Laura was NOT bidding on the 1855 seated dollar for me as I had sold my set a few months prior - which was not public knowledge at the time. I do seem to recall that the coin WAS offered to us after the sale at a markup and our response was NO THANKS, we don't need it. Whether she was running them up for sport, bidding for spec or just protecting seated dollar values in general I do not know. I will say that I was totally shocked at the price realized on that coin and would have been outbid if I had been on it. I do believe the coin that I have now for my set is fantastic and a better value at 2/3 the price - but ownership adds a half a point, eh?
<< <i>Here is a 1911 Proof $5 that I previously owned as partners with another dealer. Other than the 1909 and 1910 issues, I think I like 1911 the best.
Just checked - Wow! that 1911 $5 PR67 went for 80,500? Ouch! Is that fully priced?
eaglesea >>
Eaglesea, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. My partner and I had paid $70,000 for the coin, thinking or hoping we might get approximately $80,000-$85,000 for it. So the $80,500 the winning bidder paid, seemed reasonable to me. Though, due to the commission we paid to the auction house, we netted just a small profit over our cost.
<< <i>The 1910 $10 PR65 CDN bid is 55K. Maybe a few show up each year. Hard to price, but I have a hard time thinking my fellow dealers would pay $80K WITHOUT A FIRM COMMITTED ORDER. I would advise against this price being paid unless my customer was a committed specialist in this series.
Assuming that BidAsk's 1910 is as fresh and original as it appears to be, I doubt that there are more than 15 comparable coins in existence, and I'd guess that I've only seen half a dozen in the past 20 years. As for the price, I don't see why a non-specialist shouldn't be willing to pay PQ money for a PQ coin. Although I will concede that liquidating PQ coins can be frustrating, because everybody complains about price and few care enough about real quality to pay for it. >>
Seems that there would be enough retail buyers that would not complain about price for truly PQ coins ........but what do I know.
I do know for this coin I was a retail buyer.
However, you yourself said they are a good long term investment....
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.
Checking the PCGS Set Registry. Only one current set registered for Proof Saints (Driftwood?) And one current set registered for Proof Indian Eagles (O'Neal). Does anyone know them? Is everyone else shy?
There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned.
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned. >>
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. I compared the photos with those of the 1913 $10 from the Stacks auction and the coin does look lighter.
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned. >>
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. I compared the photos with those of the 1913 $10 from the Stacks auction and the coin does look lighter. >>
Different years display different color, so it can be misleading to compare one year to another. That said, it looked lighter than I would like.
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned. >>
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. I compared the photos with those of the 1913 $10 from the Stacks auction and the coin does look lighter. >>
Coinguy
You mentioned your $5 PCGS PR67 in the ANA Boston. There was also a 1914 $10 NGC PF67. You recall that coin? The color of that 1914 looks different too.
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned. >>
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. I compared the photos with those of the 1913 $10 from the Stacks auction and the coin does look lighter. >>
Coinguy
You mentioned your $5 PCGS PR67 in the ANA Boston. There was also a 1914 $10 NGC PF67. You recall that coin? The color of that 1914 looks different too. >>
Notwithstanding the weighting given 1914 $20's in the PCGS registry, The 1915 has been considered the toughest year in high grades. PCGS pop PR64 and better = nada.
The same PR64 appeared in 3 Stacks auctions recently, the first time not CAC, the last two green-beaned. 03/26/08 $80,500 10/22/08 not sold 11/09/09 $51,750
The color was right and the coin very nice
4 Heritage examples pictured
The color was wrong on all, though I'm not confident of their photography.
A shame they don't have before and after images of the Trompeter example. It upgraded between appearances. I believe it was owned by Heritage at one point as part of the massive deal they bought from Ed's estate.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>Notwithstanding the weighting given 1914 $20's in the PCGS registry, The 1915 has been considered the toughest year in high grades. PCGS pop PR64 and better = nada.
The same PR64 appeared in 3 Stacks auctions recently, the first time not CAC, the last two green-beaned. 03/26/08 $80,500 10/22/08 not sold 11/09/09 $51,750
The color was right and the coin very nice
4 Heritage examples pictured
The color was wrong on all, though I'm not confident of their photography.
A shame they don't have before and after images of the Trompeter example. It upgraded between appearances. I believe it was owned by Heritage at one point as part of the massive deal they bought from Ed's estate. >>
Col J, you are referring to $10's not $20's right? It seems 1915 $10's at PCGS are PR65 (6 no.) & PR66 (1 no.). Nevertheless, I take your point that 1915 $10's are decidely tougher in gem than 1914.
Did anyone read the article "Is a bubble forming for "Top of Pop" coins?" on CoinWeek?
Mark Salzberg refers to the recent sale of a MS68 Walking Liberty Half Dollar for more than 100,000. He goes on to say that a collector could buy 2 matte proof Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles for the same amount.
Comments
Laura was NOT bidding on the 1855 seated dollar for me as I had sold my set a few months prior - which was not public knowledge at the time. I do seem to recall that the coin WAS offered to us after the sale at a markup and our response was NO THANKS, we don't need it. Whether she was running them up for sport, bidding for spec or just protecting seated dollar values in general I do not know. I will say that I was totally shocked at the price realized on that coin and would have been outbid if I had been on it. I do believe the coin that I have now for my set is fantastic and a better value at 2/3 the price - but ownership adds a half a point, eh?
You almost always have to overpay for the right coin - the secret is in knowing which are the right coins.
<< <i>With regard to price of the matte gold, the paraphrased saying that I've been quoted on in the past applies:
You almost always have to overpay for the right coin - the secret is in knowing which are the right coins. >>
Hello TDN
I suppose finding the "right coin" depends a lot on finding the right dealer ;-) will remember ur saying.
Col J, I do hope u will continue to post on this tread.
Keep it coming, it really was a great combination of education and amusement.
siliconvalleycoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is a 1911 Proof $5 that I previously owned as partners with another dealer. Other than the 1909 and 1910 issues, I think I like 1911 the best.
1911 Half Eagle PCGS PR67 >>
Hi Mark!
Just checked - Wow! that 1911 $5 PR67 went for 80,500? Ouch! Is that fully priced?
eaglesea >>
Eaglesea, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. My partner and I had paid $70,000 for the coin, thinking or hoping we might get approximately $80,000-$85,000 for it. So the $80,500 the winning bidder paid, seemed reasonable to me. Though, due to the commission we paid to the auction house, we netted just a small profit over our cost.
<< <i>The 1910 $10 PR65 CDN bid is 55K. Maybe a few show up each year. Hard to price, but I have a hard time thinking my fellow dealers would pay $80K WITHOUT A FIRM COMMITTED ORDER. I would advise against this price being paid unless my customer was a committed specialist in this series.
Assuming that BidAsk's 1910 is as fresh and original as it appears to be, I doubt that there are more than 15 comparable coins in existence, and I'd guess that I've only seen half a dozen in the past 20 years. As for the price, I don't see why a non-specialist shouldn't be willing to pay PQ money for a PQ coin. Although I will concede that liquidating PQ coins can be frustrating, because everybody complains about price and few care enough about real quality to pay for it. >>
Seems that there would be enough retail buyers that would not complain about price for truly PQ coins ........but what do I know.
I do know for this coin I was a retail buyer.
However, you yourself said they are a good long term investment....
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either?
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned.
<< <i>
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned.
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. I compared the photos with those of the 1913 $10 from the Stacks auction and the coin does look lighter.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned.
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. I compared the photos with those of the 1913 $10 from the Stacks auction and the coin does look lighter. >>
Different years display different color, so it can be misleading to compare one year to another. That said, it looked lighter than I would like.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned.
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. I compared the photos with those of the 1913 $10 from the Stacks auction and the coin does look lighter. >>
Coinguy
You mentioned your $5 PCGS PR67 in the ANA Boston. There was also a 1914 $10 NGC PF67. You recall that coin? The color of that 1914 looks different too.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There is a 1914 $10 NGC PF65 on the block at Hertage in Jan 2011. It appears this is the key date in the Proof Indian Eagle series with the lowest mintage of 50 (and the PCGS set registry gives it the highest weightage - not sure how NGC treats it).
Then the Albanese Rare Coin website (www.coinace.com) has a 1909 NGC PF64 CAC going for 28k.
Any thoughts on either? >>
Perhaps the images make the coin look different/lighter than it really is. But, based on them, at least, I don't like the color of the PR65 you mentioned.
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. I compared the photos with those of the 1913 $10 from the Stacks auction and the coin does look lighter. >>
Coinguy
You mentioned your $5 PCGS PR67 in the ANA Boston. There was also a 1914 $10 NGC PF67. You recall that coin? The color of that 1914 looks different too. >>
I don't - sorry.
The same PR64 appeared in 3 Stacks auctions recently, the first time not CAC, the last two green-beaned.
03/26/08 $80,500
10/22/08 not sold
11/09/09 $51,750
The color was right and the coin very nice
4 Heritage examples pictured
The color was wrong on all, though I'm not confident of their photography.
A shame they don't have before and after images of the Trompeter example. It upgraded between appearances. I believe it was owned by Heritage at one point as part of the massive deal they bought from Ed's estate.
<< <i>Notwithstanding the weighting given 1914 $20's in the PCGS registry, The 1915 has been considered the toughest year in high grades. PCGS pop PR64 and better = nada.
The same PR64 appeared in 3 Stacks auctions recently, the first time not CAC, the last two green-beaned.
03/26/08 $80,500
10/22/08 not sold
11/09/09 $51,750
The color was right and the coin very nice
4 Heritage examples pictured
The color was wrong on all, though I'm not confident of their photography.
A shame they don't have before and after images of the Trompeter example. It upgraded between appearances. I believe it was owned by Heritage at one point as part of the massive deal they bought from Ed's estate. >>
Col J, you are referring to $10's not $20's right? It seems 1915 $10's at PCGS are PR65 (6 no.) & PR66 (1 no.). Nevertheless, I take your point that 1915 $10's are decidely tougher in gem than 1914.
1. A matte proof gold coin that has been dipped would presumably not get stickered?
2. Any coin that has been dipped would presumably not be in a PCGS holder right?
<< <i>There is another thread discussion about CAC now stickering coins that have been dipped. Has anyone read that thread? I have 2 questions:
1. A matte proof gold coin that has been dipped would presumably not get stickered?
2. Any coin that has been dipped would presumably not be in a PCGS holder right? >>
MANY dipped coins are in PCGS and NGC holders.
Mark Salzberg refers to the recent sale of a MS68 Walking Liberty Half Dollar for more than 100,000. He goes on to say that a collector could buy 2 matte proof Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles for the same amount.
Maybe he feels matte proof gold is undervalued?
Has anyone seen the spectacular matte proof Indian Eagles in the upcoming Heritage April Rosemont Sale? To date the Heritage website has listed;
1910 $10 NGC PF65
1911 $10 NGC PF67
1913 $10 NGC PF67
1914 $10 NGC PF66
They look mighty fine.....
1910 $10 NGC PF65 (69,000)
1911 $10 NGC PF67 (74,750)
1913 $10 NGC PF67 (86,250)
1914 $10 NGC PF66 (54,625)
And NO CAC stickers either!