1957 Half PCGSPR69DCAM $20,000

Dennisl

Yes, that title is correct. New just in from the FUN SHOW. Is this a new record?
1957 Half PCGSPR69DCAM sold for $20,000 WOW. I guess the market is heating up.

itsnotjustme

Shoot, Pop 1 but with 40 PR68DCAMs.

I wonder what the 1959 69DCAM would sell for... it's also a Pop 1, but only 1 68DCAM, and 9 DCAMs in any grade!

CU price guide has $4,500 for the 57 in 68DCAM, but $24,000 for the 59 in 68DCAM.

Wingsrule

I would guess the 59 69DC would beat the 53-S FBL that sold for $69K awhile back.

Rumor has it that the 57 is the 2nd such graded; pop reports haven't been updated yet.

braddick

These are definitely Sight-Seen PR69DCAM prices! Now, with a second Franklin selling for this price that glass ceiling is not just cracked, but shattered beyond repair.

lordmarcovan

Wow indeed, but for the money, I think my 1956 PCGS PR67 DCAM type coin is a better value. And I'll bet it looks 90% as nice as the $20,000 monster. I suppose if I were a Franklin half specialist instead of a type set generalist, I'd be more impressed. If I were shopping for a type coin again, I'd save over $19,000 by buying my coin instead, and only lose two tiny grade points.

OK, maybe I just don't "get it".

coingame2000

I just can't contain myself...a $20,000 proof Franklin half dollar??? When this modern-mania ends, AND IT WILL END, I certainly wouldn't want to be the one left holding the proverbial hot potatoe! This phenomenon is eerily reminiscent of the mid-17th Century tulip bulb mania, which ultimately went bust and never recovered. I can only hope that good old fashioned common sense will ultimately prevail before too many people are buried up to their necks. I know I'll take a lot of heat for expressing my opinion on this message board (after all, they often shoot the messenger don't they?) but someone has to step up and attempt to be the voice of reason before it's too late...

Best Regards,

Mike De Falco

Ronyahski

Mike - I am not going to shoot you, but commend you. I agree with you, the prices for high-pop moderns is way overextended! I think you wrote your post for the same reason I am, to cause any collectors out there collecting high-pop moderns at such prices who may have second thoughts, please stop and think for a third time! For those collectors out there comfortable buying in this market at these prices... well, have fun and good luck. Who knows, maybe you'll have the last laugh all the way to the bank, but this is one guy's opinion.

Chippewa

If the purchaser is on the board, let me apologize in advance. However, this is madness that I assume is purely fueled by the registry thing.

wondercoin

Coingame2000, et al: I am not going to argue with you, one way or the other, on whether a 1957 Franklin in PCGS-PR69DCAM is worth $20,000. But, I would like you both to comment equally on "outrageous" prices for both classic and modern. My point being if "crazy" money is being paid across the board for coins, then why FOCUS on the modern sales. For example, consider these approximate prices on some classic commems sold at the FUN auction:

1. PCGS-MS66 Cleveland, which blue sheets at $405. Price realized at FUN approx. $12,000.00!!!!!!!! PCGS-MS67 sheets at $2,600!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. PCGS-MS65 Hawaiian, which blue sheets at $3,335. Price realized at FUN approx. $23,000.00!!!!!! CAN THIS BE RIGHT?????? PCGS-MS66 sheet at $6,000 and PCGS-MS67 (only -1- even exists in this grade) is $15,000)!!!!!!!!

and on and on and on. Coingame2000, ETC.-I do not question your pure motives in criticizing "modern" coin prices realized, but what I do raise issue with is your SELECTIVE CRITICISM. When one SELECTIVELY CRITICIZES, motivations are then drawn into question. Solution: Point out the outrageous prices realized for classics along side the modern asault and equally warn the "fools" who blew their money on the classics. Fair? Wondercoin.

dbldie55

If someone has an opinion, which they are entitled to, on paying $20,000 for a Franklin half, why do they also need to point out in the same thread that someone is paying to much for other coins?

This thread is about a Franklin half, not about Classics vs. Moderns. Why try to make it into this arguement?

Typetone

I know something about proof Franklins. A nice 57 in 68DCAM with about 40 graded would sell for about $2,000 to $2,500 (at least I would pay that much). It seems reasonably to me to see a next highest grade pop 1 at about 10X. This would be particularly true if the coin was a DCAM+ and therefore one of a kind. I believe this would apply to classic coins as well. Wouldn't you pay 10X to jump up to a pop one highest grade in any series? The difference between a 68 and a 69 might be slight but probably noticeable. I couldn't afford this coin myself. But, if I could, I would have paid it and taken great pride in it as a centerpiece of my collection.

Dennis:

You know both of us would be happy to pay $3,000 for a nice CN IKE in MS67. That would be about 10X-15X the price of a nice 66 example.

Greg

Ronyahski

WC - I responded to Coingame's post here and you mentioned me as "et.al.", so let me give a shot at responding. I did not write in criticism of modern collectors, but your points are well made, so I wish to re-phrase my comment.

These posts were specifically about Franklins, so it would not be fair if we encompassed a discussion about prices on commens as you suggest. Frankly I know very little about commens, but am looking forward to a discussion about the recent price phenom from Chippewa, RC, and others who are following these coins.

I can comment on Franklin prices because I have spent alot of my collecting effort on high-end Franklins. I am trying to make a point about prices. Prices for highest graded Franklins are to the point now where I would personally rather be on the selling side rather than buying side. In the last few months I have sold Franklins for $13,000, $15,000, and $22,500, where not too long ago prices for these coins were a fraction of that (so I don't think you can question my motives unless you feel that shooting one's self in one's foot qualifies). There just gets to a point when one has to make a personal decision that collecting certain coins becomes overtaken by the investment/cost aspect, and a collector's decision on what to collect and what to sell are affected. So, purely from an investment perspective, and not purely from a collecting perspective, and in my humble opinion, it is time to sell high-end Franklins. I see a correlation between Franklin populations and prices to some of the other modern coin populations and prices (thus my comment on high-pop moderns).

To respond to your comment, I wish to re-phrase mine and merely state, "Buy low and sell high!" Collectors should always consider the investment aspect of their hobby and let that affect their decision on what series to buy and collect, and what series to sell and move on to the next. This axiom applies equally to moderns and classics. Since high-end moderns seem high (at least Franklins do to me), keep this axiom in mind.

Daryl

wondercoin

Darly: I mean this sincerely- Your thread was one of the best written threads I have read all year on this board. Let me think about it for a while, as it was both compelling and thought-provoking. Wondercoin

Dog97

It's madness I tell you madness!!

Wait till some of those 40 68DCams get cracked out and resubmitted...............

quarterjack

$20,000, not your average joe on the street bought this one. I consider this like any other, as an investment and we all know that ALMOST any investment has up and down years. I believe its all about cyclical timing, how far into the bull coin market are we? Look at the metals,very slight movement upward, but upward just the same. Are we starting to see some investors entering the coins again?If i had a crystal ball i'd know for sure, i just hope whoever made this purchase looked at theirs first.Anyway BRAVO! for the buyer for adding some excitement to the market!

Dave

coingame2000

Mitch...

You can call me by name, it's okay, I want people to know from whom the opinion originated. I do, however, wish to set the record straight regarding your comment infering that I am guilty of "SELECTIVE CRITICISM".
If I am guilty of anything, it is exposing hype and/or promotions that may potentially cause unwary collectors and/or investors to lose a substantial portion of their original investment.

My comments aren't aimed at modern coins exclusively, quite the contrary. I warned potential buyers about the Wells Fargo 1908 No Motto $20 Saint Gaudens promotion, hardly a "modern" issue. I authored a consumer alert concerning the SS Central America 1857-S $20 Liberty promotion, an undeniably "classic" coin. I could cite countless other examples of promotions and hype that I've exposed since I began writting consumer alerts in 1981. Moreover, my advice has proved to be right on target and I have received hundreds of letters, faxes, emails, etc. over the years from people who have been spared the grief of serious financial loss as a result of my opinions and advice. I'd certainly match my track record against yours any day of the week.

I find your hyper sensitivity and ability to twist and inflame one's comments to be both self-serving and obnoxious. Just be honest and admit that you are afraid that my comments and advice may have a negative impact on the gravy train upon which you have been riding. You may rest assured that I will continue to call a spade, a spade and time will prove if I am right or wrong. My advice to you is kick back, mellow out and quit being so sensitive, defensive and argumentative.

Best Regards,

Mike De Falco

wondercoin

Mike: I stick to my comment regarding your SELECTIVE ability to attack segments of the market, especially the ones you are not promoting. But I did it in a way without name-calling, unlike you. Also, please don't throw up a challenge to me about your track record vs. mine. I try to avoid airing "dirty laundry" and try to never talk against "family" publicly. I know you can appreciate that. Wondercoin.

ultimatecameo

Daryl -

Regarding your "upside vs. downside" point, and as the new owner of the 1957 Franklin PCGS PR69DCAM -

I think it comes down to the question, "How replaceable is the coin I am now selling?"

Perhaps the 1951-P PCGS MS 67 FBL I bought was originally from you? I considered that coin irreplaceable. While an example of similar quality and eye-appeal may exist, there is no doubt that it is extremely rare in the condition it is in. Therefore, if the owner were to sell it, he would likely face the prospect of never seeing an example of similar quality again.

Its just supply and demand. For collectors who demand really top quality coins from this era (top quality in both grade and eye-appeal), they are finding the supply quite limited.

For comparison, I just bought a 1936 Walker in PCGS PR67 for over $20,000. It is a pop. 9, 1 higher. However, in my experience, the 1936 Walker is far easier to acquire in that grade, than the 1951-P Franklin MS 67 FBL. I guess that must make the 1936 Walker a really bad deal.


I'd like to know the 3 Franklins you sold for four figures.

pontiacinf

when the flash and splash of the PT Barnum wonders wear off...theres gonna be alot of people scratching their heads ....LOL


thank god one wont be me.

MJCoin

I'll keep this short and sweet. If you think $20,000.00 for a population 1, quite possibly the only one ever to grade Proof69 DCAM 1957 Franklin is absurd, try makin' another! Just think of the profit you will make. Good luck.....

pmh1nic

If I were investing $20,000 it wouldn't be going into coins and from my biased perspective it sure wouldn't be going into investing in coins that have super high grade rarity premiums build into their price, modern or classic.

That said if I read the title page correctly it said Collectors Universe. Now I understand the crossover from collector, collector/investor and pure coin investor but speaking as a collector the two miniscule obscure marks that differentiate a PR68DCAM from a PR69DCAM are not worth the huge premium paid for this coin in order to avoid them. It's also my humble opinion that any collector that's willing to pay this type of premium to avoid them has gotten themselves caught up in the minutia of coin grading and needs to take a deep breath, step back and get a look at the bigger numismatic picture.

Of course if you've got tons of money and you'd just as soon blow $20,000 or $30,000 hopping on the Concorde to go to Paris for lunch and enjoy an afternoon of shopping then more power to you. Then again paying 1000x face value for an Indian Head Cent is to 99.999% of the worlds population shear lunacy . It's all a matter of perspective.

And please, no post on how jealosy or envious I am of the individual that purchased this coin. Neither is a motivation for my having the perspective I do on paying these types of grade rarity premiums. It's just an honest difference of perspective and opinion.

ultimatecameo

Mitch,

Isn't this all we're trying to say?...

1. "Modern classics" are a legitimate field of numismatic interest, whether for collection or investment.

2. There are many, many issues which time will prove are truly rare in the higher mint state and proof grades.

3. The collector base for these coins will continue to grow, and be far greater in 10 years than it is now.

4. Given the above, some issues may depreciate (as with other areas of numismatic interest), and some issues will appreciate (as with other....).

To the skeptic, my only challenge is to print this message, post it in your office, and show it to me 10 years from now. I'll be here, and neither I nor you, Mitch, believes we'll have to eat our words.

ultimatecameo

Pontiacinf -

I don't see the analogy (PT Barnum.....) Please explain.

Ronyahski

Rick, long time - In response to your post, "Yes, Yes, Yes!."(1)

I agree with you and to equate my point to yours, allow me to borrow your punch line with a qualifier, "How replaceable is the coin I am now selling... regardless of what series it is and regardless of what grade it is?

A collector (heretofore a collector of high-pop and thus expensive coins) should have a clear idea of what it means to them whether a coin is replaceable.

Regardless of series...A collector may never be able to replace a certain coin like the 57 Proof Franklin you acquired (I hope it is the best proof Franklin you ever lay eyes on). But a collector hopefully should be able to reconcile when they can be happy with themseleves from an investment perspective by selling those high-pop coins that have run up in price, and be content with themselves from a collector perspective by moving onto another series that satisfies their collector enjoyment.

Regardless of grade... Many high-end coins ARE replaceable, despite their slab grade. When prices for highest graded coins run up to unprecedented multiples, collectors should consider taking advantage of it by selling, again from an investment perspective. If they don't want to act because the collector in them says they ARE NOT replaceable and they want to continue collecting that series, well then keep them. However, they should also consider whether that same coin is replaceable down the road at a lower price.

The Franklins I mentioned that I sold were, in my mind, replaceable despite their high-pop status. I'm still holding onto those irreplaceable ones, at least until I can't resist the selling prices. So I believe your point is well made.

Congrats on that 1936 Walker you bought for $20,000. I bid $12,000, you really blew me away on that one. A bad deal? I don't know, but you must admit, neither do you. Time will tell!

Regards,
Daryl

(1) From Meg Ryan, "Sleepless in Seattle".

wondercoin

Rick: Nice summary.

It is likely that many of these markets will not take 10 years to prove anything. Coins like finest known Mint State Jefferson nickels have already seen price movements of upwards of 50x jumps in price in the past 4 years!! I was there 3-4 years ago buying them up and assisting Registrycoin in building the finest set ever (finest at the time he sold less than 1 year ago). Rick, you remember I mentioned them to you a few years ago? There are other "modern classic" series that will likely get as popular as Jeffersons are today just a few years from now. In the meantime, both finest known Mint State and Proof Franklins should remain very popular with collectors. Likewise, the silver MS Wash quarter series (where I devote most of my time to)should remain very popular as well.

Rick: I suspect your biggest problem you might have with buying that 1957 Franklin will be to decide which client will be granted the "honor" of adding the coin to his top collection Wondercoin.

pmh1nic

Whether or not there will be a lively market for these coins in the future has been the subject of some hot debate on the forum. Granted if you've held a particular viewpoint for a long time (us old fogy classic collectors) it can be difficult to distinguish what may be a long term tread from a flash in the pan phenomena since you've seen so many hyped up flash in the pan fads come and go.

I guess my major probably with very high grade rarity premiums, aside from what I believe are the higher down side risk as far as recouping your cost when inevitably the coin has to be sold, is that in my opinion it communicates that the most important component of a coins value is centered around those couple of miniscule marks we've been discussing. The evidence that the focus has becom those few marks is the premium paid over the cost of beautiful coins with exceptional eye appeal in the next lower grade (PR68DCAM). When the focus becomes those few marks I think it tends to cause collectors to lose sight of the bigger picture. The press releases go on and on about that one point difference in grade as a result of those few marks with nothing more to add in respect to how this coin is significant in any other respect that should warrant interest in it.

Again this is a personally matter but if I were going to spend $20,000 for a coin it would probably go for a nice mint state example of a capped head half eagle (1813 ~ 1832) or an early bust eagle (1795 ~ 1804). Why? Because they are relative rare in any grade examples of coins that have a close connection with the formative years in U.S. history and in the history of U.S. coinage. There is also an element of appreciate for their artistic qualities and for that price you could get one in a relatively high grade of preservation. I also believe that their absolute limited numbers and the interest in them as a connection to early U.S. history, which I believe will be transmitted down through succeeding generations, translates into a stead demand for them that gets passed from generation to generation.

Yes, the $20,000 price tag has some connection in the eye appeal of the coin but I don't believe it's the major factor regarding the market pricing for these coins. The premiums you see between these coins in grades of MS-62 to MS-63 or MS-64 to MS-65 (where coins exist in these high grades) are usually the result of something a lot more dramaic than a couple of miniscule marks, things which can translate into significant differences in eye appeal.

O.K. enough of my ranting and raving. To the new owner, enjoy your new coin. To Wondercoin, are you sure you're glad I stuck around .

Higashiyama

Wondercoin --

Regarding your comment:

"It is likely that many of these markets will not take 10 years to prove anything"

For those of us who are skeptical of the prices of high grades modern coins, what happens within ten years to not so relevant. We fully acknowledge there is considerably more upside potential. The NASDAQ doubled after it hit 2500, and could have gone well above 5000 in slightly different circumstances. Ultimately, I believe there will be downward pull on these prices. Twenty + years from now, I don't think any Franklin half will sell for more than an early mint state half eagle.

ultimatecameo

Higashiyama -

I couldn't disagree with you more regarding your eagle half eagle vs. Franklin comparison.

Why?

For the simple fact that dealer/collectors like myself have absolutely no interest in collecting/dealing in early half eagles. Those coins may have tremendous upside for the future, with an established and growing collector base, but the market for the "modern classics" is also growing, and will continue to grow and exand. I refer to my previous transmission:
1. Modern classics are a legitimate field of numismatic interest
2. There are many, many issues which time will prove are truly rare in the higher mint state and proof grades.
3. The collector base for these coins will continue to grow, and be far greater in the future than it is today.
4. Given the above, some issues will depreciate (as with other areas of numismatic interest), and some issues will appreciate (as with other....)

braddick

The emphesis with 'Modern' coin collecting isn't on those two slight marks, it's on the fact the coin doesn't have those slight two marks.
I know I enjoy coin series where I am not distracted by the negative qualities of the coin- the reason I don't collect MS63 Morgan dollars- but rather the beauty of a problem free (mark free?) coin.
Unfortunutely I can't collect MS68 Morgans, so instead I collect coin series that allow me to obtain my collecting objectives and still be in the black at the end of the month.

pmh1nic

Braddick

Whether the marks are there or not there the focus is the marks. The evidence that the two marks are the focus is the willingness to pay the premium to avoid them. Whether you want to call it a glass have empty or a glass half full depends on what you're focusing on. I say a PR68DCAM is a glass 99.8% full but you won't be satisfied with less than 99.9%. You're missing the forest for the trees. Is your focus going to be whatever flaws kept the coin from 70 (whatever they are they have to be miniscule in nature and obscure in location) or are you going to enjoy the overwhelm wonderful characteristics of the coin that make it a gem specimen whether it's a PR68 or PR69 DCAM?

keithdagen

pmh1nic,

I can see Braddick's point very easily here. There is nothing neater to be able to enjoy the total presence of a coin as intended by the designer. With moderns, this is possible, and not always at costs that break the bank. I have a lot of high grade material in modern, and am starting to seek out above average pieces in the classic series. I also have sent back pieces that although they had a technical grade that was high, had no eye appeal. Am considering doing that with a PR-68 Accented Hair Kennedy that has some ugly spotting, and have done it with high grade DCAM proofs that had heavy spotting or haze.

I think of the quest for high grade moderns in the same way as the quest for problem-free classics. In many series, adjustment marks or weak strikes can really detract from pieces. I recently looked at an XF-45 Flowing Hair dollar that had half of the reverse "worn" away because of a weak strike. When (eventually) seeking that piece out for my set, I am going to want a piece that exhibits a fuller strike.

Keith

pmh1nic

Ultracameo

I think what you've touched on is crucial in understand the dealer emphasis on modern coins and modern grade rarities in particular. One of the complaints I hear from dealers all the time is the lack of "fresh" material with respect to bust and seated coinage. When compared to modern coinage the number of coins available is of course much lower and gem examples are scarce or rare. Again relative to modern coinage the the pool of bust and seated "product" is very small. You can't create more bust/seated coinage so the only way to increase sales volume is to win market share from other bust/seated dealers. Those dealers are vigorously guarding their market share.

If you're going to stay in business and/or increase your sales volume the only other alternative is to find a new supply and create a demand for it. Modern coins is a logical choice. There is almost an unlimited supply and the State Quarter along with other Mint programs and dealer advertising helps stimulate new demand.

A certain percentage of modern collectors will have the desire and means to collect the ultra high end coins we've been discussing. Obviously there is an interest in modern coinage and super high grade rarities. I don't think anyone would argue that they are not a legitimate part of numismatic study. My question is what stimulated that interest and is there enough substance to it to sustain the interest over an extend period of time (10, 20, 30 years or a lifetime) in the numbers involved in it today. If the major factor is the registry set competition and a focus on miniscule marks I have my doubts about sustaining sufficient interest over the long haul.

As you said we can post a copy of this thread and check back in ten years .

Keith

If a PR68DCAM is accurately grade the difference between it and a PR69DCAM cannot be ugly spots or anything else obviously distracting. I'm sorry for having to repeat this (especially sorry for those that are really tired of hearing it) but the difference is a couple of miniscule and obscure marks as small or smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. If those marks (probably hidden in some detail of the coin) cause you to miss the overwhelm gem characteristics of an otherwise superb coin you are missing the forest for the trees, two tiny/miniscule trees.

ultimatecameo

Keith -

Just a couple points:

1. The potential amount of fresh material for 1950-1970 cameo proof coinage and mint state Franklins is very small. For example, regarding cameo proof coinage, mintages are irrelevant. While over one million 1959 proof sets were issued, very few were issued with half dollars exhibiting DCAM contrast. Think of it as two mint population figures: the number of proof coins officially released by the mint, and the number released by the mint with DCAM contrast, for which no numbers are available. In the case of the 1959 proof Franklin, the number is well under 1,000 coins in DCAM. The number of coins which will ultimately be graded in DCAM or ULTRA is probably fewer than 100 coins, in all grades.

The above reality is the reason for writing any books on the subject - to help shed some light on the rarity of those coins which were struck with DCAM contrast.

2. This market (modern classics) was established well before the existence of the Registry. In fact, a big reason for the establishment of the Registry was as a response to the growing interest in the modern classics, not vice versa.

Great having this discussion with you!

supercoin

pmh1nic, you're right, two tiny marks. And if you can live with a couple more, a PR67DCAM is very nice too. How 'bout a smidge less cameo, PR67CAM is a pretty coin too. And... ah hell, if it's got a readable date, it's in!

Everyone draws their own line in the sand, what's the big deal?

We all have our obsessions. For example, one of yours is an obsession with modern collectors' obsessions.

pmh1nic

Hi Tad,

Welcome to the show. The differences (as you well know) become more pronounced as you go down the grading scale. The difference between MS-63 and 64 often have a dramatic affect on eye appeal. That is not the case between two accurately grade PR68 and PR69 coins.

Yes, everyone draws the line somewhere but where you draw the line gives an indication of what your priorities are in the overall scheme of things. The differences between 68 and 69 are miniscule and paying super premiums in my mind is an indication of (I know you're saying please, please don't repeat that cliche again) missing the forest for the trees or seeing the glass 0.001% empty rather than 99.990% full.

braddick

You had me pmh1nic until your last post. You had me that is, in seeing how logical your thinking is, although I disagree with you.
But, you stated there is a dramatic difference in eye appeal between the MS63 and the MS64 grade... Tell that to my wife, or any non-collector. Heck, tell that to a collector! Most wouldn't agree there is that much of a distinction between the MS63 and the MS64 grade.
But, as much as you believe there is- I believe also there is a world of difference between that PR68DCAM and that PR69DCAM!
You may not see it, just as I don't see your 63- 64 but it's there, and it's there for me to enjoy.

If Classics have a hugh price spread between one grade point, why does it bother you the ultra Moderns do too?

pmh1nic

Braddick

As far as the things that distinguish a 68 from a 69 and a 63 from a 64, you don't have to believe or trust my judgement or agree with my subjective sense of eye appeal. All you have to do is read the grading guide (PCGS or ANA, take your pick). The things that differentiate a 68 from a 69 are miniscule marks. Notice I mentioned in my post accurately graded 68's and 69's and would include accurately graded 63's and 64's as a comparison in the type of marks, etc. that distinguish the two. The things that distinguish a 63 from a 64 in general are not miniscule. According to the grading standards guides there is no comparison between what separates a 68 from a 69 verses the things that separate a 63 from a 64.

braddick

I have no problem with the guides. In the real world though I see just as much of a difference (if not more) between a PR68 and a PR69 as I do with a MS63 Morgan and one graded MS64.
Would you agree you've seen MS63 Morgans with more eye appeal than many MS64's? Even taking into account both coins are accurately graded?
It is rare- if ever though- I've seen (other than coins with color) graded PR68 that look nicer than a PR69.

Higashiyama

Ultimatecameo --

I agree with all four of the points you made, in particular, that there is and will continue to be a deep market for modern classics. What I have trouble believing is that the premium people are willing to pay for modern condition rarities will persist. This may in part be a reflection of the fact that my eyes are weaker than yours and Braddicks -- I really don't see much more than a technical difference between a PR68 and a PR69. I still can't fathom the price differential based on the difference in grade.

By the way, for many early classics (e.g. - 18th century coins) there really is not a tremendous spread in price as grade increases. While a few condition census items will attract remarkable bids, the spread by grade can be quite flat for some very desirable coins (e.g. - 1796 quarters).

pmh1nic

Braddick

Stop looking at those ACG coins . Again we're talking about PCGS accurately graded coins. If the coins are accurately graded the marks and other problems that differentiate a 63 from a 64 should not be seen on coins graded 68 and/or 69. The bottom line is if you see major differences between the 68's and 69's you're viewing the coins you're looking at are not accurately graded.

Higashiyama

I'm wearing progressive lenses but the problem with seeing the differences between 68 and 69 is more a matter of the miniscule nature of the differences not your eyes.

keithdagen

pmh1nic,

Gotta look at the bigger coins to save your eyesight. The tick that knocks a Lincoln from 69 to 68 is the size of a period or less. The ticks that knock an Ike from 69 to 68 are a little more noticable.

Keith

supercoin

Actually, in many ways it is easier to consistently grade the difference between a PR68 from a PR69. A PR69 has essentially nothing wrong with it, while the PR68 has some minor problem. Not a lot of room for interpretation. I'm not saying PCGS does this consistently, but going by the book I mean.

In contrast, the lower mint-state grades often have any variety of distracting marks, differences in strike, differences in toning, etc. In other words, comparing one MS63 to another MS64 can be like comparing an apple to an orange.

However, if you're talking eye appeal, I certainly agree that the "arms-length" difference between a properly graded PR68 and PR69 (assuming similar cameo) can be (not always) far less than the difference in eye appeal of many lower grades.

On the other hand, due to the variety of factors that make up the grade in mid-grade MS coins, the difference in eye appeal often is also very often backward from what you'd expect from the number on the label.

For example, for me personally, I will gladly trade marks on a coin in exchange for a sharp strike, strong luster, and/or beautiful toning. That is often in conflict with the technical grade. A blazing well-struck 63 is more attractive to me than a relatively mark-free but lackluster 64, yet both coins are still graded "correctly".

To someone else, perhaps lack of marks is all-important to their sense of eye appeal. Again, that may be in conflict with the jumble of criteria that makes one grade vs. another.

Not sure what my point is here, other than the first sentence.

Ronyahski

I agree with pmh1nic where he questions the credibility of huge price increases and premiums for a one point grade swing, and I think this phenomenon only exists when you hit the highest graded. Can't agree that there is some sort of different analysis between a 68-69 grade swing and a 63-64 grade swing. And I can't agree with Braddick that pmh1nic should accept large price swings with moderns becasue they exist with classics. I don't think they exist with classics (as a general rule), certainly not to the same degree as moderns, and that difference is a big part of what is causing differences of opinion.

To illustrate, a Sunday School lesson on divine intervention: I own an 1879 Proof Seated Half in PCGS67 (we can all agree I hope that this is a classic and not a modern). It's a pop 6, none higher. "Most gorgeous original toned Seated Half ever seen" - Pinnacle, Whitlow, others. "If it weren't for that one hairline in the obverse field, it would be perfect" - same bunch.

Let's say the coin is worth $8,000. I ask the good Lord for divine intervention, but the good Lord wants $8,000 placed in the basket to get rid of that one hairline. Why? "That be the going price for a perceptible difference in appearance for a classic coin", sayeth the Lord. That one little mark that is barely bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Do I pay the good Lord? Where's the checkbook? In a heartbeat! It is worth it to me to get rid of that one distracting mark so I can completely enjoy its heavenly splendor (not to mention favor to the Lord)! Does the coin go up another point grade? At least.

But after the Lord got rid of the hairline (and rested on the seventh day), he decided to resubmit to PCGS. Now the coin is in a 68 holder! A pop. 1 coin, one of only 2 Proof Seated Halves ever graded 68! An unbelievable grade rarity! But now the Lord wants another $80,000 to get rid of that hairline, 10x the price for the next lower grade. Why? "Because that kind of price mark-up is the norm for highest graded pop 1 moderns", sayeth the Lord, "and so shall it apply to these classics!" Uhh... let me get back to you on that one, Lord!

supercoin

Really you wouldn't? Assuming the good Lord gets that in a PCGS PR69 holder as part of the deal for the additional $80,000 -- I'll write the check for the $80K if you'll sell and split the profits! I know little about that series, but I'd bet you could easily find a $100K+ buyer for such a coin/slab combo in today's market.

Let me be clear though -- I'm not defending the price jumps of this Franklin or any coin, modern or classic. In my opinion, with the inexact nature of grading, any huge jump in price between 1 grade should only be taken with eyes wide open, and only with highly discretionary income.

Typetone

Let me pipe in here. I think I'm a pretty sophisticated proof Franklin collector. In my view there is often little difference between a PR68DCAM and a PR69DCAM for most dates. In fact, sometimes the 68 is better.

Let me tell a story, which I feel I can since I bought the coins. I owned a 1956 Type 2 Franklin in PR68DC. I had the chance to trade it in for a very nice 69DCAM. The dealer who had the 69DCAM offered me a very good price for the 68 and suggested that it had a nicer contrast than the 69 (which was also offered at a great price). He highly recommended that I not sell the 68. However, since I am a set registry junky I bought the 69 anyway (at 6X the 68). Decided to keep the 68 as well. Turns out, he was right, the contrast on the 68 was better. Maybe it had one more mark somewhere, but I couldn't see it. Lesson, the lower grade may represent great value. If you are going for quality rather than plastic you can get a lot of bang for your buck if you buy eye appeal and quality regardless of grade. By the ways thanks to the dealer for his honesty. Sacrificing a potential sale to give good advice.

However, my experience with very low pop coins is that they are often exceptionally better than the next lowest grade. My guess is that the 1957 69DCAM with 2 graded will be phenomenal. Probably much better than the typical 68DCAM. I'm sure Rick will tell us when he gets it. It is almost certainly one of a kind, otherwise PCGS would be unlikely to give it such a unique grade. This has been my experience with very low pop finest super graded coins.

Greg

pmh1nic

Tonetype

Key phrase in my analysis...properly graded. When you start the discussion by talking about a 68 that should be graded 69 or a 69 that should be graded a 68 it's becomes a different discussion all together.

Ronyahski

If the scratch is the ONLY distracting mark on that 67 and the Lord did bless you by totally removing it the coin wouldn't necessarily be a 68 but might even jump to 69 or 70, a two or three point jump in grade from where you started depending on the severity of the scratch.

As far as the things that differentiate a 68 from a 69 verses a 63 from a 64 they are by definition something a whole lot more significant than a couple of miniscule, obscure marks. In the mist of the more serious distractions (contact marks in a prime focal area, impaired luster, weak strike, etc.) that affect coins in grades 63 and 64 the miniscule marks we're discussing on the 68/69 are obscure in nature and probably are not considered or of minimum consequence.

If you want to bring the "real world" into the mix all of it's inconsistencies with respect to grading are just another reason not to get involved in paying very high grade rarity premiums. Even PCGS gets it wrong sometimes. On occassion pristine coins have develop problems that in the case of the lofty grades we're discussing serious affect the grade and market value of the coin. If one miniscule mark or toning spot is going to ruin your day then there are serious hazards involved with this super high grade rarities (inconsistent grading, the spot you missed even after you've looked at the coin half a dozen times or the slow chemical reactions that may microscopic in nature today but noticable tomorrow) and could end up being a really ruining your day.

wondercoin

pmhinic: Isn't the REAL issue here the "miniscule" extra "0" the diehard collector has to add to his check to buy one of these finest known wonders? As Laurie mentioned on a thread the other day, when you are already blessed enough to be worth $10,000,000, does it really matter if you strech for the $20,000 coin, instead of the $2,500 coin, especially when the private jet, suite at the best hotel in town and dining for the 4 day coin show just cost you an extra $30,000. Wondercoin.

pmh1nic

Wondercoin

As I mention in this or the other tread related to this coin if you don't give a second thought about hopping on the Concorde to fly to Paris for lunch and an afternoon of shopping the money involved in paying significant grade rarity premiums is probably not a major factor in your decision making process. If you've got the finances to enjoy the whole pie (super high grade modern or MS-63 condition consensus classic) more power to you. It doesn't change the grading criteria between the two grades but it does change the dynamics as far as understand someones priorities and focus regarding the coins they collect. What's $20,000 for a Franklin half in light of $800,000 for an 1804 dollar.

But since many of us don't live there we have to approach the discussion from a different vantage point. We also need to consider the relative new collectors that come on board when we're having these discussions. These discussion give the newbie an opportunity to hear the side of the story with respect to collecting or investing in these coins that he may not get in the numismatic press or on the HSN. No, my calling is not to be a crusader for the downtrodden newbie collector. But I do realize there are two sides to every story, there are pros and cons to every investment and coin collecting offers a broad range of areas to investigate and study. This forum is a great place to hear from all sides about the benefits and pitfalls of collecting different types of coins.

O.K. enough! If I type "a few miniscule marks" one more time I'm going to get sick.

Perspective...I found today that a friend and co-worker of 20 years has cancer and is seriously ill. When I got the news today classic, modern, PR69, 1795 half eagle ... none of it seem very important. Thanks for providing a distraction. Now it's back to the real world.

Take care all.

wondercoin

pmh1nic: My thoughts and prayers are with you and your friend. I took my mother to the Dr. this morning for a similar test. Luckily, all went well with her test. But, it was a difficult drive up to the Dr. office this morning. Wondercoin.

Ronyahski

pmh1nic - Are you saying that PCGS knows better than the good Lord when it comes to grading?

Regards,
Daryl

Seriously, prayers be with your friend.

supercoin

Best wishes for your friend's recovery -- you're right, compared to that, just so many lumps of metal.