<< <i>So we have identified dipping as a destructor of originality. I can agree to that. What about the 19th Century proofs that were invariably wiped with the proverbial soft cloth to remove dust. The remaining hairlines are generally a detriment to the grade, but should the coin receive a genuine notation rather than a numeric grade for that reason? >>
I would like the TPG's to state the truth, the above example which you describe could be holdered and say " PRgrade/wiped/hairlined then the market can decide what value should be put on it. But should that coin not say that on the label then what of a PR that wasn't wiped/hairlined of the same numeric grade? Sure a buyer can see the difference if looking at the two coins but why don't why don't we expect what we see to be reflected on the holder? And yes the market would most likely end up deciding that the unhairlined piece should sell for more but why the wink wink approach, I say a more tell it like it really is approach is much more honest and valuable. and yes I know how to grade and see hairlines on a coin but it shouldn't be accepted as such, it should be spelled out as such. >>
I do not consent to your grading reality. The TRUTH? Puhleeze.......
And it should be apparent to you, as it is to all here, that while you may collect type coins, you are not a typical collector.
As it relates to grading, the answer to the question "How many angels can dance on the head of the pin?" is "'Wrong question. The right question might be "How many angels get poked trying to dance on the head of that pin'"
If anyone understands this last previous paragraph, please PM me and explain it in a way I can understand.
Perhaps it means "Grading is NOT a theological issue".
I can feel your disappointment and frustration. But I believe it comes from unrealizable expectations. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - Plato or Aristotle
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
TDN: <<When I viewed the P___ collection of bust quarters, coin after coin knocked my socks off. Beautiful, original pieces filled that set.<<
I never said that the Newman set of bust quarters was equivalent to that one. I did say that Newman's set of Draped Bust Quarters may have been the best such set to ever be publicly auctioned.
Besides, the people that have the last name that TDN just mentioned do not wish for their name to be be publicly mentioned in regard to coins.
TDN: <<When I viewed selections of the Newman bust quarters, most were noticeably different in their surface>> characteristics.
Agreed, as I explained in my articles most of the Newman-Green coins have been dipped, probably in the 1930s. Many of the coins in the collection that TDN mentioned have never been dipped, so I am told. I have never been able to view that private collection, though I have seen some of the coins before they were placed in that collection. Many have never been dipped or not in more than 100 years.
TDN: << Do not confuse my term of glossy with prooflike. Just because a coin is market acceptable doesn't mean it meets my personal criteria.>>
Most AU to Unc. 1796 quarters have unusally glossy, prooflike surfaces. If a coin naturally has very glossy surfaces, it is unlikely that anyone would seek to add glossiness. During the first third of the 20th century, naturally very glossy, prooflike 1796 quarters were readily available. Moreover, while many of the Newman-Green coins had been dipped, only a miscroscopic percentage of the coins in the Newman Collection had been doctored. In my most recent article, I did mention that the Newman 1802 half had been doctored. It is in a 'Details' holder:
TDN: <<I know several high end collectors/dealers that didn't like it.>>
I am skeptical of this remark. Note that I often cite experts by name in my articles.
For the benefit fo the readers of this thread, and for general educational purposes, I recently discussed the Newman 1796 quarter with other experts. Jim McGuigan said that it is a "gem; there is nothing wrong with it." In addition, Richard Burdick grades it as "67." Matt Kleinsteuber says, "stone cold MS-67; I stand behind that coin 100%"!
TDN: <<And if I'm so wrong on the quality, then why was I so right on the price realized?>>
As I explain in a recent article, the price realized is strong. The previous auction record for a 1796 quarater was probably $322k. The previous auction record for any quarter was $517,500. This 1796 quarter brought a price that is commensurate with a MS-67 grade. 1796 quarters are not rare coins.
Be skeptical all you want regarding whether I heard that about the 1796. ColonelJessup has stated here in the forum that he didn't like it. Laura didn't like it. I didn't like it. Two owners of top 1796 quarters didn't like it. If that doesn't back up my statement, then... /shrug
A true MS67 1796 quarter would have broken the $2M mark in that sale. Every major coin saw spirited bidding....except this one. ONE bidder cut his bid to advance the coin off the book bid. ONE bidder....
<< <i>TDN, at what price would you have been interested in that coin? >>
I have no need for the coin as I am focusing on early dollars. However, I believe that I am adept at pricing high grade rarities. Raw, I grade the coin at about $800k. That's like around PCGS MS65+ ish....
Feel free to add 10-15% because you usually have to overpay for a condition census bust coin or rarity
ColonelJessup has stated here in the forum that he didn't like it. Laura didn't like it. I didn't like it. Two owners of top 1796 quarters didn't like it.
I'm coming around and agree with you guys. Furthermore, as I'm now so very discriminating in my tastes, there areno coins extant that are worthy of my collection. ergo, with no coins, I am now the best collector there is!
Realone, when I look at your collection, I don't need labels to tell me you have beautiful, original coins. Furthermore, the people who are going to eventually step up and bid strongly on those coins won't need labels to tell them that, either. As to whether the "great numismatic unwashed" can appreciate what you have (whether they would want to own it themselves), who really cares?
(No flames please: my GNU phrase was chosen for comedic effect...)
Now we are gonna have something to compare the price realized to: Eliasberg 1796 quarter
We will, although FWIW I would prefer the Eliasberg piece for my own collection, if I collected such things. (I bought the coin at Eliasberg, loved it then, and would love to have it back.)
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
TDN - now we are talking - When I put this post up prior to the newman auction I didn't view the coin and when I did I was somewhat disappointed. But this Eliasberg coin is extra special!!! And this could break the record for a quarter. I was looking at the Heritage coming attraction and boy oh boy they have some unbelievable coins coming up at ANA!!! Looking forward to lot viewing.
AnkurJ - I completely understand you why you believe from the scans why the Newman coin has better eye appeal. But when I looked at the Newman coin in hand, or if you look enlarge the Newman coin scan on Heritage archive. you will notice a significant number of hairline scratches on the surfaces of the coin. IMHO, that coin was cleaned a number of years ago and retoned through long term storage in an album. Many believe that this is market acceptable and CAC does believe that coin meets the approval of CAC standards, but I really didn't care for that coin. On the other hand, the 1796 Eliasberg quarter appears to have alot better surface quality and appears to me that its a much better coin. Generally, I tend to pass on bust coinage that that has a significant number of surface scratches. Either way, both coins are out of my budget so its "just talk".
TDN: Now we are gonna have something to compare the price realized to: Eliasberg 1796 quarter
There may be people who would pay a substantial premium for the 'Specimen' designation. If so, the willingness of some to pay a premium for such a designation does not mean that the Eliasberg 1796 is of higher quality than the Newman 1796.
Easton: << you will notice a significant number of hairline scratches on the surfaces of the>> Newman 1796 quarter
I noticed an extremely small number of minuscule contact marks and one minuscule hairline, under magnification. I did not see any evidence of cleaning on the Newman 1796 quarter. Because of these, the coin maybe should have been graded 67 rather than 67+, though its grade is close the 67+ range. I will wait until I see the Eliasberg 1796 again before commenting upon its eye appeal. Given that so many 1796 quarters have strong mirror surfaces and somewhat frosted central design elements, the 'SP' designation might be a good topic for a discussion, after the auction.
Analyst - You must have been reading my mind - I think an article on the 1796 quarter would be real terrific for us collectors. Specifically, what makes a 1796 quarter prooflike vs a specimen. The Newman and the eliasberg to compare would be the proper coins to highlight the article. Without seeing the coin in hand, I predict the coin will realize $1.75M. I don't remember seeing the others that would compare to this one meaning grade in mint state but just a pure guess. Alot of big time coins entering the market place in the next few years!!! a WOW marketplace!!
Given that so many 1796 quarters have strong mirror surfaces and somewhat frosted central design elements, the 'SP' designation might be a good topic for a discussion, after the auction.
Every since I was a teenager reading auction catalogs, I've read about the availability of "proof" or nearly proof 1796 quarters. However, after 35+ years in the business, and after viewing virtually all of the big auctions in person, I've come to think of this as something of a myth. Yes, there are a fair number of semi-PL coins out there, but I can't remember seeing a single deeply mirrored piece. Even the Eliasberg "SP" is not deeply mirrored. It is, however, especially well struck, with shallowly mirrored and "hard" (flat) fields.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i> On the other hand, the 1796 Eliasberg quarter doesn't appear to have alot better surface quality and appears to to me be a much better coin. Generally, I tend to pass on bust coinage that has a significant number of surface scratches. q]
Easton can you please explain the above sentence, it appears to be contradictory. but maybe not, who knows? >>
He might be referring to scratches as being planchet weight correction file adjustment marks?
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
Hi Realone & Broadstruck - Sorry for the typo and I corrected it to say that the Newman quarter has alot of surface scratches for a MS67. However, I don't see the same on the Eliasberg quarter. Sorry for the footfault but woke up very early this morning.
MrEureka: <<Every since I was a teenager reading auction catalogs, I've read about the availability of "proof" or nearly proof 1796 quarters. However, after 35+ years in the business, and after viewing virtually all of the big auctions in person, I've come to think of this as something of a myth. Yes, there are a fair number of semi-PL coins out there, but I can't remember seeing a single deeply mirrored piece>>
I believe that our thoughts on 1796 quarters are on the same wavelength. Most of the uncirculated pieces are semi-prooflike. Some are about fully prooflike. Many are lively. There are no Proofs. At the moment, I do not remember seeing one that I would refer to as a Specimen. They are business strikes that were struck from polished dies.
MrEureka: <<Even the Eliasberg "SP" is not deeply mirrored. It is, however, especially well struck, with shallowly mirrored and "hard" (flat) fields.>>
For some reason, I do not, at the moment, remember the reverse as being that well struck. I have not, though, recently checked my notes from 1996 and I hope to see it again. Does the Terrell-LA. PCGS MS-66 1796 have more of the features of a Specimen than the Eliasberg piece? Even if so, I found that piece to be a business strike.
In my article on the Carter-Lustig-Cardinal 1794 dollar, I explain, in detail, why I found that coin to definitely be a Specimen Striking:
I articulate the reasons why I conclude that a coin is a Proof or Specimen. Do the TPGs?
Easton: << Newman quarter has alot of surface scratches for a MS67.>>
IMO, Easton shoud be more careful about his terminology. There really is widescale agreement that the Newman 1796 grades MS-67. I have quoted Jason C., Richard B., Matt K. and JA. This quarter has a faint hairline on the obverse and an extremely small number of minuscule contact marks on the reverse. Clearly, there are no "surface scratches"! If it did not have the imperfections that I just mentioned, our friends ATS would have graded it as "MS-68," for sure!
The Eliasberg 1796 Quarter PCGS SP66 sells for 881k. I guess it doesn't match up to the Newman Coin and the others? Thats a big discount. I have never seen the Eliasberg coin, but it certainly doesn't photo well. You would think with the specimen label, it would push it well over a million dollars. Could have storage in a Wayte Raymond album for 40 years added 500k to the sales price?
If a 1796 Quarter looked like the 1796 Dimes I posted about MS68 and MS67 - what would they be worth? MS 68 - $2.5mm??? MS67 ?
Seth - I saw both coins and I loved the Eliasberg coin compared to Newman's. I thought Eliasberg went for less than I predicated. But I really dont know that market very well.
Easton: << I saw both coins and I loved the Eliasberg coin compared to Newman's. I thought Eliasberg went for less than I predicated. >>
This remark is astonishing. The Newman 1796 is of vastly higher quality than the Eliasberg piece. The hairlines and contact marks on the Newman 1796 are extremely small. Without those, our friends ATS would certainly have graded it as MS-68!
If the Eliasberg piece is tilted under a lamp, several long hairlines become noticeable in the obverse inner fields and in an area of the reverse. Moreover, it is hard to believe that anyone could conclude that the Eliasberg piece has anywhere near the eye appeal of the Newman piece, though the Eliasberg piece is attractive. Also, on PCGS CoinFacts, there are images of other 1796 quarters that are more sharply struck than the Eliasberg piece.
FWIW, whichever 96 quarter you may prefer, and any way you look at it, 880K is still a lot of money for any 1796 Quarter. I mean, you could have bought the Garrett 1804 Dollar for about twice that a couple of weeks ago. Think about that.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Analyst - thank you for the article on specimen designation - I read it quickly but I do want to read it more carefully over the weekend. Great read and thank you.
The good news for me in comparing the Newman and the Eliasberg 96 quarter is both of them are out of my league so on my part its purely subjective which I prefer over the other. I took a look at my notes on the Newman 96 quarter and in conclusion I really didn't care for the coin! Hard to believe that I don't like a coin graded so high. Its still mind boggling to me. On the other hand the Eliasberg was more of my taste. The final price shows that the market place liked the Newman coin more so if I was in the marketplace for either coin - I would have gotten the Eliasberg for less $.
Would love to hold both 1796 quarters at the same time to see if I would change my mind. Probably not - but a fun test of my notes.
MrEureka - I love the thought that the Garrett 1804 dollar sold for about twice the Eliasberg 1796 quarter. I guess the market answered the question about their values - but IMHO - I would prefer getting the 1804 dollar anyday of the week - just to own the king of US coins! Personal preference -solely.
Having picked some nits along the way, I'll now state the final definitive absolute proof positive "I like the Norman Stack, Jimmy Hayes and Eliasberg pieces better than the Newman coin."
Possibly, Analyst, the experts in your consensual reality are talking to those in mine and not completely agreeing. Though we've all agreed with each other many times.
My very first in-hand experience with the Newman piece was out of a case at a show. Before I'd asked for it my reaction was "I hope the glass case is dirty. Looks 'off' from here".
While many of the coins cleaned up nice from their chemical bath of arsenic, Coca-Cola, Moxie and moonshine, my first impression of this one was raw metal. Later coins in the collection (made from higher quality planchets with better-quality dies) were smoother and took color better. If the '96 coin had been properly mishandled and taken on more toning it would have been radiant. The hemi-semi-demi-PL surfaces would have backlit the colors and it might have been the flashiest of them all.
But it never got there, and, as is, I found the distractions inherent in the overall viewing of the coin to be greater than for any of those higher on my list.
Call them scratches, in the planchet or in the dies, or mint-caused impairments, or what have you, refuse to call them detractions (negative), for me they were distracting. My initial instinctive raw natural in-hand gestalt experience did not approach a full-throated OMFUG. Call it my discriminating between brightness and lustre. The rawness of the metal accentuated the many minute irregularities in micro-surface textures. I think I discussed this specific coin with Easton pere et fils. We agreed, so clearly we three are brilliant and therefore must be right. . . . . Let's all be a little more objective about the effects of narcissism (not in any sense, except by degree, pathological) and the need for validation inherent in the human psyche.
I take exception to Analyst's statement that there are more PL-ish high-end 96's. Proof and Semi-proof were often thrown around freely in the 30's, but, as Archimedes noted, Ned Green's apochryphal hoard of 150 (?) now seems more a shaggy dog story than Martha Washington's tea service. I'm too lazy to check out Heritage or other sources. Would high-end be 63 or better? How many coins have appeared in auction in the last 30 years have been noted and examined, Most I've seen are frosty to frosty-ish. Love to here the details on the specific coins noted by catalogue description or in-hand viewing. I recall Analyst's view of the Newman 1818(?) Proof 50c. He saw it in-hand as having cameo attributes, I did not, and JA emphatically agreed. I didn't like the '96. He had $1,200,000 on the book. I don't even recall asking if he bought it or not. He valued it differently because he liked it better as a coin. So experts disagreed. . . . Again. . .
I hope I've proved my point, which is that the Truth is not out there. Just shared perceptions. The quantification of virtue often fails.
I refer you to one of Robin Williams' first comedy albums "Reality - what a concept !"
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
I thought the pogue ms66 was significantly more eye appealing than the newman coin.
I remember looking at the newman coin-that being my first 1796 25c in MS ever viewed and saying to myself "wow- this is a major bummer". I was expecting something that would knock my socks off but felt my reaction was dulled from surfaces of the coin. Of course the coin is still a monster of a coin but nothing that made me want to write home.
When I saw the pogue coin at lot viewing last week my jaw dropped. This was the quality and look I was expecting for a coin of this grade level and eye appeal in my opinion exceeded the grade.
Clearly others felt the same paying the same price as the newman.
Deservedly. As previously stated, I found the Newman coin a disappointment. The secondary toning was discordant due to the metal being "unnaturally" raw white. Color and lustre impact were lessened because of loss of some layers of skin and their flow lines.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>So we have identified dipping as a destructor of originality. I can agree to that. What about the 19th Century proofs that were invariably wiped with the proverbial soft cloth to remove dust. The remaining hairlines are generally a detriment to the grade, but should the coin receive a genuine notation rather than a numeric grade for that reason? >>
I would like the TPG's to state the truth, the above example which you describe could be holdered and say " PRgrade/wiped/hairlined then the market can decide what value should be put on it. But should that coin not say that on the label then what of a PR that wasn't wiped/hairlined of the same numeric grade? Sure a buyer can see the difference if looking at the two coins but why don't why don't we expect what we see to be reflected on the holder? And yes the market would most likely end up deciding that the unhairlined piece should sell for more but why the wink wink approach, I say a more tell it like it really is approach is much more honest and valuable. and yes I know how to grade and see hairlines on a coin but it shouldn't be accepted as such, it should be spelled out as such. >>
I do not consent to your grading reality. The TRUTH? Puhleeze.......
And it should be apparent to you, as it is to all here, that while you may collect type coins, you are not a typical collector.
As it relates to grading, the answer to the question "How many angels can dance on the head of the pin?" is "'Wrong question. The right question might be "How many angels get poked trying to dance on the head of that pin'"
If anyone understands this last previous paragraph, please PM me and explain it in a way I can understand.
Perhaps it means "Grading is NOT a theological issue".
I can feel your disappointment and frustration. But I believe it comes from unrealizable expectations. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - Plato or Aristotle
TDN: <<When I viewed the P___ collection of bust quarters, coin after coin knocked my socks off. Beautiful, original pieces filled that set.<<
I never said that the Newman set of bust quarters was equivalent to that one. I did say that Newman's set of Draped Bust Quarters may have been the best such set to ever be publicly auctioned.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Coin Collection, part 3: Draped Bust Quarters
Besides, the people that have the last name that TDN just mentioned do not wish for their name to be be publicly mentioned in regard to coins.
TDN: <<When I viewed selections of the Newman bust quarters, most were noticeably different in their surface>> characteristics.
Agreed, as I explained in my articles most of the Newman-Green coins have been dipped, probably in the 1930s. Many of the coins in the collection that TDN mentioned have never been dipped, so I am told. I have never been able to view that private collection, though I have seen some of the coins before they were placed in that collection. Many have never been dipped or not in more than 100 years.
TDN: << Do not confuse my term of glossy with prooflike. Just because a coin is market acceptable doesn't mean it meets my personal criteria.>>
Most AU to Unc. 1796 quarters have unusally glossy, prooflike surfaces. If a coin naturally has very glossy surfaces, it is unlikely that anyone would seek to add glossiness. During the first third of the 20th century, naturally very glossy, prooflike 1796 quarters were readily available. Moreover, while many of the Newman-Green coins had been dipped, only a miscroscopic percentage of the coins in the Newman Collection had been doctored. In my most recent article, I did mention that the Newman 1802 half had been doctored. It is in a 'Details' holder:
The Fabulous Eric Newman Coin Collection, part 8: Draped Bust, Heraldic Eagle Half Dollars
TDN: <<I know several high end collectors/dealers that didn't like it.>>
I am skeptical of this remark. Note that I often cite experts by name in my articles.
For the benefit fo the readers of this thread, and for general educational purposes, I recently discussed the Newman 1796 quarter with other experts. Jim McGuigan said that it is a "gem; there is nothing wrong with it." In addition, Richard Burdick grades it as "67." Matt Kleinsteuber says, "stone cold MS-67; I stand behind that coin 100%"!
TDN: <<And if I'm so wrong on the quality, then why was I so right on the price realized?>>
As I explain in a recent article, the price realized is strong. The previous auction record for a 1796 quarater was probably $322k. The previous auction record for any quarter was $517,500. This 1796 quarter brought a price that is commensurate with a MS-67 grade. 1796 quarters are not rare coins.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, part 6: Auction Results for silver U.S. Coins
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 7: Gem Quality Early U.S. Silver Dollars
Be skeptical all you want regarding whether I heard that about the 1796. ColonelJessup has stated here in the forum that he didn't like it. Laura didn't like it. I didn't like it. Two owners of top 1796 quarters didn't like it. If that doesn't back up my statement, then... /shrug
A true MS67 1796 quarter would have broken the $2M mark in that sale. Every major coin saw spirited bidding....except this one. ONE bidder cut his bid to advance the coin off the book bid. ONE bidder....
<< <i>TDN, at what price would you have been interested in that coin? >>
I have no need for the coin as I am focusing on early dollars. However, I believe that I am adept at pricing high grade rarities. Raw, I grade the coin at about $800k. That's like around PCGS MS65+ ish....
Feel free to add 10-15% because you usually have to overpay for a condition census bust coin or rarity
I'm coming around and agree with you guys.
Furthermore, as I'm now so very discriminating in my tastes, there areno coins extant that are worthy of my collection.
ergo, with no coins, I am now the best collector there is!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Furthermore, the people who are going to eventually step up and bid strongly on those coins won't need
labels to tell them that, either. As to whether the "great numismatic unwashed" can appreciate what you
have (whether they would want to own it themselves), who really cares?
(No flames please: my GNU phrase was chosen for comedic effect...)
we shall wait with eager anticipation!
We will, although FWIW I would prefer the Eliasberg piece for my own collection, if I collected such things. (I bought the coin at Eliasberg, loved it then, and would love to have it back.)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Either way, both coins are out of my budget so its "just talk".
TDN: Now we are gonna have something to compare the price realized to: Eliasberg 1796 quarter
There may be people who would pay a substantial premium for the 'Specimen' designation. If so, the willingness of some to pay a premium for such a designation does not mean that the Eliasberg 1796 is of higher quality than the Newman 1796.
Easton: << you will notice a significant number of hairline scratches on the surfaces of the>> Newman 1796 quarter
I noticed an extremely small number of minuscule contact marks and one minuscule hairline, under magnification. I did not see any evidence of cleaning on the Newman 1796 quarter. Because of these, the coin maybe should have been graded 67 rather than 67+, though its grade is close the 67+ range. I will wait until I see the Eliasberg 1796 again before commenting upon its eye appeal. Given that so many 1796 quarters have strong mirror surfaces and somewhat frosted central design elements, the 'SP' designation might be a good topic for a discussion, after the auction.
The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, part 6: Auction Results for silver U.S. Coins
The Fabulous Eric P. Newman Collection, part 11: Auction Results for pre-1793 coins, patterns and tokens
Alot of big time coins entering the market place in the next few years!!! a WOW marketplace!!
Every since I was a teenager reading auction catalogs, I've read about the availability of "proof" or nearly proof 1796 quarters. However, after 35+ years in the business, and after viewing virtually all of the big auctions in person, I've come to think of this as something of a myth. Yes, there are a fair number of semi-PL coins out there, but I can't remember seeing a single deeply mirrored piece. Even the Eliasberg "SP" is not deeply mirrored. It is, however, especially well struck, with shallowly mirrored and "hard" (flat) fields.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i> On the other hand, the 1796 Eliasberg quarter doesn't appear to have alot better surface quality and appears to to me be a much better coin. Generally, I tend to pass on bust coinage that has a significant number of surface scratches. q]
Easton can you please explain the above sentence, it appears to be contradictory. but maybe not, who knows? >>
He might be referring to scratches as being planchet weight correction file adjustment marks?
MrEureka: <<Every since I was a teenager reading auction catalogs, I've read about the availability of "proof" or nearly proof 1796 quarters. However, after 35+ years in the business, and after viewing virtually all of the big auctions in person, I've come to think of this as something of a myth. Yes, there are a fair number of semi-PL coins out there, but I can't remember seeing a single deeply mirrored piece>>
I believe that our thoughts on 1796 quarters are on the same wavelength. Most of the uncirculated pieces are semi-prooflike. Some are about fully prooflike. Many are lively. There are no Proofs. At the moment, I do not remember seeing one that I would refer to as a Specimen. They are business strikes that were struck from polished dies.
MrEureka: <<Even the Eliasberg "SP" is not deeply mirrored. It is, however, especially well struck, with shallowly mirrored and "hard" (flat) fields.>>
For some reason, I do not, at the moment, remember the reverse as being that well struck. I have not, though, recently checked my notes from 1996 and I hope to see it again. Does the Terrell-LA. PCGS MS-66 1796 have more of the features of a Specimen than the Eliasberg piece? Even if so, I found that piece to be a business strike.
In my article on the Carter-Lustig-Cardinal 1794 dollar, I explain, in detail, why I found that coin to definitely be a Specimen Striking:
Incredible Carter 1794 silver dollar
In a different context, I dicuss the reasons why a single 1855-S Quarter is a Proof.
The only Proof S-Mint Liberty Seated Quarter
I articulate the reasons why I conclude that a coin is a Proof or Specimen. Do the TPGs?
Easton: << Newman quarter has alot of surface scratches for a MS67.>>
IMO, Easton shoud be more careful about his terminology. There really is widescale agreement that the Newman 1796 grades MS-67. I have quoted Jason C., Richard B., Matt K. and JA. This quarter has a faint hairline on the obverse and an extremely small number of minuscule contact marks on the reverse. Clearly, there are no "surface scratches"! If it did not have the imperfections that I just mentioned, our friends ATS would have graded it as "MS-68," for sure!
The Fabulous Eric Newman Coin Collection, part 3: Draped Bust Quarters
The Eliasberg 1796 Quarter PCGS SP66 sells for 881k. I guess it doesn't match up to the Newman Coin and the others? Thats a big discount. I have never seen the Eliasberg coin, but it certainly doesn't photo well. You would think with the specimen label, it would push it well over a million dollars. Could have storage in a Wayte Raymond album for 40 years added 500k to the sales price?
If a 1796 Quarter looked like the 1796 Dimes I posted about MS68 and MS67 - what would they be worth? MS 68 - $2.5mm??? MS67 ?
Quarter Auction
1796 Dime Thread Link
Easton: << I saw both coins and I loved the Eliasberg coin compared to Newman's. I thought Eliasberg went for less than I predicated. >>
This remark is astonishing. The Newman 1796 is of vastly higher quality than the Eliasberg piece. The hairlines and contact marks on the Newman 1796 are extremely small. Without those, our friends ATS would certainly have graded it as MS-68!
If the Eliasberg piece is tilted under a lamp, several long hairlines become noticeable in the obverse inner fields and in an area of the reverse. Moreover, it is hard to believe that anyone could conclude that the Eliasberg piece has anywhere near the eye appeal of the Newman piece, though the Eliasberg piece is attractive. Also, on PCGS CoinFacts, there are images of other 1796 quarters that are more sharply struck than the Eliasberg piece.
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/5310
Easton: Specifically, what makes a 1796 quarter prooflike vs a specimen.
I discuss this topic in detail:
Million Dollar Coins in ANA Auctions, part 2, with interpretation of Specimen designations
Incredible Carter 1794 silver dollar
Special 1839-O Liberty Seated Dime
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The good news for me in comparing the Newman and the Eliasberg 96 quarter is both of them are out of my league so on my part its purely subjective which I prefer over the other. I took a look at my notes on the Newman 96 quarter and in conclusion I really didn't care for the coin! Hard to believe that I don't like a coin graded so high. Its still mind boggling to me. On the other hand the Eliasberg was more of my taste. The final price shows that the market place liked the Newman coin more so if I was in the marketplace for either coin - I would have gotten the Eliasberg for less $.
Would love to hold both 1796 quarters at the same time to see if I would change my mind. Probably not - but a fun test of my notes.
MrEureka - I love the thought that the Garrett 1804 dollar sold for about twice the Eliasberg 1796 quarter. I guess the market answered the question about their values - but IMHO - I would prefer getting the 1804 dollar anyday of the week - just to own the king of US coins! Personal preference -solely.
Possibly, Analyst, the experts in your consensual reality are talking to those in mine and not completely agreeing. Though we've all agreed with each other many times.
My very first in-hand experience with the Newman piece was out of a case at a show. Before I'd asked for it my reaction was "I hope the glass case is dirty. Looks 'off' from here".
While many of the coins cleaned up nice from their chemical bath of arsenic, Coca-Cola, Moxie and moonshine, my first impression of this one was raw metal. Later coins in the collection (made from higher quality planchets with better-quality dies) were smoother and took color better. If the '96 coin had been properly mishandled and taken on more toning it would have been radiant. The hemi-semi-demi-PL surfaces would have backlit the colors and it might have been the flashiest of them all.
But it never got there, and, as is, I found the distractions inherent in the overall viewing of the coin to be greater than for any of those higher on my list.
Call them scratches, in the planchet or in the dies, or mint-caused impairments, or what have you, refuse to call them detractions (negative), for me they were distracting. My initial instinctive raw natural in-hand gestalt experience did not approach a full-throated OMFUG. Call it my discriminating between brightness and lustre. The rawness of the metal accentuated the many minute irregularities in micro-surface textures. I think I discussed this specific coin with Easton pere et fils. We agreed, so clearly we three are brilliant and therefore must be right. . .
I take exception to Analyst's statement that there are more PL-ish high-end 96's. Proof and Semi-proof were often thrown around freely in the 30's, but, as Archimedes noted, Ned Green's apochryphal hoard of 150 (?) now seems more a shaggy dog story than Martha Washington's tea service. I'm too lazy to check out Heritage or other sources. Would high-end be 63 or better? How many coins have appeared in auction in the last 30 years have been noted and examined, Most I've seen are frosty to frosty-ish. Love to here the details on the specific coins noted by catalogue description or in-hand viewing. I recall Analyst's view of the Newman 1818(?) Proof 50c. He saw it in-hand as having cameo attributes, I did not, and JA emphatically agreed. I didn't like the '96. He had $1,200,000 on the book. I don't even recall asking if he bought it or not. He valued it differently because he liked it better as a coin. So experts disagreed. . . . Again. . .
I hope I've proved my point, which is that the Truth is not out there. Just shared perceptions. The quantification of virtue often fails.
I refer you to one of Robin Williams' first comedy albums "Reality - what a concept !"
The Newman coin did look a little off - and it just goes to show how spectacular the Pogue 66 coin is.
It just goes to show that the nicest coins do not always have the highest number.
Also, is it me or does it seem like nearly all the highest graded 1796 Quarters have sold the last few years?
<< <i>Is this the first U.S. minted quarter to go over 1 million dollars? >>
+1, Would love to know the answer to this!
Cheers, RonO
<< <i>
<< <i>Is this the first U.S. minted quarter to go over 1 million dollars? >>
+1, Would love to know the answer to this!
Cheers, RonO >>
minimum of 2nd if not 3rd
I remember looking at the newman coin-that being my first 1796 25c in MS ever viewed and saying to myself "wow- this is a major bummer". I was expecting something that would knock my socks off but felt my reaction was dulled from surfaces of the coin. Of course the coin is still a monster of a coin but nothing that made me want to write home.
When I saw the pogue coin at lot viewing last week my jaw dropped. This was the quality and look I was expecting for a coin of this grade level and eye appeal in my opinion exceeded the grade.
Clearly others felt the same paying the same price as the newman.
<< <i>Pogue MS66 sells for same price >>
Deservedly. As previously stated, I found the Newman coin a disappointment. The secondary toning was discordant due to the metal being "unnaturally" raw white. Color and lustre impact were lessened because of loss of some layers of skin and their flow lines.