Screw MPL's! How About A Lincoln Cent That Is FAR Rarer than the 1909-VDB OR 1990 No-S Proofs?
RBinTex
Posts: 4,328 ✭
Not only FAR Rarer BUT More Valuable Grade for Grade as well.
This is the 2nd recently discovered peice I believe (the other was the 64RD last year).
As RED as they come (PERFECTLY graded IMO):
]&sink)
]&sink)
This is the 2nd recently discovered peice I believe (the other was the 64RD last year).
As RED as they come (PERFECTLY graded IMO):
0
Comments
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
But as I said, it'll cost you over $40k ($40,250 to be exact) to pry it away from me (assuming of course that the reserve isn't higher) as I'm the current high bidder and bid the max I think it's worth (pre-reserve disclosure) and since the bid is now at my max, it doesn't matter who knows it or what my max is/was.
You know that the last AU one on Heritage went for $44,862.65 1/11/09 (Top that '09VDB - LOL) and another (the previous?) AU one went for (an apparently/supposedly WAY overpriced & overpaid at the time) nearly $35k (sold by IRA - cost around $31k - to Keith) right?
Also,
a 61BN one went to Scott (Mele) for about $39,100 (5/7/05),
the newly discovered 64RD went for $126,500 1/12/08,
the 64RB (a DEFINITELY WORKED ON former 65RD problem coin) was bought back by PCGS for $75,000 and it then went for $36,800 (1/16/05) right after it got renovated (a ROYAL rip for the grade - by Dan Close) and was flipped for near $75k (to Tom Mershon - I'm pretty sure) about 1-2 years later,
and lastly, the on the books 62BN went for $43,700 3/27/04 (later Andy cracked it and worked on it and got it to upgrade a point).
Actually, $40k is just my "pre-reserve disclosure" max. as there's no way in Hades this puppy is going for less than $50k (my guess it approaches $75k but probably sells for mid $60's) being only the 4th RD out there in Newport Beach plastic (i.e. this, 2 64's & the off-the-books 65).
Enough due diligence?
The 64RB Worked On Problem Coin that should never have gotten slabbed except in a genuine holder (woulda loved to have been a fly on the wall in the politicking sessions where the decision was made to NOT bodybag it) :
Of course this coin is much rarer than the 09VDB MPL. It is probably the rarest major Lincoln out there along with the composition errors of 1943 and 1944. Seems like there are a total of nine (9) mint state examples that PCGS has slabbed. The one you show has a PCGS guide price of $75k. Assuming you are already ready to spend $40k on this coin, why not REALLY go out and get it. It comes up just two lots before the ANACS MPL and , unlike the 09VDB, THIS rare coin WILL produce a nice profit for you IN A FEW YEARS. I'd guarantee it if I had the money. The popularity of this coin has even reached me and while I will never own one I would think that the pride of ownership would be value enough. Good luck if you DO decide to go for it. I'd bet there might be others here who might like it too.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
WS
I personally wouldn't give $500 for it. I do really like that 64 proof. I don't think I have ever seen such a flawless coin ever and the toning thing is neat!
<< <i>Chris,
You know that the last AU one on Heritage went for $44,862.65 1/11/09 (Top that '09VDB - LOL) and another (the previous?) AU one went for (an apparently/supposedly WAY overpriced & overpaid at the time) nearly $35k (sold by IRA - cost around $31k - to Keith) right?
Also,
a 61BN one went to Scott (Mele) for about $39,100 (5/7/05),
the newly discovered 64RD went for $126,500 1/12/08,
the 64RB (a DEFINITELY WORKED ON former 64RD problem coin) went for $36,800 (1/16/05) right after it got renovated (a ROYAL rip - by Bruce I think) and was flipped for near $75k (to Tom - I'm pretty sure) about 1-2 years later,
and lastly, the on the books 62BN went for $43,700 3/27/04 (later Andy cracked it and worked on it and got it to upgrade a point).
Actually, $40k is just my "pre-reserve disclosure" max. as there's no way in Hades this puppy is going for less than $50k (my guess it approaches $75k but probably sells for mid $60's) being only the 4th RD out there in Newport Beach plastic (i.e. this, 2 64's & the off-the-books 65).
Enough due diligence? >>
I guess I just would not pay that much for an error coin. I would rather spend that on a very low mintage type coin. BUT to each his own and I would not mind owning that
<< <i>Chris,
You know that the last AU one on Heritage went for $44,862.65 1/11/09 (Top that '09VDB - LOL) and another (the previous?) AU one went for (an apparently/supposedly WAY overpriced & overpaid at the time) nearly $35k (sold by IRA - cost around $31k - to Keith) right?
Also,
a 61BN one went to Scott (Mele) for about $39,100 (5/7/05),
the newly discovered 64RD went for $126,500 1/12/08,
the 64RB (a DEFINITELY WORKED ON former 64RD problem coin) went for $36,800 (1/16/05) right after it got renovated (a ROYAL rip - by Bruce I think) and was flipped for near $75k (to Tom - I'm pretty sure) about 1-2 years later,
and lastly, the on the books 62BN went for $43,700 3/27/04 (later Andy cracked it and worked on it and got it to upgrade a point).
Actually, $40k is just my "pre-reserve disclosure" max. as there's no way in Hades this puppy is going for less than $50k (my guess it approaches $75k but probably sells for mid $60's) being only the 4th RD out there in Newport Beach plastic (i.e. this, 2 64's & the off-the-books 65).
Enough due diligence? >>
Lots of names there.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Also, consider this...........you don't really believe that the few graded are the only ones out there...do you! These were made from a working die (not machine doubbleing(sp). Do you think they struck 2 or 3 and changed the die out. I don't think so. There has to be thousands of them out there somewhere. Circulated, but out there. They weren't saved because the DDO is not that obvious. It's not like the 1955 DDO, which stands out like a sore thumb. Now that is a neat coin. There are only a few coins that are really RARE, and this is not one of them. What would happen if a roll turned up or a bag. I wouldn't want a coin that cost me 40K+ that is now worth what.....50 bucks at best.
The degree to which you are wrong is off the charts and incalculable.
Duane,
Thanks for the sentiments. I also appreciate your opinion and position although this is not a buy and flip deal to make money as the competition will be fierce and the buyer will really be the one willing to pay the most in the short run. Anyone that wants it will get their REAL max bid in. The only way you'll make real money on this one is holding a year or two (or more) and then selling it (IF the market holds or improves, no significant quantity of additional examples are discovered (yes, Dimemen, there have been a whopping two examples found in the last 10 years or so), the coin doesn't turn in the holder and PCGS simultaneously reneges on their guarantee, and nothing happens to impair the coin while it is being stored, etc.
I'm sure there are those who can and will attest to this.
How many of these do you think were coined? I'm really curious on this. Do you think they struck 2 and quit?
Anyone's estimates are just that - an estimate. I BELIEVE I have seen estimates of various experts far more knowledgeable than I range from 25-50.
That said, it's really beside the point how many were struck.
What is important is how many exist and
even more important is how many are known and
far more important than that is how many exist in mint state and
more important still is how many mint state examples are known and
yet even more improtant is how many known mint state examples are RED and
more important still is how many known mint state RED examples are in PCGS holders and
the pinnacle of importance is how many known mint state RED examples that are in PCGS holders are actually available for purchase
BUT
on top of the pinnacle is how many known examples that are mint state and RED and graded by PCGS and for sale and available for for less than $50k and the answer is ZERO!!!!!
Do you just like to argue with me and pick at whatever I say just because you dislike me?
Who cares if you find a few circ examples in loose change (although there has been NONE of THOSE found in over two decades). I assure you, it is far more likely there are only 25-30 or so to go around than that there is a hoard somewhere yet to be discovered. Ask some of the guys that search thousands of rolls like Gary in Colorado or Datentype how many they've found. Dollars to donuts it's zero.
Unfortunately I can merely relay the esteblished opinions of those that assert they know and can't provide proof I'm right. But more importantly, you CERTAINLY can't proove me wrong.
So let's agree to disagree,
AND
agree (as you implicitly assert???) that:
anyone that pays upwards of $40k or more for one of these knows nothing,
that the guy that spent over $125k for the 64RD was a total idiot,
that Stewart doesn't know Jack Schitt when he says his 65RD is worth about a quarter mil, and
buying one of these has always been and will continue to be a BAD "investment".
OK? Happy?
Have a nice night.
NO
I'm not doing this to argue and I certainly don't dislike you. It just seems to me that there could be a lot of them still not found. Who knows where all the pennies go. It hasn't been long enough since 1969. As far as what you spend your money on. That is your business. There are very few coins worth that to me. I might pay that for a 1874-cc dime in AU58. I use that example because I know how rare that coin really is.
There are many others worth that and more. But not modern coins.
No hard feelings I hope.
<< <i>>Do you just like to argue with me and pick at whatever I say just because you dislike me?
NO
I'm not doing this to argue and I certainly don't dislike you. It just seems to me that there could be a lot of them still not found. Who knows where all the pennies go. It hasn't been long enough since 1969. As far as what you spend your money on. That is your business. There are very few coins worth that to me. I might pay that for a 1874-cc dime in AU58. I use that example because I know how rare that coin really is.
There are many others worth that and more. But not modern coins.
No hard feelings I hope. >>
I agree that it is very odd that it could be reasonably claimed that there was less than 1 roll of this coin produced. However, you don't see many 1958 double dies either. Maybe the folks at the Mint did produce a lot of the 1969 and 1958 double dies, but then figured it out and destroyed almost all before each were able to get out in significant numbers????
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I guess this could be...................but that's the problem it's a guess.
The fact that all the 55 DDo's got out kind of ruins that for me.
There was an interesting story about the 1955 DDO in some coin mag or something a while back. Someone made a purchase at a bowling alley and got a 55 DDO in his change. He then asked to to see the other pennies in the cash register and low a behold there was a whole roll of them in there. I think he bought them all for $1. SWEET. 50 unc 55 DDO for 2c each.
If they were out in rolls in 1955 why not 1969 only nobody noticed. It's not reall that apperant unless it is blown up.
Here is a link to a 1969 DDO in AU-58 Bowers sold for 42,500 in June David Hall thinks there may be a dozen of these. Bowers thinks no more that 100 - 125 were struck 1969 DDO in AU-58
That operator in the SF mint installed a die....ran a few off....said "oops, this die is F***** up", pulled it right out. Maybe he was in a frisky mood that day and chucked the handful of test pennies back into the bin.
<< <i>Chris,
You know that the last AU one on Heritage went for $44,862.65 1/11/09 (Top that '09VDB - LOL) and another (the previous?) AU one went for (an apparently/supposedly WAY overpriced & overpaid at the time) nearly $35k (sold by IRA - cost around $31k - to Keith) right?
Also,
a 61BN one went to Scott (Mele) for about $39,100 (5/7/05),
the newly discovered 64RD went for $126,500 1/12/08,
the 64RB (a DEFINITELY WORKED ON former 64RD problem coin) went for $36,800 (1/16/05) right after it got renovated (a ROYAL rip - by Bruce I think) and was flipped for near $75k (to Tom - I'm pretty sure) about 1-2 years later,
and lastly, the on the books 62BN went for $43,700 3/27/04 (later Andy cracked it and worked on it and got it to upgrade a point).
Actually, $40k is just my "pre-reserve disclosure" max. as there's no way in Hades this puppy is going for less than $50k (my guess it approaches $75k but probably sells for mid $60's) being only the 4th RD out there in Newport Beach plastic (i.e. this, 2 64's & the off-the-books 65).
Enough due diligence? >>
Well, Roger, your due dilegence is faulty. I bought that AU-58 coin at a Florida show for well OVER $31000 and in fact over $35,000. Do you pull this information out of your posterior? FYI, Stu Blay suggested I submit that AU-58 to PCGS for a possible upgrade. He felt it was a MS-62BN.
Further, you state here that "Andy" cracked out a 62BN and to use your words, "worked on it and got it to upgrade a point." Is that what your saying? That Andy worked on a coin? You're making that statement on a public forum?
I can't believe what you spew here on this forum, Roger.
Ira
Andy told me he got some of the gunk removed from that 62BN and got it to upgrade to 63BN. Look at the old pics and you see what gunk I'm talking about.
As to your my pulling stuff out of my posterior comment, please tell me how
THIS
"...and another (the previous?) AU one went for (an apparently/supposedly WAY overpriced & overpaid at the time) nearly $35k (sold by IRA - cost around $31k - to Keith) right?"
is MATERIALLY incorrect from a factual standpoint.
Look, I'm not your accountant and don't have the EXACT numbers
BUT
Did you NOT buy it for "around $31k" (I thought $31,500) & sell it to Keith for "nearly $35k" (I thought exactly $35k)?
I admit I might have gotten the numbers wrong & it might have been about $35k cost $ about $40k sale. So what?
The whole point of the citation was to provide a data point for Chris to show how valuable the coin is. Why would that upset you?
If anything, my faulty understatement of the ACTUAL prices of the transaction I was alluding to merely served to WEAKEN my argument as to the value of the coin.
And more importantly, how would the fact I got it right or slightly wrong reflect poorly on you in any way? My, my, touchy, touchy.
What? I might have been off a few grand or so or perhaps a few percentage points? Material error or ommission? I think not!
Just because you took some heat from me (and others - WHO OBVIOUSLY HISTORY HAS PROVEN WRONG) for perhaps overpaying (and moreso for overcharging) for it at the time doesn't give you carte blanche to re-write history.
Old Thread 1 Old Thread 2 Yes. Apparently my comment in "Old Thread 2" would seem to indicate that I believed at the time that Keith had in fact paid you $40k and not $35k. Careless of me to have not dug that up prior to posting the 31/35 numbers? Sure. Still, immaterial both to you and as to the point I was trying to make.
Not that I want to jump into this fish fry, but I did have to do a double take on the "Andy comment". I find it very hard to believe that Andy "worked on a coin" to get an upgrade. Is it possible, sure. However, I would find it hard to believe. Andy works and works and works on getting coins upgraded, but I don't think that involves actually working on the coin.
Maybe I'm just stupid and actually think there are some honest folks out there.
Jack
It had some gunk/spots on it. Andy cracked it out. Cleaned it up a bit and re-submitted it. Plain and simple. No crime. Nothing to hide or be ashamed of. Just smart business practices.
Does anyone have pics of the 63BN??? I think not. Otherwise you all would be able to see it was the same coin but with less crud.
Old holder:
<< <i>Ira,
Andy told me he got some of the gunk removed from that 62BN and got it to upgrade to 63BN. Look at the old pics and you see what gunk I'm talking about.
As to your my pulling stuff out of my posterior comment, please tell me how
THIS
"...and another (the previous?) AU one went for (an apparently/supposedly WAY overpriced & overpaid at the time) nearly $35k (sold by IRA - cost around $31k - to Keith) right?"
is MATERIALLY incorrect from a factual standpoint.
Look, I'm not your accountant and don't have the EXACT numbers
BUT
Did you NOT buy it for "around $31k" (I thought $31,500) & sell it to Keith for "nearly $35k" (I thought exactly $35k)?
I admit I might have gotten the numbers wrong & it might have been about $35k cost $ about $40k sale. So what?
The whole point of the citation was to provide a data point for Chris to show how valuable the coin is. Why would that upset you?
If anything, my faulty understatement of the ACTUAL prices of the transaction I was alluding to merely served to WEAKEN my argument as to the value of the coin.
And more importantly, how would the fact I got it right or slightly wrong reflect poorly on you in any way? A bit paranoid? My, my, touchy, touchy.
What? I might have been off a few grand or so or perhaps a few percentage points? Material error or ommission? I think not!
Just because you took some heat from me (and others) for perhaps overpaying (and moreso for overcharging) for it at the time doesn't give you carte blanche to re-write history.
Or are you really just p*ssed 'cause I had the audacity to say that that 64RB was worked on and should NEVER have been slabbed?
Old Thread 1 Old Thread 2 Yes. Apparently my comment in "Old Thread 2" would seem to indicate that I believed at the time that Keith had in fact paid you $40k and not $35k. Careless of me to have not dug that up prior to posting the 31/35 numbers? Sure. Still, immaterial both to you and as to the point I was trying to make. >>
I am pissed of, Roger, because I think you used very poor judgement to gove actual names of parties of a coin transaction, PARTICULARLY in a PUBLIC forum, and especially when that information is given by a dealer! Your comments were highly unethical and ill advised. As for as your "worked on" statement involving a well known Lincoln expert, now I believe you are ducking and weaving. Why not state that the coin had gunk on it that was removed and then subsequently upgraded a point? Not only that, you stated that that I had way overpaid for the coin! Clearly that wasn't the case. It sold quickly and I had three offers on the piece, all close to each other in price. The marketplace shows you were wrong about that as well. I don't give a crap about what you wrote about a 64RB that was worked on.
Customers would almost never want details of a transaction revealed, particularly on a very public forum. For a dealer such as yourself to do so is extemely egregious.
Ira
Once again you are reading more into my statement than is actually there AND simultaneously creating an unsubstantiated assertion of facts not in evidence.
READ one more time:
" ...and another (the previous?) AU one went for (an apparently/supposedly WAY overpriced & overpaid at the time) nearly $35k (sold by IRA - cost around $31k - to Keith) right?"
Where did I state "you had way overpaid for the coin!" Are you so biased that you cannot evaluate the statements without inferring or adding to what is explicitly stated?
I CLEARLY stated that the prices of YOUR transaction that I alluded to appeared to be and supposedly were (implicitly inferred) too high at the time.
This was in fact pointed out to show that anyone with that belief at the time WAS in fact WRONG (me and others) and was yet another REASON GIVEN IN SUPPORT TO CHRIS' COMMENT AS TO THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE COIN.
Do you want to go on record that the prices that transaction crossed at at the time DID NOT cause sticker shock for ANYONE and that NO ONE was suprised by the huge jump over the previous year or so?
Heck, even some respondents to this thread, HERE IN 2009, seem to have sticker shock at the idea of $40k for a 63RD no less than for an AU.
Is it really such a distortion of a good segment of the opinions at the time that 40k for an AU was "crazy" - EVEN IF - AND CERTAINLY ACKNOWLEDGING - THAT HISTORY HAS NOW PROVEN THIS TO BE WRONG (i.e. NOT "crazy" but merely a stepping stone from where we were to where we are).
As to your other claims/complaints:
1. I could care less about what you or anyone thinks about my disclosing factual info that is known to me.
2. I do not now nor did I ever have a duty to NOT disclose ANYTHING I have disclosed in this thread and at NO time did I EVER have ANY priviledged communications with ANYONE mentioned in this thread NOR did any person conveying info to me have ANY expectation of privacy or confidentiality in regards to ANY of the facts here mentioned. Although I bought from &/or sold to SEVERAL (if not all) of those mentioned, I was party to NONE of the specific transactions here mentioned.
3. Any name details mentioned are ALL common knowledge among those interested in 69-S DDO's and to others irrelavent.
4. Andy DEFINITELY told me what he said he did about that coin. Cracked it. cleaned it up a bit. Resubmitted it. It upgraded. Period.
5. Do YOU have any pics of the 2 63BN's (one of which is the upgraded 62BN posted)?
As for discretion, I haven't mentioned the owner of the 63BN have I?
btw, next bid is $46k w/the juice if you want to jump over me. Tell us, would you be after this if you didn't already have a buyer lined up?
Now, here we go again. For example, in this case, you write: ""(later Andy cracked it and worked on it and got it to upgrade a point).""
Now anyone who reads the phrase "'worked on it" and has been around collecting more than a month knows Andy, and gets an image of a coin doctor hard at work, and in my opinion, that insinuation of yours disparages Andy (whom I respect), and can easily be construed as an attack on his reputation (FYI: Andy, along with a handful of other select dealers, is in the opinion of many people one of the most honest and reputable dealers in the business).
But if that is not enough, you even drag PCGS into the middle of this (and associate Andy, AND further emphasize the doctoring element by capitalizing "Worked ON Problem Coin" through the use of your very next posting, and the rather clear insinuation(s) you invoke in it:
""FYI: The 64RB Worked On Problem Coin that should never have gotten slabbed except in a genuine holder (woulda loved to have been a fly on the wall in the politicking sessions where the decision was made to NOT bodybag it) :""
This characterizes what PCGS does as grading based on who submits the coin, and that the decision to put a coin in a holder is based on "politics" and not the grade of a coin (or, that PCGS accepts doctored coins from the 'right' people). Are you suggesting that PCGS somehow decided to slab the coin because of who submitted it? Again, that statement, or at least the insinuation inherent in the statement, borders on what can be characterized as a slanderous comment, in my opinion, and is a stab at the reputation of PCGS (the very service who is allowing YOU to write this damaging trash).
You have given notice before (once, twice, how many times?). If I was Andy or PCGS, I would seriously consider my options.
Facts are facts. Sorry if my recitation or characterization of them makes you or anyone uncomfortable. I don't think he did anything wrong, never said he did, and certainly did not mean to imply he did.
2. Do you SERIOUSLY assert that ALL submitters are treated 100% CARVED IN STONE TOTALLY BLIND EQUALLY ON EACH & EVERY coin submitted? That would be just too naive.
Perhaps it wasn't as much the submitter as the discussion of the importance of the coin itself (that would have been interesting to hear) that factored into the decision not to bodybag it.
3. Do you even see the cr*p on the obverse of the 64RB?
If it were any other coin submitted by a nobody would it go non-gen?
4. As for all the alleged "name-dropping", how else do YOU keep track of the pedigree of the coin(s) if no names are included in the historical record of ownership? Is knowing who sold it to who and who each subsequent owner is/was NOT of any value? If you say yes, PLEASE, head up the CAP (campaign against pedigrees).
MAYBE THE OWNER OF THE UPGRADED 63BN COULD STEP FORWARD TO TELL THE WHOLE STORY (AND PERHAPS TO POINT OUT WHERE I'M WRONG).
<< <i>>I guess I just would not pay that much for an error coin. I would rather spend that on a very low mintage type coin. BUT to each his own and >I would not mind owning that
Also, consider this...........you don't really believe that the few graded are the only ones out there...do you! These were made from a working die (not machine doubbleing(sp). Do you think they struck 2 or 3 and changed the die out. I don't think so. There has to be thousands of them out there somewhere. Circulated, but out there. They weren't saved because the DDO is not that obvious. It's not like the 1955 DDO, which stands out like a sore thumb. Now that is a neat coin. There are only a few coins that are really RARE, and this is not one of them. What would happen if a roll turned up or a bag. I wouldn't want a coin that cost me 40K+ that is now worth what.....50 bucks at best. >>
Ha ha ha!
You really need to stick to dimes!
Since its discovery, if you think for one second that folks have not been looking for this particular variety then your naivety is showing! A lot of folks have spent a lot of money and time in trying to locate this so my guess is that there just are not a whole lot to be found as I'm guessing that the US Mint spotted this one and quickly destroyed those they could find before they were sent out. Obviously, a few escaped.
Edited to add: Boy I just jumped into a bucket of schlitz!
The name is LEE!
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
I just love a heated debate,especially when the s-hit is flying. Let me state that I know a few things about a 1969 s DDO Lincoln Cent.
The ms 64 R/B that Roger was referring to was originally graded 65 Red by PCGS and was bought back by PCGS for $75,000 in 2004. PCGS downgraded the coin to ms 64r/b
which is what the coin should have been graded originally due to a growing fingerprint or smudge. PCGS consigned the coin to the Heritage 2005 Platinum Night sale
where it brought only $30,000. Soon thereafter it became part of the Dan Close collection where it brought about $80,000 when his his collection was auctioned by
Bowers and Merena at the 2006 Pre ANA sale in Milwaukee.
Duane - There is more folklore and mystery surrounding the 1969 S DDO Lincoln cent than any matte proof Lincoln. In 1969 a few counterfeiters were striking 1969
Lincoln cents and trying to sell them. The Secret Service arrested them and brought them to trial. During the trial the court asked the government if there were any legitimate
1969 Double Die Cents minted by the U.S. mint. The Secret Service said NO. So when the light of 1969 S DDO came to be known to the government,they began destroying all 1969 S DDO cents.
Just how many were melted is a guess but my estimate is there are less than 50 of them in existence today.
After the counterfeiting trial concluded with a conviction a dealer I know found a circulated 1969S DDO in a roll of pennies. He decided to mail the coin to the U.S. Treasury. I now own this coin with a letter from the U.S. Treasury saying it is legal to own it. It also acknowledges the coin is a mint error.
Dimeman - The 1969 S DDO Lincoln cent is the equivalent to Lincoln Cent collectors as a 1874 CC Seated Liberty dime is to Seated Liberty Dime collectors.
As far as price of a 1969 S DDO Lincoln Cent goes I can say that I have been offered $200,000 for my ms 65 Red in 2004 and turned it down.
Stewart Blay
Naughty naughty naming names.
But great extra history lesson.
Thank you for the lesson - as you know, I am always willing to learn. --Great story!
Roger - You cannot go there ... I know Stewart, and YOU are no Stewart.....
Duane
EDIT: Roger - You ought to be ashamed about the way you represent facts, characterize others in the industry, and stir up the pot - To your post, Andy said that if soaking a coin in olive oil to preserve or conserve a coin from corroding for a client is "working on a coin" then he is guilty! Andy used olive oil to clean dirt and grime off the coin (like you said the SECOND time, when you were called on it). The first time, when you casually threw out the phrase "working on a coin" you knew you would ignite a fire over nothing. Maybe Matt Chapman is correct -- $our Grape$ ??
Thanks for indepently veryifying (and thereby corrobating) the veracity of my statement (though I doubt your motives for doing so were a genuinely unbiased pursuit of the truth).
As to your continued inferences and conclusions:
Nope. Never meant to convey a negative canotation. Sorry it came accross that way. Period.
I consider cracking a coin and soaking it in oil (for whatever reason) and then resubmitting it without a link/tie/reference to the orignal slab necessary (former only) and sufficient (both) conditions to meet the definition of "working on a coin"
Is there another definition that would in fact exclude this practice? If so, what is the definition of what Andy ACTUALLY did?
Again I'm not implying he did anything wrong IN ANY WAY. Never did. Never meant to. Still don't think so.
I didn't know "working on a coin" was not only frowned upon but one's mere use of that term AUTOMATICALY meant the utterer intended to convey a negative canotation &/or cast dispersion. Live & learn I guess (but I disagree that this is a proper way to view the use of the term).
Remeber that Seinfeld episode where George got caught having sex with his secratary on his desk...(i.e. "was that wrong? I gotta tell ya, I havta plead ignorance on this one. If I had been told that that sort of thing was frowned upon...")
Anyone wanna at least apologize for calling me a liar (regarding the 62BN) or infering I was one?
Jack, genuinely regret including you below but had to just to be fair and unbiased (you need not eat crow like the others):
Ira: Further, you state here that "Andy" cracked out a 62BN and to use your words, "worked on it and got it to upgrade a point." Is that what your saying? That Andy worked on a coin? You're making that statement on a public forum? I can't believe what you spew here on this forum, Roger.
Your comments were highly unethical and ill advised. As for as your "worked on" statement involving a well known Lincoln expert, now I believe you are ducking and weaving. Why not state that the coin had gunk on it that was removed and then subsequently upgraded a point?
Seems like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other to me Ira.
Jack: but I did have to do a double take on the "Andy comment". I find it very hard to believe that Andy "worked on a coin" to get an upgrade. Is it possible, sure. However, I would find it hard to believe. Andy works and works and works on getting coins upgraded, but I don't think that involves actually working on the coin.
Maybe I'm just stupid and actually think there are some honest folks out there.
Glad you were at least open minded enough to allow the possibility Jack.
Duane: Now, here we go again. For example, in this case, you write: ""(later Andy cracked it and worked on it and got it to upgrade a point).""
Now anyone who reads the phrase "'worked on it" and has been around collecting more than a month knows Andy, and gets an image of a coin doctor hard at work, and in my opinion, that insinuation of yours disparages Andy (whom I respect), and can easily be construed as an attack on his reputation (FYI: Andy, along with a handful of other select dealers, is in the opinion of many people one of the most honest and reputable dealers in the business).
Duane, you continually imply conclusions not supported by the "evidence" you allude to.
Last word: I have a lot of respect to you Duane for reporting what Andy told you and EXPONENTIALLY MORESO for Andy for not simply denying it.
Take care and good luck to all those planning on chasing the 69-S
In spite of your own defense, I feel compelled to say something. Your comments regarding the reputations of fine people within this field continue to irk me.
Based on your present and past commentary (your own doing), I would never buy a coin from you. You see... I can say that. I am the rightful owner of said information, and have firsthand knowledge of my own opinion. I could never say something like, "RB is a (such and so) kind of character", and leave it to others to determine whether or not you are the kind of guy they would want to deal with.
The people you mention by name have done more for the Lincoln Cent series by themselves than you or anybody you will ever have the honor of knowing (really knowing) will ever do, cumulatively or otherwise. They outright DESERVE respect in these forums. What they do not deserve is to be the subject of off-handed comments where the reader is left wondering what was really meant. Furthermore, when dealing with making statements about ANYBODY else, or perhaps investments that others have made in certain coins, you should one: tread lightly, two: speak factually, three: speak unambiguously, and four: treat the subjects of said commentary with the same sort of respect that you would wish upon yourself.
Using sideways-speak and ambiguous phrasing is tantamount to slander. You are messing with reputations. You are messing with investor confidence. Why? Personal gain?
I personally do not own a 69-s DDO, and have no plans to purchase one in the immediate future. But when I see someone making inflammitory statements about people whose actions and words I respect, and denegrating decisions made by investors and collectors, and thus the hobby as a whole, it just makes me think that any old yahoo (like yourself) could come along and place a few careful incendiary phrases, thus eroding confidence in a coin or series of coins, or a well respected dealer, and poof! There goes 20% off my bottom line.
Lastly, what could you possibly have to gain in being such a jerk to anybody here? As I understand it, you are some sort of dealer? What's your plan? Erode confidence so that you can buy the coin at a discount, then turn around and flip the coin for a profit once confidence has returned? Why don't you focus on things you already own? Talk about them then, instead of trying to weasel your way into a market that you have no rightful place.
Ahem.
...edited for spelling...
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
How about you tell me what YOU describe cracking out a coin, soaking it in oil, cleaning of some gunk, and resubmitting it? NOT working on it?
Why MUST you assign a negative canotation? What would YOU call that action/process? What then IS the definition of "working on a coin"?
Can ANYONE answer these questions before hurtling additional insults?
Messing with investor confidence? Trying to scare people off to get a lower price? What in the world did I say IN ANY WAY to "talk down" the value of this coin? I did nothing but try to show how valuable it in fact is!
You are also ignoring the fact that I was RIGHT!
A think a fundamental problem between myself and some others is that I beleive in 100% total disclosure on the part of ALL dealers AND grading services (and am not naive enough to believe it will ever happen absent governmet regulation - and am sick of all the little secrets/lies/non-disclosures/ommissions so permeating the coin hobby and thus preventing all market participants to have access to exactly the same information at the time of a transaction) and those that are opposed to it out of greedy self-interest or misguided loyalty just want to do whatever it takes to silence me (or anyone) that takes any steps towards making publicly available all possible information about a coin, it's pedigree, the past prices/problems, etc.
As I see it, using the phrase: "worked on" has a nasty implication that doesn't go away with explanation. Having to explain a thing is a problem in and of itself.
I consider "working on" to be different from "lifting haze or debris" or what is commonly referred to as "proper cleaning" by use of inert solvents like olive oil or acetone. If a coin has a booger on it, I would want to remove it. If a coin had a cloud of haze on it, and it could be removed without altering the surface or otherwise destroying the integrity of the "skin", then I would not consider that coin "worked on". "Working on" for me implies that something was done to the coin to either alter its color, or blatantly remove spots that are chemically attached to the metal. Once you break a chemical bond, the coin has been improperly "worked on".
This is obviously a gray area. What I consider may not be the same as what others consider. Therin lies the danger of blatantly making potentially slanderous statements. The simple fact is, once a coin has been "properly cleaned" the professionals to which we all owe so much are willing to decree the coin unmolested, and therefore gradable.
I hope that provides some clarity into an otherwise hazy topic.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
I'll be careful not to be so cavalier about using the phrase in the future and if I ever do I'll EXPLICITLY state the action I beleive to have occured to have caused me to apply that particular moniker.
I always assumed working on a coin was different that doctoring a coin. e.g. I thought that NCS works on (i.e. conserves them - REMOVES stuff) but coin doctors "doctor them" (i.e. add fake color, toning, etc., - ADDS stuff)
Would be nice if an industry leader such as PCGS promulgated an industry standard definition of the term itself and what is and is not acceptable to be done to a coin in particular to preclude it from being still considered original and unaltered.
My bad.
Another question: would you consider it an ethical duty of a dealer that cracked out and soaked in oil a coin to remove dirt, etc. to have an obligation to inform PCGS of the previous grade (and include the original insert) upon the subsequent submittal? If not, why not?
Interesting Resource from NCS. Exceprt (introduction) below:
One of the least understood areas of numismatics centers around the cleaning and conservation of coins. To many
collectors and dealers, the word “cleaned” sets off an alarm, since this term is sometimes cited by third-party grading
services as the reason for declining to certify a coin. Of course, what the grading services mean when they return an
uncertified coin as “cleaned” is that it has been harshly cleaned, leaving a completely unnatural appearance. But
when a coin is skillfully cleaned by persons having knowledge of the proper conservation techniques, the
result is often a specimen that’s attractive and desirable in the marketplace and that will readily be certified. The
widespread confusion that exists over the distinction between undesirable cleaning versus proper conservation
has alarmed many coin enthusiasts. It is hoped that this booklet will serve to clarify that distinction and permit
both collectors and dealers alike to trade coins in an atmosphere of confidence.
Roger, when people see the phrase "working on a coin" they think "coin doctor". You ask for a why a negative is construed and a definition....
Go to the Legend Coin's website at , and read the Hot Topic by respected numismatist Laura Sperber: "WHERE ARE THE LEADING NUMISMATIC ORGANIZATIONS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST COIN DOCTORING?" Laura has one of the best definitions of coin doctoring I've come across:
"MY DEFINITION OF COIN DOCTORING:
Any alteration of metal other than removing a light topical coating (simple dipping is NOT doctoring). Adding color, adding grease, smoke, or any substance that enhances the coins appearance. AGAIN, DIPPING WHEN MENT ONLY TO REMOVE A LIGHT MIST OF GRIME OR SOMETHING LIKE PVC IS NOT CONSIDERED DOCTORING-HOWEVER, DIPPING CAN BE ABUSED."
Now, according to Laura's opinion, Roger, "DIPPING WHEN MENT ONLY TO REMOVE A LIGHT MIST OF GRIME" whether in olive oil or another dipping substance IS NOT doctoring, or should not be characterized as "Working on a coin" within Laura's definition. So what Andy did (removing grime and dirt) was NOT "working on a coin", Roger. And you have no right to characterize it that way.
Now, are you being insulted? Do you still consider yourself "right?"
On your second point: No one will disagree that transparency is a good and needed policy in the industry at this point. You make many statements and drop subtle innuendo on many different people and imply you do so in the name of 'total disclosure". However, you ignore the fact that transparency, while good, does not give YOU the right to engage in what most people here are uncomfortable with, namely, the slandering of good people in your own industry. If you want to do right by the industry, I think you go about it in a differant way.
Maybe you should think about these arguments, Roger.
Respectfully,
Duane
EDIT: Spelling. And also, Roger, do you want to retract any of the earlier statements made regarding being a "Fly on the Wall" in the PCGS grading sessions, and my "naivety" about the politics of PCGS grading?
I think I have stated EXPLICITLY (at least by inference) ad nauseum that I don't think Andy is EITHER a coin doctor OR is guitly of doctoring the coin in question - "i.e. I said he never did anything wrong, etc., ..."
Other than the fact that I never even used the words doctor or doctoring and never said or accused Andy of being a doctor or of doctoring a coin, some of your other points are well taken.
No, not being insulted. Yes, still right. Truth is an absolute defense to an allegation of slander. Here's an idea. Set up a polygraph exam for me to take here in the Dallas area and they can ask me my intentions and report back to you. If I fail I'll reimburse you double your cost. OK?
So, what SINGLE word (in place of "worked") best describes cracking, dipping in oil to remove dirt, etc, & resubmitting for an upgrade? Cleaned, dipped, oiled, improved, helped, conserved, etc?
I think you are now splitting hairs and grasping and twisting anything you can to try to proove my intentions were malicious when in fact not only were they not but there is no evidence they were.
No & no to your other q's.
All that said,
1. I'm sorry if my comments regarding Andy were misconstued.
2. I defer to Stewart's assessment that the 64RB is now properly graded.
3. I still contend that I would have liked to have heard the discussion regarding the downgrade of the 65RD to 64RB
4. I'll be obsessively careful to not lossely use the term "worked on" again.
5. No more blood in this stone.
About 5-6 years ago I retrieved my childhood collection, including the roll of cents, from the safe deposit box in my parents home town. When I got back to No. Cal. I went through the collection. When I got to the roll of 1969S cents I opened it to look through it.
As an adult collector I had learned of the 1969S double die. While looking through the roll I had hopes of hitting the jackpot and finding such a coin.
Turns out I found 4 1969S coins, all blazing red in color, that exhibited doubling. Unfortunately the doubling was rather pronounced strike doubling and not die doubling.
So I have four cherry red "poor man's" 1969S double dies. If I was a slimeball I could tout them as double dies and try to find a "mark" to schlep them to. Alas, no slime here so I just admire them for what they are.
I know my tome is rather pedestrian, but it is a change from the spirited dialogue taking place in this thread.
May take is the coin in question here is just another doctored coin. I do not see "green junk removed" on the label. If "green junk removed" was put on label the value would tank on that coin. It was bought, cleaned, ( or use whatever word makes you feel better) re certified and sold for profit.
Doctored coins is the dirty little secret of the coin collecting world. No one really wants to stop it.
I find and go thru lots of 69's. I do not believe more than 50 or so exsist myself.
After thinking about this all day, calling this coin doctored was wrong on my part. I would not want this coin at any price though and do not knowingly buy coins that have been worked on to a large degree. It is hard to do and i know many in my collection have been dipped etc. I hate that part but it has been done for 100's of years. Anything to increase te value for the seller...
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"