Options
Littlejohn v. Newman
ranshdow
Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭✭
All this talk about the upcoming Newman auction got me comparing it to another auction of almost exactly one year ago. There are obvious differences, but also some similarities which I think are quite instructive.
Littlejohn: Obscure collector, obscure collection, but the collection is old, has some crazy-rare gold pieces lurking within, is raw, and will be very fresh to market. This collection fell into the lap of an obscure auction house from a numismatic perspective (they specialize in philately), so not going to have the buzz/publicity machine or marketing budget that a S-B or Heritage can leverage.
The strategy: Send the appropriate stuff in to PCGS, make no attempt to max out the grades. Target the crackout artists, doctors and others who can grade (or think they can), who will bid each piece based on it's perceived potential to this "second-level" market. Rely on the obscurity and freshness "opportunity" angle to drive the bids.
The outcome: Many coins were bid to the moon relative to the grades on the holders. How many of those coins have since re-appeared in other holders, with other grades, and possibly altered appearances? How many ended up in collector's hands in their original holders? I don't know.
Newman: Pedigree-worthy collector, very well known collection, somewhat obscure material (patterns), also raw. Consigner and their philanthropy about as connected numismatically as can be. Goal to obtain as much money as possible for the foundation.
The strategy: Minimize the vig as much as possible. The coins (if not unique, best or nearly the best of their kind in many cases) and their pedigree will drive their value. Pick the auction house and TPG that gives the best deal, ie. the ones "hungry" for a shot at such a prestigious set.
The outcome: Predict that few of these coins will be blatantly undergraded, or appeal to crackouts or doctors because they probably won't be the kinds of examples in need of work to begin with- generally high state of preservation. Further, due to their uniqueness and pedigree, they probably would be outed immediately as having been worked on should they reappear in new plastic, with a different appearance, and as such are undesireable for that angle.
Thoughts, comments?
Littlejohn: Obscure collector, obscure collection, but the collection is old, has some crazy-rare gold pieces lurking within, is raw, and will be very fresh to market. This collection fell into the lap of an obscure auction house from a numismatic perspective (they specialize in philately), so not going to have the buzz/publicity machine or marketing budget that a S-B or Heritage can leverage.
The strategy: Send the appropriate stuff in to PCGS, make no attempt to max out the grades. Target the crackout artists, doctors and others who can grade (or think they can), who will bid each piece based on it's perceived potential to this "second-level" market. Rely on the obscurity and freshness "opportunity" angle to drive the bids.
The outcome: Many coins were bid to the moon relative to the grades on the holders. How many of those coins have since re-appeared in other holders, with other grades, and possibly altered appearances? How many ended up in collector's hands in their original holders? I don't know.
Newman: Pedigree-worthy collector, very well known collection, somewhat obscure material (patterns), also raw. Consigner and their philanthropy about as connected numismatically as can be. Goal to obtain as much money as possible for the foundation.
The strategy: Minimize the vig as much as possible. The coins (if not unique, best or nearly the best of their kind in many cases) and their pedigree will drive their value. Pick the auction house and TPG that gives the best deal, ie. the ones "hungry" for a shot at such a prestigious set.
The outcome: Predict that few of these coins will be blatantly undergraded, or appeal to crackouts or doctors because they probably won't be the kinds of examples in need of work to begin with- generally high state of preservation. Further, due to their uniqueness and pedigree, they probably would be outed immediately as having been worked on should they reappear in new plastic, with a different appearance, and as such are undesireable for that angle.
Thoughts, comments?
0
Comments
Beyond that, do you have a specific question?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Relatively speaking, Macy's vs. Saks Fifth Avenue >>
Littlejohn had some great pieces and some genuine hole fillers. Very random quality.
Maybe more like Sears vs. Saks.
Latin American Collection
This is true, and it says a lot about the collector.
Funny thing is that I could say the same thing about some very knowledgeable collectors. They simply did not know quality, or did not make it their #1 priority.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>Relatively speaking, Macy's vs. Saks Fifth Avenue >>
Littlejohn had some great pieces and some genuine hole fillers. Very random quality.
Maybe more like Sears vs. Saks. >>
My first thought was Target vs. Saks, and Target would have some decent stuff, but not an 1861-D $5.
I did not mean to trivialize the OP's excellent argument and well-thought discussion. I just do not think Littlejohn belongs in the same discussion as Newman. Garrett vs. Newman? The fact is that we will probably not know the best comp until we have seen the entirety of the sales.
<< <i>Beyond that, do you have a specific question? >>
No. Just airing theory based on scanty information, gathered from a collector's perspective.
A number of folks have rightly pointed out the vastly different caliber of the two collections. Fair. But I don't think one can generalize that the strategies for the disposal of two collections of similar caliber would necessarily be the same. It could come down to level of access, or other factors influencing the consigner and their agent(s).
It's kinda like the calculus of marriage - do you pick the partner you are with now, or wait for a better one to come along?
Or to put it another way, if you had a dozen previously unpublished 1804 dollars, would you announce 'em all before selling the first one?
<< <i>It's kinda like the calculus of marriage - do you pick the partner you are with now, or wait for a better one to come along? >>
I have to admit, I never, ever thought of it like that.
Coin Rarities Online
I agree. Littlejohn flew under the radar. Newman has had a very distinguished collection for more than half a century, and many view him as the dean of numismatic researchers.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>" I just do not think Littlejohn belongs in the same discussion as Newman."
I agree. Littlejohn flew under the radar. Newman has had a very distinguished collection for more than half a century, and many view him as the dean of numismatic researchers. >>
I don't know Littlejohn but that doesn't matter...
<< <i>
<< <i>It's kinda like the calculus of marriage - do you pick the partner you are with now, or wait for a better one to come along? >>
I have to admit, I never, ever thought of it like that. >>
Somebody wrote a paper on this. The average person will have seven opportunities to marry. The mathematician author determined that the optimal strategy was to always pass on the first candidate, and then take the next one that was better than the first one. By this logic, no one should bid in the first Newman sale
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It's kinda like the calculus of marriage - do you pick the partner you are with now, or wait for a better one to come along? >>
I have to admit, I never, ever thought of it like that. >>
Somebody wrote a paper on this. The average person will have seven opportunities to marry. The mathematician author determined that the optimal strategy was to always pass on the first candidate, and then take the next one that was better than the first one. By this logic, no one should bid in the first Newman sale
Close...
The optimal probability when dealing with any situation with a defined number of options is to watch the first third go by, and then to pick the first one that is better than the best from the first third.
I don't know if that paper could exist as the whole mathematical premise is predicated on having a fixed quantity.
Latin American Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It's kinda like the calculus of marriage - do you pick the partner you are with now, or wait for a better one to come along? >>
I have to admit, I never, ever thought of it like that. >>
Somebody wrote a paper on this. The average person will have seven opportunities to marry. The mathematician author determined that the optimal strategy was to always pass on the first candidate, and then take the next one that was better than the first one. By this logic, no one should bid in the first Newman sale
Close...
The optimal probability when dealing with any situation with a defined number of options is to watch the first third go by, and then to pick the first one that is better than the best from the first third.
I don't know if that paper could exist as the whole mathematical premise is predicated on having a fixed quantity. >>
Beautiful Minds at work.
I will keep game theory on the sideline and try to buy a coin or two that I like and can afford.
<< <i>... I will keep game theory on the sideline and try to buy a coin or two that I like and can afford.
This is the kind of selfish short-sighted behavior that threatens the very fabric of our industry.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It's kinda like the calculus of marriage - do you pick the partner you are with now, or wait for a better one to come along? >>
I have to admit, I never, ever thought of it like that. >>
Somebody wrote a paper on this. The average person will have seven opportunities to marry. The mathematician author determined that the optimal strategy was to always pass on the first candidate, and then take the next one that was better than the first one. By this logic, no one should bid in the first Newman sale
I was a slow learner.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
RanshDow: <<There are obvious differences, but also some similarities which I think are quite instructive.>>
The original post in this thread is very puzzling. Other than the fact that both consignments were of collections that had been ‘off the market’ for more than five years, thus fresh, there are no similarities. All or almost all of Newman’s pieces have been ‘off the market’ for a much longer period of time. Moreover, the Newman Collection is, in some ways, one of the greatest of all time. In terms of quality, breadth and depth, it is tremendous. It is ridiculous to categorize the Newman Collection with the Littlejohn Collection, or to view the respective auctions as being similar.
For more information about Littlejohn and his collection, please read:
Major Gold Rarities in Auction by Stamp Company- Littlejohn Collection