The stopper!

RYK · October 30, 2006 3:16AM

I have recently bailed on my SLQ album set because I cannot stand the idea of buying a 1916 quarter, and similarly cannot stand the idea of leaving the hole open. (We should all have such problems, right?)

On to the next issue. I started a Charlotte $5 date set earlier this year, and things are moving along nicely. There are 24 coins in the basic set, including two naked eye varieties of the 1842-C $5 issue, a "large date" and a "small date". It is similar to the Dahlonega set, but the relative rarities are switched. (For the D-mint set, the large date is the tough one and for C-mint, it's the small date). My problem is that the small date is outrageoulsy expensive, compared to coins of similar rarity in other rare date gold series. I am plugging along with a nice XF/AU set, much nicer and more even than my Dahlonega set, and I look at the pricing for the 42-C $5 SD, and in original XF-45, it would be easily the most expensive coin that I have ever purchased. Given that it is a variety AND overvalued, I am on-the-fence on how to handle it.

The options are:

1. Buy a lower grade example
2. Buy a nice XF and make it your only gold coin purchase for the year.
3. Skip it.

(I am inclined to do #3).

Before you say (again), "we should all have such problems," there are many others series that have similar stoppers. Collecting the Walker short set in MS-65, there are two coins that are 10x the value of the rest. Of course, the venerable 09-S VDB, 16-D merc dime, 18/17-D 5c, and so on. So, my question is, how do you personally handle "the stopper" in your series.

(Speaking of stoppers, wasn't Wainwright fabulous in the postseason?

MrEureka · October 30, 2006 3:24AM

Wait until you find the right coin at the right price, at a time when you can afford it. Never compromise.

mgoodm3 · October 30, 2006 3:24AM

There's a major stopper in the proof indian cents, the 1864L. It's at least 10X the price of the next most expensive date in comparable grades. I probably won't ever have one. but then again, I'll probably move onto collecting something else before I get to the point of completing my set anyway.

I'd do #3 until I decide that #2 is feasible.

MikeInFL · October 30, 2006 3:25AM

For the sets I've started recently (late and middle date large cents being two prime examples), I've tried to go after the stoppers first, but often these coins are hard to find nice, so in general I just look for nice coins that I don't have already and wait for the tougher ones to come available.

If you're doing a date set, why worry about varieties? I'd tend towards 3, too. You can always come back later and add the varieties...Mike

MrBreeze · October 30, 2006 3:27AM

Don't buy one until you find the one you want for your set. If it is the last coin you buy for your set, so be it. If the set is going to take a number of years to finish, the opportunity will present itself. In the seated quarters, there are three CCs which command a premium. I have no plans to buy them, unless the prices become more in tune with the reality of their rarity. I think they will be available, eventually, but I am in no hurry. I can feel your pain, though. The Barber quarters represent a nice little set to put together. You have two "expensive" pieces to get, and some condition rarities to contend with. But, throw in the most overpriced coin in the market (1901-S), and you get a set that is not worth completing.

coinguy1 · October 30, 2006 3:27AM

At the risk of repeating myself (again).....Don't be a slave to your collecting. Allow yourself the freedom to collect what and how YOU want.

BillJones · October 30, 2006 3:27AM

I've never had the funds with which to work that you have, although I was collecting at a time when prices were lower on an overall basis in the 1980s and early '80s. Back then I would have years in which I would purchase only a couple nice coins a year and really enjoy what I owned.

My attitude has been that I purchase the best coin that I can afford within reason. Usually I look at the point were the price really jumps to next grade to a point where I can't afford it, or the purchase of the higher grade coin would take so much of my funds that I would be out of the market for a long time. Using that strategy, my early type coins range in grade from Fine to MS-61 although when I had my coins slabbed all of the Fine graded pieces came back as VF.

For some coins, like the 1796-7 half dollar, the only coins I could afford were in Fair to AG, usualy with a major defect like a hole. I refused to pay thousands of dollars for such garbage, and opted to leave that space in my collection blank. Ditto for the 1802 half dime, which is only major item that I don't own in my early half dime set.

I've not exactly answered you question, but perhaps my logic will be of help.

RYK · October 30, 2006 3:28AM

<< If you're doing a date set, why worry about varieties? I'd tend towards 3, too. You can always come back later and add the varieties...Mike >>

It is a major naked eye variety and is considered to be part of the "basic set". I, and most, would consider the set to be incomplete without it.

Edit: It is part of the basic set in the same way the 09 and 09-S VDBs are.

tradedollarnut · October 30, 2006 3:28AM

<< If you're doing a date set, why worry about varieties? I'd tend towards 3, too. You can always come back later and add the varieties...Mike >>

JZrarities · October 30, 2006 3:28AM

Buy the 'stopper' first.

RichieURich · October 30, 2006 3:29AM

RYK, I would do #2, but that's just me. I understand your dilemma, and #1 and #3 are also good answers.

Mgoodm, the 1864-L in proof is huge huge money, probably 12x to 15x the price of the 1877 in a comparable proof grade. What I would do is skip it in proof and get a nice Unc., a nice Unc. 1908-S and 1909-S.

MikeInFL · October 30, 2006 3:31AM

<< 

<< If you're doing a date set, why worry about varieties? I'd tend towards 3, too. You can always come back later and add the varieties...Mike >>

It is a major naked eye variety and is considered to be part of the "basic set". I, and most, would consider the set to be incomplete without it.

Edit: It is part of the basic set in the same way the 09 and 09-S VDBs are. >>

Then if you consider it part of the set, and without its inclusion your set would be incomplete, then go for it. Personally, I would be turned off by the simple fact that it would be my entire coin collecting budget for the year, so I would first consider getting it in a lower grade, but YMMV...Mike

PerryHall · October 30, 2006 3:32AM

RYK---What's the price difference between a nice VF30 or 35 and the XF45? Either one can be a highly desirable coin.

tradedollarnut · October 30, 2006 3:36AM

FYI - the PCGS Charlotte gold coin Registry Set only requires one coin.

Personally, I'd ignore the variety and use the money for other desirable coins.

Longacre · October 30, 2006 3:37AM

I don't think the value of my current house is equal to RYK's yearly coin budget.

I would go with option #3. It will be fun to make regular purchases of quality coins whenever they turn up, and then by the time you are done with all of the other coins, it is possible that the price of the stopper might come down from this inflated market, or maybe it will be still out of reach but the other quality coins that you have will make up for its absence.

Rather than asking this question of the boards, a more important question to ask is: WWDWD? Have you asked?

ziggy29 · October 30, 2006 3:37AM

For me, the main stopper was the 1877 IHC. The toughest thing for me was expecting to hear from my wife, "you spent HOW MUCH for a PENNY?!?!"

But she was actually pretty cool about it when I explained what I was planning to do (offering to sell some other coins to pay for half of it helped). So I went ahead and bit the bullet, found a nice one, hit it for $1,600 (still the most I've ever paid for a coin) and it was a very liberating feeling, as if the 800-pound gorilla was no longer on my shoulders. With the "stopper" behind me I can concentrate on upgrading, and when cash flow improves again, fill the last big hole ('09-S).

And I expect less pushback on that one, too -- my better half thinks it's cool that the '77 is probably worth almost a grand more than I paid for it...

CharlotteDude · October 30, 2006 3:43AM

Let's just say that regarding the only F-15 (PCGS) example I know of on the market, the owner is asking $8K for. A VF would prob go in the neighborhood of $12-13K, with a properly graded (and original!) XF going into the $20K range. It depends on the individual's tolerance factor... opting not to pick up a '42-C SD is like ignoring the '42-D LD in a "complete" Dahlonega $5 run, although the '42-C SD is a more pricey competitor. I'm probably going to side with #2 personally... those who've checked out my NGC registry set can see I've put that one off so far... it's inevitable, the force too great...

where's my tylenol?

'dude

RYK · October 30, 2006 3:44AM

<< FYI - the PCGS Charlotte gold coin Registry Set only requires one coin.

Personally, I'd ignore the variety and use the money for other desirable coins. >>

It is in the NGC Registry as part of the set, and I swing both ways.

It is a separate entry in the Akers book, the Guth/Garrett book, and, of course, the definitive DW book. It's hard to ignore.

DW blogged on it a couple months ago:

A reader recently asked me an interesting question: “…can you name some currently popular gold coin rarities that might suffer the same fate as the (once popular but now forgotten) 1858 $10?” This is an excellent question and it got me thinking. I have identified a few potential popular-now-but-potentially-forgotten-in-the future gold issues....

1842-C Small Date Half Eagle. The 1842-C Small Date is the key date Charlotte half eagle. It became popular in the 1970’s and prices rose considerably through the 1980’s and the early 1990’s. But the 1842-C Small Date half eagle hit the wall a few years ago. I think there are three reasons for this.

The first is that Charlotte coinage has (temporarily) fallen out of favor. The second is that this coin is, in all honesty, well overvalued in current price guides. Coin World Trends shows values of $55,000 for this issue in AU50 and $100,000 in AU58. A quick perusal of recent sales at auction will show that a number of 1842-C Small Date half eagles have sold for less than half of Trends value. The third is that this date can be filled in a set of Charlotte half eagles by an 1842-C Large Date which is considerably cheaper (around $5,000 for a nice AU). I would not be surprised to see prices and collector interest for this issue to continue to fall in the coming years.

tradedollarnut · October 30, 2006 3:50AM

<< 

<< FYI - the PCGS Charlotte gold coin Registry Set only requires one coin.

Personally, I'd ignore the variety and use the money for other desirable coins. >>

It is in the NGC Registry as part of the set, and I swing both ways.

It is a separate entry in the Akers book, the Guth/Garrett book, and, of course, the definitive DW book. It's hard to ignore. >>

What's the Redbook say?

Well, I can't argue to hard against it because I chose to acquire an 1875 s/cc trade dollar .... it's traditionally been part of the basic set even tho it's a variety. However, a large date small date seems more of a minor variety than an overmintmark or overdate.

If I had a budget I had to stick to, I'd definitely dump the s/cc and use the money elsewhere!

123cents · October 30, 2006 3:53AM

tradedollarnut · October 30, 2006 3:56AM

The third is that this date can be filled in a set of Charlotte half eagles by an 1842-C Large Date which is considerably cheaper (around $5,000 for a nice AU). I would not be surprised to see prices and collector interest for this issue to continue to fall in the coming years.

Sounds like DW doesn't consider it to be part of the basic set.

RYK · October 30, 2006 3:57AM

<< 

<< 

<< FYI - the PCGS Charlotte gold coin Registry Set only requires one coin.

Personally, I'd ignore the variety and use the money for other desirable coins. >>

It is in the NGC Registry as part of the set, and I swing both ways.

It is a separate entry in the Akers book, the Guth/Garrett book, and, of course, the definitive DW book. It's hard to ignore. >>

What's the Redbook say?

Well, I can't argue to hard against it because I chose to acquire an 1875 s/cc trade dollar .... it's traditionally been part of the basic set even tho it's a variety. However, a large date small date seems more of a minor variety than an overmintmark or overdate.

If I had a budget I had to stick to, I'd definitely dump the s/cc and use the money elsewhere! >>

It's more than just "large date" and "small date". It is a transitional year for a significant design change, from smaller letters on the reverse to larger letters. I posted a thread on this a while back.

Dahlonega · October 30, 2006 3:58AM

The 1842-C small date seems significantly overvalued to me especially considering its availability. Therefor, it is a coin that I would consider postponing its purchase anticipating the price might adjust downward in the future. There are some uncirculated's available in the 200k range that, in my opinion, shouldn't be 'worth' more than 60k.

tradedollarnut · October 30, 2006 3:58AM

It is a transitional year for a significant design change, from smaller letters on the reverse to larger letters

Ahhh - that makes more sense then.

Baley · October 30, 2006 4:01AM

RYK wants the coin, this much is obvious. the question remains, when to get, and how nice a coin?

there are several stoppers in the series I collect: 1796 quarter, 1804 quarter, 1823 quarter, 1827 quarter come to mind immediately,

as do the 1796 and 1797 halves, the 1806 knob 6/ no stem through claw, and about a dozen esoteric varieties in both denominations that are R6, R7, and R8

my strategy is to work around them for now, and hope for a larger coin budget in the future.

for me, it's neither settle nor skip, but simply go on waiting..

waiting until I can comfortably afford a coin I'll be happy with.

WoodenJefferson · October 30, 2006 4:02AM

Would have been nice had I said something....blank posts are of no use to anyone.

They come in various sizes from Morgan all the down to SLQ's & Washington Q's

Just kidding of course...good question, there are so many varibles to consider when you get to these stopper coins. Patients comes to mind...to those who wait, reward will be realized in the end.

Good luck in finding that special stopper!

ColonialCoinUnion · October 30, 2006 4:22AM

Unless your set is housed in an album of some sort such that an item you are missing will be a glaring hole in the set (literally) that slowly drives you made, necessitates heavy medication and thus forces you to curtail your posting here, I just don't think you should let the goal of absolute completion compel you to spend what you believe to be too much money on a coin you really won't like.

So I'd skip it.

Barry · October 30, 2006 4:40AM

Sell the gold set and buy the 1916 SLQ

kiyote · October 30, 2006 4:42AM

Buy an MS69 tribute version for $3.00...

Shamika · October 30, 2006 4:45AM

<< So, my question is, how do you personally handle "the stopper" in your series. >>

Actually, when I see a "stopper" that meets my personal criteria (grade, price, eye-appeal), I typically go through my collection and see what coins I can replace fairly easily and/or don't much care for anymore and then use these towards trade. This significantly reduces the financial load and gives me the opportunity to improve the quality of my collection when I replace the coins that have been traded away.

Two years ago I traded four expensive coins and some cash for a mint state 26-S Buffalo (the proverbial Stopper). Three of the four coins I traded were pieces that had lost favor with me over the past 24 months. The other coin was a PCGS MS65RB S-VDB that I hated to give up. However, this is a date EASILY replaced and having the Stopper out of the way makes me think I can complete my collecting goal.

<< The options are:

1. Buy a lower grade example
2. Buy a nice XF and make it your only gold coin purchase for the year.
3. Skip it. >>

In my opinion, the second choice is the best option. Any other choice and it will eat you up like the SLQ set did.

BobGreene · October 30, 2006 4:53AM

Find yourself a silver quarter planchet, put it in the hole, and then tell yourself and everybody else that it COULD have been a 1916 SL quarter.

lkenefic · October 30, 2006 4:58AM

This is a great thread!! Alot of good advice for people just starting out here.

Like Ziggys' set...the 1877 IHC is the "stopper" for me in this series and I still need it. I settled on a 1909-S IHC and I've regretted it ever since. I would have rather waited and spent a bit more to get the look I want for my IHC set (see my avatar) than settle on the one I purchased. Since buying the '09-S IHC that I have, I've been rethinking my collecting goals. Not just for this series, but my overall collection as well. This has meant that I've sold off a substantial portion of my collection and I've gotten alot more patient/picky in my acquisitions.

There alot of "stoppers" in just collecting a date set of US cents...1793...1799...1804 (I swoon at the price of a decent 1799)...but remember.. "persistence pays..."

RYK · October 30, 2006 5:02AM

...but remember.. "persistence pays..."

Not so. Cash (or check) pays. Dealers do not want you to send them your persistence. I spoke with my Numismatic Advisor/Psychologist, and I think that I have a strategy in place over which I will not lose sleep and will not need to be medicated. He could not get me over the 1916 quarter, though. I might need to consult a 20th century silver specialist for that issue.

ColonialCoinUnion · October 30, 2006 7:51AM

<< I spoke with my Numismatic Advisor/Psychologist, and I think that I have a strategy in place over which I will not lose sleep and will not need to be medicated. >>

You're welcome.

IGWT · October 30, 2006 8:22AM

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would design a set that contains a stopper.

Baley · October 30, 2006 9:20AM

I'm not sure I understand your not understanding. The mint designed the set. One or more coins in the set is prohibitively rare and expensive, a.k.a. a "stopper"

lkenefic · October 30, 2006 9:34AM

<< ...but remember.. "persistence pays..."

Not so. Cash (or check) pays. Dealers do not want you to send them your persistence. I spoke with my Numismatic Advisor/Psychologist, and I think that I have a strategy in place over which I will not lose sleep and will not need to be medicated. He could not get me over the 1916 quarter, though. I might need to consult a 20th century silver specialist for that issue. >>

I guess what I meant to say was more in relation to persistence paying off in the pursuit of locating a suitable coin for your collection. Believe me, if I could find Mr. Persistence and have him pay for my next few purchases, I certainly would have HIM pony up the dough (...and I'm not making bread here!!).

As far as losing sleep or needing medication... I guess I'm not quite as much into this hobby as I had thought.

L

Myqqy · October 30, 2006 10:11AM

This sounds like rich persons' problems......

IGWT · October 30, 2006 10:21AM

<< I'm not sure I understand your not understanding. The mint designed the set. One or more coins in the set is prohibitively rare and expensive, a.k.a. a "stopper" >>

The Mint "designed the set" only if we limit ourselves to the tradition of collecting a series by date and mint mark. There's no need to bind ourselves to that tradition; and, even if a collector opts to collect in that way, I still don't understand choosing a set that contains unobtainable coins.

Edit for typo.

RYK · October 30, 2006 10:45AM

<< This sounds like rich persons' problems......

>>

Actually, it's not. If one were rich, one would not have the problem.

Edit: If you are wealthy, there is no such thing as a "stopper".

FatMan · October 30, 2006 10:55AM

Collect for fun. If buying the coin at the desired grade would not be fun, then leave it out of the set.

michael · October 30, 2006 11:56AM

2. Buy a nice XF and make it your only gold coin purchase for the year.

SkyMan · October 30, 2006 12:07PM

Last I heard tell coin collecting is a hobby. It is meant to be FUN, so do what gives you PLEASURE.

So far I've completed the 2 1/2 Indian set in MS63/64, Peace dollars in MS64/65, Frankie proofs in cam/dcam (grades ranging from 65 to 68), and am currently working on toned Frankies in 65/66 preferably FBL. The first two sets were created in the late 1980's and early 1990's of coins solely in first generation PCGS holders and quite a few would have upgraded by current standards. Both the Indians and the Peace dollars were sold in the early '90's and needless to say I'm kicking myself now over the '11-D.

Generally my philosophy has always been to allow a little bit of grade mixture in my sets, as long as the coin is attractive. So I'd probably go with a slightly lower grade coin as long as it is attractive... after all, once you have it you can always upgrade it if you feel the need.

tradedollarnut · October 30, 2006 12:38PM

Personally, I would not find it fun to purchase only one coin in a whole year..... unless perhaps it was the coin I'd waited all my life to own!

RYK · October 31, 2006 6:10AM

It looks like I made the DW blog (again).

Link to DW blog

A client of mine recently asked me an interesting question about whether the addition of a specific Charlotte half eagle would—or wouldn’t—remove the Stigma of Incompleteness from his set. I thought this was an interesting question and it got me to thinking about how the presence or absence of certain issues relate to rare gold coin collecting.

Not everyone is cut out to work on a complete set. Some collectors do not have the patience; others do not have deep enough pockets. To some collectors, a complete set is monotonous and an exercise in futility. To others, it is an interesting challenge with defined goals.

So what exactly constitutes a complete set?

There is no standard answer to this question. As an example, what should a collector do if he collects Three Dollar gold pieces and he doesn’t want to spend $200,000+ to purchase nice examples of the 1875 and 1876? These are issues that were struck only as Proofs and, in theory, they do not need to be included in a set of Three Dollar gold pieces if the focus is business strike issues. In my opinion, a set of Threes is not technically complete without an 1875 or an 1876, but I can fully understand a collector’s decision to not purchase these two issues due to the fact that they were not struck for circulation.

In the case of Three Dollar gold pieces, what is the collector supposed to do about the proverbial elephant-in-the room, the unique 1870-S? My suggestion would be to ignore this date as its extreme rarity makes it an essentially impossible issue to obtain.

In the Charlotte series there are a few issues that are open to debate as to whether they should or should not be in a complete set. In my opinion, both varieties of 1842-C quarter eagles (Large Date and Small Date) and both varieties of 1842-C half eagles should be included. These are design variations which are readily visible to the naked eye. A set that has only one of these could be called a complete date set but it would not be a complete variety set.

What about mintmark variations on Charlotte coins, such as an 1850-C Weak C? Is a set complete without one of these pieces? This is a striking variation and it is not, in my opinion, an essential component of a set unless the set is very in-depth and includes die varieties and strike variations. In this case, I would then include interesting items such as an 1855-C half eagle with a cud reverse or an 1840-C half eagle with broad and narrow milling.

The Dahlonega series has a few issues that are difficult to decide where they fall as far as being included in a set or not. Clearly, the 1842-D Small Date and Large Date half eagles should both be included in the set as they are design variations. What about the interesting 1846-D/D and 1848-D/D half eagles? I have always regarded them as members of a complete set but can totally understand the argument that they are die varieties. And if these two varieties are included then what about the less well-known but equally significant 1840-D and 1841-D Small D and Tall D varieties? Again, my position on these is that they are die varieties and should only be included in a highly specialized collection that includes significant naked-eye die varieties.

And what about New Orleans gold coinage? I have always considered the 1843-O Large Date and Small Date quarter eagles to be essential components of a complete set as well as the 1843-O Small Letters and Large Letters half eagles. In my opinion, anything else is a die variety which does not need to be complete.

What about the 1854-O and 1856-O double eagles; two issues which now cost over $250,000 each for a presentable example? Sorry, but a set of New Orleans gold coinage that is complete except for these two coins is impressive but still not finished. These two coins are totally legitimate regular issues with no stigma of controversy attached to them. If you are a serious enough collector to want to assemble a full set of circulation strike New Orleans gold coins, you just have to face up to the fact, unpleasant or not, that there are two very, very expensive coins waiting for you down the road. And, for better or worse, these two coins are probably going to define the quality of your set.

(Oh, and by the way, the 1841-O half eagle does not exist. So don’t worry about filling a phantom hole…even if this coin is mentioned in the Redbook and the Breen Encyclopedia).

OK, so what about 20th century issues?

In my opinion, an Indian Head half eagle set is very straight forward. The Indian Head eagle set has traditionally required a 1907 Rolled Edge and 1907 Wire Edge to be considered complete. This is a pretty tricky question. The Wire Edge was issued in a large enough quantity that I think it’s safe to say that it was a regular issue and, thus, it should be included in any set. The Rolled Edge is a much tougher call. Only 50 or so pieces were produced and the fabric of this coin suggests that it is experimental in nature. The 1907 Rolled Edge is listed in the Judd book as a pattern (but, then again, so is the Wire Edge…) but it has traditionally been included in the regular issue set. I’m not certain what the right answer is, but I think most advanced collectors have decided that they will purchase the Rolled Edge.

The St. Gaudens set contains some really tricky “include it vs. don’t include it” issues. Obviously, the Ultra High Relief does not belong in a regular issue set. Neither, of course, does the (currently) illegal 1933. What about the Wire Edge and Flat Rim varieties of High Reliefs? To me, it’s obvious that these are strike-related varieties and they do not constitute any sort of design change. The 1927-D? It’s a regular issue coin and you don’t have a complete set of Saints if you don’t have a 1927-D.

Doug Winter
10/31/06

Reece · October 31, 2006 8:05AM

I just knew it was you DW was referring to when I just read the blog a few minutes ago!!

mirabela · October 31, 2006 9:28AM

I would probably skip it. You say "it is considered to be part of the basic set," drawing the analogy to the S-VDB cent or the 18/7-D SLQ. The catch is, considered by whom? Are there realistically more than two dozen people in the nation who would ever consider building a set of these? It is easy to say about the millions of people who collect Lincoln cents, "Who cares what they think?" and even easier to say it about the tiny crew of compulsive folks who pursue the same specialty as you.

I don't know what the price tag on the coin is, but will it bring you as much joy as any of the hundreds of other things you could do with that much money? If the answer is anything but yes, skip it. In any case, the worst thing to do would be to buy a lesser coin that does not work with the rest of the set. You will hate it.

RYK · October 31, 2006 12:09PM

<< I would probably skip it. You say "it is considered to be part of the basic set," drawing the analogy to the S-VDB cent or the 18/7-D SLQ. The catch is, considered by whom? Are there realistically more than two dozen people in the nation who would ever consider building a set of these? It is easy to say about the millions of people who collect Lincoln cents, "Who cares what they think?" and even easier to say it about the tiny crew of compulsive folks who pursue the same specialty as you.

I don't know what the price tag on the coin is, but will it bring you as much joy as any of the hundreds of other things you could do with that much money? If the answer is anything but yes, skip it. In any case, the worst thing to do would be to buy a lesser coin that does not work with the rest of the set. You will hate it. >>

Interesting perspective, mirabela, and you know that I always value your opinion. That said, I disagree. As a collector and student of numismatics, I am not out to impress anyone but myself. So long as the set is incomplete from my perspective, it is incomplete.

I do not like to throw around price tags on the forum, but you could search Heritage auction archives or Trends to get an idea what a 42-C $5 SD is worth. Needless to say, in XF it is probably going to cost about five times what a typical date would and in choice AU, about ten times as much. The bigger issue is not the absolute price, but my belief that the coin is overvalued and should not command the price premium that it does. Doug offered the possibilty that someone is hoarding these coins, resulting in an artificially high demand and price.

mirabela · October 31, 2006 12:19PM

<< my belief that the coin is overvalued and should not command the price premium that it does. Doug offered the possibilty that someone is hoarding these coins, resulting in an artificially high demand and price. >>

All the more reason to skip it, I say. "Overvalued" implies a greater-than-average likelihood of significant decline in market value. I don't need to know the price tag to know we're talking about a large enough amount that it matters in objective terms. As one tries to avoid buying overvalued securities or real estate, it would seem to make sense to avoid buying overvalued coins.

I know you are serious about the hobby, so maybe it is worth it. Then again, it isn't like there is an album for those things where you're going to be looking at an empty hole. <here mirabela shrugs> What do I know? The whole hobby stops making sense for me several zeroes before it does for lots of other folks. In any case, if you buy a coin, buy a good one.

RYK · October 31, 2006 12:27PM

In any case, if you buy a coin, buy a good one.

That I will do, even if I have to look a very, very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very, very
very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,
very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,
very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,
very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,
very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very, very long time for one.

If you are indefinitely searching for it, but never find an acceptable one (price or quality or quality for price), you have not abandoned your mission; it is just a work-in-progress.

roadrunner · October 31, 2006 12:36PM

For this very reason I have never completed a "significant" set or made an attempt to do so in any standard series. Rather than dump money on common issues, or overrated "so-called rare" issues, or have 50 specimens of the same coin, I'll spend my money on coins I want, regardless of set completion. Completing smaller subsets is achievable but not major sets in the grades I desire.

Let me ask you this: if your set was auctioned off and this one variety of $5 gold was missing would it make one bit of difference in the prices realized or overall demand for the other coins? Would other collectors shun the auction because you had the audacity to skip an overpriced variety. I think not! Imagine if Eliasberg had never gotten his last coin (1873-cc NA dime), would we have thought less of his collection? Hardly. This is all mind games.
If you had a simple box of 20, or a 99% complete set, as long as you were happy with the coins, the next set of potential owners would be quite thrilled as well.

roadrunner

The stopper!

Comments

Leave a Comment