NorthCoin: <<This appears to be the same 1907-D Double Eagle Proof coin subject of your link three posts above this post. Did it really sell for over half a million dollars just three years ago as reported in the link to the article that I understand you authored, and then went for $188,000.00 this year?>>
Yes, the same Proof 1907-D was auctioned on Jan. 10, 2013 for $188,000. It sold privately in Jan. 2010 for more than a half million dollars. I have heard that the buyer in 2010 was the consignor in Jan. 2013, though I have not verified this piece of information. I have also heard that he is upset about incurring a significant loss. Why did he sell after owning this piece for less than three years?
I was told that this same buyer had been a consignor to major auctions before Jan. 2010. This Farouk 1907-D, Proof Double Eagle had been auctioned in Jan. 2004 for $71,875. It has had the same certification, including the same serial number, since before Jan. 2004. The buyer in 2010 would easily have been able to learn that it had been auctioned for $71,875 in 2004. It is very plausible that he was aware of that fact. Also, in my article of Jan. 29, 2010, I mentioned that auction appearance in 2004.
<< <i>NorthCoin: <<This appears to be the same 1907-D Double Eagle Proof coin subject of your link three posts above this post. Did it really sell for over half a million dollars just three years ago as reported in the link to the article that I understand you authored, and then went for $188,000.00 this year?>>
Yes, the same Proof 1907-D was auctioned on Jan. 10, 2013 for $188,000. It sold privately in Jan. 2010 for more than a half million dollars. I have heard that the buyer in 2010 was the consignor in Jan. 2013, though I have not verified this piece of information. I have also heard that he is upset about incurring a significant loss. Why did he sell after owning this piece for less than three years?
I was told that this same buyer had been a consignor to major auctions before Jan. 2010. This Farouk 1907-D, Proof Double Eagle had been auctioned in Jan. 2004 for $71,875. It has had the same certification, including the same serial number, since before Jan. 2004. The buyer in 2010 would easily have been able to learn that it had been auctioned for $71,875 in 2004. It is very plausible that he was aware of that fact. Also, in my article of Jan. 29, 2010, I mentioned that auction appearance in 2004.
Thanks so much for the added information. Is one of the things the consignor in Jan 2013 being upset about is the reporting in the auction description that the 2004 auction sale was for $46,000 rather than the $71,875 you noted? I am also puzzled why no mention was made of the coin having sold for over $500,000 in 2010. Here is the sale history description from the 2013 auction listing:
"This is a unique offering from the Denver Mint, and it may be many years before this proof 1907-D is available again in public auction. Ex: Palace Collection / Farouk (Sotheby's, 2-3/1954), lot 184, part of a 34-coin lot; Kreisberg-Schulman (10/2/1959), lot 1844; Kreisberg-Schulman (2/1960), lot 2931; Ronnie Carr; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2004), lot 3227, where it brought $46,000. From The Douglas Collection.(Registry values: P1) (NGC ID# 26EV, PCGS# 9123)"
I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20. How did knowledge of this sale enter into the public domain. Who brokered the deal?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
NorthCoin:<< I am also puzzled why no mention was made of the coin having sold for over $500,000 in 2010. >>
It is extremely rare for private treaty prices to be noted in auction catalogs. Furthermore, it is not unusual for a retail client to pay $X for a coin and then later sell it, via public auction, for much less than $X.
I agree with the management of auction firms that past private purchase prices should generally not be mentioned in auction catalogs, even when such prices are verifiable. I do, though, sometimes mention them in my articles and I have access to other such results, some of which I will never publicly reveal.
Colonel: <<How did knowledge of this sale enter into the public domain.>>
I analyzed the coin, I researched the subject matter and I wrote about it.
Colonel: <<I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20.
Please stop apologizing. Instead, read the article. Your questions will be answered.
<< <i> Colonel: <<I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20.
Please stop apologizing. Instead, read the article. Your questions will be answered.
>>
I respect your journalistic integrity. You can't say. I had only one question. You answered it to the best of your ability within the ethical constraints of your profession. Thanks.
I didn't want to know who got screwed. Just who brokered the deal. We've probably done business before: I have some coins I'd like to consign And at higher levels this time. Cause it's all just the free market, ya know.
In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or in my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins.
Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982 ($37.5K) , but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one for a bit more, if but briefly, in 1984. And the Garrett 1804 the next year. It's true. I dropped it on the floor at Stacks handing it to my 9-year-old. Good carpets. No harm, no foul. Its position in the census didn't change.
Seen enough to agree with Mark Twain that "History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes".
Saw the Hayes 1792 Half Disme when it sold, and talked to Jimmy about it just two weeks ago. Pittman's when it sold, and talked to Rick DeFrancis right after. Still misremembered who he was bidding for until recently. While others might consider it bizarre, absurd or scandalous that Cardinal's is now in a PCGS 68 holder, I don't care. Been there. Done that. They're actually pretty common.
Listened to Dave Akers tell me about his Spellman 1838 Proof $10 that I subsequently bought, was delighted that he liked it better than the Pittman coin, and put mine (and Jay Miller's) in JJP's hands and listened to him about what he thought about both of them. And didn't feel a need to tell him he might be wrong. I had too much to learn from him. Didn't drop the King of Siam set on the floor when QDB handed it to me raw in that yellow Morocco leather case. Name it, there's a decent chance I held it, slabbed or raw, in my hot sweaty hands. Slabbed a few myself. And cashed a few checks along the way. Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. I perversely pride myself on having lost so much money that if I told you how much you'd think I was bragging. WTF, everyone still takes my checks.
From our many professional contacts over the years, Analyst, I'm confident you know some of that, though much of it was before your time. And
I'm a numismatic slut and a market whore of some success, and blessed with a garbage-can memory, but not any longer, if ever I was, much of a scholar. Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i> Colonel: <<I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20.
Please stop apologizing. Instead, read the article. Your questions will be answered.
>>
I respect your journalistic integrity. You can't say. I had only one question. You answered it to the best of your ability within the ethical constraints of your profession. Thanks.
I didn't want to know who got screwed. Just who brokered the deal. We've probably done business before: I have some coins I'd like to consign And at higher levels this time. Cause it's all just the free market, ya know.
In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins.
Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982, but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one briefly in 1984. And the Garrett 1804 the next year.
Seen enough to agree with Mark Twain that "History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes".
Saw the Hayes 1792 Half Disme when it sold, and talked to Jimmy about it just two weeks ago. Pittman's when it sold, and talked to Rick DeFrancis right after. Still misremembered who he was bidding for until recently. While others might consider it bizarre, absurd or scandalous that Cardinal's is now in a PCGS 68 holder, I don't care. Been there. Done that. They're actually pretty common.
Talked to Dave Akers about his Spellman 1838 Proof $10 that I bought subsequently and how it was better than the Pittman coin, and to JJP about both of them after that. Didn't drop the King of Siam set on the floor when QDB handed it to me raw in that yellow Morocco leather case. Name it, there's a decent chance I held it, slabbed or raw, in my hot sweaty hands. Slabbed a few myself. And cashed a few checks along the way. Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. I perversely pride myself on having lost so much money that if I told you you'd think I was bragging. WTF, everyone still takes my checks.
From our many professional contacts over the years, Analyst, I'm confident you know some of that, though much of it was before your time. And
I'm a numismatic slut and a market whore of some success, and blessed with a garbage-can memory, but not any longer much of a scholar. Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me >>
Colonel - if you ever end up writing a book about some of those experiences, I would love the chance to get ahold of a copy. Curious though, with regard to the coin in question who are you suggesting got the raw end of the deal, the buyer three years ago for overpaying or the consigner in 2013 for not getting a fair value for the coin at auction? I realize per Analyst's posts on this thread that the buyer three years ago and current year consigner may well be the same, but please ignore that fact. Do you feel that given what other rare coins have sold for in the present year the expectation that this unique coin would sell for at least what it was purchased for three years ago was or was not not an unrealistic expectation?
( As noted in my initial posts on this thread, the only reason this particular coin and its sale came to my attention was when I was attempting to research auction history for 1907 $20 Liberty proofs because I had one as pictured below that I have had for many years and which I was submitting for auction myself to be featured in the upcoming July, 2013 Heritage Summer FUN auction. I was pleased to learn that there was another Proof 62 1907 $20 Liberty that had just sold in this year's FUN auction for $188,000.00, albeit that one was in a NGC holder and came from the Denver mint and mine was in a PCGS holder and came from the Philadelphia mint. Then Analyst posted the link to the article he wrote about the Denver mint's proof having sold for over half a million dollars three years ago ---- so learning "the rest of the story" has, and continues to be intriguing. )
The most salient part of that post may be my A sometimes (?) unfortunate characterological predisposition to logorrhea. (that one was for you, roadrunner) See what I mean? And sometimes, per the late lamented Warren Zevon, I'm "just an excitable boy".
I have a hard time imagining how, with due diligence, anyone could arrive at a value of $500K for the coin. The $188K auction record seems reasonably proportionate to the roughly $500K price the SP66 1906-D $20 brought.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i> Colonel: <<I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20.
Please stop apologizing. Instead, read the article. Your questions will be answered.
>>
I respect your journalistic integrity. You can't say. I had only one question. You answered it to the best of your ability within the ethical constraints of your profession. Thanks.
I didn't want to know who got screwed. Just who brokered the deal. We've probably done business before: I have some coins I'd like to consign And at higher levels this time. Cause it's all just the free market, ya know.
In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins.
Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982, but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one briefly in 1984. And the Garrett 1804 the next year.
Seen enough to agree with Mark Twain that "History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes".
Saw the Hayes 1792 Half Disme when it sold, and talked to Jimmy about it just two weeks ago. Pittman's when it sold, and talked to Rick DeFrancis right after. Still misremembered who he was bidding for until recently. While others might consider it bizarre, absurd or scandalous that Cardinal's is now in a PCGS 68 holder, I don't care. Been there. Done that. They're actually pretty common.
Talked to Dave Akers about his Spellman 1838 Proof $10 that I bought subsequently and how it was better than the Pittman coin, and to JJP about both of them after that. Didn't drop the King of Siam set on the floor when QDB handed it to me raw in that yellow Morocco leather case. Name it, there's a decent chance I held it, slabbed or raw, in my hot sweaty hands. Slabbed a few myself. And cashed a few checks along the way. Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. I perversely pride myself on having lost so much money that if I told you you'd think I was bragging. WTF, everyone still takes my checks.
From our many professional contacts over the years, Analyst, I'm confident you know some of that, though much of it was before your time. And
I'm a numismatic slut and a market whore of some success, and blessed with a garbage-can memory, but not any longer much of a scholar. Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me >>
Colonel - if you ever end up writing a book about some of those experiences, I would love the chance to get ahold of a copy. Curious though, with regard to the coin in question who are you suggesting got the raw end of the deal, the buyer three years ago for overpaying or the consigner in 2013 for not getting a fair value for the coin at auction? I realize per Analyst's posts on this thread that the buyer three years ago and current year consigner may well be the same, but please ignore that fact. Do you feel that given what other rare coins have sold for in the present year the expectation that this unique coin would sell for at least what it was purchased for three years ago was or was not not an unrealistic expectation?
( As noted in my initial posts on this thread, the only reason this particular coin and its sale came to my attention was when I was attempting to research auction history for 1907 $20 Liberty proofs because I had one as pictured below that I have had for many years and which I was submitting for auction myself to be featured in the upcoming July, 2013 Heritage Summer FUN auction. I was pleased to learn that there was another Proof 62 1907 $20 Liberty that had just sold in this year's FUN auction for $188,000.00, albeit that one was in a NGC holder and came from the Denver mint and mine was in a PCGS holder and came from the Philadelphia mint. Then Analyst posted the link to the article he wrote about the Denver mint's proof having sold for over half a million dollars three years ago ---- so learning "the rest of the story" has, and continues to be intriguing. )
Colonel: <<In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins. ... Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. ... everyone still takes my checks. ...Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me .>>
There is a mis-understanding. My request that the Colonel read the article about the Farouk 1907-D was not intended to be a personal affront and I honestly think that it should not have been interpreted as such. To a great extent, I am aware of his vast experience, his tremendous knowledge, and his important activities in the coin business since he and I first met. None of my remarks in this thread should be thought of as a criticism of the Colonel.
I am baffled, though, that Colonel Jessup is adamantly refusing to click on any of the above links to the article that answers some of his questions regarding the Farouk 1907-D Double Eagle. In this thread, the Colonel showed a great deal of interest in this coin and in its history. It would be logical for hin to read my article about it, which would not require much of his time.
For various reasons, some legal, some ethical, and some practical, not all of the passages in my articles are suitable for re-statement in this forum. My refusal to copy and paste paragraphs, or bits of information, from that article into this thread is not related to the Colonel.
Colonel: <<Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982 ($37.5K) , but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one for a bit more, if but briefly, in 1984>>
I think that many of us who attended a lot of major auctions are surprised by the extent to which the 1801-02-03 novodels have increased in value. I am familiar with the Proof 1801 that was formerly part of the "L. R. French Collection." I am aware of one other Proof 1801, which I have heard much about it. Maybe the Colonel would like to start a separate thread about the Proof 1801 Bust Dollars. Many collectors are interested. These, though, are not relevant to the topic of this thread.
Colonel: <<I have a hard time imagining how, with due diligence, anyone could arrive at a value of $500K for the coin. The $188K auction record seems reasonably proportionate to the roughly $500K price the SP66 1906-D $20 brought. >>
I wish to take issue with this statement. The Farouk 1907-D and the PCGS-SP66 1906-D are two entirely different kinds of coins, products of different methods of manufacture. One looks nothing like the other. While the PCGS-SP66 1906-D looks a little different from typical 1906-D business strikes, it is not a Proof. The Farouk 1907-D looks very much different and is definitely a Proof.
Although the Farouk 1907-D is definitely a Proof, the main reason it is so hard to value relates to its quality. There are aspects of the coin that I will not discuss in this forum. We all should read Don Willis' rules for this forum, which I fully intend to abide by. I have a great deal of respect for Don.
I knew Abe Kossoff a bit and and listened quite a bit, and I often partnered with Mike Kliman, his ex-son-in-law and executor
Technically you are spot on.
Here is my market analysis. To anyone interested in an odd-ball $20 proofy things, 06-D and 07-D are conflated into Nicer/Lesser. Buy the insert.
A two-tier two-coin market. Difficult to rationalize. They superficially read too much alike to not be considered within the same genus.
And price structured thus. Couldn't argue this technically. But valuation approaches from this perspective have some strong influence on success. What is the logarithm for the WTF factor?
Two discretely sharing a sort of semi-sui generis status. A taxonomic absurdity. Apples and oranges each and both.
Too confusing to the customers.
Esoterics are tough to price, and very very special, but, the year it was spent, $500K seems highly disproportionate to other values available.
It's just prurient curiosity in the mega-hickey.
Wow, I actually managed to avoid saying "absurd". As a valuation algorithm, give me "shock and awe" any day !!!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>Colonel: <<In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins. ... Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. ... everyone still takes my checks. ...Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me .>>
There is a mis-understanding. My request that the Colonel read the article about the Farouk 1907-D was not intended to be a personal affront and I honestly think that it should not have been interpreted as such. To a great extent, I am aware of his vast experience, his tremendous knowledge, and his important activities in the coin business since he and I first met. None of my remarks in this thread should be thought of as a criticism of the Colonel.
I am baffled, though, that Colonel Jessup is adamantly refusing to click on any of the above links to the article that answers some of his questions regarding the Farouk 1907-D Double Eagle. In this thread, the Colonel showed a great deal of interest in this coin and in its history. It would be logical for hin to read my article about it, which would not require much of his time.
For various reasons, some legal, some ethical, and some practical, not all of the passages in my articles are suitable for re-statement in this forum. My refusal to copy and paste paragraphs, or bits of information, from that article into this thread is not related to the Colonel.
Colonel: <<Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982 ($37.5K) , but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one for a bit more, if but briefly, in 1984>>
I think that many of us who attended a lot of major auctions are surprised by the extent to which the 1801-02-03 novodels have increased in value. I am familiar with the Proof 1801 that was formerly part of the "L. R. French Collection." I am aware of one other Proof 1801, which I have heard much about it. Maybe the Colonel would like to start a separate thread about the Proof 1801 Bust Dollars. Many collectors are interested. These, though, are not relevant to the topic of this thread.
Colonel: <<I have a hard time imagining how, with due diligence, anyone could arrive at a value of $500K for the coin. The $188K auction record seems reasonably proportionate to the roughly $500K price the SP66 1906-D $20 brought. >>
I wish to take issue with this statement. The Farouk 1907-D and the PCGS-SP66 1906-D are two entirely different kinds of coins, products of different methods of manufacture. One looks nothing like the other. While the PCGS-SP66 1906-D looks a little different from typical 1906-D business strikes, it is not a Proof. The Farouk 1907-D looks very much different and is definitely a Proof.
Although the Farouk 1907-D is definitely a Proof, the main reason it is so hard to value relates to its quality. There are aspects of the coin that I will not discuss in this forum. We all should read Don Willis' rules for this forum, which I fully intend to abide by. I have a great deal of respect for Don.
I hate to ask this, but if you truly respect Don Willis and his rules for the forum, and you admit that much of your articles are not suitable for re-statement on the forum, why do you continually try to drive forum members to follow your links to your articles? Most of your posts seem to be devoid of content other than links to your articles that -- in your words -- are not suitable here. Don's rule number 9 reads:
"Rule 9) Your signature may contain multiple images and/or links but must be limited to a single line. If you would like additional advertising space on this site please contact our Advertising Department. Violators will have their posting privileges removed."
Why not spend some time actually crafting informative posts that ARE suitable for the forum, rather than just driving hits to your commercial website?
Don Willis' Rule #8: <<This forum is provided for the education and sharing of information. Not as a personal soapbox. If you want to learn and share information about US Coins you are welcome.>>
My posts are directly relevant to the topic of the respective threads. Most of the information in my articles is appropriate for this forum. In this case, we are talking about a coin that was certified ATS and might be certified differently at the PCGS, if submitted. My articles are educational and do contribute to the sharing of information. No one at the PCGS has ever indicated otherwise.
Don Willis' Rule #9: <<Your signature may contain multiple images and/or links but must be limited to a single line. ...>>
First, CoinWeek has purchased advertising space on pcgs.com and the PCGS does adverstise on CoinWeek. Second, note the phrase "mulitple images and/or links"! I have never posted an image in this forum. Furthermore, this limitation relates to the "signataure line," with usually is advertising by coin delers and is not relevant to my posts thus far. Links to educational articles in the body of a post are NOT part of the signature line and are not precluded by the rules. Moreover, the articles cited are almost always directly relevant to the respective topic. Indeed, they often serve the purpose of providing illumination when someone puts forth a factually false statement in a thread. My posts are about the topics and specific coins being discussed. No one has written more about PCGS certified coins than I have.
SuperGem: << you admit that much of your articles are not suitable for re-statement on the forum, >>
This is a misleading twist of my words. MOST of the content of my articles IS APPROPRIATE for this forum. As I write more than 150,000 words a year relating to coins, there is significant content that is is not suitable, some of which relates to coins that are not certified by the PCGS. Again, the truth is that I write more than anyone else about PCGS certified coins, with the possible exception of a couple of auction catalogers, who are limited by parameters set by others.
SuperGem: <<Why not spend some time actually crafting informative posts that ARE suitable for the forum, ...>>
I have done just that, in hundreds of threads. Please read more of my posts. I will PM some references to you. Besides, my posts to this thread are extremely relevant to the OP. I am talking about one of the most important of all Denver Mint coins. Because it was certified across the street, has complicated issues, was part of a curious private transaction in 2010 (not this year), and probably would be certified differently by the PCGS, there is a limit to what I can say in this thread about it.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
I will admit, even though some of his points mystify me every once in a while, that Greg is an extremely talented numismatic writer and I very much enjoy reading most of what he writes.
Yea, Greg please keep posting. Your writing is very much rec'd by me. Everytime I read one of your articles, I end up getting sucked in by all the 'related articles' at the bottom of each article.
Oh, and cool 07-D Twenty.
I studied the 06-D Twenty at the CSNS auction a few months ago. I could not put it down. The fabric was amazing. Deep satiny roman proofish. Maybe it was a precursor(insert ColonelJessup 10 syllable phrase here) to Roman proofs. Special coin. It reminded me of the 1893-cc SP Morgan in the same sale.
I like Proofs, but sometimes special biz strikes do it for me a little more. It's more 'real'. Kind of like the pretty girl next door versus a playboy playmate.
Comments
NorthCoin: <<This appears to be the same 1907-D Double Eagle Proof coin subject of your link three posts above this post. Did it really sell for over half a million dollars just three years ago as reported in the link to the article that I understand you authored, and then went for $188,000.00 this year?>>
Yes, the same Proof 1907-D was auctioned on Jan. 10, 2013 for $188,000. It sold privately in Jan. 2010 for more than a half million dollars. I have heard that the buyer in 2010 was the consignor in Jan. 2013, though I have not verified this piece of information. I have also heard that he is upset about incurring a significant loss. Why did he sell after owning this piece for less than three years?
I was told that this same buyer had been a consignor to major auctions before Jan. 2010. This Farouk 1907-D, Proof Double Eagle had been auctioned in Jan. 2004 for $71,875. It has had the same certification, including the same serial number, since before Jan. 2004. The buyer in 2010 would easily have been able to learn that it had been auctioned for $71,875 in 2004. It is very plausible that he was aware of that fact. Also, in my article of Jan. 29, 2010, I mentioned that auction appearance in 2004.
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle
<< <i>NorthCoin: <<This appears to be the same 1907-D Double Eagle Proof coin subject of your link three posts above this post. Did it really sell for over half a million dollars just three years ago as reported in the link to the article that I understand you authored, and then went for $188,000.00 this year?>>
Yes, the same Proof 1907-D was auctioned on Jan. 10, 2013 for $188,000. It sold privately in Jan. 2010 for more than a half million dollars. I have heard that the buyer in 2010 was the consignor in Jan. 2013, though I have not verified this piece of information. I have also heard that he is upset about incurring a significant loss. Why did he sell after owning this piece for less than three years?
I was told that this same buyer had been a consignor to major auctions before Jan. 2010. This Farouk 1907-D, Proof Double Eagle had been auctioned in Jan. 2004 for $71,875. It has had the same certification, including the same serial number, since before Jan. 2004. The buyer in 2010 would easily have been able to learn that it had been auctioned for $71,875 in 2004. It is very plausible that he was aware of that fact. Also, in my article of Jan. 29, 2010, I mentioned that auction appearance in 2004.
Proof 1907-D Double Eagle >>
Thanks so much for the added information. Is one of the things the consignor in Jan 2013 being upset about is the reporting in the auction description that the 2004 auction sale was for $46,000 rather than the $71,875 you noted? I am also puzzled why no mention was made of the coin having sold for over $500,000 in 2010. Here is the sale history description from the 2013 auction listing:
"This is a unique offering from the Denver Mint, and it may be many years before this proof 1907-D is available again in public auction.
Ex: Palace Collection / Farouk (Sotheby's, 2-3/1954), lot 184, part of a 34-coin lot; Kreisberg-Schulman (10/2/1959), lot 1844; Kreisberg-Schulman (2/1960), lot 2931; Ronnie Carr; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2004), lot 3227, where it brought $46,000.
From The Douglas Collection.(Registry values: P1) (NGC ID# 26EV, PCGS# 9123)"
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
NorthCoin:<< I am also puzzled why no mention was made of the coin having sold for over $500,000 in 2010. >>
It is extremely rare for private treaty prices to be noted in auction catalogs. Furthermore, it is not unusual for a retail client to pay $X for a coin and then later sell it, via public auction, for much less than $X.
I agree with the management of auction firms that past private purchase prices should generally not be mentioned in auction catalogs, even when such prices are verifiable. I do, though, sometimes mention them in my articles and I have access to other such results, some of which I will never publicly reveal.
Colonel: <<How did knowledge of this sale enter into the public domain.>>
I analyzed the coin, I researched the subject matter and I wrote about it.
Colonel: <<I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20.
Please stop apologizing. Instead, read the article. Your questions will be answered.
click here
<< <i> Colonel: <<I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20.
Please stop apologizing. Instead, read the article. Your questions will be answered.
>>
I respect your journalistic integrity. You can't say. I had only one question. You answered it to the best of your ability within the ethical constraints of your profession. Thanks.
I didn't want to know who got screwed. Just who brokered the deal. We've probably done business before:
In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or in my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins.
Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982 ($37.5K) , but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one for a bit more, if but briefly, in 1984. And the Garrett 1804 the next year. It's true. I dropped it on the floor at Stacks handing it to my 9-year-old. Good carpets. No harm, no foul. Its position in the census didn't change.
Seen enough to agree with Mark Twain that "History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes".
Saw the Hayes 1792 Half Disme when it sold, and talked to Jimmy about it just two weeks ago. Pittman's when it sold, and talked to Rick DeFrancis right after. Still misremembered who he was bidding for until recently. While others might consider it bizarre, absurd or scandalous that Cardinal's is now in a PCGS 68 holder, I don't care. Been there. Done that. They're actually pretty common.
Listened to Dave Akers tell me about his Spellman 1838 Proof $10 that I subsequently bought, was delighted that he liked it better than the Pittman coin, and put mine (and Jay Miller's) in JJP's hands and listened to him about what he thought about both of them. And didn't feel a need to tell him he might be wrong. I had too much to learn from him. Didn't drop the King of Siam set on the floor when QDB handed it to me raw in that yellow Morocco leather case. Name it, there's a decent chance I held it, slabbed or raw, in my hot sweaty hands. Slabbed a few myself. And cashed a few checks along the way. Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. I perversely pride myself on having lost so much money that if I told you how much you'd think I was bragging. WTF, everyone still takes my checks.
From our many professional contacts over the years, Analyst, I'm confident you know some of that, though much of it was before your time. And
I'm a numismatic slut and a market whore of some success, and blessed with a garbage-can memory, but not any longer, if ever I was, much of a scholar. Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me
<< <i>
<< <i> Colonel: <<I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20.
Please stop apologizing. Instead, read the article. Your questions will be answered.
>>
I respect your journalistic integrity. You can't say. I had only one question. You answered it to the best of your ability within the ethical constraints of your profession. Thanks.
I didn't want to know who got screwed. Just who brokered the deal. We've probably done business before:
In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins.
Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982, but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one briefly in 1984. And the Garrett 1804 the next year.
Seen enough to agree with Mark Twain that "History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes".
Saw the Hayes 1792 Half Disme when it sold, and talked to Jimmy about it just two weeks ago. Pittman's when it sold, and talked to Rick DeFrancis right after. Still misremembered who he was bidding for until recently. While others might consider it bizarre, absurd or scandalous that Cardinal's is now in a PCGS 68 holder, I don't care. Been there. Done that. They're actually pretty common.
Talked to Dave Akers about his Spellman 1838 Proof $10 that I bought subsequently and how it was better than the Pittman coin, and to JJP about both of them after that. Didn't drop the King of Siam set on the floor when QDB handed it to me raw in that yellow Morocco leather case. Name it, there's a decent chance I held it, slabbed or raw, in my hot sweaty hands. Slabbed a few myself. And cashed a few checks along the way. Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. I perversely pride myself on having lost so much money that if I told you you'd think I was bragging. WTF, everyone still takes my checks.
From our many professional contacts over the years, Analyst, I'm confident you know some of that, though much of it was before your time. And
I'm a numismatic slut and a market whore of some success, and blessed with a garbage-can memory, but not any longer much of a scholar. Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me
Colonel - if you ever end up writing a book about some of those experiences, I would love the chance to get ahold of a copy. Curious though, with regard to the coin in question who are you suggesting got the raw end of the deal, the buyer three years ago for overpaying or the consigner in 2013 for not getting a fair value for the coin at auction? I realize per Analyst's posts on this thread that the buyer three years ago and current year consigner may well be the same, but please ignore that fact. Do you feel that given what other rare coins have sold for in the present year the expectation that this unique coin would sell for at least what it was purchased for three years ago was or was not not an unrealistic expectation?
( As noted in my initial posts on this thread, the only reason this particular coin and its sale came to my attention was when I was attempting to research auction history for 1907 $20 Liberty proofs because I had one as pictured below that I have had for many years and which I was submitting for auction myself to be featured in the upcoming July, 2013 Heritage Summer FUN auction. I was pleased to learn that there was another Proof 62 1907 $20 Liberty that had just sold in this year's FUN auction for $188,000.00, albeit that one was in a NGC holder and came from the Denver mint and mine was in a PCGS holder and came from the Philadelphia mint. Then Analyst posted the link to the article he wrote about the Denver mint's proof having sold for over half a million dollars three years ago ---- so learning "the rest of the story" has, and continues to be intriguing. )
I have a hard time imagining how, with due diligence, anyone could arrive at a value of $500K for the coin. The $188K auction record seems reasonably proportionate to the roughly $500K price the SP66 1906-D $20 brought.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> Colonel: <<I apologize for not reading Analyst's article referring to the 07-D proof $20.
Please stop apologizing. Instead, read the article. Your questions will be answered.
>>
I respect your journalistic integrity. You can't say. I had only one question. You answered it to the best of your ability within the ethical constraints of your profession. Thanks.
I didn't want to know who got screwed. Just who brokered the deal. We've probably done business before:
In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins.
Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982, but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one briefly in 1984. And the Garrett 1804 the next year.
Seen enough to agree with Mark Twain that "History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes".
Saw the Hayes 1792 Half Disme when it sold, and talked to Jimmy about it just two weeks ago. Pittman's when it sold, and talked to Rick DeFrancis right after. Still misremembered who he was bidding for until recently. While others might consider it bizarre, absurd or scandalous that Cardinal's is now in a PCGS 68 holder, I don't care. Been there. Done that. They're actually pretty common.
Talked to Dave Akers about his Spellman 1838 Proof $10 that I bought subsequently and how it was better than the Pittman coin, and to JJP about both of them after that. Didn't drop the King of Siam set on the floor when QDB handed it to me raw in that yellow Morocco leather case. Name it, there's a decent chance I held it, slabbed or raw, in my hot sweaty hands. Slabbed a few myself. And cashed a few checks along the way. Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. I perversely pride myself on having lost so much money that if I told you you'd think I was bragging. WTF, everyone still takes my checks.
From our many professional contacts over the years, Analyst, I'm confident you know some of that, though much of it was before your time. And
I'm a numismatic slut and a market whore of some success, and blessed with a garbage-can memory, but not any longer much of a scholar. Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me
Colonel - if you ever end up writing a book about some of those experiences, I would love the chance to get ahold of a copy. Curious though, with regard to the coin in question who are you suggesting got the raw end of the deal, the buyer three years ago for overpaying or the consigner in 2013 for not getting a fair value for the coin at auction? I realize per Analyst's posts on this thread that the buyer three years ago and current year consigner may well be the same, but please ignore that fact. Do you feel that given what other rare coins have sold for in the present year the expectation that this unique coin would sell for at least what it was purchased for three years ago was or was not not an unrealistic expectation?
( As noted in my initial posts on this thread, the only reason this particular coin and its sale came to my attention was when I was attempting to research auction history for 1907 $20 Liberty proofs because I had one as pictured below that I have had for many years and which I was submitting for auction myself to be featured in the upcoming July, 2013 Heritage Summer FUN auction. I was pleased to learn that there was another Proof 62 1907 $20 Liberty that had just sold in this year's FUN auction for $188,000.00, albeit that one was in a NGC holder and came from the Denver mint and mine was in a PCGS holder and came from the Philadelphia mint. Then Analyst posted the link to the article he wrote about the Denver mint's proof having sold for over half a million dollars three years ago ---- so learning "the rest of the story" has, and continues to be intriguing. )
Colonel: <<In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins. ... Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. ... everyone still takes my checks. ...Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me .>>
There is a mis-understanding. My request that the Colonel read the article about the Farouk 1907-D was not intended to be a personal affront and I honestly think that it should not have been interpreted as such. To a great extent, I am aware of his vast experience, his tremendous knowledge, and his important activities in the coin business since he and I first met. None of my remarks in this thread should be thought of as a criticism of the Colonel.
I am baffled, though, that Colonel Jessup is adamantly refusing to click on any of the above links to the article that answers some of his questions regarding the Farouk 1907-D Double Eagle. In this thread, the Colonel showed a great deal of interest in this coin and in its history. It would be logical for hin to read my article about it, which would not require much of his time.
For various reasons, some legal, some ethical, and some practical, not all of the passages in my articles are suitable for re-statement in this forum. My refusal to copy and paste paragraphs, or bits of information, from that article into this thread is not related to the Colonel.
Colonel: <<Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982 ($37.5K) , but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one for a bit more, if but briefly, in 1984>>
I think that many of us who attended a lot of major auctions are surprised by the extent to which the 1801-02-03 novodels have increased in value. I am familiar with the Proof 1801 that was formerly part of the "L. R. French Collection." I am aware of one other Proof 1801, which I have heard much about it. Maybe the Colonel would like to start a separate thread about the Proof 1801 Bust Dollars. Many collectors are interested. These, though, are not relevant to the topic of this thread.
Colonel: <<I have a hard time imagining how, with due diligence, anyone could arrive at a value of $500K for the coin. The $188K auction record seems reasonably proportionate to the roughly $500K price the SP66 1906-D $20 brought. >>
I wish to take issue with this statement. The Farouk 1907-D and the PCGS-SP66 1906-D are two entirely different kinds of coins, products of different methods of manufacture. One looks nothing like the other. While the PCGS-SP66 1906-D looks a little different from typical 1906-D business strikes, it is not a Proof. The Farouk 1907-D looks very much different and is definitely a Proof.
Although the Farouk 1907-D is definitely a Proof, the main reason it is so hard to value relates to its quality. There are aspects of the coin that I will not discuss in this forum. We all should read Don Willis' rules for this forum, which I fully intend to abide by. I have a great deal of respect for Don.
click here
Technically you are spot on.
Here is my market analysis. To anyone interested in an odd-ball $20 proofy things, 06-D and 07-D are conflated into Nicer/Lesser. Buy the insert
A two-tier two-coin market. Difficult to rationalize. They superficially read too much alike to not be considered within the same genus.
And price structured thus. Couldn't argue this technically. But valuation approaches from this perspective have some strong influence on success. What is the logarithm for the WTF factor?
Two discretely sharing a sort of semi-sui generis status. A taxonomic absurdity. Apples and oranges each and both.
Too confusing to the customers.
Esoterics are tough to price, and very very special, but, the year it was spent, $500K seems highly disproportionate to other values available.
It's just prurient curiosity in the mega-hickey.
Wow, I actually managed to avoid saying "absurd".
<< <i>Colonel: <<In my arrogance and laziness I will choose to remain ignorant of other details, albeit I might already have gotten some from my other sources or my 30+ years of dealing with other less-than-trivial coins. ... Seen hundreds screw others, seen hundreds do it to themselves. ... everyone still takes my checks. ...Yet I appreciate your attempts to school me .>>
There is a mis-understanding. My request that the Colonel read the article about the Farouk 1907-D was not intended to be a personal affront and I honestly think that it should not have been interpreted as such. To a great extent, I am aware of his vast experience, his tremendous knowledge, and his important activities in the coin business since he and I first met. None of my remarks in this thread should be thought of as a criticism of the Colonel.
I am baffled, though, that Colonel Jessup is adamantly refusing to click on any of the above links to the article that answers some of his questions regarding the Farouk 1907-D Double Eagle. In this thread, the Colonel showed a great deal of interest in this coin and in its history. It would be logical for hin to read my article about it, which would not require much of his time.
For various reasons, some legal, some ethical, and some practical, not all of the passages in my articles are suitable for re-statement in this forum. My refusal to copy and paste paragraphs, or bits of information, from that article into this thread is not related to the Colonel.
Colonel: <<Wish I hadn't passed on that Proof 1801 S$1 in 1982 ($37.5K) , but I got my hands on another (or was it the other) one for a bit more, if but briefly, in 1984>>
I think that many of us who attended a lot of major auctions are surprised by the extent to which the 1801-02-03 novodels have increased in value. I am familiar with the Proof 1801 that was formerly part of the "L. R. French Collection." I am aware of one other Proof 1801, which I have heard much about it. Maybe the Colonel would like to start a separate thread about the Proof 1801 Bust Dollars. Many collectors are interested. These, though, are not relevant to the topic of this thread.
Colonel: <<I have a hard time imagining how, with due diligence, anyone could arrive at a value of $500K for the coin. The $188K auction record seems reasonably proportionate to the roughly $500K price the SP66 1906-D $20 brought. >>
I wish to take issue with this statement. The Farouk 1907-D and the PCGS-SP66 1906-D are two entirely different kinds of coins, products of different methods of manufacture. One looks nothing like the other. While the PCGS-SP66 1906-D looks a little different from typical 1906-D business strikes, it is not a Proof. The Farouk 1907-D looks very much different and is definitely a Proof.
Although the Farouk 1907-D is definitely a Proof, the main reason it is so hard to value relates to its quality. There are aspects of the coin that I will not discuss in this forum. We all should read Don Willis' rules for this forum, which I fully intend to abide by. I have a great deal of respect for Don.
click here >>
Analyst,
I hate to ask this, but if you truly respect Don Willis and his rules for the forum, and you admit that much of your articles are not suitable for re-statement on the forum, why do you continually try to drive forum members to follow your links to your articles? Most of your posts seem to be devoid of content other than links to your articles that -- in your words -- are not suitable here. Don's rule number 9 reads:
"Rule 9) Your signature may contain multiple images and/or links but must be limited to a single line. If you would like additional advertising space on this site please contact our Advertising Department. Violators will have their posting privileges removed."
Why not spend some time actually crafting informative posts that ARE suitable for the forum, rather than just driving hits to your commercial website?
Don Willis' Rule #8: <<This forum is provided for the education and sharing of information. Not as a personal soapbox. If you want to learn and share information about US Coins you are welcome.>>
My posts are directly relevant to the topic of the respective threads. Most of the information in my articles is appropriate for this forum. In this case, we are talking about a coin that was certified ATS and might be certified differently at the PCGS, if submitted. My articles are educational and do contribute to the sharing of information. No one at the PCGS has ever indicated otherwise.
Don Willis' Rule #9: <<Your signature may contain multiple images and/or links but must be limited to a single line. ...>>
First, CoinWeek has purchased advertising space on pcgs.com and the PCGS does adverstise on CoinWeek. Second, note the phrase "mulitple images and/or links"! I have never posted an image in this forum. Furthermore, this limitation relates to the "signataure line," with usually is advertising by coin delers and is not relevant to my posts thus far. Links to educational articles in the body of a post are NOT part of the signature line and are not precluded by the rules. Moreover, the articles cited are almost always directly relevant to the respective topic. Indeed, they often serve the purpose of providing illumination when someone puts forth a factually false statement in a thread. My posts are about the topics and specific coins being discussed. No one has written more about PCGS certified coins than I have.
SuperGem: << you admit that much of your articles are not suitable for re-statement on the forum, >>
This is a misleading twist of my words. MOST of the content of my articles IS APPROPRIATE for this forum. As I write more than 150,000 words a year relating to coins, there is significant content that is is not suitable, some of which relates to coins that are not certified by the PCGS. Again, the truth is that I write more than anyone else about PCGS certified coins, with the possible exception of a couple of auction catalogers, who are limited by parameters set by others.
SuperGem: <<Why not spend some time actually crafting informative posts that ARE suitable for the forum, ...>>
I have done just that, in hundreds of threads. Please read more of my posts. I will PM some references to you. Besides, my posts to this thread are extremely relevant to the OP. I am talking about one of the most important of all Denver Mint coins. Because it was certified across the street, has complicated issues, was part of a curious private transaction in 2010 (not this year), and probably would be certified differently by the PCGS, there is a limit to what I can say in this thread about it.
Oh, and cool 07-D Twenty.
I studied the 06-D Twenty at the CSNS auction a few months ago. I could not put it down. The fabric was amazing. Deep satiny roman proofish. Maybe it was a precursor(insert ColonelJessup 10 syllable phrase here) to Roman proofs. Special coin. It reminded me of the 1893-cc SP Morgan in the same sale.
I like Proofs, but sometimes special biz strikes do it for me a little more. It's more 'real'. Kind of like the pretty girl next door versus a playboy playmate.
Seth