Interesting LSCC thread- Gobrecht Dollar letter of provenance.

coindeuce

Anyone know if this letter ever got reunited with the coin it provenanced ?

Zoins

Was it confirmed that the FUN coin is the one associated with the letter?

tradedollarnut

would love to see the contents of that letter. would also love to see how the coin compares to other gobrechts and which Gobrecht Theory it supports

coindeuce

<< <i>Was it confirmed that the FUN coin is the one associated with the letter? >>



I do not know, therefore my question remains. The OP with the claim of possession of the letter has not posted at LSCC since last year.

Zoins

The author, sobo, only made that one post there on 09/24/11 06:34:31. I agree it would be great to see the contents of the letter.



<< <i>I recently sold an 1836 Gobrecht seated dollar. It was graded by PCGS as Original PR-62. It was a beautiful coin. I did not know the history of this coin, but found it in my mother's belongings. Since then I found an incredible letter from 1888 (stuck inside an old bible) that gives the complete history of this coin, The letter is in beautiful condition and links the coin to the Seviers of Tennessee and Andrew Jackson. I feel like the letter and coin belong together and adds much interest to the coin. The trouble is I cannot trace what happened to this coin. I sold it to a dealer who sold it to a dealer who says the person he sold it to gave no contact information. I am new to this whole coin world. But I get hints that there's a lot of confidentiality issues involved. Any thoughts on this? >>

Coinosaurus

This is in my queue of articles to write. If there are any experts out there on the Andrew Jackson papers, please PM, there are some things that need to checked out.

The FUN coin is the same coin as referred to in the letter, it has been plate matched. The winning bidder of the coin turned down an offer for the coin, and the owner of the letter does not wish to part with the letter as it is part of the family history. So unfortunately no reunion for now.

tradedollarnut

The owner of the letter could do us great service by allowing the contents to be posted

tradedollarnut

Also interesting how old the holder is...

ScarsdaleCoin

Its called a photo copy.... that would be enough to have with the coin....surely the letter holder could give a copy to the coin owner.... and the part of the family history I dont buy ....after all they sold the coin off

coindeuce

The only point presented by the party claiming to have the letter that I find rather weak, is the comment that a third party sold the coin to someone without obtaining contact information. I question how a coin of approximately $30,000 value could change hands without some exchange of information. Certainly a cash deal of this magnitude would be very risky on the part of a dealer, whether buying or selling, without any record of such. And no dealer in their right mind would take a personal check of potentially $30,000 from an unknown, especially if it did not have contact information included.

Zoins

Has anyone verified seeing the letter?

RichieURich

<< <i>The only point presented by the party claiming to have the letter that I find rather weak, is the comment that a third party sold the coin to someone without obtaining contact information. I question how a coin of approximately $30,000 value could change hands without some exchange of information. Certainly a cash deal of this magnitude would be very risky on the part of a dealer, whether buying or selling, without any record of such. And no dealer in their right mind would take a personal check of potentially $30,000 from an unknown, especially if it did not have contact information included. >>



True, there is usually an exchange of information when a coin of significant value changes hands.

But, if you bought a coin for $30,000, would you want the dealer who sold you the coin to tell someone else who he sold the coin to?

Which is why most dealers, myself included, would not disclose customer information to someone else.

Zoins

If the letter is legitimate, I can see how there would be some regret for selling an old coin which turned out to be a family heirloom. In that instance, there may be some desire to keep the letter private until the coin comes back. After all, if the contents of the letter became known, the value of the coin may go up, making it that much harder to reacquire the coin.

coindeuce

<< <i>If the letter is legitimate, I can see how there would be some regret for selling an old coin which turned out to be a family heirloom. In that instance, there may be some desire to keep the letter private until the coin comes back. After all, if the contents of the letter became known, the value of the coin may go up, making it that much harder to reacquire the coin. >>






The author of the LSCC thread clearly expressed that it was their desire to reunite rthe letter with the coin. In no way did they allude to expressing an interest to reaquire the coin.

Zoins

<< <i>

<< <i>If the letter is legitimate, I can see how there would be some regret for selling an old coin which turned out to be a family heirloom. In that instance, there may be some desire to keep the letter private until the coin comes back. After all, if the contents of the letter became known, the value of the coin may go up, making it that much harder to reacquire the coin. >>






The author of the LSCC thread clearly expressed that it was their desire to reunite rthe letter with the coin. In no way did they allude to expressing an interest to reaquire the coin. >>




Check out the post above by Coinosaurus where he writes "the owner of the letter does not wish to part with the letter as it is part of the family history." Given that the letter owner does not want to part with the letter, the only way to reunite the letter with the coin is for the coin to come back to the letter owner as it is a part of their family history.

Coinosaurus also wrote "The FUN coin is the same coin as referred to in the letter, it has been plate matched. The winning bidder of the coin turned down an offer for the coin." Later Coinosaurus writes this is a reason that there's no reunion so I'm taking this to mean the offer was from the letter owner. So it seems the current coin owner isn't interested in having the coin returned to the family that's had it from the 1800s, at least under the terms of the offer extended.

coindeuce

Thanks for pointing out the Coinosaurus post. I had missed that tonight by scrolling directly to your post of 5:41 p.m.

The situation is a shame though. Appears to be a deliberate standoff by both parties. If both parties had the benefit of the numismatic community in mind, rather than personal motives, there might have been an opportunity to exhibit the coin and letter together. I could think of at least one individual that I would nominate as an arbitrator on that issue. (M.L.)