a coin for me at the added value price of the plastic
Honestly, I cannot grade classic proofs once they achieve the PR65 level or above. Just too subjective for my taste.
68 gets tricky
for example lets take barber silver proof coins in proof 68 barber proofs in proof 68 only
68 has to have that extra pop flash no distracting toning dots etc and of course hairline free and with the barber proofs need to be struck with a new crisp die both sides with absolutely no weakness in the top right part of the shield and the eagles wing next to this top right portion of the shield and the obverse the devices have to meet the fields at a 90 degree angle again a fresh new crisp die both sides
and of course absolutely no hairlines wahtsoever if there is toning it has to be extremely vibrant and even no splotchy toning or mottled toning wahtsoever aND no black or brown toning mixed in and no really dark toning light to medium toning
unfortunately most of the proof 68 graded barber proofs do not meet these requirements
i do not believe in 69 or 70 grade for barber proof coins as i feel a proof 68 is just that an amazing coin there are no hi or middle or low end proof 68 coins it is either an all there killer proof 68 or not
i am sure that there must be out there two monster proof 68 coins with one having better eye appeal and it sells for more sight seen but it is not a proof 69
and no way no how are any deeply mirrored deep cameo or not blast headlight white coins ever proof 68 69 for any pre 1915 proof coinage
only original coinage unmolested should get into proof 68 holders
there are many killer and cameo medium toned original toned totally unmolested milky wildly toned proof 67 coins that are cameo even with the toning and truly proof 68 coins but will never get the proof 68 graDE LET ALONE THE cameo designation due to their milky abet extremely eye appealling look and also not the cameo even thoughthey are strongly cameoed abet wildly toned both sides
such is the subjective nature of independent for profit private business grading firms and this is not good or bad or right or wrong just the way the current market is
just make sure you buy the coin not the holder
and also knowing the right lookfor each series and how they come and the dates within a series
some are easier than others to quantify/qualify
and believe you me there is quite a difference between proof 65 66 and especially so proof 67 pre 1916 proof coinage
but again you cant get it on the internet talking on a chat board for a couple of years or so and maybe a couple of years more than that collecting it takes at least a decade if not more of experience in the trenches and the pre and current slab market and also many deALERS and collectors and much numismatic learning and reading and tallkking to other collectors and seeing the coins in the trenches with again the same loupe or not and the same consistant lighting wahtever you use or that works for you
Roadrunner you have great taste but seems like a keeper.
Someone will have added to a collection.
Considering that I showed the coin around at 2 successive FUN shows to numerous major dealers and could not get what I paid for the coin speaks volumes. The coin was lightly wiped on the reverse which always bothered me. You can see this on the reverse photo by the lighter areas under and to the left of the eagle. And when viewing photos lighter areas like this are a good marker for older cleanings. If cracked out and submitted raw again, it might not even get a 67 rating at PCGS. But there is no doubt the eye appeal is very high. But a 68 must be eye appealing as well as technical.
Proofs are not my forte for sure as I have little tolerance for hairlines on PF67 and 68 coins. I do tend to be less forgiving on hairlines and often don't give enough bonus pts for eye appeal.
Over a 2 year period the number of top retailers and dealers who saw this and passed would floor you. The person that ultimately bought it was hoping to make 5-10% on the retail end.
I was happy to get out of the coin with only a $400 loss. Had it really been generally seen as a PCGS 68 candidate it would have realized far more at the Kaufman sale than $14,375. But this is yet another instance where a crossover/upgrade was the last thing I could have ever seen happening. The dealer I sold the coin certainly did not upgrade it. That's only my guess though. The consignor, whoever they may be (chuckle), did very well by pocketing $20,000 on this one. Too bad the new owner didn't like it as much when it was only $14,000. It's a plastic world folks. Now you know the rest of the story. I'd bet serious money that if resubmitted raw, the coin would not come back 68 until you went broke with submission fees.
roadrunner
3 "DAMMIT BOYS"
4 "YOU SUCKS"
Numerous POTD (But NONE officially recognized)
Seated Halves are my specialty !
Seated Half set by date/mm COMPLETE !
Seated Half set by WB# - 289 down / 31 to go !!!!!
(1) "Smoebody smack him" from CornCobWipe !
IN MEMORY OF THE CUOF
I recall Laura at Legend telling me she really didn't like the coin that much after I bought it. And once I got it and saw it in "home lighting" I definitely agreed. She had bought an 1880's "white headlight" PF68 half out of that same Kaufman sale for about $12,000 and sold it off their site immediately. I knew at the time that I was not going to be so fortunate at sale time. It's an odd game we play here.
roadrunner
<< <i>Of course, I owned it for 3 years and never saw the potential. We'll chalk this one up to experience folks. >>
Don't feel bad. It's nice to make money as a collector, but it's more important to buy eye appealing coins!!!
Not only must one buy eye-appealing coins, but they must be technically correct for the grade if you want to minimize your risk down the road (and maximize your potential gains). Not doing that is very risky. My point here was that the coin was not technical then and still isn't today. I am 100% certain of that...not withstanding the holder nor the price realized. Then again, probably most of the PF68/69 seated & Barbers out there aren't technical either. It's just a little flaw I have to not want to accept "market graded" coins for "technical" pricing.
The potential I did not see was in PCGS handing out a gift of 68 on this coin. I also had the same thing happen recently with an AU58 draped bust half dime that I could not sell to any leading dealer over a 2 year period for MS60ish money. It finally did happen but only one dealer out of dozens tried was willing to pay the extra few thousand being asked. They upgraded that coin into an NGC62 when no one else ever saw the "potential" for a mistake. We've all seen mistakes in holders and it's a part of the game. There's more here to those in the know but enough said.
It was appropriate not to comment on the coin before the sale to not cause any harm to the consigner. Hence it was one that got away.....and I was glad of that.
roadrunner
I could have submitted that coin for x-over 100 times to PCGS and not gotten the 68 grade. I'm convinced of that. The fact that someone hit doesn't change my thought process. Knowing what I know now, I still would not have resubmitted the coin for x-over as I'm also convinced that I personally, could not have gotten that crossover grade. Heck, I've sent in my very best coins for X-over on 2 occasions to PCGS and NONE crossed (I'm 0 for 25). This 1890 was never part of that list because it was not up to snuff and a waste of money (for me) to try and cross. Would lead one to believe that crossing in the type coin arena is a different game unto itself. I might add that I've done just fine when resubmitting raw when I felt it was appropriate. I'm 100% (3 for 3) on regrades for resubmitting PCGS holdered coins (3 MS65's all jumping to MS66).
Guess that means that my eye doesn't work right when viewing NGC coins and that someday I hope to find a cure for my disease.
Oh, to only be able to correctly judge a nice coin in an NGC holder. Does ANA give seminars to help this affliction? If so.......I'm there!
roadrunner
RR: Very interesting reading - $20,000 extra for an insert tag on a $14,000 coin? Cladking is showing great restraint not commenting on this thread.
Wondercoin.