What a difference a picture can make...1818 Quarter

elwood

Here's my pic....




Same coin, pic courtesy of Hertitage.....



This coin has an amazing amount of luster for a circulated coin.....my pics don't even show all the luster.

Heywood

Nice coin- was it a rip, or did other bidders realize the pictyue stunk?

Please enter me in this great giveaway

elwood

<< <i>Nice coin- was it a rip, or did other bidders realize the pictyue stunk? >>



Unfortunately it was no rip

It came out of the Reiver Collection and it's one of the finest known for the variety.
Specialists rarely let you rip Condition Census rarities out of major auctions

Cladiator

Heritage photos epitimize the word lackluster.

mozin

I would not be interested in the coin pictured by Heritage. You pictures show a very desirable quarter.

Shamika

Heritage can keep their coin. I'll give you whatever price you want for your coin.

elwood

<< <i>Heritage can keep their coin. I'll give you whatever price you want for your coin. >>



Really???

morgannut2

That's really more shocking than I thought possible. Guess they didn't care since everyone was going to look at the actual coins.

LanLord

<< <i>

<< <i>Heritage can keep their coin. I'll give you whatever price you want for your coin. >>

Really??? >>

Hey, are you sure that feather isn't for sale?

Dave99B

What an amazing difference! Heritage really needs gets to get things worked out.

What a super coin - I have always loved Bust quarters; something is really special about them. Classic US material!

Dave

elwood

<< <i>Hey, are you sure that feather isn't for sale? >>



You mean this isn't the BST???

coinlieutenant

Nice coin and pic Steve. Excellent coin.

J

Steve27

That is quite a difference, nice coin!

Cladiator

I think the horrific photography by Heritage was, in no small part, directly responsible for the majority of the negative comments that flooded online numismatic venues before, during and shortly after the auction. Many, many of the coins that looked like dogs at Heritage were infact extremely eye appealing coins. The floor bidders understood this as they got to see them up close and personal and the realized prices from the auction plainly show that. It's also the main reason very few online bidders won auctions.

Joe Schmoe online bidder was looking at a doggy coin and willing to pay X amount of dollars. Jack Schlack floor bidder knew the coin was PQ because he'd personally seen it and bid accordingly....much higher than the online bidder. Basically two bidders bidding on two different coins. One bidding small money on a dog and one bidding moon money on a keeper.

Baley

that's a gorgeous coin in one set of pictures and just looks ok in the other

MikeKing

Great quarter and great date. Looks like it's also supercharged with luster!
Did you know 1818 is the year Venus occulted Jupiter and that this was the last occultation of a planet by another planet before November 22nd, 2065?
That 1818 is also the year Mary Todd Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were born? Also, that's the year that Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was published, and the first time Silent Night was performed (Austria)!
Just thought I'd throw that in.

edited to add: For good luck!

actually also...a ton of famous people were born that year: Karl Marx, Emily Bronte, James Joule...

coinkat

terrific coin... I maintain this is an undervalued series in high circ to MS.

CoinRaritiesOnline

<< <i>I think the horrific photography by Heritage was, in no small part, directly responsible for the majority of the negative comments that flooded online numismatic venues before, during and shortly after the auction. Many, many of the coins that looked like dogs at Heritage were infact extremely eye appealing coins. The floor bidders understood this as they got to see them up close and personal and the realized prices from the auction plainly show that. It's also the main reason very few online bidders won auctions. Joe Schmoe online bidder was looking at a doggy coin and willing to pay X amount of dollars. Jack Schlack floor bidder knew the coin was PQ because he'd personally seen it and bid accordingly....much higher than the online bidder. Basically two bidders bidding on two different coins. One bidding small money on a dog and one bidding moon money on a keeper. >>



Oh Man, I really disagree with that sentiment. I attended the Reiver sale, and bought a number of coins for inventory. The auction, however, was the most overgraded slab auction I have ever attended. Really atrocious grading, for the most part. Not every coin, but certainly the majority of the coins in this multi-thousand lot sale were "maxed" or "beyond maxed".

A coin might be a nice VF-35, but if it is in an AU-50 holder, is it still considered "nice'? It didn't seem to matter, and price were quite strong because of brilliant marketing by Heritage, because collecting by variety is really coming into it's own (and the Reiver collection was amazingly complete), and because of "auction fever".

But the high prices certainly weren't because the Heritage photos were bad (which they were, as usual), and the coins were all choice in person.

BTW -- Elwood -- your coin is amazing! Great photo comparison.

morgannut2

I really "counter" disagree Coin Rarities. Certainly NGC outdid themselves on this sale with their idiotic "market grading". And there were hundreds of very expensive overgraded coins. But you are overlooking the impact of online bidders who see a super eye-appealing coin ONLINE, and then employ dealers as bidding agents. For example, the Balt. ANR Sale of "A Gentlemans Collection" had many bids---especially on busties-but other series too-- where I know the bidding war was due to absentee buyers going against each other because they loved the photos online. The fact is the plastic grade just didn't mean much for undergraded or overgraded PCGS coins either. Eye Appeal and quality mattered--and that started with good online images.

elwood

<< <i>BTW -- Elwood -- your coin is amazing! Great photo comparison. >>



Thanks D.W.


In the case of the Reiver Sale. I don't think the bad pic had any impact on price realized for this particular coin.
It brought over $6K for an NGC AU-58

Granted it is the second finest known for the Variety and was going to be bought by a floor bidder no matter what the image looked like.

I think it proves that images...on-line or in the catalogue.....are rarely accurate and that it's very important that you have someone look at (in person) any coin you intend to bid on. Not doing so can be very costly in the long run. On the upside or the downside.

Barndog

I agree that many Reiver coins were overgraded. I also agree that Heritage's lack of photography skills hurt internet-only bidders. I was happy my representative at the sale was able to give me in-hand opinions of the coins in advance. There should be no disagreement about Heritage's photos, they bite.