British, Russian & Dutch Coins Fare Well in NYINC Auction

Analyst

Because I was focusing on FUN events, I was unable to review the HA World Platinum Night event this year and could only spend a brief period viewing items in the Goldberg-Baldwin-Markov auction. I did devote time to the Stack's-Bowers event, though I did not have time to view all the coins that I wished to see. I am not implying that coins from other societies did not fare well. Among European coins minted after the year 1000, British, Russian and Dutch pieces were especially newsworthy and/or interesting.

Did any of the members of this forum view coins that were offered in this auction?

Does anyone agree or disagree with points put forth in my review?

British, Russian & Dutch Coins Lead Stack’s-Bowers Auction in NY

Boosibri

The 1821 Mexican 4R in N65 was a coin that I was after. It realized a bit over $15,000 which was a very strong price.

MrEureka

z

pruebas

Zzzzzz.....

brg5658

I miss the days before "Analyst" thought he had to come to the Dark Side of these boards and enlighten us all with his self-promotion of his poorly written "research" pieces...

Analyst

1 BRG5658: I miss the days before ...

I started this thread, which was clearly about my auction review. There was not a need for BRG to open it, read it or post to it. The nature of this thread is apparent enough. Although I am very interested in reading honestly critical interpretations of my points in my auction reviews and other writings, I have little tolerance for careless insults.

2 BRG5658: .... Analyst" thought he had to come ...

I have been writing about world coins for many years, and am literally known throughout the world as a result. Indeed, people from all over the world are very familiar with my series of articles on the Millennia Collection, my series on the Mayer Collection, my reviews of NYINC auctions, etc.

Last month, CoinWeek had more than 280,000 unique visitors, according to the publisher and the editor. I have become one of the most well known researchers in the world about rare world coins.

3 BRG5658: ... enlighten us all with his self-promotion ....

The rules of this forum clearly allow for the sharing of articles about coins. A majority of the coins that I mention in my articles cited on this forum are PCGS certified.

I am encouraging the posting of honest and ethical remarks about this auction, my review of this auction, and the coins in this auction, from the members of this forum. This is, obviously, a legitimate and productive reason, among other such reasons, to start this thread.

4 BRG5658: ... his poorly written "research" pieces .....

The article cited is an auction review, not a research piece. If BRG5868 had bothered to read it, he may have learned something and could possibly have made an intelligent contribution to a discussion, rather than being insulting and demonstrating ignorance. Besides, is someone who showcases a set of coins that depict horses and a set of coins that are merely "colorful" somehow qualified to critically evaluate writing or research about rare coins? Is there evidence that BRG5868 is knowledgeable about writing style or about rare coins?

BRG5658 provides clickable links to his NGC registry sets in his posts to this forum. Here is the URL for one such link, which I found via BRG's post above.

https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/WCM/CoinCustomSetView.aspx?s=5705

5 I have won the NLG award for Best All-Around Portfolio on multiple occasions. I have also won or shared the award for best article about coins to be published on a web site on multiple occasions.

Other than QDB and Bob Julian, there probably is not a living person who has had published more written material about coins in the mainstream avenues of numismatic publishing than I have.

Gold Coins of the Central American Republic: Costa Rica & Guatemala

The Greatest World Coin Auction of All Time (Part 4): The structure of the Millennia collection

Rare & Historically Important English Gold Sovereigns of King Henry VII

The article cited in the following link won an award of "Extraordinary Merit" from the NLG in 2013. Admittedly, most of my award-winning numismatic work relates to U.S. coins.

Rare English Gold Sovereign of Queen Mary I

pruebas

Analyst, I think the point was that the auction was not worthy of a review.

And what bothers people about you isn't your writing, though I find it rather stilted, but your inflated sense of self-importance. I don't see QDB or Bob Julian (or anyone else you may claim to emulate) boasting about their credentials. They don't need to--their published BOOKS speak for themselves.

Analyst

Pruebas: Analyst, I think the point was that the auction was not worthy of a review

I understand this point, though I disagree. There were many excellent and otherwise important coins in this auction. The group of Dutch coins was terrific, with many rarities and condition census pieces. It is hard to understate the importance of an 1839 British Proof Set. Moreover, in terms of quality, that set was way above average for an 1839 British Proof set. There were many other very significant coins in this auction.

In any event, it is somewhat unfair to argue that a specific auction is not "worthy of a review" without putting forth reasons. I am willing to consider intelligent or at least serious arguments as to why this auction is unimportant or why some of my interpretations are not compelling. I welcome disagreements, provided that those who are disagreeing are doing so in an honest and ethical way, with the intention of contributing to an educational discussion. Does it really make sense to simplistically insult me or this auction?

Pruebas: though I find it rather stilted, but your inflated sense of self-importance.

I only broadcast points about my qualifications when my credentials, pertinent knowledge or skills, are being attacked. On this forum, I have been personally attacked on several occasions.

Usually, people are allowed greater leeway in defending themselves when they feel that they have been maliciously or very unfairly attacked than they would be allowed in other circumstances. If I was not defending myself against simplistic insults or malicious remarks, there would be no boasting on my part. I attempt to engage in discussions about auctions, specific coins, and collections.

Pruebas: . I don't see QDB or Bob Julian (or anyone else you may claim to emulate)

I never 'claimed' to "emulate" anyone. This could be a malicious remark. It is obvious that writers like to be recognized for their own individual styles and approaches. As I have written so much in my own distinctive style, a point about which Pruebas is aware to a significant extent, it is nasty for him to suggest that I am claiming to seek or to emulate others.

It is clear enough that my personality is different from that of Bob Julian or QDB. Bob does participate in the U.S. coin section of these CU-PCGS message boards. He is far more 'laid back' than I am. It is also true that I am more likely to take on controversial issues. Also, through research and by way of experience, I draw conclusions about prevailing market values of many rare coins.

The experiences and personalities of writers who do not take on controversial issues should not be used to criticize me. In my opinion, there are serious problems in the coin community that need to be addressed, as ignoring them will lead to more severe problems in the future. Although the problem of coin doctoring comes to mind, I have addressed other controversial issues, too.

Some of my critics are people involved, directly or indirectly, in coin doctoring or other activities that I regard as harmful to the coin community. Also, it is curious that some participants on these message boards tend to attack my personality rather than engage in educational or at least civil discussions about the numismatic points that I put forth. I repeat that I welcome disagreements from people who wish to have educational and ethical discussions, without insulting or otherwise defamatory remarks.

How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?

brg5658

@Analyst

I never claimed to be a researcher of numismatics. I am a collector, and I'll collect and display whatever I darn well please in my sets. Giving a link to my personal collection in no way discredits me, though it may at least support that I'm a collector and have been around this hobby for a long time (25+ years).

I don't go around the forums touting and proselytizing about myself and my writing. And, let's be honest -- what you write is NOT research. It is an opinion column. Research is peer reviewed before it is published. Congratulations on your life's work as a CoinWeek Journalist.

EVillageProwler

Can we please take it down a notch or five? Let's not turn this place into the US Coin Forum.

Honestly, there is so much negative discourse in the real world that this place is where I come to forget about life for a while. So, please, as a favor to me and probably some others, let's just try to be patient and tolerant of each other. Or, at worst, just ignore that which bothers you...

Please...

Analyst

BRG5658: I am a collector, and I'll collect and display whatever I darn well please in my sets,

I never suggested otherwise. BRG drew conclusions about my research and my qualifications, in addition to putting forth remarks that could fairly be regarded as nasty or even malicious.

BRG5658: Giving a link to my personal collection in no way discredits me, ...

I was not suggesting that such a link discredited you. I was pointing out the source of my information regarding your 'sets' was your own posts. Moreover, I was questioning whether you are qualifed to draw conclusions about my knowledge-level and my research. Is there evidence that you are qualified?

BRG5658: ... have been around this hobby for a long time (25+ years).

I have also been around "a long time," too. I contributed auction reviews and analytical articles to Numismatic News newspaper in the 1990s. They impressed Robert Wilhite, Burnett Anderson, David Harper and Cliff Mishler.

BRG5858: I don't go around the forums touting and proselytizing about myself and my writing.

As already said above, people are usually allowed greater leeway in defending themselves when they feel that they have been maliciously or very unfairly attacked than they would be allowed in other circumstances. If I was not defending myself against simplistic insults or malicious remarks, there would be no boasting on my part. I attempt to engage in discussions about auctions, specific coins, and collections.

BRG5858: And, let's be honest -- what you write is NOT research.

Is someone who assembles sets of "colorful" coins and a set of coins that depict horses qualified to define, identify and evaluate research about rare coins?

Although my auction reviews involve some research, I do not tend to think of them as research articles. I have, though, written many articles that, indisputably, are products of research. The assertion that I have not done much research is defamatory. It is obvious to readers that many of my articles over the last five years present or embody, extensive research.

Is BRG suggesting that an article must appear in a distinguished academic journal in order to contain or be a product of research? Articles about rare U.S. coins and market phenomena would not be considered by such academic journals. While there are such publications relating to British numismatics, they tend to have a small number of readers. As I pointed out above, the publisher of CoinWeek reports more than 280,000 unique visitors for CoinWeek last month. It is understandable that a writer would like to reach a large audience, rather than the relatively small number who might read an academic journal.

BRG5858: Research is peer reviewed before it is published.

This point by BRG is not an element of the definition of the word 'research.' Moreover, the publisher, editor and assistant editor of CoinWeek may be far more knowledgeable about numismatics than BRG realizes. It would be irresponsible for BRG to suggest that they are not fairly or accurately reviewing my articles before publication. Besides, it is extremely rare for anyone to challenge the facts or research presented in any of my articles. Once in a while, through rarely, someone may disagree with my grade of an individual coin or with my interpretation of a historical event. There will always be legitimate differences of opinion among experts regarding such matters.

Also, in the past, David Harper, and others at Krause publications, have reviewed many research oriented articles of mine, before publication. In other contexts, articles of mine have been reviewed as well. I pointed out above that my articles have been judged by peers and I have won many awards. Again, I am here responding to insults rather than serious criticism.

Also, why would BRG assume that peer 'review' must occur before publication in order for an article to be characterized by research? One NLG judge made a point of telling me that he was extremely impressed by my research after he read my article on the Proof 1818 U.S. quarter in the Newman Collection.

The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter

BRG5858: Congratulations on your life's work as a CoinWeek Journalist.

Is BRG seeking to ridicule me with this remark?

Although I am proud of the large volume of my material that has been published on CoinWeek, there is much more to my careers and my life. I have written for a half-dozen other numismatic publications. I have done a worthwhile amount of coin related consulting work for private clients. I had a career that is unrelated to numismatics, which I found to be interesting. I have also written much about economics.

In conclusion, I am posting about myself because I was personally and cruelly attacked in this thread. It was my intention for this thread to be focused upon coins and the recent Stack's-Bowers auction. Indeed, I never planned to write about myself in this forum.

Boosibri

brg5658

@Boosibri said:

I discovered the "Ignore" functionality of the new software. That should help...

TwoKopeiki

@EVillageProwler said:
Can we please take it down a notch or five? Let's not turn this place into the US Coin Forum.

Honestly, there is so much negative discourse in the real world that this place is where I come to forget about life for a while. So, please, as a favor to me and probably some others, let's just try to be patient and tolerant of each other. Or, at worst, just ignore that which bothers you...

Please...

I'm with EVP on this one. Let bygones be bygones. This hobby is not exactly overflowing with new collectors and the existing collectors are often easily spooked by on-line attention, so us alienating each other doesn't help anyone.

marcmoish

let it go

Nap

@Boosibri said:

I did not comprehend the magical powers of that song (and movie) until my daughter was born. Now I get it.

There were times when playing that song was the only thing that would break a crying meltdown.

Nap

Analyst,

I agree that the sale was selectively strong in certain areas.

While they are not areas I specifically collect (my interest in British is typically limited to hammered issues), there were certainly some extremely rare and noteworthy coins present, such as the Cromwell sixpence and the Victoria proof set.

You asked in your article regarding the Cromwell sixpence:
"Are the dates and circumstances of the strikings of these understood now?"

I don't think we have a conclusive answer. I believe they are generally understood to be lifetime issues. Mintage stopped abruptly when Cromwell died. They were probably meant to circulate but never "officially released" so calling them "patterns" is probable appropriate. They were not produced at the tower mint but at a private location I believe, where the engraver Simon worked. The sixpences are so rare that there is more literature on the 18th century copies (Tanner and Dutch) than on the originals. They were known to be rare by collectors even then. There is at least one known in pewter, the rest are silver, and I think all are worn, which itself is unusual. I think the estimate was silly low, and the price realized was probably cheap, but mostly because I don't think there are more than two or three in private hands. Norweb had a worn one; I don't know if this coin is the same as hers. My copy of Spink doesn't even list a price.

An interesting tidbit of info- the Dutch pieces were made not from original dies but from later dies made in Holland. The dies were later sold or given to Sir Isaac Newton who at the time was mintmaster of the Royal Mint, and the "Dutch" copies were probably made in England at the Royal Mint (so maybe that made them official-ish restrikes???). I'm no expert in these and would have to consult someone for more info. The Dutch (and other) copies differ from the original in the text of the legend (they are lacking the ampersand, purposely so as not to confuse them with the originals)

Here is an older but likely still relevant article on Cromwell coinage:
britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/1966_BNJ_35_17.pdf

brg5658

@marcmoish said:

@brg5658 said:
I miss the days before "Analyst" thought he had to come to the Dark Side of these boards and enlighten us all with his self-promotion of his poorly written "research" pieces...

Look in all honesty, I am blown away by how nasty that comment was. I mean maybe I am missing something here, perhaps some rivalry from years ago between the two of you?
There was no reason to make this statement whatsoever. At first I was unsure if you in jest or what ... but now reading the back and forth while it might have been Zzzz for some, the fact is he did take the time to write a report, and does deserve credit for that at least, even with any self promotion...like does that really bother you?
I am sure for "some" it is/was an interesting read.
Not everyone is on your caliber BRG, and while I get what you wrote you really should have kept it to yourself. These kind of attacks will only leave bad taste on others including newbies.
Points to ponder.

@marcmoish : You call it "nasty" -- I call it honest.

@Analyst rarely posts on these boards save to offer some sensationalized clickbait to his CoinWeek articles. For all I know, he's getting paid for his "research" based on the number of clicks. Nonetheless, I'm not the only one who has called him out over the years. He's just newer to the World side -- he's been doing this on the USA side for ages. At any rate, I have put him on "ignore" so I will not be disparaging his self-promotion any more.

marcmoish

I hear you Brandon, I am deleting my comment, tired of giving half a damn about anything here altogether any longer.

Analyst

BRG5658: Analyst rarely posts on these boards save to offer some sensationalized clickbait to his CoinWeek articles.

This is not true. Indeed, this is a false and misleading statement. My posts to this world coin forum total more than 10,000 words, a small percentage of which are in links to my articles. I do not remember when I first posted to this forum. I do recollect posting in 2012. BRG5858 is not presenting facts.

It would make sense to distinguish threads that I started from other threads in which I participated. When I post to a thread originated by someone else, I carefully read every post in the respective thread and I think about whether I can contribute in a productive and educational manner. In some cases, I ask questions. In other cases, I share specific information. Usually, I cite a statement by someone else in the same respective thread and explain why I agree or disagree.

If I honestly believe that one of my articles is pertinent to the topic of a thread or to a significant post in a thread, I will provide a link to that article with an explanation. Only very rarely, will I post just a link, and only if I honestly believe that it is obvious that one of my articles is very much relevant to the subject matter of a thread. For example, when someone started a thread about the coins of English Queen Mary I and her husband Philip of Spain, I pointed out that, before she married Phillip, Gold Sovereigns were produced in her name only and that these are extremely important in the history of coinage. I thought that there was then a compelling reason for a post of mine to focus on a link to the article that I wrote about a Gold Sovereign of Queen Mary I.

The article then cited, which was also cited above, won an award of "Extraordinary Merit" from the NLG in 2013. Admittedly, most of my award-winning numismatic work relates to U.S. coins. This article does, though, contain much historical and numismatic information. It is clearly a product of research. It would be defamatory for someone to assert that no significant research was involved.

Rare English Gold Sovereign of Queen Mary I

A substantial percentage of my more than 1250 posts are long. I often cite statements put forth my other participants. In the U.S. coin forum, I have frequently been involved in extensive discussions and debates with other members.

Roadrunner and I have frequently debated rarity estimates and price histories of specific coin issues. I have maintained that U.S. 1792 half disme pieces are patterns, not regular issues, and debated with members who think otherwise.

Perhaps among the most interesting of discussions in the U.S. coin forum are about the characteristics of Proofs, non-Proof Specimen Strikings and business strikes. I have encouraged such discussions and extensively participated in them. As I have written more about Proof and Specimen criteria than any living person, it makes logical sense for me to provide links to my articles in such discussions.

As I said already in this thread, one NLG judge made a point of telling me that he was extremely impressed by my research after he read my article on the Proof 1818 U.S. quarter in the Newman Collection. I did not already say that this article was part of a series for which I won the award for best series of articles about coins to be published on the Internet.

The Fabulous Eric Newman Collection, Part 4: Proof 1818 Quarter

As so many of my posts to the CU-PCGS message boards have been very long, inclusive of statements by other participants, and full of pertinent material overall, BRG's suggestion that I am just posting links or engaging in self-promotion is absurd.

I have tried hard to stimulate debates and other educational discussions in this 'World & Ancient Coins Forum.' As I said, I carefully read every post in each thread that interests me. In some cases, I engage in research before posting.

Please consider my posts in a fairly recent thread on "The Whittier Collection," some of which are long and are products of much thought.

https://forums.collectors.com/messageview.aspx?catid=6&threadid=967527

BRG5658: For all I know, he's getting paid for his "research" based on the number of clicks.

The total number of clicks does not affect my income. The small number of people active in this forum would not have a statistically significant impact on the total number of clicks, anyway. It is mentioned on the CoinWeek site that the last monthly count was more than 280,000 "unique visitors" for the whole CoinWeek site.

As I tend to write about rare and/or relatively expensive coins, I am content with the reality that other articles may receive more views from the general public. I wish to reach people who share my interests and I wish to encourage more people to become interested in coins minted before 1900, especially in rare or otherwise interesting pieces.

Also, I wish to learn from other members of the CU-PCGS message boards. This is one reason why many of my posts include questions. I welcome posts like that put forth by NAP above. It is directly related to the subject matter of this thread and is educational.

I am concerned that BRG5858 is far more interested in making negative and insulting remarks than in learning about coins. Let us talk about the PCGS certified world coins in the recent Stack's-Bowers auction, the topic of this thread.

British, Russian & Dutch Coins Lead Stack’s-Bowers Auction in NY

HandH

OMG, this is like white snow on a 1960's TV channel that isn't broadcasting. Noise. Just noise.