Should the "ELIASBERG" coins be required?
dbldie55
Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭✭✭
In reading all about the Goodacre and Millennium coins now being required in the Sac set (even being optional before) got me to thinking about my series. I wanted, and now have, an Eliasberg 1883 No Cent nickel. There were rolls of these in the sale, so these are not that uncommon.
Just some clarification about the 2 sac dollars, since I know very little and am basing this on what I have read.
The Goodacre Sac would need to be sent into PCGS in the ICG holder to get the designation as PCGS has no other way to distinguish them. If you broke out a Goodacre Sac dollar, and sent it to PCGS it would not get back in the correct holder. Some think that some of the high grade regular issues are actually broken out Goodacre dollars. (Is this correct?)
The Millennium set coins! The only way to get this designation was to send in the original packaging. If you did not, you would not get the designation and PCGS can not tell the difference between them otherwise (Is this correct?)
It seems that the registry is now being made up of packaging "varieties". How about the Coin and Currency Buffalo dollar coin, sure to be more valuable than the two piece set Buffalo Dollar or the Single Buffalo Dollar (3 different MS pieces).
How about the autograph series. David Hall has a full page ad for them, we certainly should require these too ( 4 MS pieces now)
How about Morgans. Shouldn't a Binion Hoard dollar now be required? I mean, there was 100,000 of them, so these are much more common than the Goodacre Dollars.
But back to my series. I think they should now require an Eliasberg Coin. These are designated on the holder, and I have one.
Isn't there a flaw to requiring a coin that if submitted raw PCGS could not even designate correctly?
Just some clarification about the 2 sac dollars, since I know very little and am basing this on what I have read.
The Goodacre Sac would need to be sent into PCGS in the ICG holder to get the designation as PCGS has no other way to distinguish them. If you broke out a Goodacre Sac dollar, and sent it to PCGS it would not get back in the correct holder. Some think that some of the high grade regular issues are actually broken out Goodacre dollars. (Is this correct?)
The Millennium set coins! The only way to get this designation was to send in the original packaging. If you did not, you would not get the designation and PCGS can not tell the difference between them otherwise (Is this correct?)
It seems that the registry is now being made up of packaging "varieties". How about the Coin and Currency Buffalo dollar coin, sure to be more valuable than the two piece set Buffalo Dollar or the Single Buffalo Dollar (3 different MS pieces).
How about the autograph series. David Hall has a full page ad for them, we certainly should require these too ( 4 MS pieces now)
How about Morgans. Shouldn't a Binion Hoard dollar now be required? I mean, there was 100,000 of them, so these are much more common than the Goodacre Dollars.
But back to my series. I think they should now require an Eliasberg Coin. These are designated on the holder, and I have one.
Isn't there a flaw to requiring a coin that if submitted raw PCGS could not even designate correctly?
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
0
Comments
dbddie55: I raised that concern on the Registry Set board after someone told me that could have been the case. I wanted the board members to be aware of the possibility. If you think about it, if you took an MS69 slabbed Goodacre, busted it out of the holder and resubmitted it raw as a "regular" coin, it would be entirely unlikely (near impossible?) for PCGS to slab it anything other than regular. IMHO, collectors should be aware of the possibility that a regular slab could, in fact, be a Goodacre coin
But in concept I agree -- if a coin can't be distinguished on its own it shouldn't be recognized. I brought this up when the Millennium coins were first attributed.
Goodacre Sacs I believe I could pick out of a line-up with 99% accuracy, not so easily with Millennium Set coins. ICG believes they could, apparently, as they still consider them post-strike burnished. Or at least, have not publicly admitted that's wrong.
My guess is PCGS requires the original mint packaging (or another service's attribution) simply because it's a whole lot easier than trying to judge the coin itself.
This same problem exists with 1965-67 SMS coins, by the way, as was discussed here recently.
Regarding high-grade regular issues being Goodacre Sacs, none of those I've seen have had any of the characteristics of Goodacres. And unless you thought you had a lock-MS69 it would be a significant money-losing proposition -- a 2000-P MS68 is around $100 as opposed to a Goodacre 68 at 8-10X that amount. And, there's no going back.
Goodacre coins are very readily distinguished from the typical 2000-P coin, which have a matte appearance. If your 2000-P MS69 has that appearance you have no "worries".
My issue only addresses the MS69 grade, where the last Goodacre I saw available in that grade did not receive a bid on ebay at the $1500 level, while an MS69 regular issue coin could likely command upwards of 2x that amount, if not more in this current market imho. In the MS69 grade, a potential problem exists it appears to me.
Particularly since a typical Goodacre looks nothing like a typical regular 2000-P, so I suspect the graders would give it a very wary eye.
I guess I'd be more concerned if someone knows of any PCGS MS68+ regular Sacagaweas that look even remotely like a Goodacre.
(This was one of Dale's finds for me at Central States)
dbldie55.
You hit the nail on the head. PCGS has taken a pedigreed coin and made it a variety of its own. Whether you can distinguish them side by side or not is irrelevant, since PCGS will not attribute it without it being in an ICG holder. Millenium coin is packaging variety, not even a pedigreed piece, unless the pedigree is US Mint, and that pedigree isn't very rare.
It doesn't make sense that a 'name' coin that can not be distinguished from a normal issue be included.
But outside of that they are differently manufactured. Whether that can be determined with 100% accuracy outside of the packaging is a different question.
But Kennedy collectors (ahem) better step lightly with any of that criticism.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Mint still claims that. However, if you put a business strike next to a Goodacre, you would swear that the Goodacre at least has prooflike surfaces, if not being handled differently.
I am sure that PCGS could at least as reliably distinguish Goodacres from normal Sacagaweas as they can 1965-67 SMS pieces from normal circulation strikes. But, it's a whole lot faster, cheaper and more accurate to simply require them to be in original packaging.
The Millennium set coins also appear to be manufactured differently -- in fact last I knew ICG is still claiming they are ungradable due to post-strike burnishing (they encapsulate but not grade them), though the difference is not as extreme especially compared to semi-prooflike circulation strikes.
If you want crazy though, some "non-burnished" Millennium Set coins have been found and specially labelled by ICG, and sold for huge money (over $2000 as I recall). In other words, simply a normal Sacagawea that ended up in a Millennium Set. Talk about buying the label.
The joke is on the collector here. When other services started slabbing the Millenium coins, PCGS was bashed until they followed suit. When other services began crossing the Goodacres, PCGS was once again bashed until they accepted them for crossover. So this is a case where the Sac collectors were given exactly what they wanted. Demand for the label was so high that PCGS figured that they were important enough to include in the sets.
Now, consider this. An MS68 Goodacre sells for around $800+. An MS69 Goodacre sells for around $1500. A regular issue MS69 sells for $3000+ (in this example). Now, if I busted a Goodacre out of the holder shooting for an MS69 regular grade, I am essentially risking $700 to make $1500+. Of course, I may be "risking" nothing to make $1500 if I can get the Sac back into a Goodacre MS69 holder as well.
There is a point here besides the $1500 profit motive point mentioned above and that is, the POSSIBILITY of doing this may keep the MS69 Goodacre and MS69 regular issue coins somewhat close together in price imho down the road, especially when a case of this happening is actually documented.
Keith: Do you want the cert #, it is a MS65 and my set is MS64.
2. Even assuming your prices are correct -- you break out that Goodacre going for a "regular" MS69, you do NOT get an MS68 Goodacre back worth $800, you get a 2000-P "regular" issue worth about $100. And you don't get to cross it back to a Goodacre holder -- see the issue originally raised in this thread.
3. If someone believes that paranoia despite reasons #1 and #2, all a buyer has to do make sure any 2000-P MS69 "regular" issue they buy is "legitimate" is to simply ensure it has the standard matte finish. Surely you can tell the difference between those and a Goodacre.
Sacagawea Dollar 2000-P Regular Issue
Sacagawea Dollar 2000-P Glenna Goodacre
And no fair using some random kindergarten student and claiming that counts just because he could have designed something of similar "beauty".
The Millenium I used to have looked a lot more like the Goodacre than the regular issue. Could still be a problem for some.
I think the "look" is still easily distinguishable, but as a backup plan, take a gander at that little letter thing under that 2000 thing, it's a pretty good indicator.
PS -- Mismatched mintmark aside, cracking out Millennium set coins to make 2000-P regular issues would be a financially very bad move, in all grades.
In other words, you can distinguish them by saying things like "generally" and "typically" but there may be plenty of borderline cases where no definitive conclusion can be made.
Although, apparently, ICG would disagree, since they claim the Millennium set coins are post-strike burnished and not gradeable.
NGC does not.
ICG authenticates them but does not assign a grade.
ACG calls them all Grrrrreeat! (A la Tony the Tiger).