I love threads like this that bring out a lot of information about a particular coin and experience of some very knowledgeable collectors. I have not seen this coin, but I respect the opinion of many of the discussants, and I know that PCGS has graders with tremendous experience. I take note that they think this is the finest barber quarter they have seen. I would love to see all of the to-end 1901-S quarters together to have a look at them side-by-side and look at them with my own eyeballs.
Maybe we could rally for a showdown of this date among the current owners of the finest known.
It makes sense that the history of this coin was probably know when the coin came into the grading room. I have no doubts that David Hall himself or someone else currently at PCGS who was active in the market in 1990 knows the full pedigree. That said, there's really no way PCGS can "know" if this is the best one out there since the current set of graders have more than likely not seen every 65-67 that came across the desk since 1986. Even if one of the 3-4 graders who had a vote on this current coin did not see a previous example, it makes the comparison suspect. The important thing is to keep the grading constant/consistent over 25 years. That's the only way to ensure accurate comparisons over time.
The Stack coin sold for $5500 to Akers/Paramount International Coin in March 1975, then advertised for sale at a hair under $10,000. No doubt it sold quick. Renrob (Bob Rose and Ron Iskowitz) bought the coin at Auction '80. They later sold the coin for around $110K-120K to Rick Sear in either 1988 or 1989 (then graded 66) who dipped and upgraded the coin to 67. Whether it was then upgraded to NGC68 and sold at the Boys Town sale remains to be seen.
The ms 68 + is the NGC coin from the Boys Town sale which was dipped and PCGS crossed it for Bowers and Merena auctions where it brought $327,000. Seeing that the coin brought $550,000 earlier in the NGC holder, it was a bad decision to dip/cross it.
If this is the Stack coin, it was already dipped before the 1990 Boys Town sale and before NGC got to grade it MS68. My best recollection is that it upgraded to PCGS MS67 in 1988. The Boys Town sale was almost 2 years later. Some movement in the grading standards took place during that period. If the coin sat and "cooled off" for nearly 2 years, I could see a 68 grade being pushed for by 1990. And from NGC's standpoint they'd want such a high-profile in their holder, not the competition.
The Stack coin was a high profile coin in the 1989-90 market. There are many dealers still active today, some on this board, who know the full story, esp. if someone doubled up in price yet again by going PCGS 67 to NGC 68. Those kinds of stories have legs and memories.
I know that pics can hide ticks, but it won't create them.
This coin to me is not even a 67 based on ticks.......it doesn't matter what date it is. Grading is grading based on surfaces and lack of hits and ticks.
Sunnywoods 01-s is a better coin than this one no matter what the label says.
The DLRC coin is not the James A Stack coin. (I do know where the coin came from, but think it's best not to say.) In any event, the DLRC coin is technically much better than the James A Stack coin - I grade them 68 and 67 - but the Stack coin is IMHO more attractive.
As for whether or not the DLRC coin deserved the plus sign, it remains to be seen. After all, we don't really know what "plus" means yet.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>The DLRC coin is not the James A Stack coin. (I do know where the coin came from, but think it's best not to say.) In any event, the DLRC coin is technically much better than the James A Stack coin - I grade them 68 and 67 - but the Stack coin is IMHO more attractive.
As for whether or not the DLRC coin deserved the plus sign, it remains to be seen. After all, we don't really know what "plus" means yet. >>
And you would know.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
those of you who have seen other examples of the 1901-S which you claim are superior to the DLRC example should strongly encourage the owner(s) to submit them for Secure Plus ASAP as they'd be a lock for an MS69 if they are truly better since the DLRC coin will be fresh in the minds of the graders
The Stack coin sold for $5500 to Akers/Paramount International Coin in March 1975, then advertised for sale at a hair under $10,000. No doubt it sold quick. Renrob (Bob Rose and Ron Iskowitz) bought the coin at Auction '80. They later sold the coin for around $110K-120K to Rick Sear in either 1988 or 1989 (then graded 66) who dipped and upgraded the coin to 67.
Just noticed the above. As I've said before, the JAS coin has not been dipped, and it is not the DLRC coin. The DLRC coin came from an old time collection that was dispersed privately, not at auction, less than a year before the Boys Town auction. As for Rick Sear, he did buy and upgrade the JAS coin, but he had nothing to do with the DLRC coin.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
OK, with the collective help of all of our combined information - including quite a few PM's and e-mails I have gotten in the last few days about this - the record can now be set straight with respect to these 1901-S quarters.
Let's start with the James A. Stack specimen; Stack's (3/1975:206); later appearing in Auction '80. This coin graded NGC MS66 in the early conservative days, and was made PCGS MS67 on its first submission there in 1988 or 1989. This was just confirmed to me by the submitter. The coin was later handled by Mike Printz at Larry Whitlow, and placed in Gene Gardner's magnificent Barber quarter collection in April 2001. It has NEVER been dipped, so let's clear that up. It is my all-time favorite Barber quarter, of those that I have seen, and you all know I have seen most of the good ones. I can prove the coins are the same:
Stack's 1975 catalog:
Enlargement of obverse:
Photo of Gene Gardner's coin ... look at the distinctive toning break along the obverse rim at about 7:30, between stars 2 and 3 ... unquestionably the same coin, despite the tricks of the poor early black and white photography in 1975:
So, we can list a census of some of these great 1901-S quarters, in no particular order:
1. James A. Stack specimen, Stack's (3/75:206); David Akers; Auction '80; Bob Rose and Ron Iskowitz; to Rick Sear; regraded PCGS MS67. Later to Gene Gardner via Mike Printz at Larry Whitlow Ltd. This coin has never been dipped. Judging from Gene's photos, it is just as amazing as I remember it being many years ago.
2. Stewart Blay specimen, ex Christie's (1990). PCGS MS67 [Edited to add: I have never seen this coin, but trust Stewart's judgment that it is at least the equal of any other.]
3. The Boys' Town specimen, Superior (5/90:3701) as a blast white dipped NGC MS68. Currently in a PCGS MS68+ holder with peripheral toning, particularly on the reverse. The coin appears to have slowly and naturally retoned in the NGC holder between 1990 and 2009. (I say slowly and naturally because the coin exhibits characteristics that are typical of slow natural toning, such as the pull-away effect at the outer edge of Q in QUARTER.) Prior to the Boys' Town sale, this coin may well have been in a PCGS MS66 holder, from which it was cracked and dipped. It is unquestionably NOT the James A. Stack specimen. Bowers (3/4/10:737, $327750).
4. The Hugon coin, Heritage, FUN Sale (1/12/05:4129, $149500). PCGS MS67.
5. The Eliasberg specimen, Bowers & Merena (4/6/97:1575, $52800). Currently impounded in a major collection. I believe the coin is graded PCGS MS66 but cannot confirm this.
6. The Sunnywood specimen, previously ex Jay Parrino's The Mint; to an unknown private collection; purchased by Sunnywood at Heritage, FUN Sale Platinum Night (1/3/07:919, $120750) in an early-generation PCGS MS65 holder; regraded as PCGS MS66 CAC by Sunnywood in January 2007. Later placed in a major permanent collection along with Sunnywood's entire Barber quarter set; this coin was valued at $160000 in that transaction.
There is certainly no crime in coins having come from earlier lower-graded holders. The James Stack coin, the Boys Town coin, and the Sunnywood coin were all once housed in holders graded lower than they are today. We all know that grading standards did evolve over time, and that grading is after all at least a little bit subjective. Some of us would feel, however, that there is a crime in dipping a high-end specimen of a great rarity. The sad tale of the Norweb 1893-S Morgan comes to mind, as was mentioned by Stewart Blay earlier. Fortunately, the Boys' Town 1901-S quarter does seem to have acquired an acceptable natural-looking patina since that crime was committed so many years ago.
Thanks Sunnywood for the research ! I do not see how anyone can think the Boys Town/DLRC coin can can be a more desirable coin
than the JAS/Gene Gardner Specimen. If the Boys Town/DLRC 1901 S Barber quarter is an ms 68 + then by all standards PCGS needs to slab
the Gene Gardner Specimen ms 69+. Which is my point to begin with that PCGS must not give stratospheric grades to dipped coins. Otherwise they are supporting and advocating gradeflation and coin altering by dipping.
Andy - If you want to find out more on the Boys Town/DLRC 1901 S quarter then you can speak to Magic Mark who dipped the coin to get an ms 68 grade from NGC.
Doug - BTW The Hugon coin is now in the Brent Pogue collection. It originally came from an original 1901 San Francisco silver mint set.
<< <i>Thanks Sunnywood for the research ! I do not see how anyone can think the Boys Town/DLRC coin can can be a more desirable coin
than the JAS/Gene Gardner Specimen. If the Boys Town/DLRC 1901 S Barber quarter is an ms 68 + then by all standards PCGS needs to slab
the Gene Gardner Specimen ms 69+. Which is my point to begin with that PCGS must not give stratospheric grades to dipped coins. Otherwise they are supporting and advocating gradeflation and coin altering by dipping.
Andy - If you want to find out more on the Boys Town/DLRC 1901 S quarter then you can speak to Magic Mark who dipped the coin to get an ms 68 grade from NGC.
Doug - BTW The Hugon coin is now in the Brent Pogue collection. It originally came from an original 1901 San Francisco silver mint set.
Stewart >>
For the record, I am not the "Magic Mark" to whom Stewart referred. That would be Mark Chrans - I knew he had dipped one of them, but not which one.
Sunnywood/Doug, thanks for the compilation of the information. And regardless of the grades assigned, I'll take Mr. Gardner's example, please.
I've not had the time to read all the posts here (just back from a week of vacation with family so playing catch up) but I can tell you Gene's coin is the finest 01-S Larry and I have seen and personally speaking I would rather have Gene's coin than the coin recently auctioned and graded MS68.
Sunnywood thank you for piecing this together. I truly appreciate your work and efforts.
Stewart, good post and thoughts for contemplation. Personally, I love Gene's coin and was thrilled to view the photo of it here.
Andy, thanks for your contribution to this thread as well.
I think most would agree over the history of TPG, PCGS has tended to slightly prefer white untoned silver coins, while NGC has been a bit more favorable towards toned specimens when assigning a grade. This is the general consensus I have heard over time.
The bottom line for each collector is there are personal preferences for what is an attractive coin. Some desiring only untoned specimens while others preferring original toned surfaces.
Dr. Pete, I think you have a wonderful idea!
Wouldn't it be a great experience if the top 1901-S quarters were all displayed together at a major show, like the five 1913 Liberty Nickels were a few years back or the top 3 sets of Barber Halves. Then those of us who have a keen interest could see them, in person and make/come to our own thoughts about the top 1901-S quarters.
I think most would agree over the history of TPG, PCGS has tended to slightly prefer white untoned silver coins, while NGC has been a bit more favorable towards toned specimens when assigning a grade. This is the general consensus I have heard over time.
speaking only for myself i will disagree with this observation and i'd suggest that you pay more attention to what you actually witness and facts than to heresay. what my experience teaches me is that both PCGS and NGC grade according to dissimilar criteria which can influence what coins are submitted to each service by individual collectors. while i don't believe there is an imbalance of toned, colorful coins in NGC holders i know that in the past many collectors/dealers favored submitting to NGC due to the white holder. i also notice that PCGS seems to place a higher premium on strength of luster, but that quality rellates to strike that may only be a perceived anamoly on my part. further, NGC appears more willing to publicly conserve coins which renders many blast white.
to sum things up, though, i have seen lovely toned coins and brilliant white coins in both PCGS and NGC holders. i don't think it's the company that shows that bias, i think it's more the choices made by the individual submitters.
<< <i>I think most would agree over the history of TPG, PCGS has tended to slightly prefer white untoned silver coins, while NGC has been a bit more favorable towards toned specimens when assigning a grade. This is the general consensus I have heard over time.
speaking only for myself i will disagree with this observation and i'd suggest that you pay more attention to what you actually witness and facts than to heresay. what my experience teaches me is that both PCGS and NGC grade according to dissimilar criteria which can influence what coins are submitted to each service by individual collectors. while i don't believe there is an imbalance of toned, colorful coins in NGC holders i know that in the past many collectors/dealers favored submitting to NGC due to the white holder. i also notice that PCGS seems to place a higher premium on strength of luster, but that quality rellates to strike that may only be a perceived anamoly on my part. further, NGC appears more willing to publicly conserve coins which renders many blast white.
to sum things up, though, i have seen lovely toned coins and brilliant white coins in both PCGS and NGC holders. i don't think it's the company that shows that bias, i think it's more the choices made by the individual submitters. >>
PonyExpress8/Glenn, my observations and experiences have been much more in line with yours, than with the above poster's. And I believe that the choices made by submitters have largely been due to the standards and biases of the respective grading companies.
Sure, some submitters have submitted their toned coins to NGC, due to a preference regarding how the coins look in the white holders. But I believe that far more have done so due to the hope or expectation that NGC would grade the coins higher than PCGS would.
As to the discussion of the 1901-S quarter, it reminds me of that old game show where they said "will the real Mr. so-and-so please stand up". What was the name of the show? I want to say "Whats My Line" but that wasn't it-----------BigE
<< <i>As to the discussion of the 1901-S quarter, it reminds me of that old game show where they said "will the real Mr. so-and-so please stand up". What was the name of the show? I want to say "Whats My Line" but that wasn't it-----------BigE >>
I had to look it up : "To Tell The Truth" Really, I did.
It truly is..............love it. Like a season worth of "24" episodes rolled into one coin thread. However, Andy is not Jack Bauer.............. or is he?..............MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Keets, I should have been more clear. My personal experiences also support the general consensus I referred to.
And when submitters who have submitted thousands of coins also discern slight preferences over history of the different companies, which shapes who they send certain coins to for grading, then isn't that a bit more then just heresay?
I apologize for getting off topic here. But I felt a response was reasonable since I wasn't apparently clear in my earlier post. Now back to 1901-S quarters.
How about all the top 5 or 6 known 01-S quarters all get sent to PCGS at the same time for grading and comparison. Then, put the newly graded and compared coins on display at the next big national show for comparison viewing, all with appropriate security for these valuable coins. The only problem I would foresee would be that the grading opinions of the owners (as usual) would likely disagree somewhat (as expected) with the expert opinions of PCGS.
Do I think this will happen? No, but we can still image it.
<< <i>The Stack/Gardner coin looks phenomenal, I'd rather have that than the 68+. >>
Most all of the Gardner coins are phenomenal. I've only had the pleasure of seeing a few in hand, outside of the pictures he has of his registry sets across the street. His seated quarter set is probably the finest ever assembled.
I've now seen the JAS/Gardner coin! Looks like a MOOSE. I've viewed all the others except Stewart's. My life is now closer to being complete. Thank you Doug!
<< <i>In my opinion, PCGS blew it on this coin. Everyone knows it was out of a lower grade holder and dipped.
Even in the image you can see problems on the face.
Sure, the coin may be the finest ever 01S 25C, but that does not warrant the plus stuff. If this is the way the new game will be, then all PCGS did was create away to gain more revenue while further destroying the high end market. What a joke. >>
everyone seems to like the Gardner coin----PCGS MS67-----so is it your contention that PCGS graded the brilliant coin higher because they prefer untoned coins at PCGS?? that just doen't make sense to me.
everyone seems to like the Gardner coin----PCGS MS67-----so is it your contention that PCGS graded the brilliant coin higher because they prefer untoned coins at PCGS?? that just doen't make sense to me.
PCGS probably graded the Gardner coin lower because they saw the few light hairlines on Liberty's cheek that we can't see in the image.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
thank you, Andy, for being willing to look past color and consider that there are other attributes beside "Toned" and "Brilliant" that figure into the grade.
thank you, Andy, for being willing to look past color and consider that there are other attributes beside "Toned" and "Brilliant" that figure into the grade.
It doesn't take much imagination when you've seen the coin in person, and I have.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I absolutely adore the Stack-Gardner coin. It is exactly the kind of coin I chose for my sets. But in all fairness to the new owner of the Boys Town coin, it is the only one ever graded 68, and it scored that level at both services, and even the new "plus." So let's not go overboard in dissing that coin !!!
As an aside, I commented earlier that the toning on the Stack coin was reminiscent of a few of the others in my set, and that I suspected they had all once been together in a prior outstanding collection. Well it turns out that I was right, a few of my other quarters were apparently previously in the collection of James A. Stack. I sure wish I still owned my BQ's, but alas for some of us lesser mortals, it is not always possible to keep the treasures indefinitely. Anyway I was so privileged to own such nice coins for a while, and for me the greatest enjoyment is the set-building process itself.
I really like this thread. Further, it is great that so many participants in the PCGS message boards have shown considerable interest in this quarter. I hope that all of you will read my article about it. Thoughtful comments, both positive and negative, are welcome and are appreciated.
The main question as far as I'm concerned is what would this coin have graded if I had submitted it to PCGS? With the face ticks and weak strike would I have gotten that grade?
Ron
Collect for the love of the hobby, the beauty of the coins, and enjoy the ride.
<< <i>I really like this thread. Further, it is great that so many participants in the PCGS message boards have shown considerable interest in this quarter. I hope that all of you will read my article about it. Thoughtful comments, both positive and negative, are welcome and are appreciated.
This was one great thread and Greg I enjoyed your article immensely. Another well written piece that was engaging from start to finish. It's always fun to read quotes from the heavyweights in this field as well.............MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I really like this thread. Further, it is great that so many participants in the PCGS message boards have shown considerable interest in this quarter. I hope that all of you will read my article about it. Thoughtful comments, both positive and negative, are welcome and are appreciated.
This was one great thread and Greg I enjoyed your article immensely. Another well written piece that was engaging from start to finish. It's always fun to read quotes from the heavyweights in this field as well.............MJ >>
Agree totally with MJ. I must say that you handled the dipping question most diplomatically, but certainly illustrated the controversy regarding dipped coins with enough viewpoints and scientific evidence of surface damage to raise even more questions. One of the most engaging articles of yours that I have read in some time.
John, I find it refreshing that even the heavyweights have no real consensus on the dipping issue. Most of us flyweights to welterweights on this forum argue the very same points ad nauseum to no conclusion day after day. At the end of the day "To thine own self be true". I still count myself in the Stewart Blay and Dr. Duckor camp..............MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Just for interests sake, wouldn't it be fun to have all of these high end 01-S's evaluated by CAC?
So far they have only cacified one mint state 01-S, an MS65. >>
It looks like the MS68+ was CAC approved, according to Analyst's article. >>
Yes, the 68 and not the plus.........John said that this wasn't a "just miss" 69 according to the article. MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
JustACommeman and JHDFLA, I very much appreciate the kind words. I spent many hours on my article on the PCGS graded MS-68+ 1901-S quarter.
JHDFLA: <<Agree totally with [JustACommeman]. I must say that you handled the dipping question most diplomatically, but certainly illustrated the controversy regarding dipped coins with enough viewpoints and scientific evidence of surface damage to raise even more questions. One of the most engaging articles of yours that I have read in some time.>> -
On the topic that this 1901-S quarter was dipped twenty years ago, it would not have made sense to say more than I did in this article. I implore those interested to read my three part series on natural toning, which includes discussions of dipping and coin doctoring. I would welcome ‘before and after’ photographs of dipped coins, especially those taken via a microscope. Much more research needs to be done in this area.
I really believe that a strong majority of sophisticated collectors, in the past and present, view dipping as being harmful and prefer coins with natural toning. In some instances, the benefits of dipping will outweigh the harm done, but these situations are unusual. As for Blay’s and Duckor’s insistence upon collecting coins with ‘original skin,’ this is a topic that I will address in other articles.
Melvin289: <<The main question as far as I'm concerned is what would this coin have graded if I had submitted it to PCGS? With the face ticks and weak strike would I have gotten that grade?>>
Melvin289, your question is factually incorrect, unfairly harsh and very misleading. PCGS graders do not know the identity of the submitters of specific coins and almost all PCGS graders were in agreement that this coin merited a MS-68+ grade. When the coin was sent to the PCGS early in 2010, PCGS graders were already employing decimal grades for ‘internal’ purposes. It is implied that many PCGS graders rated this coin at 68.7 or higher. Further, it was re-examined in March by most (or all?) PCGS graders. In relation to the awarding of the 68+ grade, I really do not think that it made any difference who owned the coin. The PCGS fairly employed the PCGS’s own grading criteria.
As for the minute contact marks, these are addressed in my article. Matt Kleinsteuber, Bill Shamhart and John Albanese all indicate that these tics are hardly noticeable, and maybe cannot be seen at all without magnification. These are very light, miniscule marks, and there are a very small number of them. Such imperfections are consistent with a MS-68 grade. Further, note that Kleinsteuber declares that “the reverse is pretty much perfect.” In addition, your statement that this coin has a “weak strike” is not accurate; its strike is above average for a 1901-S quarter. I have never seen a 1901-S quarter that is 100% fully struck. Besides, the evaluation of the strike of a coin should be done with the coin ‘in hand,’ as the accuracy of photographs vary. Have you actually seen this coin?
FrnklnLvr: << It looks like the MS68+ was CAC approved, according to Analyst's article.>> FranklinLover, please read exactly what I said, “The CAC approved the MS-68 grade; the CAC will not accept or reject ‘plus’ grades.”
Comments
Maybe we could rally for a showdown of this date among the current owners of the finest known.
The Stack coin sold for $5500 to Akers/Paramount International Coin in March 1975, then advertised for sale at a hair under $10,000. No doubt it sold quick. Renrob (Bob Rose and Ron Iskowitz) bought the coin at Auction '80. They later sold the coin for around $110K-120K to Rick Sear in either 1988 or 1989 (then graded 66) who dipped and upgraded the coin to 67. Whether it was then upgraded to NGC68 and sold at the Boys Town sale remains to be seen.
roadrunner
The ms 68 + is the NGC coin from the Boys Town sale which was dipped and PCGS crossed it for Bowers and Merena auctions where it brought $327,000. Seeing that the coin brought $550,000 earlier in the NGC holder, it was a bad decision to dip/cross it.
The Stack coin was a high profile coin in the 1989-90 market. There are many dealers still active today, some on this board, who know the full story, esp. if someone doubled up in price yet again by going PCGS 67 to NGC 68. Those kinds of stories have legs and memories.
roadrunner
This coin to me is not even a 67 based on ticks.......it doesn't matter what date it is. Grading is grading based on surfaces and lack of hits and ticks.
Sunnywoods 01-s is a better coin than this one no matter what the label says.
JMHO
As for whether or not the DLRC coin deserved the plus sign, it remains to be seen. After all, we don't really know what "plus" means yet.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>The DLRC coin is not the James A Stack coin. (I do know where the coin came from, but think it's best not to say.) In any event, the DLRC coin is technically much better than the James A Stack coin - I grade them 68 and 67 - but the Stack coin is IMHO more attractive.
As for whether or not the DLRC coin deserved the plus sign, it remains to be seen. After all, we don't really know what "plus" means yet. >>
And you would know.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
Just noticed the above. As I've said before, the JAS coin has not been dipped, and it is not the DLRC coin. The DLRC coin came from an old time collection that was dispersed privately, not at auction, less than a year before the Boys Town auction. As for Rick Sear, he did buy and upgrade the JAS coin, but he had nothing to do with the DLRC coin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Let's start with the James A. Stack specimen; Stack's (3/1975:206); later appearing in Auction '80. This coin graded NGC MS66 in the early conservative days, and was made PCGS MS67 on its first submission there in 1988 or 1989. This was just confirmed to me by the submitter. The coin was later handled by Mike Printz at Larry Whitlow, and placed in Gene Gardner's magnificent Barber quarter collection in April 2001. It has NEVER been dipped, so let's clear that up. It is my all-time favorite Barber quarter, of those that I have seen, and you all know I have seen most of the good ones. I can prove the coins are the same:
Stack's 1975 catalog:
Enlargement of obverse:
Photo of Gene Gardner's coin ... look at the distinctive toning break along the obverse rim at about 7:30, between stars 2 and 3 ... unquestionably the same coin, despite the tricks of the poor early black and white photography in 1975:
So, we can list a census of some of these great 1901-S quarters, in no particular order:
1. James A. Stack specimen, Stack's (3/75:206); David Akers; Auction '80; Bob Rose and Ron Iskowitz; to Rick Sear; regraded PCGS MS67. Later to Gene Gardner via Mike Printz at Larry Whitlow Ltd. This coin has never been dipped. Judging from Gene's photos, it is just as amazing as I remember it being many years ago.
2. Stewart Blay specimen, ex Christie's (1990). PCGS MS67 [Edited to add: I have never seen this coin, but trust Stewart's judgment that it is at least the equal of any other.]
3. The Boys' Town specimen, Superior (5/90:3701) as a blast white dipped NGC MS68. Currently in a PCGS MS68+ holder with peripheral toning, particularly on the reverse. The coin appears to have slowly and naturally retoned in the NGC holder between 1990 and 2009. (I say slowly and naturally because the coin exhibits characteristics that are typical of slow natural toning, such as the pull-away effect at the outer edge of Q in QUARTER.) Prior to the Boys' Town sale, this coin may well have been in a PCGS MS66 holder, from which it was cracked and dipped. It is unquestionably NOT the James A. Stack specimen. Bowers (3/4/10:737, $327750).
4. The Hugon coin, Heritage, FUN Sale (1/12/05:4129, $149500). PCGS MS67.
5. The Eliasberg specimen, Bowers & Merena (4/6/97:1575, $52800). Currently impounded in a major collection. I believe the coin is graded PCGS MS66 but cannot confirm this.
6. The Sunnywood specimen, previously ex Jay Parrino's The Mint; to an unknown private collection; purchased by Sunnywood at Heritage, FUN Sale Platinum Night (1/3/07:919, $120750) in an early-generation PCGS MS65 holder; regraded as PCGS MS66 CAC by Sunnywood in January 2007. Later placed in a major permanent collection along with Sunnywood's entire Barber quarter set; this coin was valued at $160000 in that transaction.
There is certainly no crime in coins having come from earlier lower-graded holders. The James Stack coin, the Boys Town coin, and the Sunnywood coin were all once housed in holders graded lower than they are today. We all know that grading standards did evolve over time, and that grading is after all at least a little bit subjective. Some of us would feel, however, that there is a crime in dipping a high-end specimen of a great rarity. The sad tale of the Norweb 1893-S Morgan comes to mind, as was mentioned by Stewart Blay earlier. Fortunately, the Boys' Town 1901-S quarter does seem to have acquired an acceptable natural-looking patina since that crime was committed so many years ago.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Thanks Sunnywood for the research ! I do not see how anyone can think the Boys Town/DLRC coin can can be a more desirable coin
than the JAS/Gene Gardner Specimen. If the Boys Town/DLRC 1901 S Barber quarter is an ms 68 + then by all standards PCGS needs to slab
the Gene Gardner Specimen ms 69+. Which is my point to begin with that PCGS must not give stratospheric grades to dipped coins. Otherwise they are supporting and advocating gradeflation and coin altering by dipping.
Andy - If you want to find out more on the Boys Town/DLRC 1901 S quarter then you can speak to Magic Mark who dipped the coin to get an ms 68 grade from NGC.
Doug - BTW The Hugon coin is now in the Brent Pogue collection. It originally came from an original 1901 San Francisco silver mint set.
Stewart
<< <i>Thanks Sunnywood for the research ! I do not see how anyone can think the Boys Town/DLRC coin can can be a more desirable coin
than the JAS/Gene Gardner Specimen. If the Boys Town/DLRC 1901 S Barber quarter is an ms 68 + then by all standards PCGS needs to slab
the Gene Gardner Specimen ms 69+. Which is my point to begin with that PCGS must not give stratospheric grades to dipped coins. Otherwise they are supporting and advocating gradeflation and coin altering by dipping.
Andy - If you want to find out more on the Boys Town/DLRC 1901 S quarter then you can speak to Magic Mark who dipped the coin to get an ms 68 grade from NGC.
Doug - BTW The Hugon coin is now in the Brent Pogue collection. It originally came from an original 1901 San Francisco silver mint set.
Stewart >>
For the record, I am not the "Magic Mark" to whom Stewart referred. That would be Mark Chrans - I knew he had dipped one of them, but not which one.
Sunnywood/Doug, thanks for the compilation of the information. And regardless of the grades assigned, I'll take Mr. Gardner's example, please.
I've not had the time to read all the posts here (just back from a week of vacation with family so playing catch up) but I can tell you Gene's coin is the finest 01-S Larry and I have seen and personally speaking I would rather have Gene's coin than the coin recently auctioned and graded MS68.
Harlan J. Berk, Ltd.
https://hjbltd.com/#!/department/us-coins
Stewart, good post and thoughts for contemplation. Personally, I love Gene's coin and was thrilled to view the photo of it here.
Andy, thanks for your contribution to this thread as well.
I think most would agree over the history of TPG, PCGS has tended to slightly prefer white untoned silver coins, while NGC has been a bit more favorable towards toned specimens when assigning a grade. This is the general consensus I have heard over time.
The bottom line for each collector is there are personal preferences for what is an attractive coin. Some desiring only untoned specimens while others preferring original toned surfaces.
Dr. Pete, I think you have a wonderful idea!
Wouldn't it be a great experience if the top 1901-S quarters were all displayed together at a major show, like the five 1913 Liberty Nickels were a few years back or the top 3 sets of Barber Halves. Then those of us who have a keen interest could see them, in person and make/come to our own thoughts about the top 1901-S quarters.
Website-Americana Rare Coin Inc
speaking only for myself i will disagree with this observation and i'd suggest that you pay more attention to what you actually witness and facts than to heresay. what my experience teaches me is that both PCGS and NGC grade according to dissimilar criteria which can influence what coins are submitted to each service by individual collectors. while i don't believe there is an imbalance of toned, colorful coins in NGC holders i know that in the past many collectors/dealers favored submitting to NGC due to the white holder. i also notice that PCGS seems to place a higher premium on strength of luster, but that quality rellates to strike that may only be a perceived anamoly on my part. further, NGC appears more willing to publicly conserve coins which renders many blast white.
to sum things up, though, i have seen lovely toned coins and brilliant white coins in both PCGS and NGC holders. i don't think it's the company that shows that bias, i think it's more the choices made by the individual submitters.
<< <i>I think most would agree over the history of TPG, PCGS has tended to slightly prefer white untoned silver coins, while NGC has been a bit more favorable towards toned specimens when assigning a grade. This is the general consensus I have heard over time.
speaking only for myself i will disagree with this observation and i'd suggest that you pay more attention to what you actually witness and facts than to heresay. what my experience teaches me is that both PCGS and NGC grade according to dissimilar criteria which can influence what coins are submitted to each service by individual collectors. while i don't believe there is an imbalance of toned, colorful coins in NGC holders i know that in the past many collectors/dealers favored submitting to NGC due to the white holder. i also notice that PCGS seems to place a higher premium on strength of luster, but that quality rellates to strike that may only be a perceived anamoly on my part. further, NGC appears more willing to publicly conserve coins which renders many blast white.
to sum things up, though, i have seen lovely toned coins and brilliant white coins in both PCGS and NGC holders. i don't think it's the company that shows that bias, i think it's more the choices made by the individual submitters. >>
PonyExpress8/Glenn, my observations and experiences have been much more in line with yours, than with the above poster's. And I believe that the choices made by submitters have largely been due to the standards and biases of the respective grading companies.
Sure, some submitters have submitted their toned coins to NGC, due to a preference regarding how the coins look in the white holders. But I believe that far more have done so due to the hope or expectation that NGC would grade the coins higher than PCGS would.
<< <i>As to the discussion of the 1901-S quarter, it reminds me of that old game show where they said "will the real Mr. so-and-so please stand up". What was the name of the show? I want to say "Whats My Line" but that wasn't it
I had to look it up : "To Tell The Truth" Really, I did.
<< <i>Fascinating! >>
It truly is..............love it. Like a season worth of "24" episodes rolled into one coin thread. However, Andy is not Jack Bauer.............. or is he?..............MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
And when submitters who have submitted thousands of coins also discern slight preferences over history of the different companies, which shapes who they send certain coins to for grading, then isn't that a bit more then just heresay?
I apologize for getting off topic here. But I felt a response was reasonable since I wasn't apparently clear in my earlier post. Now back to 1901-S quarters.
Website-Americana Rare Coin Inc
How about all the top 5 or 6 known 01-S quarters all get sent to PCGS at the same time for grading and comparison. Then, put the newly graded and compared coins on display at the next big national show for comparison viewing, all with appropriate security for these valuable coins. The only problem I would foresee would be that the grading opinions of the owners (as usual) would likely disagree somewhat (as expected) with the expert opinions of PCGS.
Do I think this will happen? No, but we can still image it.
<< <i>The Stack/Gardner coin looks phenomenal, I'd rather have that than the 68+. >>
Most all of the Gardner coins are phenomenal. I've only had the pleasure of seeing a few in hand, outside of the pictures he has of his registry sets across the street. His seated quarter set is probably the finest ever assembled.
Thank you Doug!
K
PS PCGS prefers white.
Edit to add PS
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I have found that the highest graded coin is often, not the best looking coin from
the aspects of originality, luster, strike and that certain look of excellence ,that
sets one coin, far and away , from all the other specimens of its year and type.
Often, a coin 1-2 grade points lower is the aesthetically superior coin. One can choose
to have the highest graded coins in ones collection ,or, the most beautiful coins
in ones collection. The two objectives are often not compatible with each other.
Camelot
<< <i>In my opinion, PCGS blew it on this coin. Everyone knows it was out of a lower grade holder and dipped.
Even in the image you can see problems on the face.
Sure, the coin may be the finest ever 01S 25C, but that does not warrant the plus stuff. If this is the way the new game will be, then all PCGS did was create away to gain more revenue while further destroying the high end market. What a joke. >>
Could not agree more.
everyone seems to like the Gardner coin----PCGS MS67-----so is it your contention that PCGS graded the brilliant coin higher because they prefer untoned coins at PCGS?? that just doen't make sense to me.
PCGS probably graded the Gardner coin lower because they saw the few light hairlines on Liberty's cheek that we can't see in the image.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It doesn't take much imagination when you've seen the coin in person, and I have.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
As an aside, I commented earlier that the toning on the Stack coin was reminiscent of a few of the others in my set, and that I suspected they had all once been together in a prior outstanding collection. Well it turns out that I was right, a few of my other quarters were apparently previously in the collection of James A. Stack. I sure wish I still owned my BQ's, but alas for some of us lesser mortals, it is not always possible to keep the treasures indefinitely. Anyway I was so privileged to own such nice coins for a while, and for me the greatest enjoyment is the set-building process itself.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
So far they have only cacified one mint state 01-S, an MS65.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Article on PCGS MS-68+ 1901-S quarter
Ron
<< <i>I really like this thread. Further, it is great that so many participants in the PCGS message boards have shown considerable interest in this quarter. I hope that all of you will read my article about it. Thoughtful comments, both positive and negative, are welcome and are appreciated.
Article on PCGS MS-68+ 1901-S quarter >>
This was one great thread and Greg I enjoyed your article immensely. Another well written piece that was engaging from start to finish. It's always fun to read quotes from the heavyweights in this field as well.............MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>I really like this thread. Further, it is great that so many participants in the PCGS message boards have shown considerable interest in this quarter. I hope that all of you will read my article about it. Thoughtful comments, both positive and negative, are welcome and are appreciated.
Article on PCGS MS-68+ 1901-S quarter >>
This was one great thread and Greg I enjoyed your article immensely. Another well written piece that was engaging from start to finish. It's always fun to read quotes from the heavyweights in this field as well.............MJ >>
Agree totally with MJ. I must say that you handled the dipping question most diplomatically, but certainly illustrated the controversy regarding dipped coins with enough viewpoints and scientific evidence of surface damage to raise even more questions. One of the most engaging articles of yours that I have read in some time.
John
<< <i>Just for interests sake, wouldn't it be fun to have all of these high end 01-S's evaluated by CAC?
So far they have only cacified one mint state 01-S, an MS65. >>
It looks like the MS68+ was CAC approved, according to Analyst's article.
Franklin-Lover's Forum
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>Just for interests sake, wouldn't it be fun to have all of these high end 01-S's evaluated by CAC?
So far they have only cacified one mint state 01-S, an MS65. >>
It looks like the MS68+ was CAC approved, according to Analyst's article. >>
Yes, the 68 and not the plus.........John said that this wasn't a "just miss" 69 according to the article. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
JHDFLA: <<Agree totally with [JustACommeman]. I must say that you handled the dipping question most diplomatically, but certainly illustrated the controversy regarding dipped coins with enough viewpoints and scientific evidence of surface damage to raise even more questions. One of the most engaging articles of yours that I have read in some time.>> -
On the topic that this 1901-S quarter was dipped twenty years ago, it would not have made sense to say more than I did in this article. I implore those interested to read my three part series on natural toning, which includes discussions of dipping and coin doctoring. I would welcome ‘before and after’ photographs of dipped coins, especially those taken via a microscope. Much more research needs to be done in this area.
I really believe that a strong majority of sophisticated collectors, in the past and present, view dipping as being harmful and prefer coins with natural toning. In some instances, the benefits of dipping will outweigh the harm done, but these situations are unusual. As for Blay’s and Duckor’s insistence upon collecting coins with ‘original skin,’ this is a topic that I will address in other articles.
Melvin289: <<The main question as far as I'm concerned is what would this coin have graded if I had submitted it to PCGS? With the face ticks and weak strike would I have gotten that grade?>>
Melvin289, your question is factually incorrect, unfairly harsh and very misleading. PCGS graders do not know the identity of the submitters of specific coins and almost all PCGS graders were in agreement that this coin merited a MS-68+ grade. When the coin was sent to the PCGS early in 2010, PCGS graders were already employing decimal grades for ‘internal’ purposes. It is implied that many PCGS graders rated this coin at 68.7 or higher. Further, it was re-examined in March by most (or all?) PCGS graders. In relation to the awarding of the 68+ grade, I really do not think that it made any difference who owned the coin. The PCGS fairly employed the PCGS’s own grading criteria.
As for the minute contact marks, these are addressed in my article. Matt Kleinsteuber, Bill Shamhart and John Albanese all indicate that these tics are hardly noticeable, and maybe cannot be seen at all without magnification. These are very light, miniscule marks, and there are a very small number of them. Such imperfections are consistent with a MS-68 grade. Further, note that Kleinsteuber declares that “the reverse is pretty much perfect.” In addition, your statement that this coin has a “weak strike” is not accurate; its strike is above average for a 1901-S quarter. I have never seen a 1901-S quarter that is 100% fully struck. Besides, the evaluation of the strike of a coin should be done with the coin ‘in hand,’ as the accuracy of photographs vary. Have you actually seen this coin?
FrnklnLvr: << It looks like the MS68+ was CAC approved, according to Analyst's article.>>
FranklinLover, please read exactly what I said, “The CAC approved the MS-68 grade; the CAC will not accept or reject ‘plus’ grades.”
Article on PCGS graded MS-68+ 1901-S Quarter
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 1
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 2
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
PCGS Message Board Thread about Collecting Naturally Toned Coins Articles