The Holy Grail at $13,500
STEWARTBLAYNUMIS
Posts: 2,697 ✭✭✭✭
Who was the lucky fool who paid $13,500 for modern PCGS plastic.However it is less than I thought
would be paid for it.I guess money is tightening up again.I think it was 4 or five years ago
Mr.John Troy paid almost $40,000 for a 1963 cent in the same plastic grade.
Is the lucky bidder who paid $13,500 for this 2003 Lincoln cent proud of his accomplishment?
Perhaps I can sell him some or all of my coins?Heck,maybe I can give Bill Gates or a lesser fortune 500 member some new company.
Stewart
ps Do you think David Hall or PCGS bought it back ?
0
Comments
forum member 'compronedas' bid on and won the coin, as he stated here
seems a couple of shots were directed at him and now people are wondering why he's not commenting any more
Lincoln set Colorless Set
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Stewart,
forum member 'compronedas' bid on and won the coin, as he stated here
seems a couple of shots were directed at him and now people are wondering why he's not commenting any more
He probably saw it coming. I hardly blame him for not commenting.
<< <i>He probably saw it coming. I hardly blame him for not commenting. >>
Cladking, neither do I.
Lincoln set Colorless Set
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I think the buyer got a rip, and Stewart is pissed that he missed the opportunity.
Russ, NCNE >>
I agree. I think the price was a good deal. I don't know about stewie. Let the modern bashers do their thing and bash me for supporting this price. Personally Idk. If I had that kind of money to spend on it, I probably would have.
Check my ebay BIN or Make Offers!!
<< <i>If you (judiciously) spent $15K on 2003 mint sets you could have an ms70 P cent, plus all the other 2003 coins in top condition, and all the leftovers to resell. Of course that's a lot of work but that would be my preferred method. Right now I'm still ignoring 1999-date coins as I think they'll be plenty around to search through in the future. >>
This has been my plan as well but it's starting to look like it's back-firing.
People are saving far more coins than in the past but it's not very systematic. There are
mountains of some issues and very few of others. 2005 dimes are my greatest concern but
there are numerous early nickels and even some cents that are not as heavily saved. This
won't be a problem where quality is good but quality still isn't consistent even though it is
much better with the lower relief of the last several years.
Even when you look at the larger denominations, there just might be fewer of some of
these than seems apparent.
I actually started trying to set some of these aside myself my none of the banks around
here will cooperate except with the states quarters and even there the supply is limited
to a roll per day. It would take some effort to obtain any of these at face and there is sur-
prisingly little being offerred at a premium in the coin papers. There's no doubt more is be-
ing saved than in the past but one is left to wonder how much more.
<< <i>Who was the lucky fool who paid $13,500 for modern PCGS plastic.However it is less than I thought
would be paid for it.I guess money is tightening up again.I think it was 4 or five years ago
Mr.John Troy paid almost $40,000 for a 1963 cent in the same plastic grade.
Is the lucky bidder who paid $13,500 for this 2003 Lincoln cent proud of his accomplishment?
Perhaps I can sell him some or all of my coins?Heck,maybe I can give Bill Gates or a lesser fortune 500 member some new company.
Stewart
ps Do you think David Hall or PCGS bought it back ? >>
Sounds like "sour grapes" to me
or we have another "modern basher", wonder how close he is to Laura?
LMS.
roadrunner
Who was the lucky fool who paid $13,500 for modern PCGS plastic.However it is less than I thought
would be paid for it.I guess money is tightening up again.I think it was 4 or five years ago
Mr.John Troy paid almost $40,000 for a 1963 cent in the same plastic grade.
Is the lucky bidder who paid $13,500 for this 2003 Lincoln cent proud of his accomplishment?
Perhaps I can sell him some or all of my coins?Heck,maybe I can give Bill Gates or a lesser fortune 500 member some new company.
Stewart
ps Do you think David Hall or PCGS bought it back ?
1-I am the lucky fool
2-Yes I am proud.
ps Do you think David Hall or PCGS bought it back ?
3-This coin is not for sale.
keith
<< <i>Friday September 29, 2006 5:52 AM (NEW!)
Who was the lucky fool who paid $13,500 for modern PCGS plastic.However it is less than I thought
would be paid for it.I guess money is tightening up again.I think it was 4 or five years ago
Mr.John Troy paid almost $40,000 for a 1963 cent in the same plastic grade.
Is the lucky bidder who paid $13,500 for this 2003 Lincoln cent proud of his accomplishment?
Perhaps I can sell him some or all of my coins?Heck,maybe I can give Bill Gates or a lesser fortune 500 member some new company.
Stewart
ps Do you think David Hall or PCGS bought it back ?
1-I am the lucky fool
2-Yes I am proud.
ps Do you think David Hall or PCGS bought it back ?
3-This coin is not for sale.
keith >>
Hi Keith
Have you seen the coin? If not and the coin turns out to be of a lesser quality than what would be expected from a MS70 grade, would you return the coin to Teletrade, send it to PCGS for a review or keep it for the extra registry points?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
what the hell it's worth today or what it will be worth in five or ten years, there
will never be a higher graded 2003 and maybe there is no equal. Indeed, it just
might be and remain the finest US coin ever minted for circulation.
The price you paid just might seem like a steal when you're ready to sell, but my
guess is this is not the most important consideration anyway.
Good luck even if you don't need it.
Stewart
Doubtful. I've seen 19th century coins that were essentially perfect ... and they weren't sold in mint sets, either.
If the grading services change to a different standard than 70 pts this statement will not be true. NGC will not be outdone by PCGS assigning a MS70. In fact they might try to out do them by assigning a MS70* (lol).
It's equals and probably it's superiors are out there waiting to be discovered. Just a matter of time imo. There will be a day when there are handfulls of MS70's and one of them is superior to the group. Now won't that be a quandry?
roadrunner
No matter time nor man, finding the BEST possible specimen is a challenge and journey/destination that can be enjoyed. I figure a few of you on this board have experienced it.
In the $100 Plats, by no means intended for common circulation, I have a 2003 that was the BEST coin from a sealed mint box of 500 coins opened by PCGS (thats $400K + in raw coin plus grade fees), and let me say it is one nice specimen. From a purest standpoint, not a single mark under 20X can be seen. Probably one of /or the finest specimen that will be found in the Platinum MS series pre-matte material (reverse proof strike coin). Easily a 1 in 1000 coin, and how it went through the process at the mint un marked is amazing in itself.
But it does happen and those that hunt the BEST possible specimen ( a 65, 66,67,68 etc grade no matter the top) know the language I speak whether the coin be old or new.
Over and out
<< <i>CladKing - The coin was never minted for circulation and now that PCGS graded it ms 70 it will probably never be circulated.Coins in mint sets were never minted for circulation.
Stewart >>
You say tomato, I say tomatoe.
The mint referred to mint set coins as regular circulation issues in all its advertising until 1997. When
asked about these coins they normally answered that they were like all other circulating issues. On rare
occasion they would mention that there were coins being made that somehow differed from the other
coins and that these went into mint sets. The few people who sought gems were well aware that the
sets contained superior examples of circulating coinage ever since 1965. Information on why this was
true dribbled out of the mint over decades. It was almost as though this was considered some sort of se-
cret. Even a cursory look at the coins would reveal that they were all struck by new dies. This does not
distinguish them in any way from regular circulation strikes though because all dies start off new. The coins
are better struck in the mint sets and now we know this is partially due to the use of the older vertical
presses for these coins. But this too doesn't really distinguish them from regular strikes because a few
of the other coins are struck on these presses as well, though this may be coming to an end. The mint
set coins are washed and dried but nothing is really making it impossible for the other coins to be clean
of contaminants once collectors get them. Finally mint set coins are struck at higher pressure. While this
may seem to indicate that they are different the simple fact is that it's impossible to tell by looking at a
coin how much pressure it was struck under. You can only say that it's fully struck or less than fully struck
and there are circulation issue coins which are fully struck. Almost every year I've been able to find a few
of these from rolls and bags.
The only substantial difference between a 2003 cent in a jumbo bag and one from a mint set is that the
mint used to be extremely secretive about the mint set coins. Yes, it's true that in most cases the mint
set coin will be superior but no one really knew the source of this coin until it was annuounced recently.
Mint set coins aren't necessarily free of marks and in some years they can actually be worse for marking
than the coins in bags. Knowing where the high grade coins are found is helpful to others who seek the
coins.
But perhaps more important to the decision of whether these are circulating coins or not is the simple
fact that there are probably more mint set coins in circulation than in mint sets. These sets have been
destroyed for years because of low prices and the coins spent. I've seen examples of worn coins in
circulation with mint set crimping damage.
No. By any measure these are all circulation issues. Sometimes it's hard to believe when you see a near
perfect strike by a basined die on a burnished planchet. A few of these coins almost look like branch mint
proofs but you'll find a cent like this in the '88 Denver packet and then you might look at ten straight coins
in the next ten '88 Denver packets that are unattractive with scratches and no appealing characteristics.
Some dates are made horribly and no coins will look nice and some are better.
For most dates, mint marks, and denominations the finest coins each year will be found in the mint sets,
but there are exceptions. These coins can hardly be considered NCLT with so many in circulation and the
fact that they can not be positively differentiated from any other coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>CladKing - The coin was never minted for circulation and now that PCGS graded it ms 70 it will probably never be circulated.Coins in mint sets were never minted for circulation.
Stewart >>
You say tomato, I say tomatoe.
The mint referred to mint set coins as regular circulation issues in all its advertising until 1997. When
asked about these coins they normally answered that they were like all other circulating issues. On rare
occasion they would mention that there were coins being made that somehow differed from the other
coins and that these went into mint sets. The few people who sought gems were well aware that the
sets contained superior examples of circulating coinage ever since 1965. Information on why this was
true dribbled out of the mint over decades. It was almost as though this was considered some sort of se-
cret. Even a cursory look at the coins would reveal that they were all struck by new dies. This does not
distinguish them in any way from regular circulation strikes though because all dies start off new. The coins
are better struck in the mint sets and now we know this is partially due to the use of the older vertical
presses for these coins. But this too doesn't really distinguish them from regular strikes because a few
of the other coins are struck on these presses as well, though this may be coming to an end. The mint
set coins are washed and dried but nothing is really making it impossible for the other coins to be clean
of contaminants once collectors get them. Finally mint set coins are struck at higher pressure. While this
may seem to indicate that they are different the simple fact is that it's impossible to tell by looking at a
coin how much pressure it was struck under. You can only say that it's fully struck or less than fully struck
and there are circulation issue coins which are fully struck. Almost every year I've been able to find a few
of these from rolls and bags.
The only substantial difference between a 2003 cent in a jumbo bag and one from a mint set is that the
mint used to be extremely secretive about the mint set coins. Yes, it's true that in most cases the mint
set coin will be superior but no one really knew the source of this coin until it was annuounced recently.
Mint set coins aren't necessarily free of marks and in some years they can actually be worse for marking
than the coins in bags. Knowing where the high grade coins are found is helpful to others who seek the
coins.
But perhaps more important to the decision of whether these are circulating coins or not is the simple
fact that there are probably more mint set coins in circulation than in mint sets. These sets have been
destroyed for years because of low prices and the coins spent. I've seen examples of worn coins in
circulation with mint set crimping damage.
No. By any measure these are all circulation issues. Sometimes it's hard to believe when you see a near
perfect strike by a basined die on a burnished planchet. A few of these coins almost look like branch mint
proofs but you'll find a cent like this in the '88 Denver packet and then you might look at ten straight coins
in the next ten '88 Denver packets that are unattractive with scratches and no appealing characteristics.
Some dates are made horribly and no coins will look nice and some are better.
For most dates, mint marks, and denominations the finest coins each year will be found in the mint sets,
but there are exceptions. These coins can hardly be considered NCLT with so many in circulation and the
fact that they can not be positively differentiated from any other coins. >>
If such high quality coins are being issued by the tens of thousands, why is finding one that stands up to microscopic scrutiny such a big deal?
If such high quality coins are being issued in the tens of thousands,why is finding one that stands up to microscopic scrutiny such a big deal ?
Because David Hall has to approve the ms 70 grade ?
Stewart
<< <i>
If such high quality coins are being issued by the tens of thousands, why is finding one that stands up to microscopic scrutiny such a big deal?
Mint sets are made by the hundreds of thousands, and even the millions but some coins are
rarely encountered nice in the sets. Generally, yes, you're right that the nice coins are made in
the tens of thousands which is hardly rare by the standards of trade dollars or large cents. But
there are complicating considerations. Perhaps primarily is the simple fact that some were not
made in these numbers and are legitimately scarce by any measure. If you don't believe it then
try finding a nice attractive '76 t II Ike in decent shape. Not that you will be able to but it will give
you some appreciation of how tough a gem is. Another complicating factor is that large numbers
of mint sets have been destroyed. Low prices on these sets is not so much indicative of high sup-
ply but rather low demand.
And this discussion is about gems. MS-65 and better tends to account for between 1% and 7%
of mintage for most of the coins in mint sets but populations thin out rapidly above this level. At
MS-67 there are numerous coins that are nearly unavailable and some which are no longer avail-
able. Try finding a '79-D cent in really choice gem condition. These do exist but they are not com-
mon like some of the later date cents.
It is only the 1986 to date cents where superb quality becomes more commonly available for mint
set cents. The coins from bags also get nicer during this period but as is typical; seeking the best
coins in the sets is like shooting fish in a barrel while looking in rolls and bags can prove exceedingly
unfruitful. Some moderns don't really exist in rolls and bags anyway so one has no choice but to
look in the sets.
Be this as it may none of these cents is truly common in MS-69. The few hundred graded for 2003
may turn into a significantly higher number as time goes on but anyone who thinks thousands of
1979-D cents will be turning up in MS-68 just doesn't know these coins. They don't exist. Those
which did are long since lost to circulation and there are not large numbers remaining in the mint
sets. Unlike older coins which have turned up in old collections for generations, there are no old
collections of moderns. These are thinly collected and most sets have been formed only in the last
few years. These won't even be on the market for another generation or two. And most of these
sets are not going to contain MS-68 '79-D or MS-70 2003 cents.
I'm not contending the regular issues are rare except sometimes in the higher grades. I'm merely
saying that many of these are worth far more than the extremely low price at which they trade and
that some which trade even at the highest prices might well be considered bargains someday. The
coins are fun to collect and this is attracting interest. This will help to uncover the issues in short
supply and will put pricing pressure on the rarities and many of the common coins and high grades
as well. Moderns are not everyone's cup of tea and are inappropriate for those who seek sets of rare
coins since moderns tend to be either common or excessively rare with few in between. They are in-
appropriate for many other collectors as well but this doesn't hurt them in my or many others' eyes.
coin is MS-66/ 67. MS-68's are fairly easy (1: 30), but the MS-69's are quite tough.
For many dates there is no such thing as an MS-69. Regardless of what some may
claim there is a difference in quality between two grades of coins. This difference is
subtle with modern proofs but it is real. There is no need that it should be subtle
between MS-69 and 70 cents. It's hardly impossible that a few of the MS-69's are
as nice but it's not at all realistic to claim that coins can't be graded this finely. Any
coins can be ranked on a 10 point scale but it's relatively easier for more recent dates
because surfaces will not vary dramatically due to the effects of time.
Will some of the 69's be sent in for regrading? Probably. but even if more are made,
there's no real chance that the flood gates will open because there is a real difference
and the mint just never did make many coins perfectly and then issue them undamaged.
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>cladking, you say "tomatoe" ???? maybe that's why I never bought all your arguments on moderns !!!
Dan Quayle may not have been good for a lot but he made a damn fine teacher.