Options
Newman 1796 quarter in MS67 plus - guess the final price?
EastonCollection
Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭✭✭
To all - its going to be moon money to infinity and beyond! Currently its up to $1,200,000 without the juice. I am sure there are several multi millionaires or billionaire out there that just want it. SO these guys are going to have to fight it out. I predict the hammer price will be $3,250,000. Any other thoughts?
I do realize that the $3,250,000 is very very aggressive!!!! But Hey its not my money and the 1794 dollar sold for over $10,000,000 so $3.25M is cheap!
I do realize that the $3,250,000 is very very aggressive!!!! But Hey its not my money and the 1794 dollar sold for over $10,000,000 so $3.25M is cheap!
Easton Collection
0
Comments
Also, no prize will be awarded to the person who guesses closest.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I bet it doesn't go for much more than 1.5m
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
Mark Borckardt, who's opinion I respect, described this coin, as, (in part):
<< <i>The present cataloger has been involved with some of the most important collections to appear in the past quarter century, and chooses this 1796 quarter dollar from the Eric P. Newman Collection as the most beautiful American silver coin that exists today. >>
<< <i>I guess 2.0 Million dollars hammer.
Mark Borckardt, who's opinion I respect, described this coin, as, (in part):
<< <i>The present cataloger has been involved with some of the most important collections to appear in the past quarter century, and chooses this 1796 quarter dollar from the Eric P. Newman Collection as the most beautiful American silver coin that exists today. >>
>>
Uhmmm - really? It's a great and fantastic coin but it's not even the most beautiful silver coin in the Newman collection...let alone in existance.
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess 2.0 Million dollars hammer.
Mark Borckardt, who's opinion I respect, described this coin, as, (in part):
<< <i>The present cataloger has been involved with some of the most important collections to appear in the past quarter century, and chooses this 1796 quarter dollar from the Eric P. Newman Collection as the most beautiful American silver coin that exists today. >>
>>
Uhmmm - really? It's a great and fantastic coin but it's not even the most beautiful silver coin in the Newman collection...let alone in existance. >>
Over all, I prefer both the Hayes PCGS MS66 and Norman Stack PCGS MS67 (see CoinFacts).
Usually immured in the Heritage cataloguing sweatshop, Mark hasn't seen a lot of auction coins and private transactions. Still, he has capacious knowledge. He doesn't argue, he just states what he knows .
But no one sees it all. .
<< <i>It had already exceeded the quality of the coin, IMO. >>
A coin like this will catch up if they give it enough time
<< <i>
<< <i>It had already exceeded the quality of the coin, IMO. >>
A coin like this will catch up if they give it enough time
In a sense that's true. It took 50-100 years of toning to cover over whatever "someone" did to this coin way back when. And they didn't have jewel luster available to them either.
<< <i>My guess was way off - I did see the coin in lot viewing in NYC and I didn't like the coin. The coin wasn't what I thought it to be. I guess the reality of coin auctions are you gotta see the coin before you buy. This was the perfect reason why!!!!! >>
You learned something very important today, grasshopper!
Easton: << My guess was way off - I did see the coin in lot viewing in NYC and I didn't like the coin. The coin wasn't what I thought it to be. I guess the reality of coin auctions are you gotta see the coin before you buy. This was the perfect reason why!!!!! >>
TDN: <<You learned something very important today, grasshopper!>>
Perhaps the lesson is that you guys both need to take a refresher course in grading. This is a terrific coin. Certainly, one of the three finest 1796 quarters. I like it a lot. I interviewed other grading experts. I did not hear anyone doubt the quality of the coin.
Did JA have any doubt about whether to affix a sticker?
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, part 6: Auction Results for silver U.S. Coins
The Fabulous Eric Newman Coin Collection, part 3: Draped Bust Quarters
<< <i>I will take a grading contest with you anytime >>
Am I detecting a challenge?
Fact: said actions left the coin with slightly glossy surfaces
Opinion: it's not a coin I'd include in a world class set - certainly not in its current holder
The assertion that it's one of the top three specimens is not necessarily a ringing endorsement of the quality when it's in the highest graded holder
TDN: <<Fact: the Newman 1796 quarter at some time in the past was dipped and/or otherwise messed with ... >>
More than two-thirds of uncirculated 19th century silver coins have been dipped in the past. Probably more than ninety percent of uncirculated 18th century silver coins have been been. This coin had been dipped to a much lesser extent than most and certainly to a much less lesser extent than almost all of the other pre-1840 quarters in the Newman Collection that have been certified as grading higher than MS-64.
It is very misleading to refer to a coin that is more original, in relative terms, than almost all other high grade, 18th century silver coins, as being "dipped." In any case, I am not suggesting that dipping coins is a good idea. Please read my recent article on dipping. I am just referring to the relevant realities.
TDN: <<... said actions left the coin with slightly glossy surfaces>>
This statement is not true and is harmful. Most (or all?) 1796 quarters were struck with glossy surfaces. The Knoxville (PCGS-67) and LA Type Set (PCGS-66) 1796 quarters have very glossy surfaces, as do many other surviving 1796 quarters. It is the AU or unc 1796 quarters that do not have glossy surfaces that have probablyy been "messed with"! Glossy surfaces on 1796 quarters are typically evidence of originality.
TDN: <<Opinion: it's not a coin I'd include in a world class set - certainly not in its current holder>>
John Albanese and many other experts grade it as 67 or 67+. One expert, who graders at the PCGS frequently consult, publicly said very positive remarks about it during a lot viewing session. It seemed to me that he was implying that he grades it as 67 or 67+! I do not remember anyone doubting a grade of at least 67, though I will research the matter further and interview others. In my view, its grade is certainly at least in the middle of the 67 range.
TDN: <<The assertion that it's one of the top three specimens is not necessarily a ringing endorsement of the quality when it's in the highest graded holder >>
Those who read my current article know that the other two were graded more than twenty-two years ago.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, part 6: Auction Results for silver U.S. Coins
Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins
The Fabulous Eric Newman Coin Collection, part 3: Draped Bust Quarters
And btw - I know several high end collectors/dealers that didn't like it. And if I'm so wrong on the quality, then why was I so right on the price realized?
what he's willing to pay for it. Low end to mid end to top end MS67 money is a HUGE spread in early type. If the coin were knock your socks off 67+ PCGS quality it would be worth $2+ MILLION. When coins get to this
rarified air the stickers mean a lot less. Everyone of note is aware of the rankings regardless of holder, assigned grades, and accompanying stickers, +, * or whatever. Nearly all of the high grade Newman MS bust and seated
quarters had an "interesting" look to them that if individually were not part of this collection would probably be questioned as to surfaces/color. Colonel Green was consistent though. I felt only 1 or possibly 2 of the MS64-MS68
bust halves were unquestionably original and never messed with (MS66's 1810 and 1811). Just my opinion though. I do agree that 90% of mint state type is probably dipped or worse. That's why going after those remaining
10% of what's left is more difficult and rewarding. In 30-50 yrs from now the market will be debating whether coins dipped 2 or 3 times is now market acceptable.
<< <i>JA is in the business of making a market in US coins. Just because he's ok with this coin as a MS67 doesn't address what he's willing to pay for it. Low end to mid end to top end MS67 money is a HUGE spread in early type. If the coin were knock your socks off 67+ PCGS quality it would be worth $2+ MILLION. >>
That's my impression as well. JA's sticker of approval clearly shows there is approval and acceptance of a given coin at a stated grade and a given financial level. I do not know who purchased the Newman 1796 Quarter, was it JA? If not, would that mean that the final price exceeded JA's opinion on the coin?
<< <i>
<< <i>JA is in the business of making a market in US coins. Just because he's ok with this coin as a MS67 doesn't address what he's willing to pay for it. Low end to mid end to top end MS67 money is a HUGE spread in early type. If the coin were knock your socks off 67+ PCGS quality it would be worth $2+ MILLION. >>
That's my impression as well. JA's sticker of approval clearly shows there is approval and acceptance of a given coin at a stated grade and a given financial level. I do not know who purchased the Newman 1796 Quarter, was it JA? If not, would that mean that the final price exceeded JA's opinion on the coin?
I would not confuse the willingness to buy the stickered coin at the slabbed grade that is implied by a green CAC sticker with the desire or active drive to own the coin.
The underlying assumption of the sticker "backing" the coin breaks down if everyone offered all their CAC coins to JA at the same time, of course he does not WANT to own all those coins, just because he collected his fee and put a sticker on them. If there were a "run" on the CAC implied bid for the coins, then of course it becomes worse than worthless, it is only the overall market desire for the sticker that supports the premium that comes with it.
My comment on any 1796 quarter is "Wow!", someday hope to own one in Good.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I very much recall the 1796 Quarter. It looked like it was made yesterday. I do not want to say Proofish, but definitely very reflective. The COINFACTS picture captures the colors well, except the colors were darker. But not dark where its bothersome. Like a light-colored darker coin that you'd expect on a 200 year old coin...if that makes sense. Most original toned old coins will be on the darker side.
Only one thing bothered me about the coin....slight fingerprint/smudge in the right obv field. Not bad at all, but its there. Nothing like TDN's early Bust Dollar with George Washington's fingerprint.
My first impression of the Newman coin, was that I felt that the planchet was in the latter batch of the first round of strikes. I though the planchet was weakly reflective and didn't not have the swirling reflective surfaces that I expected. Kinda flat. Some have attributed this to the dipping.
Just my two cents, no disrespect to the current owner........and I would't kick the Quarter out of bed!
Seth
<< <i>Actually, JA's willingness to post a certain buy price for the Newman coin is what makes the premium and/or market....as there are dealers and collectors who religiously follow his opinions. JD Powers or Kelly Blue Book doesn't have to buy every car they post a price or opinion on. But market participants follow those opinions/prices closely. My orig point is that even though JA stickered the coin it doesn't mean he is willing to pay what the market (or the owner) might perceive to be a stickered "premium" for the coin. JA's buy price might actually end up being lower end MS67 money. We have no control over JA's buying. The sticker only represents his willingness to make an offer on the coin. And a sticker on a MS67 1796 bust quarter is not as relevant as it might be on say a MS67 seated quarter, which in most instances should be very close to perceived premium value. There is a such a wide range of pricing from a 66+ to 67+ 1796 quarter that I don't think anyone could adequately price such a coin based on holder, grade, and sticker alone. Next step is to see if the coin ends up in a PCGS 67 holder. It may not this year or next year. But, I suspect given enough time it will. That will not change the actual condition census ranking though. >>
Saw JA yesterday and mentioned my lack of enthusiasm for the '96. He shrugged. I shrugged. He offered me some coffee.
He's complaining he can't buy enough, but I don't think he was referring specifically to super-grade Early type.
Seriously though.. What is high-end and low-end money for '96 25c's when there are a total of three super-grade coins in existence?
Whatever interpretation of a bean you might have, the bottom line of its meaning is the same: Call CAC. We buy 'em. And we buy 'em back
Relating to TDN's comments on the Pogue Bust 25c's, he's right about them being more wholesome than the Newman coins. Notwithstanding the fact that a couple of my old coins have, in the past, found their way into the collection, I'm sure he's seen more of the group than I have. Though he's had them out on display at at least one show maybe 6-7 years back.
But think the other way - if they don't have a separate holder for original coins (as they do it now) then smarter collectors that can pick out originally toned coins are way ahead of the game.
<< <i>Ok - Realone - I think your too ahead of the time - What I mean is yes the TPG companies should have a different holder for original coins vs market accepted coins. I always thought that all along.
But think the other way - if they don't have a separate holder for original coins (as they do it now) then smarter collectors that can pick out originally toned coins are way ahead of the game. >>
A grade is an opinion, not a fact. Don't confuse consensual and objective realities. Almost everyone does. We need to in order to survive in a social world.
Realone, I think your assumption about people on the Forum being able to discriminate between "original" and "other" is optimistic. But I'm sure we here (statistically) have a significantly better idea than most outside.
Easton - We went though a similar dialogue about dipping during the initial stages of the PNG Coin Doctoring Definition. It was suggested that were have two classes of coins (dipped and undipped) with a notation about dipping on the label. Silver dollar dealers in particular would find this vexing.
The implications:
1) an immediate development of yet another multi-tier fragmentation of a particular grade level adding to further confusion in what a grade "means" and at what price levels the market will factor this in.
2) Demotion by default. Over 50,000,000 coins having being graded by our hosts and ATS now discounted and seemingly needing a regrade because of doubt of "originality eligibility".
I could go on.
See highlighted portion of above quote.
I personally think there is some merit to CAC down-stickering a coin as acceptable one grade down. This would be useful to some.
However, the disadvantages very strongly outweigh the benefits. Compromises must and will be made. Welcome to that imperfect world where we all fumble around searching for ........
Why make my life easier?
Look where we ended up!
Remember the words of Thomas Alva Edison "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration". Why devalue your own "sweat equity"?
Also: I'm a dealer and have that bias, but dealers are the infrastructural glue that help maintain an "orderly market". Think of us like specialists on any stock exchange. The value I add for my customers is my ability to discriminate on their as well as my own behalf. And in doing so and telling them the "why" and the "how" of my choices, I give them knowledge they can use in the future.
I assume "Why make your life easier?" was rhetorical
I don't agree with every coin I see in a slab. And actually "like" far fewer. I'm happy if I can find one coin per auction viewing box that I'll take the time to put a glass to. B+ and A coins (any grade level, the higher the better) are my meat (and thus my version of wheat). To me, and the market, I deal in C coins are "cripples" (perhaps these and some B coins are thus potential "dipples"? .
Edited to add: Are we far enough OT yet?
<< <i>
<< <i>Colonel - I get it and the bottom line is your thinking is for the dealers. If dealers have to sell coins to make money then market acceptable and original coins are mixed in together as a grade by a TPG company. For certain collectors and some dealers that wish to collect and deal in only coins that are original have to sort through alot of coins just to find that 1 original coin. If grading services divides its grading into original from all the others then my chase will be easier.
Why make my life easier? >>
and let me add, imo the truth is that this forum should have been named DEALERS UNIVERSE, message boards, no disrespect meant btw, since most who are speaking are either a real dealer or a wannabe which includes flippers. By including dipping into the market acceptable frey the slabbed pool is obviously huge. I would like to separate the chaff from the market acceptable wheat but that is just me one lone collector who always seems to step in it on these here boards. I don't mind giving an extra nod to undipped coins and believe even if it makes them more expensive by defining them ie splitting the hair another step so be it. I want coins to be let original and rewarded for that as opposed to the current climate where any and all coins will be messed with ie dipped to achieve a higher grade as to increase their luster or make them lighter and brighter since darkly toned is frowned upon. >>
That is why we trust our own eyes or the eyes of experts like Mark Feld to view important coins before purchase. A thousand pounds of plastic or a warehouse full of green beans, though helpful, will never replace onsite viewing for the upper tier examples.