The Associated Press story on the piece ran in the Denver Post this morning, complete with picture.
Unfortunately they called it a "penny"
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Wow, now I've seen and heard everything! I heard of wooden money but glass? Is it a glass or specifically a porcelain? This coin should be worth more than the 1913 V nickel. Talking about a rarity, huh?
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.
@Zoins said:
Just ran across the 1942 Glass Cent Pattern which has been in the news recently. This is a 1942 cent pattern struck by the Blue Ridge Glass Company using US Mint dies. The dies were prepared by Mint engraver John Sinnock with a obverse portrait of Liberty copied from the Columbia two centavos and a reverse using a wreath designed by Anthony Paquet in the mid-nineteenth century.
Not sure if it's been posted here yet or not, but it looks pretty cool!
Yeah, that is one of my biggest issues, the current dual definition of proof used and that most patterns being designated proofs
I believe part of the issue is the way proofs are defined today (this definition has changed over the past few years)
I believe there is a dual definition,
which defines proofs by the method of manufacture,
and the second which defines proof as the method of manufacture
Therefore patterns can be a proof simply by stating the same method of manufacture was used on the patterns
In the Red book, it states
"A proof is a specimen striking of coinage for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, or numismatic purpose."
"The term proof refers to the "method of manufacture" and not the condition of the coin."
I believe the two (proofs and patterns) are separate categories that require clear distinct definitions, what I have started with
Pattern - A coin which has not been authorized or approved for release and created to test a proposed size, alloy, or design for a coin; also referred to as an experimental coin. Patterns were primarily struck when a new coin was being considered. Between 1858 and 1885, patterns were also struck for sale to collectors.
Proof - A coin which is authorized and approved, which is struck by the Mint for presentation, souvenirs, exhibition, numismatic purposes, and to encourage coin collecting. Proof coins are defined by the method and intent of manufacture. Proof coins should exhibit superior strike quality, wired rims, flawless surfaces, and a mirrored surface. The method of manufacture refers to those steps required to produce proof coins such as: polishing of the planchets; basining and buffing of the working dies to create a mirrored surface; using greater pressure or extended time in striking the coin to create superior striking characteristics and a wired rim; and the careful handling of the struck coins to insure no damage to the surface. Intent of manufacture means confirmation of the objective and specific intention to create proof coinage through mint records or published statements from those individuals responsible for the coins. Up through around 1968, proof coins were normally struck only once in the coining press. Today, proof coins are struck two or more times in the coining press.
The above two definitions are in a draft stage, and I am working on to improve.
IMO, TPG has simplified the grading of patterns to categorize them as proofs, which IMO is not correct
There are also many patterns which do not have mirrored fields from polished planchets and basined working dies
and were not struck to optimize striking characteristics. What would you call them?
For example, the 1849 Twenty Dollar Gold, one specimen known, not mirrored. It was authorized, but not approved,
therefore a pattern, but not struck on polished planchet, so what is it then?
I have not studied this particular coin, and therefore do not know if it was just struck to test the design, or was there specific
intent to make it as a presentation piece and polished, struck with greater pressure..... If so, it cannot be a proof, if
using proof as a method of manufacture.
The piece is made of tempered glass. These little preforms were provided by Corning, but Blue Ridge did all the work. They had employees carry some of the glass preforms (or 'blanks') in their pockets for a few days and discovered that they chipped badly due to bumping against metal coins. Imagine slicing your finger on pocket change. Blue Ridge ground down the edge after pressing each piece and rounded them a little to avoid chipping. The preforms were slightly greater in diameter and thicker than a normal cent, with a wider rim. Nothing has been found to tell us how many were made -- with individual edge grinding, it couldn't have been very many.
PS: I hope it ends up with someone who can appreciate it as a special piece of American history, and an artifact of the efforts of many people to support the common good. To me, it's more than just a "rarity."
If it's really that delicate, it may be good to get it into a non-prong, fully supportive slab. @Broadstruck mentioned that prong slabs can and have damaged pieces made of softer materials and now ATS offers a fully supportive insert that would be good for PCGS to offer as well. This is mentioned in the Composition or Lava thread.
Here's the current photo of the prong slab from HA. So even though we joke about not breaking it, it seems like there is some risk. I'm not sure why the earlier HA photos broke, but here's the slab photo:
Here's a fully supportive slab ATS has been offering for the past year for more delicate pieces, previously posted by @Broadstruck .
Amazing how quickly even a printed article can get garbled. The grammatically-challenged headline is a bit odd, too.
The glass piece is fragile but not something to worry about with careful handling. It is ↨2.36 - ↔2.41 millimeters thick and ↕19.85 - ↔19.90 millimeters diameter. Just like the plastic, it would probably break if pressed between the fingers. It was received raw, in a coin flip.
The glass 1942 1 cent experimental piece sold for over $70,000!
i watched the auction and the price quickly rose above my "happily, let alone, surviving as married limit! "
After all, how could I explain $70,000 plus to my wife? For a piece of glass????
Oh, I am sure Roger would understand!
I have always wanted one for my set. I was satisfied one waiting patiently for the sole broken glass piece I keep looking at in the various shows but now the price for even the broken piece has gone up!
I guess I will have to look at my unbroken bakelite piece and be glad I paid under $10,000 for it.
Oreville,
Sorry you were not the buyer. I know your collection of WW-II pattern/experimental pieces, and continue to appreciate your generosity in allowing me to examine it in detail.
I bought the piece raw, then had PCGS slab it. I don't recommend "cracking it out" of the slab -- it's fragile and there's little to be gained since it's correctly attributed and described. (Most slabbed experimental pieces from WW-II are incorrectly attributed to obsolete and misleading Judd/Pollock references. These were good long ago, but have been completely superseded by the book "Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II.")
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
PCGS and Heritage get most of the credit -- they certified it and then presented it in a meaningful way.
The real point is that it is back-breaking, fundamental research into US coinage that makes discoveries of this kind possible. It took years of research before a meaningful book, "Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II," could be written about the subject.
Roger, I should have put in a "wink" in my post as I was kidding you as I am a fan of the slabbing primarily it helps preserve some of the provenance as well as protect the fragility of the piece themself (except the zinc plated steel pieces.)
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The discovery was due entirely to years of research that went into the book "Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II" published in 2013. This allowed me to identify details unique to glass, although identification had to wait until I examined the piece.
As some know, I don't have much of a coin collection - mostly a few ordinary pieces purchased for research purposes. My involvement is almost entirely research and writing. Although I could have kept the 1942 glass piece to myself, I realized that it was better to have it in the hands of someone who could integrate it with other pattern and experimental pieces. We tend to look back at the WW-II era with nostalgia and a sense of longing for the unity of purpose common during the national emergency. Yet, this little glass "penny" is symbolic of the difficulties, long hours, hard work, and confusion that underlay the heroism of Americans and their international allies.
Maybe the new owner will have the resources to include this glass piece in a meaningful display of numismatic items from the WW-II period.
PS: I do not know anything about the new owner.
PPS: Yes, part of the proceeds will pay for printing of the 1936-42 Proof coin book.The rest will support research expenses.
Regarding the history of this piece and the difficulties during the WW-II era, it's interesting that the other historical piece being discussed, the Peace dollar cast, was created at the end of WW-I, the aftermath of which led to the difficulties in WW-II.
Amazing price realized! Had no idea this was going off to the moon like this.
Really cool piece, and I greatly admire your dedication to research and writing.
I am humbled by your statement of now owning much of a coin collection, despite your zeal for the hobby. I could never get rid of the treasures found in that research.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Thanks to RWB!!
He helped me co-discover a brown "plastic " with SPARKLE!!
He suspected that it was the FIRST EXPERIMENTAL COIN made for the US Mint to combine copper metal (fragments) with a "plastic" compound base.
To me this was AMAZING. Even the auction companies or PCGS do not get it!!! They simply called the piece a "tan plastic"not understanding what it was all about.
One of the plastic manufacturers put metal dust in the resin so that the molded pieces would have a distinctive sparkle, and possibly be more acceptable as cent replacements.
@RogerB said:
The piece is made of tempered glass. These little preforms were provided by Corning, but Blue Ridge did all the work.
This is interesting. In the new auctions, NGC has slabbed preforms with the Blue Ridge provenance but if no work was done on them, perhaps they should be attributed to Corning Glass Works?
The two pieces, and others in the Heritage ANA auction, are basically the same color - much like to top image.
It's also interesting that the preforms and the Blue Ridge logo pieces are aqua color. It would be interesting if aqua colored Liberty Justice pieces appeared in the future.
A fantastic, but pricy collectors item.
Not being very familiar with US currency, I have a couple of logical questios:
is this glass coin legal currency or can it be considered a forgery?
Is the Mint officially aware of its existance , I.E. the coin being part of the number of cents officially issued??
These are part of an extensive series of WW-II experiments using US mint-supplied dies.
I have seen only amber/yellow, aqua and clear - no other colors. Some people have comments about seeing other colors of glass, but none have ever been sold, examined or offered for sale or rent not even in an 8x12 four-bit room.
Do you know why the Ex-Glynn / NGC pieces have a rough / unfinished edge while the non-Glynn / PCGS slabbed pieces have a smooth / finished edge? Did the PCGS ones start with a rough edge that was smoothed after striking?
Only completed experimental pieces have a smoothly ground edge - as on the two known examples illustrated in a post (above). The other items are incomplete tests and other pre-final pieces. The descriptions seem clear.
@RogerB said:
Only completed experimental pieces have a smoothly ground edge - as on the two known examples illustrated in a post (above). The other items are incomplete tests and other pre-final pieces. The descriptions seem clear.
I think the descriptions could be more clear since the Ex-Glynn pieces are not described as "incomplete" or "pre-final" but is described as a "Complete Trial Impression". The broken piece description says "just two were known" but does not mention this is specifically for finished pieces, not including the Glynn pieces. However, comparing the descriptions side-by-side, you can see one is called a "Complete Trial Impression" while the other is described as "The Finished Product".
That refers to trials or tests but without any finishing. None of them in the auction are finished experimental pieces except the broken one. I feel that actually enhances their desirability because now we can see what the company did to arrive at a final product. All of the work was on company time, during a war.
I agree it's nice to see the full set and more documented pieces will enhance their desirability.
It's nice to review what the country has had to endure during times of war, also being discussed in another context with the Continental Dollar in another concurrent thread.
We last saw this piece 2 years ago on this thread when it sold at ANA. This time around, it's from the Poulos Family Collection sale. I had bid on this piece in the recent Long Beach auction but not enough to win. I was curious to see where it would end up and was surprised by how much value it lost over 2 years.
It sold for $14,400 this time compared to $25,850 two years ago, which is a 44% drop in price realized. Assuming 0% SF with the 20% BF, the seller got $12,000 which would be a 54% loss over 2 years.
I still love the piece and wish I was able to pick it up but it's good to keep track of demand.
I always loved those experimental substance patterns!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
The Associated Press story on the piece ran in the Denver Post this morning, complete with picture.
Unfortunately they called it a "penny"
Wow, now I've seen and heard everything! I heard of wooden money but glass? Is it a glass or specifically a porcelain? This coin should be worth more than the 1913 V nickel. Talking about a rarity, huh?
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.Very cool. Thanks for sharing this one. Would be an interesting conversation piece!!
My Type Set & My Complete Proof Nickel Set!
Has anyone noticed? It's a "Error coin"! Look at the word, " states". It's crooked. LOL
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.It is a really cool coin, congrats Roger
Yeah, that is one of my biggest issues, the current dual definition of proof used and that most patterns being designated proofs
I believe part of the issue is the way proofs are defined today (this definition has changed over the past few years)
I believe there is a dual definition,
which defines proofs by the method of manufacture,
and the second which defines proof as the method of manufacture
Therefore patterns can be a proof simply by stating the same method of manufacture was used on the patterns
In the Red book, it states
"A proof is a specimen striking of coinage for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, or numismatic purpose."
"The term proof refers to the "method of manufacture" and not the condition of the coin."
I believe the two (proofs and patterns) are separate categories that require clear distinct definitions, what I have started with
Pattern - A coin which has not been authorized or approved for release and created to test a proposed size, alloy, or design for a coin; also referred to as an experimental coin. Patterns were primarily struck when a new coin was being considered. Between 1858 and 1885, patterns were also struck for sale to collectors.
Proof - A coin which is authorized and approved, which is struck by the Mint for presentation, souvenirs, exhibition, numismatic purposes, and to encourage coin collecting. Proof coins are defined by the method and intent of manufacture. Proof coins should exhibit superior strike quality, wired rims, flawless surfaces, and a mirrored surface. The method of manufacture refers to those steps required to produce proof coins such as: polishing of the planchets; basining and buffing of the working dies to create a mirrored surface; using greater pressure or extended time in striking the coin to create superior striking characteristics and a wired rim; and the careful handling of the struck coins to insure no damage to the surface. Intent of manufacture means confirmation of the objective and specific intention to create proof coinage through mint records or published statements from those individuals responsible for the coins. Up through around 1968, proof coins were normally struck only once in the coining press. Today, proof coins are struck two or more times in the coining press.
The above two definitions are in a draft stage, and I am working on to improve.
IMO, TPG has simplified the grading of patterns to categorize them as proofs, which IMO is not correct
There are also many patterns which do not have mirrored fields from polished planchets and basined working dies
and were not struck to optimize striking characteristics. What would you call them?
For example, the 1849 Twenty Dollar Gold, one specimen known, not mirrored. It was authorized, but not approved,
therefore a pattern, but not struck on polished planchet, so what is it then?
I have not studied this particular coin, and therefore do not know if it was just struck to test the design, or was there specific
intent to make it as a presentation piece and polished, struck with greater pressure..... If so, it cannot be a proof, if
using proof as a method of manufacture.
Kevin
I was singin' in the shower...how'd that get on the radio?
The piece is made of tempered glass. These little preforms were provided by Corning, but Blue Ridge did all the work. They had employees carry some of the glass preforms (or 'blanks') in their pockets for a few days and discovered that they chipped badly due to bumping against metal coins. Imagine slicing your finger on pocket change. Blue Ridge ground down the edge after pressing each piece and rounded them a little to avoid chipping. The preforms were slightly greater in diameter and thicker than a normal cent, with a wider rim. Nothing has been found to tell us how many were made -- with individual edge grinding, it couldn't have been very many.
PS: I hope it ends up with someone who can appreciate it as a special piece of American history, and an artifact of the efforts of many people to support the common good. To me, it's more than just a "rarity."
From UK Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4085186/Rare-experimental-WWII-penny-glass-headed-auction.html
If it's really that delicate, it may be good to get it into a non-prong, fully supportive slab. @Broadstruck mentioned that prong slabs can and have damaged pieces made of softer materials and now ATS offers a fully supportive insert that would be good for PCGS to offer as well. This is mentioned in the Composition or Lava thread.
Here's the current photo of the prong slab from HA. So even though we joke about not breaking it, it seems like there is some risk. I'm not sure why the earlier HA photos broke, but here's the slab photo:
Here's a fully supportive slab ATS has been offering for the past year for more delicate pieces, previously posted by @Broadstruck .
Amazing how quickly even a printed article can get garbled. The grammatically-challenged headline is a bit odd, too.
The glass piece is fragile but not something to worry about with careful handling. It is ↨2.36 - ↔2.41 millimeters thick and ↕19.85 - ↔19.90 millimeters diameter. Just like the plastic, it would probably break if pressed between the fingers. It was received raw, in a coin flip.
RWB, this forum has greatly missed you....so glad you are back!!!!!!!!!!!!
Very interesting.
Congratulations to Roger!!
The glass 1942 1 cent experimental piece sold for over $70,000!
i watched the auction and the price quickly rose above my "happily, let alone, surviving as married limit! "
After all, how could I explain $70,000 plus to my wife? For a piece of glass????
Oh, I am sure Roger would understand!
I have always wanted one for my set. I was satisfied one waiting patiently for the sole broken glass piece I keep looking at in the various shows but now the price for even the broken piece has gone up!
I guess I will have to look at my unbroken bakelite piece and be glad I paid under $10,000 for it.
I know Roger likes the 1942 experimental pieces raw but cracking his piece out of the slab poses a greater risk than normal??
Oreville,
Sorry you were not the buyer. I know your collection of WW-II pattern/experimental pieces, and continue to appreciate your generosity in allowing me to examine it in detail.
I bought the piece raw, then had PCGS slab it. I don't recommend "cracking it out" of the slab -- it's fragile and there's little to be gained since it's correctly attributed and described. (Most slabbed experimental pieces from WW-II are incorrectly attributed to obsolete and misleading Judd/Pollock references. These were good long ago, but have been completely superseded by the book "Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II.")
Way to go, Roger!
PCGS and Heritage get most of the credit -- they certified it and then presented it in a meaningful way.
The real point is that it is back-breaking, fundamental research into US coinage that makes discoveries of this kind possible. It took years of research before a meaningful book, "Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II," could be written about the subject.
Roger, I should have put in a "wink" in my post as I was kidding you as I am a fan of the slabbing primarily it helps preserve some of the provenance as well as protect the fragility of the piece themself (except the zinc plated steel pieces.)
Oh sorry, I was interrupted as I won yet another J-2060 1942 NGC MS-61 brown phenolic resin (so called plastic) 1 cent piece at Heritage.
Congrat's RWB! Well done
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Congrats Roger! Great research and find!
The discovery was due entirely to years of research that went into the book "Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II" published in 2013. This allowed me to identify details unique to glass, although identification had to wait until I examined the piece.
As some know, I don't have much of a coin collection - mostly a few ordinary pieces purchased for research purposes. My involvement is almost entirely research and writing. Although I could have kept the 1942 glass piece to myself, I realized that it was better to have it in the hands of someone who could integrate it with other pattern and experimental pieces. We tend to look back at the WW-II era with nostalgia and a sense of longing for the unity of purpose common during the national emergency. Yet, this little glass "penny" is symbolic of the difficulties, long hours, hard work, and confusion that underlay the heroism of Americans and their international allies.
Maybe the new owner will have the resources to include this glass piece in a meaningful display of numismatic items from the WW-II period.
PS: I do not know anything about the new owner.
PPS: Yes, part of the proceeds will pay for printing of the 1936-42 Proof coin book.The rest will support research expenses.
Regarding the history of this piece and the difficulties during the WW-II era, it's interesting that the other historical piece being discussed, the Peace dollar cast, was created at the end of WW-I, the aftermath of which led to the difficulties in WW-II.
Amazing price realized! Had no idea this was going off to the moon like this.
Really cool piece, and I greatly admire your dedication to research and writing.
I am humbled by your statement of now owning much of a coin collection, despite your zeal for the hobby. I could never get rid of the treasures found in that research.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Thanks to RWB!!
He helped me co-discover a brown "plastic " with SPARKLE!!
He suspected that it was the FIRST EXPERIMENTAL COIN made for the US Mint to combine copper metal (fragments) with a "plastic" compound base.
To me this was AMAZING. Even the auction companies or PCGS do not get it!!! They simply called the piece a "tan plastic"not understanding what it was all about.
One of the plastic manufacturers put metal dust in the resin so that the molded pieces would have a distinctive sparkle, and possibly be more acceptable as cent replacements.
Here's the TrueView for an upcoming piece offered by HA. To protect it from further harm, PCGS slabbed it inside a cointain:
And the discovery piece again for comparison:
That's incredible. Roger, glad you are back. Your posts are always a treat for those seeking knowledge.
Very cool! I would love to own this. Thabks for sharing.
The two pieces, and others in the Heritage ANA auction, are basically the same color - much like to top image.
This is interesting. In the new auctions, NGC has slabbed preforms with the Blue Ridge provenance but if no work was done on them, perhaps they should be attributed to Corning Glass Works?
It's also interesting that the preforms and the Blue Ridge logo pieces are aqua color. It would be interesting if aqua colored Liberty Justice pieces appeared in the future.
The aqua pieces all post-date the cent experiments. All known examples are aqua or clear.
The preforms came from Corning tempered, but heating them for BRGC use removed the temper.
Do you mean "The aqua pieces all post-date the cent experiments. All known [cent experiment] examples are amber or clear."?
No. The company tokens are aqua with a very few clear known in preform or other versions.
All of the experimental cent pieces, and tests are amber/yellow, as illustrated in the Heritage catalog.
This is good to clarify since the Heritage catalog also shows the aqua company and preform pieces.
So, is the following accurate:
A fantastic, but pricy collectors item.
Not being very familiar with US currency, I have a couple of logical questios:
is this glass coin legal currency or can it be considered a forgery?
Is the Mint officially aware of its existance , I.E. the coin being part of the number of cents officially issued??
This particular glass piece is an experimental pattern, not a coin. It is not legal tender. It is not a forgery.
The Mint is aware of these pieces and provided the dies to multiple companies to strike pieces in experimental materials.
As mentioned, these are experimental patterns, not legal tender coins.
Zions
Thank you for that and sorry, I missed the pattern history.
These are part of an extensive series of WW-II experiments using US mint-supplied dies.
I have seen only amber/yellow, aqua and clear - no other colors. Some people have comments about seeing other colors of glass, but none have ever been sold, examined or offered for sale or rent not even in an 8x12 four-bit room.
You can find more information on these in Roger's book:
United States Patterns & Experimental Pieces of WW-II
The standard refernce for all WW-II experimental pieces is Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II, published in 2013.
@RogerB:
Do you know why the Ex-Glynn / NGC pieces have a rough / unfinished edge while the non-Glynn / PCGS slabbed pieces have a smooth / finished edge? Did the PCGS ones start with a rough edge that was smoothed after striking?
Only completed experimental pieces have a smoothly ground edge - as on the two known examples illustrated in a post (above). The other items are incomplete tests and other pre-final pieces. The descriptions seem clear.
I think the descriptions could be more clear since the Ex-Glynn pieces are not described as "incomplete" or "pre-final" but is described as a "Complete Trial Impression". The broken piece description says "just two were known" but does not mention this is specifically for finished pieces, not including the Glynn pieces. However, comparing the descriptions side-by-side, you can see one is called a "Complete Trial Impression" while the other is described as "The Finished Product".
Thanks for the clarification.
Complete Trial Impression
https://coins.ha.com/itm/patterns/1942-1c-experimental-amber-glass-cent-rb-42-70-x-4-r7-ms62-ngc/a/1258-5382.s?ic3=ViewItem-Auction-Open-ThisAuction-120115
The Finished Product
https://coins.ha.com/itm/experimental-cents/1942-1c-experimental-amber-glass-cent-judd-2069-rb-42-70-r7-broken-pcgs-genuine-unc-details-impact-strength-test/a/1258-5371.s
That refers to trials or tests but without any finishing. None of them in the auction are finished experimental pieces except the broken one. I feel that actually enhances their desirability because now we can see what the company did to arrive at a final product. All of the work was on company time, during a war.
I agree it's nice to see the full set and more documented pieces will enhance their desirability.
It's nice to review what the country has had to endure during times of war, also being discussed in another context with the Continental Dollar in another concurrent thread.
Old Thread Update
We last saw this piece 2 years ago on this thread when it sold at ANA. This time around, it's from the Poulos Family Collection sale. I had bid on this piece in the recent Long Beach auction but not enough to win. I was curious to see where it would end up and was surprised by how much value it lost over 2 years.
It sold for $14,400 this time compared to $25,850 two years ago, which is a 44% drop in price realized. Assuming 0% SF with the 20% BF, the seller got $12,000 which would be a 54% loss over 2 years.
I still love the piece and wish I was able to pick it up but it's good to keep track of demand.
I always loved those experimental substance patterns!
Was this one Roger's coin ?
@RogerB will need to chime in.
I'm not sure if he owned one or both (unbroken and broken). HA doesn't list his pedigree for either.