The in-hand coolest/neatest/best Newman coin

ColonelJessup

Looked at Newman yesterday

lot 33499 - 1795 Draped Bust $1 - MS66+* NGC CAC. IMNSHO should bring more than the 1796 MS67+* NGC CAC.

A few of a myriad that impressed and delighted.

33322 - 1841 ND 10c PF67+ NGC CAC
33348 - 1828 25c 25/50c MS67* NGC CAC - even with very slightly "off" lustre which will impede no one. The prettiest run of Large Size Bust 25c I've ever seen
33353 - 1833 25c MS66* NGC CAC (though the 1831 25c MS67+ NGC CAC was technically better)
33358 - 1818 25c PF67 NGC CAC - just because it exists. Not very pretty. Hell of a quibble on a coin that is sui generis.
33388 - 1881 25c PF68+* CAM NGC CAC with props to 1861, 1883, 1884 (real monster 68's), The proof Seated quarter run in its entirety is the prettiest I can remember seeing. I'm talking vibrantly visceral eye candy.
33420 - 1801 50c MS64 NGC CAC. Small Eagle 50c very worthy throughout, technical grading variations from holdered grades being irrelevant
33477 - 1866-S NM 50c MS67 NGC CAC
33506 - 1798 Small Eagle, 13 stars $1 NGC MS63 (would CAC as MS62). Previous lot 1798 Small Eagle 15 star AU58+ NGC CAC also. Small Eagle $1's very worthy throughout, technical grading variations from holdered grades irrelevant

Best dipping candidate . - lot 33400 - 1910 25c PR68* CAM NGC CAC. Color is not intense and it might easily DCAM

Some great coins in the non-Platinum sessions too.

Of course there were disappointments, especially the Bust H10c series (including CAC'd). Notwithstanding this, some marvelous eye-appeal at many different grade levels for virtually all, especially in Bust 50c's.

Give your dealer-of-choice a call.

As an aside, I sat near Forum member Easton Collection and his son, who looked familiar. As I later realized , he was in my ANA Grading class last year. We must have talked for an hour or more after lot viewing. .

tradedollarnut

I truly enjoyed the small size bust quarters

robertpr

My first thought was that's some fugly toning. To each their own though.
33499:

keyman64

Nice post. For those that want to take a look, I linkified the Lot #s.





lot 33499 - 1795 Draped Bust $1 - MS66+* NGC CAC. IMNSHO should bring more than the 1796 MS67+* NGC CAC.

A few of a myriad that impressed and delighted.

33322 - 1841 ND 10c PF67+ NGC CAC
33348 - 1828 25c 25/50c MS67* NGC CAC - even with very slightly "off" lustre which will impede no one. The prettiest run of Large Size Bust 25c I've ever seen
33353 - 1833 25c MS66* NGC CAC (though the 1831 25c MS67+ NGC CAC was technically better)
33358 - 1818 25c PF67 NGC CAC - just because it exists. Not very pretty. Hell of a quibble on a coin that is sui generis.
33388 - 1881 25c PF68+* CAM NGC CAC with props to 1861, 1883, 1884 (real monster 68's), The proof Seated quarter run in its entirety is the prettiest I can remember seeing. I'm talking vibrantly visceral eye candy.
33420 - 1801 50c MS64 NGC CAC. Small Eagle 50c very worthy throughout, technical grading variations from holdered grades being irrelevant
33477 - 1866-S NM 50c MS67 NGC CAC
33506 - 1798 Small Eagle, 13 stars $1 NGC MS63 (would CAC as MS62). Previous lot 1798 Small Eagle 15 star AU58+ NGC CAC also. Small Eagle $1's very worthy throughout, technical grading variations from holdered grades irrelevant

Best dipping candidate . - lot 33400 - 1910 25c PR68* CAM NGC CAC. Color is not intense and it might easily DCAM

sparky64

Thanks for the report. I enjoyed your take on these.


<< <i>I'm talking vibrantly visceral eye candy. >>

Comment of the month.

Alltheabove76

That toning is bizarre. Looks like someone dipped it then spilled iodine on it.

Coinosaurus

<< <i>Looked at Newman yesterday
33388 - 1881 25c PF68+* CAM NGC CAC with props to 1861, 1883, 1884 (real monster 68's), The proof Seated quarter run in its entirety is the prettiest I can remember seeing. I'm talking vibrantly visceral eye candy.
>>



How does the 1881 stack up against the Pittman 1850? (Same coin later in the Kaufmann sale.)

AnkurJ

I don't think the 1795 should be judged based solely on the pictures. According to John, it is a truly amazing coin in hand.

magikbilly

<< <i>That toning is bizarre. Looks like someone dipped it then spilled iodine on it. >>




Well, the lot description says "...a splash..." of color. JK - awesome coin although I would love to hear more about the seemingly unusual toning pattern with reticulated edges. I just would like to hear more - in no way am I suggesting anything is wrong with this coin.

And many thanks Col. J for the comments about those other coins - it was very helpful to match them with the images kindly linked by keyman64.

Best wishes,
Eric

thisnamztaken

Its "splash of delicate rainbow toning over about 40% of the obverse" is unattractive to me personally, but WOW! what a sharp strike!

magikbilly

After looking at the "splash" it looks more original than not and I am wondering if it is something in the planchet/metal something like a copper spot on gold or wood Lincoln. The shapes of the edges of the toning, reticulated and with thise sharp wisps upper left look a lot like the shapes you see with planchet strangeness or improper alloy mix etc. where things delaminate or stuff other stuff happened. I do not claim to know. Also the wisps and so on are in alignment with two of the the three(?) sets of parallel striations caused by - I can't remember what they are called. Don't know if those are adjustment marks but they come from manufacture. I guess they are adjustment marks.
And, a small part of my reasoning is if something like that splash could be removed it possibly would have been somewhere down the line. With the belief it is something that has been there a very long time, or maybe from some metal weirdness since 1795, I do not find that ugly. It certainly takes the eye away from the hit on the cheek/neck border. That hit is lucky - any other angle would look terrible. As it is now, it echoes the drapery and is more or less where a natural neck crease would be so as less obtrusive as possible IMO. I would really like to see something like this in hand. Not to check out any of the above, but just to see and gaze and admire the strike and design and condition.

Eric

ricko

While the 33499 has an amazing strike, the 'stain' looks like someone sneezed a leugy on it.... Cheers, RickO

magikbilly

Does anyone else have any speculation as to what that "splash" is or is not on the 1795?
My notions are a few posts back.

Eric

Edit to change "Goes" to "Does"

Barndog

<< <i>Of course there were disappointments, especially the Bust H10c series (including CAC'd) >>



as someone who almost exclusively collects capped bust half dimes, my disappointment was and is pretty high.

ColonelJessup

<< <i>

<< <i>Looked at Newman yesterday
33388 - 1881 25c PF68+* CAM NGC CAC with props to 1861, 1883, 1884 (real monster 68's), The proof Seated quarter run in its entirety is the prettiest I can remember seeing. I'm talking vibrantly visceral eye candy.
>>



How does the 1881 stack up against the Pittman 1850? (Same coin later in the Kaufmann sale.) >>



You'd have to stack me up dozens of WM 25c in PF68 to equal the 1850 in dollar value, and I'd still pass on the deal (if I had another $10M), as would you. Tangentially, would the 1850 sticker? What's PR67 money for the date? 67+ ?

IIRC (and poorly at that) the toning was not as translucent and had less variegated coloration.

BTW, this list of Seated quarters in monster 68 is by no means complete. There are 66's damn near as pretty and which will sell at much more (comparatively) reasonable prices for the non-investor peons and the hoi polloi. Hell, there are great 64's in the sale ! And, as ever, contradictions and conundrums abound. Some of the CAC coins will not cross.

On another note: In this sale, the coin images are virtually always very close to the actual coins in their slabs. The photos of the slabs with coins in them are virtually always too dark. The finer nuances of some toning can sometimes only be appreciated by rotating in-hand. But the images are (again) very accurate representations.

Alltheabove76

I would not enjoy looking at that coin. I would rather have an attractive AU in my collection than one. At least in terms of collecting, not value. The "splash" overshadows everything about the coin to me. And I do not want 200 silver to be white either.

tradedollarnut

$910,625. Edged out the 1799 and 1803 for highest priced early dollar in the set

CoinRaritiesOnline

These were my favorites (spoiler alert: I did not buy either one):

Lot #33057

Lot #33361

ColonelJessup

Hammer prices


'96 25c 67+ CAC -1,300,000+
'95 $1 66+ CAC - $775,000+

Whole sale after Platinum Night totals about $20,000,000 including buyers fee

tradedollarnut

I had a very tough time with that 1795. On one hand, the coin was striking what with the white frost and sharp strike. On the other hand, the toning distracted rather than enhanced the coin IMO. I did not like the prominent planchet mark either. In the end, I decided I liked my current coin a bit better. If you can't have finest graded, then have prettiest graded.

Catbert

<< <i>These were my favorites (spoiler alert: I did not buy either one):

Lot #33057

Lot #33361 >>



I can see why! Stunning!

CoinRaritiesOnline

<< <i>If you can't have finest graded, then have prettiest graded. >>



I agree completely, and this would not have been a difficult decision for me.

MFH

<< <i>I truly enjoyed the small size bust quarters >>



I agree, one of the nicest collections I have seen.
Having owned more than my fair share of them , none
were as beautifully toned as the Newman Collection.

ColonelJessup

<< <i>

<< <i>I truly enjoyed the small size bust quarters >>



I agree, one of the nicest collections I have seen.
Having owned more than my fair share of them , none
were as beautifully toned as the Newman Collection. >>



+1

They were gorgeous, my favorite being the afore-mentioned 33353 - 1833 25c MS66* NGC,CAC at $65K+vig

On less pleasant note: I have not received my lots yet. .