They should have named the hoard the "BattleGround Collection" becasue I think collectors are going to be arguing this point for years to come. I have two coins from this hoard on my desk right now. One of them looks like it could be legit and the other looks suspicious to my eyes. Here are the sellers photographs:
I think the photographs are close, but a little optimistic. I did not pay much for these, and my son will enjoy them. If it is revealed later that the coins were all AT, I would not care.
<< <i> OK just for fun and to prove a point, the article stated "unparalleled group of over 1,400 Morgan dollars" correct? so if someone has more than over 1400 it would be a scam, correct?
Now I'm going to start buying them, I want them all, If after 5 years I have more than 1500 of them you pay me what I spent on the collection. Are you willing to back up your statement with money? Anyone want to take the chalenge? I have an investor ready to sink a small fortune in this set.
Think about it before you make such a bold statement... >>
Normally if you talk about a bet, the other bettor gets something in return. I am more than willing to take the bet that you cannot put together all 1,400+ BC coins in 5 years... and will pay you for the whole group if you do. I'm talking EVERY SINGLE ONE of the BC coins that were in the 4 main BC auctions, ditto the piss poor ones that were in BC 5 and the totally lame ones that have leaked out in assorted other auctions and/or ways. IF YOU GET THEM ALL I WILL PAY FOR THEM ALL. Now, contrarywise to make this bet fair, if you don't get EVERY SINGLE ONE, your must give me every single one that has been purchased AND cash equivalent to the percentage unheld of the BC's taking their total auction value realized (including the juice) as 100%.
I believe I've heard this statement somewhere before... "Think about it before you make such a bold statement".
Now, taking your "just for fun" statement a slightly different way, let's try a little education on this forum, which is hopefully a big chunk of what this forum is all about. Let's say all you are willing to bet on is that you and/or your client can put together a collection of 1,500 toned coins is 5 years. I strongly suspect you could. As a matter of fact I'd be willing to bet you could do it in substantially less time than 5 years. After all, roughly 550 of the BC coins had at best microcrescents on them and maybe another 1-200 were kind of dicey at best. Putting together 1,500 crappily toned coins would not be a big nut to pass.
However, if you and/or your client tried put together a set roughly comparable to the BC collection you'd need to put together roughly 400 quite nice toners, 80 top of the line toners, and 25 to 30 unbelievable MOOSES. Now the thing about toners is each person has their likes and dislikes, so you can't quantify it in the same sense that you can split Morgans up into 64's, 65's and 66's. The thing about the BC coins was that there was a grouping of coins that most people that knew toned Morgans could agree on were great toners, with a further subgroup of those coins that were mind-boggling MOOSES. It is these MOOSES in particular that would be VERY hard (I'm not saying impossible if your client was willing to throw around INSANE money) to replicate in a new collection. Most of us that collect toners, that can afford to buy a moose or two, hold on to these mooses very tightly because we realize just how difficult they are to replace. As a board member on another website that deals mainly with toned coins put it, "And, if you exclude the BC coins, it's hard to recall a single memorable toned dollar offered for sale in the past year by a major dealer". That's one whole year with nothing else that most people who specialized in toned Morgans could agree on was a MONSTER. What made the BC coins special was this grouping of MEMORABLE coins. Yes, you could certainly find some very nice toners (roughly comparable to the 80 top of the line BC coins) if you had 5 years and an essentially unlimited bank account, but replicating finding 25 to 30 true mindbogglers in 5 years would be a VERY difficult job indeed.
Here's a photo from an outside source of a BC coin (my one and only). The picture was taken by Shane (aka kryptonitecomics) and is dead on. The second image is the scan from the actual auction sales. Actually, the auction pics were fairly close. For educational purposes, could those who claim these are AT (or market-acceptable, means the same to me) please point out at least one reason they see on this coin to back that claim up?
RYK, both of those coins are absolutely NT. The color progressions and placements are absolutely consistent with the type of slowly developing thin film oxide/sulfide layer that is a hallmark of classic banded rainbow bag toning. Nature is a more imaginative artist than we are - the breadth of variations can be amazing ... but with practice, and after studying many hundreds of legitimate examples, one can begin to feel confident in recognizing the real thing.
Interesting, with so many doubters, the prices realized by these extraordinary coins was still very high ... thank goodness for the doubt and ignorance, otherwise the prices would only have been higher still. And for those who just don't get it, who cares !!! Collect what you want ... don't pay premiums for beautiful color. Instead, leave those coins to buyers like me who do place a value on the aesthetic appeal of nature's handiwork, her visible record of many decades of undisturbed storage.
Maybe they are an dmaybe they aren't. Still, I'll never understand paying multiples of bid for color. Just doesnt make sense to me. Oh well, to each their own.
I am with JGR. I tried to give a little of the science behind the appearance of these coins, but it seems that those claiming "NT" are so hard and fixed in their opinions will not have them changed regardless of fact or science. These colors do not appear natural, and the reason that I say that is that they are peculiar and although possibly not done in the instant "oven cooker" just do not appear right. Many of the transition areas between "toned" and un- (or lesser) toned are too sharp. There are many variants of where the coins are toned because it suggest that the whole bag was exposed to whatever environmental contaminants in whatever circumstances caused them.
Still, if people want to part with their monies, go for it since it leaves relatively more for other collectors. Bottom line: "to each his own".
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
<<Still, I'll never understand paying multiples of bid for color. Just doesnt make sense to me. Oh well, to each their own.>>
People, whether collectors or not, pay for beauty/that which pleases them, in many fields, not just coins. Think about paintings, objects of art and jewelry among many other examples.
I'll gladly pay multiples of bid for coins with color because they are distinct, unique and pleasing to behold. I certainly agree with "to each his own" however, and CAN understand why people will or won't pay for color.
<< <i> These colors do not appear natural, and the reason that I say that is that they are peculiar and although possibly not done in the instant "oven cooker" just do not appear right. >>
The coin I posted from the BC collection follows the classic rainbow banded progression. Nothing peculiar there.
<< <i> Many of the transition areas between "toned" and un- (or lesser) toned are too sharp. >>
I keep looking at the images I posted and the ones above from RYK, the color transitions are anything but sharp like the MOC coins were.
<< <i> There are many variants of where the coins are toned because it suggest that the whole bag was exposed to whatever environmental contaminants in whatever circumstances caused them. >>
The whole bag? There was more than one bag, and the percentage of expected toners was right. I would agree that the whole bags were exposed to the same enviromental conditions, though.
Here's a coin that traces it's pedigree back to the Continental Bank Hoard, which we all agree was not messed with and thus would be an excellent example of NT............and yes, the colors are as intense and vibrant as the BC coins.
<< <i><<Still, I'll never understand paying multiples of bid for color. Just doesnt make sense to me. Oh well, to each their own.>>
People, whether collectors or not, pay for beauty/that which pleases them, in many fields, not just coins. Think about paintings, objects of art and jewelry among many other examples.
I'll gladly pay multiples of bid for coins with color because they are distinct, unique and pleasing to behold. I certainly agree with "to each his own" however, and CAN understand why people will or won't pay for color. >>
Seems like a good argument that AT/NT is really not important.
<< <i><<Still, I'll never understand paying multiples of bid for color. Just doesnt make sense to me. Oh well, to each their own.>>
People, whether collectors or not, pay for beauty/that which pleases them, in many fields, not just coins. Think about paintings, objects of art and jewelry among many other examples.
I'll gladly pay multiples of bid for coins with color because they are distinct, unique and pleasing to behold. I certainly agree with "to each his own" however, and CAN understand why people will or won't pay for color. >>
Seems like a good argument that AT/NT is really not important. >>
Not a good argument to me, it isn't. Most of these same buyers will gladly pay more for "originality" which is also the result of mother nature's work over a period of time, as in the case of a natural pearl as opposed to a cultured pearl. It's the appealing idea that the object of appreciation took a long time to become that way and that the method was somewhat haphazard and not contrived or easily replicated.
<< <i> Not a good argument to me, it isn't. Most of these same buyers will gladly pay more for "originality" which is also the result of mother nature's work over a period of time, as in the case of a natural pearl as opposed to a cultured pearl. It's the appealing idea that the object of appreciation took a long time to become that way and that the method was somewhat haphazard and not contrived or easily replicated. >>
Well said.
And hey, lest we forget what we are comparing here...........
To all those of you who proudly proclaim that you would not pay a premium for beautiful color ... did it ever occur to you that the prices you ARE paying for your generic untoned widgets are multiples of face value or intrinsic bullion value ???
Why are you paying a premium over melt ??? Why are you paying many multiples of face value? Perhaps because the object is collectible in your opinion? Because you think there is a market for it? Because some "price guide" told you to? Because you think someday it will be worth more to a future buyer? Or maybe just because you want it and you can afford it?
And how many of you would have been willing to pay even more for the same coin if it had been presented to you slabbed one grade higher? (Answer: most of you.)
What you are doing - paying vast multiples of face value or melt value for all of your collectible coins - is no more or less defensible than paying a premium for quality, for a higher grade, for a rarer date, or for EYE APPEAL ... particularly when the eye appeal is imparted by the graceful hand of Nature herself.
<< <i>To all those of you who proudly proclaim that you would not pay a premium for beautiful color ... did it ever occur to you that the prices you ARE paying for your generic untoned widgets are multiples of face value or intrinsic bullion value ???
Why are you paying a premium over melt ??? Why are you paying many multiples of face value? Perhaps because the object is collectible in your opinion? Because you think there is a market for it? Because some "price guide" told you to? Because you think someday it will be worth more to a future buyer? Or maybe just because you want it and you can afford it?
And how many of you would have been willing to pay even more for the same coin if it had been presented to you slabbed one grade higher? (Answer: most of you.)
What you are doing - paying vast multiples of face value or melt value for all of your collectible coins - is no more or less defensible than paying a premium for quality, for a higher grade, for a rarer date, or for EYE APPEAL ... particularly when the eye appeal is imparted by the graceful hand of Nature herself.
Best, Sunnywood >>
Right on again Sunnywood -- couldn't have said it any better myself
<< <i>To all those of you who proudly proclaim that you would not pay a premium for beautiful color ... did it ever occur to you that the prices you ARE paying for your generic untoned widgets are multiples of face value or intrinsic bullion value ???
Why are you paying a premium over melt ??? Why are you paying many multiples of face value? Perhaps because the object is collectible in your opinion? Because you think there is a market for it? Because some "price guide" told you to? Because you think someday it will be worth more to a future buyer? Or maybe just because you want it and you can afford it?
And how many of you would have been willing to pay even more for the same coin if it had been presented to you slabbed one grade higher? (Answer: most of you.)
What you are doing - paying vast multiples of face value or melt value for all of your collectible coins - is no more or less defensible than paying a premium for quality, for a higher grade, for a rarer date, or for EYE APPEAL ... particularly when the eye appeal is imparted by the graceful hand of Nature herself.
Best, Sunnywood >>
If this doesn't end the silliness here then I doubt anything will. Well said, the end.
Comments
I think the photographs are close, but a little optimistic. I did not pay much for these, and my son will enjoy them. If it is revealed later that the coins were all AT, I would not care.
<< <i>
OK just for fun and to prove a point, the article stated "unparalleled group of over 1,400 Morgan dollars" correct? so if someone has more than over 1400 it would be a scam, correct?
Now I'm going to start buying them, I want them all, If after 5 years I have more than 1500 of them you pay me what I spent on the collection. Are you willing to back up your statement with money? Anyone want to take the chalenge? I have an investor ready to sink a small fortune in this set.
Think about it before you make such a bold statement... >>
Normally if you talk about a bet, the other bettor gets something in return. I am more than willing to take the bet that you cannot put together all 1,400+ BC coins in 5 years... and will pay you for the whole group if you do. I'm talking EVERY SINGLE ONE of the BC coins that were in the 4 main BC auctions, ditto the piss poor ones that were in BC 5 and the totally lame ones that have leaked out in assorted other auctions and/or ways. IF YOU GET THEM ALL I WILL PAY FOR THEM ALL. Now, contrarywise to make this bet fair, if you don't get EVERY SINGLE ONE, your must give me every single one that has been purchased AND cash equivalent to the percentage unheld of the BC's taking their total auction value realized (including the juice) as 100%.
I believe I've heard this statement somewhere before... "Think about it before you make such a bold statement".
Now, taking your "just for fun" statement a slightly different way, let's try a little education on this forum, which is hopefully a big chunk of what this forum is all about. Let's say all you are willing to bet on is that you and/or your client can put together a collection of 1,500 toned coins is 5 years. I strongly suspect you could. As a matter of fact I'd be willing to bet you could do it in substantially less time than 5 years. After all, roughly 550 of the BC coins had at best microcrescents on them and maybe another 1-200 were kind of dicey at best. Putting together 1,500 crappily toned coins would not be a big nut to pass.
However, if you and/or your client tried put together a set roughly comparable to the BC collection you'd need to put together roughly 400 quite nice toners, 80 top of the line toners, and 25 to 30 unbelievable MOOSES. Now the thing about toners is each person has their likes and dislikes, so you can't quantify it in the same sense that you can split Morgans up into 64's, 65's and 66's. The thing about the BC coins was that there was a grouping of coins that most people that knew toned Morgans could agree on were great toners, with a further subgroup of those coins that were mind-boggling MOOSES. It is these MOOSES in particular that would be VERY hard (I'm not saying impossible if your client was willing to throw around INSANE money) to replicate in a new collection. Most of us that collect toners, that can afford to buy a moose or two, hold on to these mooses very tightly because we realize just how difficult they are to replace. As a board member on another website that deals mainly with toned coins put it, "And, if you exclude the BC coins, it's hard to recall a single memorable toned dollar offered for sale in the past year by a major dealer". That's one whole year with nothing else that most people who specialized in toned Morgans could agree on was a MONSTER. What made the BC coins special was this grouping of MEMORABLE coins. Yes, you could certainly find some very nice toners (roughly comparable to the 80 top of the line BC coins) if you had 5 years and an essentially unlimited bank account, but replicating finding 25 to 30 true mindbogglers in 5 years would be a VERY difficult job indeed.
U.S. Type Set
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
For educational purposes, could those who claim these are AT (or market-acceptable, means the same to me) please point out at least one reason they see on this coin to back that claim up?
Interesting, with so many doubters, the prices realized by these extraordinary coins was still very high ... thank goodness for the doubt and ignorance, otherwise the prices would only have been higher still. And for those who just don't get it, who cares !!! Collect what you want ... don't pay premiums for beautiful color. Instead, leave those coins to buyers like me who do place a value on the aesthetic appeal of nature's handiwork, her visible record of many decades of undisturbed storage.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>It is my opinion that they are all AT. >>
Maybe they are an dmaybe they aren't. Still, I'll never understand paying multiples of bid for color. Just doesnt make sense to me. Oh well, to each their own.
Still, if people want to part with their monies, go for it since it leaves relatively more for other collectors. Bottom line: "to each his own".
Well, just Love coins, period.
People, whether collectors or not, pay for beauty/that which pleases them, in many fields, not just coins. Think about paintings, objects of art and jewelry among many other examples.
I'll gladly pay multiples of bid for coins with color because they are distinct, unique and pleasing to behold. I certainly agree with "to each his own" however, and CAN understand why people will or won't pay for color.
<< <i> These colors do not appear natural, and the reason that I say that is that they are peculiar and although possibly not done in the instant "oven cooker" just do not appear right. >>
The coin I posted from the BC collection follows the classic rainbow banded progression. Nothing peculiar there.
<< <i> Many of the transition areas between "toned" and un- (or lesser) toned are too sharp. >>
I keep looking at the images I posted and the ones above from RYK, the color transitions are anything but sharp like the MOC coins were.
<< <i> There are many variants of where the coins are toned because it suggest that the whole bag was exposed to whatever environmental contaminants in whatever circumstances caused them. >>
The whole bag? There was more than one bag, and the percentage of expected toners was right. I would agree that the whole bags were exposed to the same enviromental conditions, though.
Here's a coin that traces it's pedigree back to the Continental Bank Hoard, which we all agree was not messed with and thus would be an excellent example of NT............and yes, the colors are as intense and vibrant as the BC coins.
<< <i><<Still, I'll never understand paying multiples of bid for color. Just doesnt make sense to me. Oh well, to each their own.>>
People, whether collectors or not, pay for beauty/that which pleases them, in many fields, not just coins. Think about paintings, objects of art and jewelry among many other examples.
I'll gladly pay multiples of bid for coins with color because they are distinct, unique and pleasing to behold. I certainly agree with "to each his own" however, and CAN understand why people will or won't pay for color. >>
Seems like a good argument that AT/NT is really not important.
<< <i>
<< <i><<Still, I'll never understand paying multiples of bid for color. Just doesnt make sense to me. Oh well, to each their own.>>
People, whether collectors or not, pay for beauty/that which pleases them, in many fields, not just coins. Think about paintings, objects of art and jewelry among many other examples.
I'll gladly pay multiples of bid for coins with color because they are distinct, unique and pleasing to behold. I certainly agree with "to each his own" however, and CAN understand why people will or won't pay for color. >>
Seems like a good argument that AT/NT is really not important. >>
Not a good argument to me, it isn't. Most of these same buyers will gladly pay more for "originality" which is also the result of mother nature's work over a period of time, as in the case of a natural pearl as opposed to a cultured pearl. It's the appealing idea that the object of appreciation took a long time to become that way and that the method was somewhat haphazard and not contrived or easily replicated.
<< <i>PERIOD!!! >>
<< <i> Not a good argument to me, it isn't. Most of these same buyers will gladly pay more for "originality" which is also the result of mother nature's work over a period of time, as in the case of a natural pearl as opposed to a cultured pearl. It's the appealing idea that the object of appreciation took a long time to become that way and that the method was somewhat haphazard and not contrived or easily replicated.
>>
Well said.
And hey, lest we forget what we are comparing here...........
Why are you paying a premium over melt ??? Why are you paying many multiples of face value? Perhaps because the object is collectible in your opinion? Because you think there is a market for it? Because some "price guide" told you to? Because you think someday it will be worth more to a future buyer? Or maybe just because you want it and you can afford it?
And how many of you would have been willing to pay even more for the same coin if it had been presented to you slabbed one grade higher? (Answer: most of you.)
What you are doing - paying vast multiples of face value or melt value for all of your collectible coins - is no more or less defensible than paying a premium for quality, for a higher grade, for a rarer date, or for EYE APPEAL ... particularly when the eye appeal is imparted by the graceful hand of Nature herself.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>To all those of you who proudly proclaim that you would not pay a premium for beautiful color ... did it ever occur to you that the prices you ARE paying for your generic untoned widgets are multiples of face value or intrinsic bullion value ???
Why are you paying a premium over melt ??? Why are you paying many multiples of face value? Perhaps because the object is collectible in your opinion? Because you think there is a market for it? Because some "price guide" told you to? Because you think someday it will be worth more to a future buyer? Or maybe just because you want it and you can afford it?
And how many of you would have been willing to pay even more for the same coin if it had been presented to you slabbed one grade higher? (Answer: most of you.)
What you are doing - paying vast multiples of face value or melt value for all of your collectible coins - is no more or less defensible than paying a premium for quality, for a higher grade, for a rarer date, or for EYE APPEAL ... particularly when the eye appeal is imparted by the graceful hand of Nature herself.
Best,
Sunnywood >>
Right on again Sunnywood -- couldn't have said it any better myself
Mikey
Visit Our Website @ www.numisvision.com
Specializing in DMPL Dollars, MONSTER toners and other Premium Quality U.S. Coins
*** Visit Mike De Falco's NEW Coin Talk Blog! ***
<< <i>To all those of you who proudly proclaim that you would not pay a premium for beautiful color ... did it ever occur to you that the prices you ARE paying for your generic untoned widgets are multiples of face value or intrinsic bullion value ???
Why are you paying a premium over melt ??? Why are you paying many multiples of face value? Perhaps because the object is collectible in your opinion? Because you think there is a market for it? Because some "price guide" told you to? Because you think someday it will be worth more to a future buyer? Or maybe just because you want it and you can afford it?
And how many of you would have been willing to pay even more for the same coin if it had been presented to you slabbed one grade higher? (Answer: most of you.)
What you are doing - paying vast multiples of face value or melt value for all of your collectible coins - is no more or less defensible than paying a premium for quality, for a higher grade, for a rarer date, or for EYE APPEAL ... particularly when the eye appeal is imparted by the graceful hand of Nature herself.
Best,
Sunnywood >>
If this doesn't end the silliness here then I doubt anything will. Well said, the end.
Regarding Sunnywood's post.