<< <i> The 1851 half is Pittman. There was no provenance listed for the 51-O. Both are great looking coins. >>
My typo/mistake. I confused the earlier comment on the 51-0 with the 51 Pittman half (the coin that Sunnywood purchased). I corrected my earlier post to reflect the comment and price concerning the 51 half. In looking at the 51-0 half though, it brought a very strong price ($41K) considering that MS65's are somewhat available from time to time. Surprising that the 51-0 brought within 10% of the 51 half in MS66, a date which rarely comes up for sale in MS65 or higher (there are only 2-3 truly gem 1851 halves that I'm aware of).
Roadrunner: <<Sunnywood, nice pick up on the James Stack 1901-s quarter. The coin was bought by Dave Akers of Paramount at the March 1975 James A. Stack sale and then offered in their summer and fall Rare Coin lists. ... It would be interesting to know who owned that 1901-s 25c from 1975/1976 to 1980. Akers was asking nearly 2X what he paid for the 1901-s out of James Stack.>
Back in 2010, when I wrote an article about the PCGS graded "MS-67+" 1901-S quarter, I mentioned that the Gene Gardner ("YeOldOne") 1901-S was earlier in the James A. Stack Collection. I was astonished that the Heritage print catalogue does not mention the James A. Stack pedigree, though it has since been added to the online catalogue. Did anyone ever say that it is not the James A. Stack coin?
Although it might not be technically flawless, I personally find this JAS-Gardner-Sunnywood 1901-S to be more appealing than the PCGS graded MS-68+ 1901-S. I thought that price realized was very much understandable.
Roadrunner<<If the dipped out MS68 1901-s ever starts "turning," you'll see the Stack coin become the unquestioned #1 much like what occurred among the top 2 1893-s dollars in MS67. The original toned coins will barely change over the decades ...>>
While I have repeatedly said that dipping is harmful, this statement is very unfair the dealers who handled that coin and to the collector who now owns it. That "68+" 1901-S was dipped around 20 years before it was auctioned in March 2010. It appears stable and took on some attractive toning during that 20 year period. Please read my article.
The Norweb 1893-S is a different matter. It is almost certain that it was placed in a solution that is different from a standard acidic solution that is used for typical dips. It took on a chalky-white 'conserved' appearance. While a standard dip of the Norweb 1893-S would have been harmful IMO, what happened is worse.
<< <i>While I have repeatedly said that dipping is harmful, this statement is very unfair the dealers who handled that coin and to the collector who now owns it. That "68+" 1901-S was dipped around 20 years before it was auctioned in March 2010. It appears stable and took on some attractive toning during that 20 year period. Please read my article.
The Norweb 1893-S is a different matter. It is almost certain that it was placed in a solution that is different from a standard acidic solution that is used for typical dips. It took on a chalky-white 'conserved' appearance. While a standard dip of the Norweb 1893-S would have been harmful IMO, what happened is worse.
I've seen a number of high profile seated coins get dipped, even owned a few of them. They never got better imo and toning (unless maybe placed back in a Raymond album) and would probably only turn various shades of brown (with some purple) over the years. I bought a dipped 1853 NA MS66 PCGS ogh quarter in 1994. It was probably dipped around 1988 when the Ed Milas mint sets hit the market. When I first bought it I'd say it was 98% white with just a trace of browning on the edges. When I sold it 10-12 years later iit was brown over the entire coin and deeper around the edges. And at best you'd call it neutral. That coin is not going to get prettier. Another high profile coin I owned was the Harold Blauvelt (B+R 1977) gem 1866-s quarter. It was stark white in 1977, probably dipped shortly before that auction. When I owned it in 1988 it was still 98% white with only the tiniest of unimportant freckles in a few places. It was bright as heck but still attractive. I saw a photo of the coin over 20 years later when it fetched $97K at auction. Now it had much bigger and unattractive spots in several places....very distracting. It had been slabbed since 1986-1988. The toning on the 68+ 1901-s looks "neutral" to me. The dipping is "only" 25 or so years old right now...still young. The grading game of removing neutral original toning to get a blast white upgrade is questionable at best. Let's revisit this MS68+ in another 10 years and see how it does. If still stable after 40 years, I'll concede it will outlive us all. But, we all have differing opinions on dipped type coins, regardless of date, pedigree, and grade.
Analyst, I wrote a thread years ago on the three top 1893-S Morgans (which had been ranked Norweb, Vermeule, and Eliasberg), and how the shocking "conservation" of the Norweb coin basically ruined it as a 67, and knocked it out of the top three IMHO.
I will NEVER get over how my 1877 gold proof set was "conserved" after I sold it - and NGC rewarded the criminal act with multiple upgrades. What had been gorgeous original proofs (mostly 64's) with natural beautiful color from the Bass, Garrett and Browning collections, all became flashy cameo widgets (mostly 65's), with the history, the originality, the authenticity, and the pedigrees stripped away. If I had known that would happen, I would never ever ever have sold the coins. And if they had been properly graded as original coins, there would not have been any incentive to strip them.
I am a better collector for it, who now prizes beautiful original coins, and who is committed to preserving their history. The 1901-S quarter is really a treasure, as David Hall notes on CoinFacts: "The 1901-S Barber quarter is, in my opinion, the rarest regular issue (non-variety) silver coin of the 20th century."
Roadrunner: <<I've seen a number of high profile seated coins get dipped, even owned a few of them. They never got better imo and toning (unless maybe placed back in a Raymond album) and would probably only turn various shades of brown (with some purple) over the years>>
While I have no doubt that Roadrunner is telling the truth about his personal experiences, this statement is likely to mislead readers of this thread. A large percentage of 'mint state' 19th century silver coins have been dipped at one time or another, more than a century ago in many cases. A substantial percentage of them have since naturally retoned in a nice way, often shades of blue, russet and apricot. Indeed, most naturally toned 19th century coins that have been PCGS graded above MS-64 were dipped in the past.
Roadrunner: <<The grading game of removing neutral original toning to get a blast white upgrade is questionable at best.>>
Certainly, I would never encourage anyone to play such a game and I have been critical of those who do. Among people who write often about coins, there is no one who is a greater opponent of dipping than I am. I have now said dozens of times, in articles that are read by tens of thousands of people, that dipping is harmful. There are rare instances where the benefits outweight the harm done. In probably 95% of all cases of dipping, however, the harm done far outweighs the benefits.
Sunnywood: <<Analyst, I wrote a thread years ago on the three top 1893-S Morgans (which had been ranked Norweb, Vermeule, and Eliasberg), ...
This very unfortunate 'conservation' was emphasized in my article that was published on Nov. 17, 2008.
Sunnywood: <<... and how the shocking "conservation" of the Norweb coin basically ruined it as a 67, and knocked it out of the top three IMHO.>>
It did make sense to mention it in 2011, as the modified Norweb 1893-S was auctioned during that year. It realized an amount commensurate with a "65" grade. My understanding, about which I am not certain, is that our friends ATS bought the Norweb 1893-S and downgraded it from 67 to 66.
Sunnywood: I will <<NEVER get over how my 1877 gold proof set was "conserved" after I sold it ... What had been gorgeous original proofs (mostly 64's) with natural beautiful color from the Bass, Garrett and Browning collections, all became flashy cameo widgets (mostly 65's), with the history, the originality, the authenticity, and the pedigrees stripped away. If I had known that would happen, I would never ever ever have sold the coins. >>
Roadrunner: << But, we all have differing opinions on dipped type coins, regardless of date, pedigree, and grade. >>
It is a fact, not an opinion, that dipping removes much of the character and history of a coin. It is also a fact that pedigree markers, like the kinds of toning that characterize many Eliasberg, Norweb and Garrett coins, respectively, are obliterated by dipping.
Comments
Nice to see you back in the game and still collecting the highest quality toners.
<< <i> The 1851 half is Pittman. There was no provenance listed for the 51-O. Both are great looking coins. >>
My typo/mistake. I confused the earlier comment on the 51-0 with the 51 Pittman half (the coin that Sunnywood purchased). I corrected my earlier post to reflect the comment and price concerning the 51 half. In looking at the 51-0 half though, it brought a very strong price ($41K) considering that MS65's are somewhat available from time to time. Surprising that the 51-0 brought within 10% of the 51 half in MS66, a date which rarely comes up for sale in MS65 or higher (there are only 2-3 truly gem 1851 halves that I'm aware of).
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Roadrunner: <<Sunnywood, nice pick up on the James Stack 1901-s quarter. The coin was bought by Dave Akers of Paramount at the March 1975 James A. Stack sale and then offered in their summer and fall Rare Coin lists. ... It would be interesting to know who owned that 1901-s 25c from 1975/1976 to 1980. Akers was asking nearly 2X what he paid for the 1901-s out of James Stack.>
Back in 2010, when I wrote an article about the PCGS graded "MS-67+" 1901-S quarter, I mentioned that the Gene Gardner ("YeOldOne") 1901-S was earlier in the James A. Stack Collection. I was astonished that the Heritage print catalogue does not mention the James A. Stack pedigree, though it has since been added to the online catalogue. Did anyone ever say that it is not the James A. Stack coin?
Although it might not be technically flawless, I personally find this JAS-Gardner-Sunnywood 1901-S to be more appealing than the PCGS graded MS-68+ 1901-S. I thought that price realized was very much understandable.
The Incredible Gene Gardner Collection, part 2: Famous Coins in the June 23rd Auction
Highest Certified 1901-S Barber Quarter Breaks Coin Auction Records and Becomes the Star of a Coin Convention
Roadrunner<<If the dipped out MS68 1901-s ever starts "turning," you'll see the Stack coin become the unquestioned #1 much like what occurred among the top 2 1893-s dollars in MS67. The original toned coins will barely change over the decades ...>>
While I have repeatedly said that dipping is harmful, this statement is very unfair the dealers who handled that coin and to the collector who now owns it. That "68+" 1901-S was dipped around 20 years before it was auctioned in March 2010. It appears stable and took on some attractive toning during that 20 year period. Please read my article.
The Norweb 1893-S is a different matter. It is almost certain that it was placed in a solution that is different from a standard acidic solution that is used for typical dips. It took on a chalky-white 'conserved' appearance. While a standard dip of the Norweb 1893-S would have been harmful IMO, what happened is worse.
Discussion of Conservation in an article on Gem 1893-S dollars
<< <i>While I have repeatedly said that dipping is harmful, this statement is very unfair the dealers who handled that coin and to the collector who now owns it. That "68+" 1901-S was dipped around 20 years before it was auctioned in March 2010. It appears stable and took on some attractive toning during that 20 year period. Please read my article.
The Norweb 1893-S is a different matter. It is almost certain that it was placed in a solution that is different from a standard acidic solution that is used for typical dips. It took on a chalky-white 'conserved' appearance. While a standard dip of the Norweb 1893-S would have been harmful IMO, what happened is worse.
[L=Discussion of Conservation in an article on Gem 1893-S dollars]http://www.coinlink.com/News/us-coins/record-price-for-a-morgan-silver-dollar-more-than-1-million-for-an-1893-s/print/] >>
I've seen a number of high profile seated coins get dipped, even owned a few of them. They never got better imo and toning (unless maybe placed back in a Raymond album) and would probably only turn various shades of brown (with some purple) over the years. I bought a dipped 1853 NA MS66 PCGS ogh quarter in 1994. It was probably dipped around 1988 when the Ed Milas mint sets hit the market. When I first bought it I'd say it was 98% white with just a trace of browning on the edges. When I sold it 10-12 years later iit was brown over the entire coin and deeper around the edges. And at best you'd call it neutral. That coin is not going to get prettier. Another high profile coin I owned was the Harold Blauvelt (B+R 1977) gem 1866-s quarter. It was stark white in 1977, probably dipped shortly before that auction. When I owned it in 1988 it was still 98% white with only the tiniest of unimportant freckles in a few places. It was bright as heck but still attractive. I saw a photo of the coin over 20 years later when it fetched $97K at auction. Now it had much bigger and unattractive spots in several places....very distracting. It had been slabbed since 1986-1988. The toning on the 68+ 1901-s looks "neutral" to me. The dipping is "only" 25 or so years old right now...still young. The grading game of removing neutral original toning to get a blast white upgrade is questionable at best. Let's revisit this MS68+ in another 10 years and see how it does. If still stable after 40 years, I'll concede it will outlive us all. But, we all have differing opinions on dipped type coins, regardless of date, pedigree, and grade.
I will NEVER get over how my 1877 gold proof set was "conserved" after I sold it - and NGC rewarded the criminal act with multiple upgrades. What had been gorgeous original proofs (mostly 64's) with natural beautiful color from the Bass, Garrett and Browning collections, all became flashy cameo widgets (mostly 65's), with the history, the originality, the authenticity, and the pedigrees stripped away. If I had known that would happen, I would never ever ever have sold the coins. And if they had been properly graded as original coins, there would not have been any incentive to strip them.
I am a better collector for it, who now prizes beautiful original coins, and who is committed to preserving their history. The 1901-S quarter is really a treasure, as David Hall notes on CoinFacts: "The 1901-S Barber quarter is, in my opinion, the rarest regular issue (non-variety) silver coin of the 20th century."
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Roadrunner: <<I've seen a number of high profile seated coins get dipped, even owned a few of them. They never got better imo and toning (unless maybe placed back in a Raymond album) and would probably only turn various shades of brown (with some purple) over the years>>
While I have no doubt that Roadrunner is telling the truth about his personal experiences, this statement is likely to mislead readers of this thread. A large percentage of 'mint state' 19th century silver coins have been dipped at one time or another, more than a century ago in many cases. A substantial percentage of them have since naturally retoned in a nice way, often shades of blue, russet and apricot. Indeed, most naturally toned 19th century coins that have been PCGS graded above MS-64 were dipped in the past.
Roadrunner: <<The grading game of removing neutral original toning to get a blast white upgrade is questionable at best.>>
Certainly, I would never encourage anyone to play such a game and I have been critical of those who do. Among people who write often about coins, there is no one who is a greater opponent of dipping than I am. I have now said dozens of times, in articles that are read by tens of thousands of people, that dipping is harmful. There are rare instances where the benefits outweight the harm done. In probably 95% of all cases of dipping, however, the harm done far outweighs the benefits.
Sunnywood: <<Analyst, I wrote a thread years ago on the three top 1893-S Morgans (which had been ranked Norweb, Vermeule, and Eliasberg), ...
This very unfortunate 'conservation' was emphasized in my article that was published on Nov. 17, 2008.
Discussion of Conservation in an article on Gem 1893-S dollars
Sunnywood: <<... and how the shocking "conservation" of the Norweb coin basically ruined it as a 67, and knocked it out of the top three IMHO.>>
It did make sense to mention it in 2011, as the modified Norweb 1893-S was auctioned during that year. It realized an amount commensurate with a "65" grade. My understanding, about which I am not certain, is that our friends ATS bought the Norweb 1893-S and downgraded it from 67 to 66.
Sunnywood: I will <<NEVER get over how my 1877 gold proof set was "conserved" after I sold it ... What had been gorgeous original proofs (mostly 64's) with natural beautiful color from the Bass, Garrett and Browning collections, all became flashy cameo widgets (mostly 65's), with the history, the originality, the authenticity, and the pedigrees stripped away. If I had known that would happen, I would never ever ever have sold the coins. >>
Roadrunner: << But, we all have differing opinions on dipped type coins, regardless of date, pedigree, and grade. >>
It is a fact, not an opinion, that dipping removes much of the character and history of a coin. It is also a fact that pedigree markers, like the kinds of toning that characterize many Eliasberg, Norweb and Garrett coins, respectively, are obliterated by dipping.
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins