Another old friend crosses over - MS67 1867-s quarter - but as usual, it wasn't me getting the score
roadrunner
Posts: 28,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
1867-s 25c PCGS MS7 CAC
It took 18 years but the cross finally came. Yahooo! And this time even Gene Gardner/Bill Nagle couldn't swing that cross from 2004-2015. The buyer out of Gene's auction or some flipper dealer got 'er done. It's all about timing and who you are.
I first saw the coin at the James Stack sale in 1975. It went for 2X what I was willing to pay ($1800) and I was flat shut out. 2 years later in 1977 in was offered back to me at $5500. Fat chance Corky Vena! I couldn't come close to paying that. Jim Halperin did indeed pay that seeing the enormous potential that was coming in those 1977-1980 inflationary years with gold starting to run away. Jim placed the 67-s and the Blauvelt gem 1866-s ($5,000) in his Rare Coin Fund investment portfolio. He also stuck a monster gem 1841-0 25c in there too. When the market was peaking in spring 1980 Jim sent that portfolio to auction via his own firm. The 67-s fetched $30,000. The 41-0 over $40K. The Blauvelt 66s fetched an astounding $44,000 because at that time the 66-s was considered the much better date. I "knew" they were both gone forever. But, during the crunch of 1980-1986 I was able to buy the 67-s for $10,500 with commission out of Auction '86. It seemed no one else cared unless they could rip. My max bid was much higher at $14,500. I wasn't letting it get away again.
Next, the 66-s showed up in a 1988 Coin World ad for a miserly $14,500! I called Larry Whitlow up and said get it for me a $1,000 cheaper and we both save $500. He did it, and I got if for $13,500...he got a $500 commish for a few minutes of work. I missed a window to sell the 67-s for $45K-$50K in 1989-1990. A quadruple gain in under 4 years went poof. The 66-s I held for only 1-2 years and flipped it for $16,500. I eventually let the 67-s go to auction in 2004 after 18 years, and it did better than I thought (reserve was set very low at $38K)...though not before upgrading it to NGC MS67 in 1997 as the Eliasberg coins were dragging along a lot of high powered upgrades with them. Dealers told me to send in anything nice/rare in bust and seated and upgrades from Eliasberg and Pittman were dragging everything else up.
Gene Gardner bought it for his set out of the 2004 auction at $74K. I think even Mr. Eureka told me later he was in around the $50K level. Bill Nagle commented to me that he had to pay through the nose for it. But there was no decent problem free 2nd best 67-s at that time. Had Bill offered me $50K for it just a year or two earlier, I'd have agreed. Gene sold his set in 2015 and the coin fetched $88,000. I think had it went off in 2007-2008 it might have sold for $100K-$125K when the Humpback Seated Whales were out in force bidding top pops to insane heights. I mean if the fugly Richmond MS62/63 1852-0 25c can go from $25K in 2005 to $125K by 2008, the 67-s was worth every bit as much as its finest known by 3 pts. Gene sold the 67-s as an NGC MS67 CAC. I don't know if they even bothered to try for a cross. They probably didn't. Though they should have tried. It still might not have made a big difference in price as Gene was one of last big boyz still building this set. A lot of big boy seated collectors left in 2006-2013 and sold off.
And now the 67s is on the PCGS pop report as a MS67. The coin has come full circle. Oddly, they have the coin priced today at $50,000 for MS67 in the price guide even though it realized more than that when I sold it in 2004 as NCG 67 and even more at $88K for Gene. The coin is more valuable than the lone MS66 1866-s finest known quarter which sold for nearly $100K and has significant spots on it. Oh, and I owned that 1866-s as well back in 1988 when it was still bright white with only a trace of tiny spots. The coin was dipped in the 1970's. At that time, both coins were PCGS MS66 in rattler holders. It's interesting that PCGS has no 67-s price record in their price guide even though the coin once resided in their 66 holder. The 66-s was graded MS66 in August 1986 soon after PCGS's doors were open. The pops were so sparse in 1988 that the 66-s and 67-s were the only uncs on the board. Getting a 66 grade at that time was very difficult. And 67's were almost unheard of. It really shouldn't have taken 30 years to advance to the PCGS 67 grade.
The 67-s is 80% white on original skin and jet black rims. Most of the rarer S mints are either ugly mottled, cleaned and retoned, or a dullish silvery gray. It's hard to imagine how an S mint, rare date seated quarter survived in this condition. I've looked at most of the MS66/67/68 rare date seated quarters and possibly only the 1868-s is a competitor or could beat it. The James Stack 1865-s had the exact same look of this 67-s with 80% white and black rims. Dave Akers bought the 65-s at that sale for Paramount International, paying about 50% more than the 67-s fetched. But time has reversed that opinion and made the 67-s the more valuable coin. One of the few times I probably knew more than Akers. I did think back in 1975 that the 67-s might be the better coin as the 67-s didn't even show up in XF-AU back in those days, let alone unc. I have not seen the 65-s since 1975 and it doesn't appear to show up on pop reports. It's not the same coin as the current several MS66's highest graded...at least not imo.
The Eliasberg NGC MS68 1864-s 25c carries the torch as the highest graded rare date S mint seated quarter....and the highest former price at around $105K. But when I saw it, I honestly felt the luster was a bit muted under neutral looking toning and really only a 67 despite flawless surfaces. I liked my 67-s better....wouldn't have traded it even either.
There are only 4-5 rare date S mint seated quarters in ultra superb 67 or better gem grade - just 1 of each (64-s (Eliasberg 1997), 65-s (JAS 1975), 66-s (Harold Blauvelt B&R 1977), 67-s (JAS 1975), 68-s (?)). And I haven't seen the JAS 65-s in so many years that I don't know what I would think of it today. There are a couple MS66 1865-s quarters out there, but I don't think any of them are the James Stack coin unless it got dipped. If they aren't JAS, then this date doesn't exist yet in super MS67 grade. The 68-s is graded PCGS MS67+ CAC and is much cleaner than the 1867-s. But the 68-s has bright surfaces from an older dipping, just like the 66-s. And 20 years after that dipping the 66-s has developed large and distracting unsightly spots. Had the 68-s shown original skin it would be a 68. As far as provenance, I think dealer Marty Haber (ex-NERCG, ex-NIOF) owned the 66-s, 67-s, and 68-s during the first half of the 1980s. He was a big fan of gem better date seated coinage. He may had one those 65-s as well. If he was the one bailing out on the 66-s and 67-s from 1986-1988 as their prices had crashed 60-70%, I was happy to pick up the pieces. What I didn't have was enough money to keep all the dates from 1866-1872 as I ran across them. When I couldn't buy the gem 1872-s Norweb coin I sort of gave up my hunt for a set of these with motto S mints in gem. One of the dealers at Norweb told me they had a "buy" bid on the 72-s. It went for plenty of money too. That was the first time a real gem of that date showed up. It's a 66 today and not dipped out like the MS66 Richmond 1872-s. Which coins are CAC stickered today that I have mentioned above? The 41-0 in MS67, the 1867-s, and the 1868-s....the top 3. The others haven't made the list yet.
I tried once or twice to cross the 67-s to no avail. I knew it was all there back in 1986. Now we can close the book on this one. It's now in the "dressing" it has always deserved. It just takes much time to make these things happen. Typically, little fish like me can't get this done no matter how many times we try at $100 per pop. I'd love to know who got the coin to cross after the rest of us failed over the past 25 years. And it can't be said that PCGS wants ALL of the great coins in their holders. This one lived in their holder only from 1986-1988. By 1988 NGC became the higher priced holder bringing a 5-10% premium to PCGS coins. So I crossed both the 66-s and 67-s into NGC 66/67 holders. Yeah, amazing isn't it! That was to possibly sell at the 1988 ANA for $20K-$25K each. But as the show wound down, money became scarce...and I took them home. But, now both coins are back into PCGS holders, and each is still the finest graded. Well, we did know that back in the 1970's....holders weren't needed.
It took 18 years but the cross finally came. Yahooo! And this time even Gene Gardner/Bill Nagle couldn't swing that cross from 2004-2015. The buyer out of Gene's auction or some flipper dealer got 'er done. It's all about timing and who you are.
I first saw the coin at the James Stack sale in 1975. It went for 2X what I was willing to pay ($1800) and I was flat shut out. 2 years later in 1977 in was offered back to me at $5500. Fat chance Corky Vena! I couldn't come close to paying that. Jim Halperin did indeed pay that seeing the enormous potential that was coming in those 1977-1980 inflationary years with gold starting to run away. Jim placed the 67-s and the Blauvelt gem 1866-s ($5,000) in his Rare Coin Fund investment portfolio. He also stuck a monster gem 1841-0 25c in there too. When the market was peaking in spring 1980 Jim sent that portfolio to auction via his own firm. The 67-s fetched $30,000. The 41-0 over $40K. The Blauvelt 66s fetched an astounding $44,000 because at that time the 66-s was considered the much better date. I "knew" they were both gone forever. But, during the crunch of 1980-1986 I was able to buy the 67-s for $10,500 with commission out of Auction '86. It seemed no one else cared unless they could rip. My max bid was much higher at $14,500. I wasn't letting it get away again.
Next, the 66-s showed up in a 1988 Coin World ad for a miserly $14,500! I called Larry Whitlow up and said get it for me a $1,000 cheaper and we both save $500. He did it, and I got if for $13,500...he got a $500 commish for a few minutes of work. I missed a window to sell the 67-s for $45K-$50K in 1989-1990. A quadruple gain in under 4 years went poof. The 66-s I held for only 1-2 years and flipped it for $16,500. I eventually let the 67-s go to auction in 2004 after 18 years, and it did better than I thought (reserve was set very low at $38K)...though not before upgrading it to NGC MS67 in 1997 as the Eliasberg coins were dragging along a lot of high powered upgrades with them. Dealers told me to send in anything nice/rare in bust and seated and upgrades from Eliasberg and Pittman were dragging everything else up.
Gene Gardner bought it for his set out of the 2004 auction at $74K. I think even Mr. Eureka told me later he was in around the $50K level. Bill Nagle commented to me that he had to pay through the nose for it. But there was no decent problem free 2nd best 67-s at that time. Had Bill offered me $50K for it just a year or two earlier, I'd have agreed. Gene sold his set in 2015 and the coin fetched $88,000. I think had it went off in 2007-2008 it might have sold for $100K-$125K when the Humpback Seated Whales were out in force bidding top pops to insane heights. I mean if the fugly Richmond MS62/63 1852-0 25c can go from $25K in 2005 to $125K by 2008, the 67-s was worth every bit as much as its finest known by 3 pts. Gene sold the 67-s as an NGC MS67 CAC. I don't know if they even bothered to try for a cross. They probably didn't. Though they should have tried. It still might not have made a big difference in price as Gene was one of last big boyz still building this set. A lot of big boy seated collectors left in 2006-2013 and sold off.
And now the 67s is on the PCGS pop report as a MS67. The coin has come full circle. Oddly, they have the coin priced today at $50,000 for MS67 in the price guide even though it realized more than that when I sold it in 2004 as NCG 67 and even more at $88K for Gene. The coin is more valuable than the lone MS66 1866-s finest known quarter which sold for nearly $100K and has significant spots on it. Oh, and I owned that 1866-s as well back in 1988 when it was still bright white with only a trace of tiny spots. The coin was dipped in the 1970's. At that time, both coins were PCGS MS66 in rattler holders. It's interesting that PCGS has no 67-s price record in their price guide even though the coin once resided in their 66 holder. The 66-s was graded MS66 in August 1986 soon after PCGS's doors were open. The pops were so sparse in 1988 that the 66-s and 67-s were the only uncs on the board. Getting a 66 grade at that time was very difficult. And 67's were almost unheard of. It really shouldn't have taken 30 years to advance to the PCGS 67 grade.
The 67-s is 80% white on original skin and jet black rims. Most of the rarer S mints are either ugly mottled, cleaned and retoned, or a dullish silvery gray. It's hard to imagine how an S mint, rare date seated quarter survived in this condition. I've looked at most of the MS66/67/68 rare date seated quarters and possibly only the 1868-s is a competitor or could beat it. The James Stack 1865-s had the exact same look of this 67-s with 80% white and black rims. Dave Akers bought the 65-s at that sale for Paramount International, paying about 50% more than the 67-s fetched. But time has reversed that opinion and made the 67-s the more valuable coin. One of the few times I probably knew more than Akers. I did think back in 1975 that the 67-s might be the better coin as the 67-s didn't even show up in XF-AU back in those days, let alone unc. I have not seen the 65-s since 1975 and it doesn't appear to show up on pop reports. It's not the same coin as the current several MS66's highest graded...at least not imo.
The Eliasberg NGC MS68 1864-s 25c carries the torch as the highest graded rare date S mint seated quarter....and the highest former price at around $105K. But when I saw it, I honestly felt the luster was a bit muted under neutral looking toning and really only a 67 despite flawless surfaces. I liked my 67-s better....wouldn't have traded it even either.
There are only 4-5 rare date S mint seated quarters in ultra superb 67 or better gem grade - just 1 of each (64-s (Eliasberg 1997), 65-s (JAS 1975), 66-s (Harold Blauvelt B&R 1977), 67-s (JAS 1975), 68-s (?)). And I haven't seen the JAS 65-s in so many years that I don't know what I would think of it today. There are a couple MS66 1865-s quarters out there, but I don't think any of them are the James Stack coin unless it got dipped. If they aren't JAS, then this date doesn't exist yet in super MS67 grade. The 68-s is graded PCGS MS67+ CAC and is much cleaner than the 1867-s. But the 68-s has bright surfaces from an older dipping, just like the 66-s. And 20 years after that dipping the 66-s has developed large and distracting unsightly spots. Had the 68-s shown original skin it would be a 68. As far as provenance, I think dealer Marty Haber (ex-NERCG, ex-NIOF) owned the 66-s, 67-s, and 68-s during the first half of the 1980s. He was a big fan of gem better date seated coinage. He may had one those 65-s as well. If he was the one bailing out on the 66-s and 67-s from 1986-1988 as their prices had crashed 60-70%, I was happy to pick up the pieces. What I didn't have was enough money to keep all the dates from 1866-1872 as I ran across them. When I couldn't buy the gem 1872-s Norweb coin I sort of gave up my hunt for a set of these with motto S mints in gem. One of the dealers at Norweb told me they had a "buy" bid on the 72-s. It went for plenty of money too. That was the first time a real gem of that date showed up. It's a 66 today and not dipped out like the MS66 Richmond 1872-s. Which coins are CAC stickered today that I have mentioned above? The 41-0 in MS67, the 1867-s, and the 1868-s....the top 3. The others haven't made the list yet.
I tried once or twice to cross the 67-s to no avail. I knew it was all there back in 1986. Now we can close the book on this one. It's now in the "dressing" it has always deserved. It just takes much time to make these things happen. Typically, little fish like me can't get this done no matter how many times we try at $100 per pop. I'd love to know who got the coin to cross after the rest of us failed over the past 25 years. And it can't be said that PCGS wants ALL of the great coins in their holders. This one lived in their holder only from 1986-1988. By 1988 NGC became the higher priced holder bringing a 5-10% premium to PCGS coins. So I crossed both the 66-s and 67-s into NGC 66/67 holders. Yeah, amazing isn't it! That was to possibly sell at the 1988 ANA for $20K-$25K each. But as the show wound down, money became scarce...and I took them home. But, now both coins are back into PCGS holders, and each is still the finest graded. Well, we did know that back in the 1970's....holders weren't needed.
0
Comments
Tom
In gem the 67-s was rarer than any of the 66-s to 72-s run, yet not priced as such yet. The big boyz were well aware that the 71-s and 72-s were date rarities, but most didn't give the 67-s much notice. When World Wide Coins (BJ Searls?) broke a fabulous hoard of orig S mint seated quarters in a 1975-1976 Coin World full page ad I called them up immediately to buy every key date they had left. I found out that all the hot dates had sold out....all except the "unwanted" 1867-s coins. They had 9 left, a VG, couple of Fines, and 6 VF's. I bought the whole group for no more than $65/coin....about $475 in all. If only I had been able to load up on 60-s, 64-s, 66-s, 71-s, and 72-s. Now I owned 10 1867-s quarters with an ave grade of VF.
I got the notion when the Norweb MS63/64 67-s 25c popped up for auction in 1988 to hoard every decent 67-s unc 25c that showed up from then on. It was a no brainer. I should have done it. I knew it be worth thousands of dollars extra down the road when I owned every one of the half dozen or so that probably existed. I went to the march 1988 Norweb auction hoping to buy that MS63+ for $5K or less, and ideally $4K. I ran into quarter collector Scott Shedden from Seattle, Washington (?) who I had been corresponding with by mail for a couple years via our LSCC connection..... and he floored me when he said one of his biggest wants out of Norweb was the 67-s. Darn it! Being the good ole guy I figured I had the MS66 gem already and a killer XF-45 ($130 bought in 1976) so I could live w/o this one. Being a buddy is costly. The coin sold for a piddly $2800. Talk about a rip! I felt abused in a way giving up a $4K coin for $1200 less. I had no idea how high Scott would have bid. Maybe he'd have gone to greater lengths than me?
Fast foward to Eliasberg in 1997 and a MS64ish coin pops up. I could have bought it. It went for a piddly $4,000. I could have owned the 3 best coins and no one would have noticed. I figured they would all be worth 5X those amounts in 5-10 years...and they were. The owner of the Richmond collection bought the Eliasberg coin. Considering there was no other coin to be had, I don't know how high they would have been willing to go. It's possible we could have bid each other up to $6K to $10K. In any case it got away. It was the only one of few times I had the means, motive, and opportunity to corner the high end of the market on a desirable rare date coin that few others were aware of.
You don't get too many opportunities to put your knowledge to work for profit. I had it and squandered it for the "good of the hobby." To add insult to injury, my amazing chocolate brown XF45+ 1867-s (today an AU50) I sold to a best friend in 1987 because I already had the gem of the date. I wanted to do my buddy a favor and I think he asked if it was available. He wanted to take part in my "euphoria" of finally snagging the finest known. 10 years after I bought that coin for $130 I sold it to him for $190! If he held on to that until 2007-2008 it was worth over $4,000. I knew it was a huge mistake to sell it as the downside risk was zero. Ironically, we parted ways around 10 years after that once the coin market turned down and we stopped communicating about coins. Even if we left each other on less than perfect terms, I left him a $4,000 present to ease his "pain."...assuming he kept it all those years.
For those keeping score, the math on that one is $190 to $4,000 or a 21X gain on the raw XF. My gem 67-s only went up 7X to 9X in that same period. The XF45 outperformed the finest known....hey that happens sometimes. Buying the best you can afford means multiple things. I don't forget much. That XF came from a CW ad via USA Coin out on the west coast. No one else wanted it as it was so overpriced.....The Coin World Trends at that time was $85....lol. I still have ALL the original receipts for my seated coins from the 1970's through 1990's. And I shed a tear or two when I see how cheaply I bought them for.
I still do not own an ms 1866s 25c, as I've never seen one I liked, despite the grade or holder.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Thank you Brian.
I still do not own an ms 1866s 25c, as I've never seen one I liked, despite the grade or holder.
CAC is right there with you Nic! They haven't stickered an unc yet indicating that all the UNCs of that date have been abused....even the MS66 finest known. In fact, they don't have a stickered coin above VF35! And the next one lower is VF25. I don't recall ever owning a nice 66-s in VF-58 circ grade either. And all the 62-65 coins I ran across were lacking in many ways. That's why I felt so bad about giving up my perfect XF45/50 1867-s to my buddy. I knew I would likely never find its equal. But now you've let the cat out of the bag on the 66-s.
O and S mint seated quarters got me really going into coins by 1974-1975. And by 1975 I was hunting for the gems...not knowing they barely existed. So that made it very hard to me to price them based on a RED BOOK that only listed an unc price of $300 for a 67-s! Who knew that it would take 6X UNC price to buy a gem in 1975 and not just 3X....lol.
Roadrunner, these posts are great. I really appreciate learning the history of some of these coins, as most of us only see them at a point in time. Thanks for putting it together!
+1
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
I have also recently learned that Legend bought the 67-S out the Gardner sale and crossed it. It now resides with one of their clients.
Thanks Ablinky for letting me know. In a way, I'm sort of sad it went through them. But it does appear they have more pull for crosses than us little guys.
It's quite possible Legend was one of Gene's under-bidders back at the 2004 auction. Gene didn't care about REG set points as his coins were a mix of PCGS and NGC. He just bought the best coins he could at the best prices he could. The holder meant little other than to determine the price he would have to pay. Legend is a PCGS CAC machine with REG sets galore to work on. The coin would be like a boat anchor to them without a sticker. Now Bill and Gene bought it because they wanted the best coin, regardless of holder.
I bought the coin raw out of auction in 1986. And when I sold it in 2004 I included the full pedigree history of the coin because I knew most of it would be lost forever if I didn't do that. I wanted every owner I ever knew to be listed. That's the least I could do for my hobby.
I negotiated several specific things on this coin with the auction house in 2004. The coin had to go off at Platinum night. It had to be a full page spread. It had to include my pedigree details and rarity information. And I wanted to see the finished photo of the coin to make sure it was decent. I also specified the only 3 auctions I would allow it to go in (Long Beach, summer ANA, or January FUN). The house agreed it to it all. Much of the write up in the catalog was from me...at no cataloguer's charge...lol.
But....after I signed the contract, a month or two later a fellow seated collector PMs me that the coin is showing up in the Feb/March winter ANA sale in Portland, Oregon. Holy snikes. You gotta be kidding me! Talk about under-exposure. I get on the phone and tell the auction house we have a signed contract with my terms written in. Put the coin in the right sale or send it back to me. Well, they removed it from that sale and put in the next spring LB sale. Potential tragedy averted. Luckily I had that in writing because the contract otherwise says the house can choose whatever venue they wish to sell the item in. Kudo's to Darrell who had my back on that one. The coin might have fetched 10-30% less in the less-traveled venue.
I will admit though that the auction photo was sub-par. I was not happy with it as the coin looked dipped. But you can't get it all. It brought a great price regardless as the floor bidders took it up. Gene's auction photo is a perfect representation of how the coin really looks...dusty white with black rims.
Now that I remember, another thing I wanted the auction house to do was resubmit this 67-s and my best NGC coins for crosses. No better time than to do them altogether for the max effect. The 1867-s didn't cross in 2004 even under the "potential" heavier influence of the auction house submitting it. I thought for sure it would go. Out of a dozen or so solid NGC coins, none crossed. Since then, I think the majority of them have either crossed or upgraded....with Gene scoring some of those upgrades on me.....life in the fast lane.
This was my dream coin ever since 1975 (any rarer "heavily underrated" date gem S or O mint seated quarter in monster gem condition that I could actually afford). I got to own it for 18 years....longer than probably anyone but James A. Stack. I now close that chapter now that Gene has moved on from his monster seated sets and that the coin has the grade/holder it should have gotten in 1997. Calling it a bit of vindication. Trying to bid against Gene during the 2002-2008 "heat" was quite fruitless. The field is wide open again though.
Can you give me some ideas how myself and Heritage when we presented this coin for a cross what we could have done to better "present" it? Any ideas on what Legend did to better present it for cross over? All I can think of would be to run out and buy half a dozen low end NGC MS67 WM seated quarters and then send in the best NGC MS67 along with them. But, if the grades get covered, it may not matter.
The coin counts 80%. The timing is 10%. The who part is 10%. My best guess. It could range from 60-20-20 to 90-5-5. Food for discussion.
If I'm a PCGS grader reviewing potential cross over coins with the grade covered I'm always going to pick the more conservative grade of the 2 possible ones (in this case MS66/67). No doubt if I left this coin in the original MS66 PCGS rattler and shipped it back to them in 2004, there'd have been a great chance of getting a regrade of MS67. Any seated rattlers I've ever shipped back for regrade, have come back at a higher grade, including some MS65's.
Fwiw, I was told by probably the sharpest rare coin dealer, entrepreneur, and one of the top graders of all time that they specifically tracked who was grading at the TPG's each week and what their long term track record was per each grader. They also made it clear that the coins needed to be submitted in particular groups and order to optimize a "hit." I heard this from so many top dealers over the years I just assumed it was common knowledge. But, it's ok to believe that "timing" and "who" play no role. I had one top grader tell me he called the head of a TPG and urged them to grade his coin higher after the first attempt failed. They did just that too taking a $6K coin to $12K. How do I know that?...because it used to my coin and they told me face to face how they navigated the upgrade....something I wasn't able to do. 2 submissions at MS64 and then the MS65 hit following some peer pressure. Rather than fight....I asked the dealer if I could submit coins through them or split potential upgrades when I found them? He agreed and we had a few nice scores together.
Can you name any other corporate businesses where timing and who play no role (ie eveything is fair and square at all times, no preferences to anyone or anything for any reason). How about politics?
With all due respect, Gene bought some iffy coins - I know more than a few were rejected by CAC for various ailments. And as far as the big guys having an inside track, have you seen the general crossover rate since the 1% crossover fee was instituted? Any discussion must include that nuance
Gene bought the coins, the holders were secondary. A number of his NGC coins were lower end and they did not sticker. I'm sure some of his PCGS coins fit that bill too. And knowing how sharp his technical advisor was, they paid accordingly (ie less money) for coins that were low end in the holders....even if they were potential finest knowns or pop tops. I'm not saying Gene made no mistakes because we all do, right down to Pogue, Eliasberg, Norweb, Pittman, etc. But Gene had one of the best eyes and minds in the business advising him. No doubt Gene had final say on what was bought. His seated set was so expansive (hundreds of coins) that he didn't have the luxury to wait for the perfect coin in the perfect holder, that was strong or high end for the grade with "eye appeal." I'd say most of top seated quarters don't come with good eye appeal, neutral is often all you get. And there was no one out there ready to donate their partially completed gem seated dime/quarter/half dollar sets to him to accelerate his set completion.
Some of the finest known (or 2nd/3rd place) seated coins are iffy by definition because there's nothing else. All the top 58-s and 60-s quarters are "iffy." I can think of a few dozen seated coins where the finest known is "iffy." What are you gonna do? Pass on it when the price is right but it has a minor "ailment." Or, wait another 10-20 years for the single remaining right coin to show up? There might only be 1-2 coins per date in seated quarters that approximate finest known status and have eye appeal. There is only 1 1858-0 seated quarter I ever saw with eye appeal, my ex NGC MS65 / Gene's PCGS 64+. CAC wouldn't even sticker that coin. It must have had an "ailment." Yet to me, it was possibly the most blasty, original and eye appealing early O mint seated quarter I ever saw. I don't care that it has an "ailment." It's the only gem 58-0 I've ever seen or liked. Gene made that same "mistake" I guess.
For what Gene was doing he did a better job on a the complete seated set run than anyone else in history. I think his first auction went through with a 55% sticker rate. Even Newman was only in the 55-65% range. Those are high rates when you have a huge set covering such a wide expanse of material and grades. And to be honest JA's goals are far different than the goals set by Gene and his advisor. Apples vs. oranges really. They could have chosen the route that many REG set collectors do today and only shoot for high end coins in particular holders, ideally stickered. Most of Gene's coins were bought before CAC was around. Should we judge Legend on all the PCGS/NGC coins sold prior to 2008 that didn't eventually CAC? There would be a lot of them. Gene could have downgraded some coins to get a sticker. Obviously that mattered little to him. I'd like to see some particular examples of Gene's seated coins that failed to sticker because of true "ailments" rather than just being low end or over-graded. I didn't review all his coins in person so I can't say for sure.
I'm not aware of the crossover rates since the 1% fee was added. Had PCGS given me an opportunity back in 2008-2009 to cross my best coins with a 1% fee I'd have happily done it. I paid 2-3% on some of them getting multiple walk-throughs rejected. In fact, I'd have given them 5%-10% on some of them knowing that the NGC spread could be as big as -25 to -40%. I'd have given them 5% on this 1867-s which would have run me around $2500 at that time. On my 1862 NGC MS67 CAC half I'd have given them 10% which was $2000-$2500 at that time....the upside was $10,000 at the time I sold it.
If Legend paying a 1% ($880) fee to cross the 1867-s 25c was all it took, that's very sad imo. I'd have paid multiples of 1% during the years I owned it. What you seem to be saying is that it has less to do with the holder and not being able to see the coin properly....but greasing the wheels with a little "donation" to get the cross. Is that it?
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
U.S. Type Set
What I'm saying is that you have been strenuously professing that the game is rigged to the top dealers and insiders while ignoring the fact that something significant changed a few years ago. The financial incentive on liner coins went from not to cross (resubmission fees) to cross (1% in additional instant revenue). Add that to a constant grade inflation tendency and there's no doubt that eventually most every liner coin will be crossed and it has little to do with connections.
(These are my favorite threads.)
peacockcoins
This post wasn't meant to be about the subtleties of crossing. It was about a coin I've kept close tabs on for over 40 years. Considering it graded PCGS MS66 back in August 1986 when very few seated coins got that grade (remember MS65 Morgans being worth $800 each). Just seemed odd to me that it took almost 30 years to bump up that last point to MS67.