Whatever you want to call it. High point rub. Doesn't matter anymore.
Neither, it seems, does field rub. When the fields are rubbed to the point where the cartwheel luster is broken, the coin is no longer Mint State. Increasingly I am seeing coins with such post mint modifications finding their way into MS-63 holders, which really has no validity so long that grade represents a huge in increase in price for a one point jump. In the long run the MS-63 grade, and every grade above it is going to be watered down if this practice continues.
I'd like to make a couple points based upon what I have read here.
First, the practice of putting very choice AU-58 coins into MS-62 holders was a reflection of the market. Even before there were slabs, there were collectors who were willing to pay Mint State prices for AU-58 coins that had good or great eye appeal. I am one of them. Therefore I did not see any harm in that sort of “market grading,” and I know there are those who hate that term. Perhaps we should have invented another term for the grading such coins, but the fact remains some AU coins are worth Unc. money.
Second, collectors do matter in the coin market, and they do have influence. Collectors are the ultimate consumers. They are the people who buy coins and hold them for the love the coin. When collectors stop buying, prices will fall.
Investors have their place, but without collectors, they would be gone from the scene because in the end, they could not make money. If you all you do is buy and flip coins for a profit in rapid fire order, you need to find another investor (“a bigger fool”) or collector who will pay you a profit to keep the system going. Without collectors, investors are going to run out of “bigger fools.” Coins with markets that are made up only of investors are the coins that are going collapse in value. In the long run markets cannot survive with speculators alone.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Whatever you want to call it. High point rub. Doesn't matter anymore.
Neither, it seems, does field rub. When the fields are rubbed to the point where the cartwheel luster is broken, the coin is no longer Mint State. Increasingly I am seeing coins with such post mint modifications finding their way into MS-63 holders, which really has no validity so long that grade represents a huge in increase in price for a one point jump. In the long run the MS-63 grade, and every grade above it is going to be watered down if this practice continues.
I'd like to make a couple points based upon what I have read here.
First, the practice of putting very choice AU-58 coins into MS-62 holders was a reflection of the market. Even before there were slabs, there were collectors who were willing to pay Mint State prices for AU-58 coins that had good or great eye appeal. I am one of them. Therefore I did not see any harm in that sort of “market grading,” and I know there are those who hate that term. Perhaps we should have invented another term for the grading such coins, but the fact remains some AU coins are worth Unc. money.
Second, collectors do matter in the coin market, and they do have influence. Collectors are the ultimate consumers. They are the people who buy coins and hold them for the love the coin. When collectors stop buying, prices will fall.
Investors have their place, but without collectors, they would be gone from the scene because in the end, they could not make money. If you all you do is buy and flip coins for a profit in rapid fire order, you need to find another investor (“a bigger fool”) or collector who will pay you a profit to keep the system going. Without collectors, investors are going to run out of “bigger fools.” Coins with markets that are made up only of investors are the coins that are going collapse in value. In the long run markets cannot survive with speculators alone.
Bill, I agree that certain gorgeous AU-58 coins are worth MS-62 money just for their great eye appeal. However, that did not make the coins "Mint State," or "MS."
When I started the ANACS grading service as an addition to the existing certification service in 1979, I added "AU-58" to the official standards as a way of recognizing gorgeous coins with a bit of wear just because such coins exist. I never cared about their pricing because that was not my job, not should it be any grading service's job. They should GRADE!
Perhaps the market grading fans should have resurrected Sheldon's "Basal State" designation for such coins, and called them "BS-62's!"
TD
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.
When Pcgs first started, they were grading gem coins with the tiniest trace of rub AU58. I know this for a fact because I bought a few walking liberty halves from a group at the time and later resubmitted them.
@CaptHenway said: "When I started the ANACS grading service as an addition to the existing certification service in 1979, I added "AU-58" to the official standards as a way of recognizing gorgeous coins with a bit of wear just because such coins exist. I never cared about their pricing because that was not my job, not should it be any grading service's job. They should GRADE!"
Tom, I always wondered who started the SECOND TPGS in the US. If you get the time, can you fill in some of the "lost" details of those days of the ANA's grading service for all of us? Who else was there Ed? Number on staff?
Pretty Please with ice cream on top!
@tradedollarnut said: "When Pcgs first started, they were grading gem coins with the tiniest trace of rub AU58. I know this for a fact because I bought a few walking liberty halves from a group at the time and later resubmitted them. IMO, that’s just as wrong."
At the time, PCGS was supporting the decades old PUBLISHED standards. That standard was also being followed for the internal records of ANACS (while in DC only) and the FIRST TPGS at the INS Authentication Bureau also in DC.
BTW, you have swerved into the EXACT DEFINITION of an AU-58 at that time: "A gem coin with the tiniest trace of rub."
After locking up the market, PCGS started relaxing the standards. You were not the only one resubmitting STRICTLY GRADED coins.
PS The strict "Technical Grading System" came into being TO HELP IDENTIFY a coin. It had nothing to do with the coin's value! It needed to be as simple and precise as possible. IMO, that goal was reached at DC by the former staff of ANACS (the inventors of the Technical System) who stayed in DC to establish INSAB in competition with ANA.
PPS I forgot I don't need to hide my identity around here any more. LOL I am the person who thought up and developed the Technical Grading system to ID coins for the internal ANACS records and used to teach folks how to grade at the ANA Summer Seminars in the early 1970's.
When ANACS moved to Colorado, what they "called" technical grading was NOT because no one there learned the system. While not true technical grading, the ANACS team in CO used a strict grading system based on the newly published ANA Grading Guide. Tom will probably back me up on this.
Think about it. It would be stupid and USELESS to grade a coin AU one day, MS the next, AU a few days later, then MS the next year.
Let’s not forget that the original 70 point scale was all about value. The coin’s value was determined by the grade. So....if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?
@tradedollarnut said:
Let’s not forget that the original 70 point scale was all about value. The coin’s value was determined by the grade. So....if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?
As in "AU-62" for coins with a bit of wear so that "Mint State" is not appropriate, but with great eye appeal?
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.
@tradedollarnut said:
Let’s not forget that the original 70 point scale was all about value. The coin’s value was determined by the grade. So....if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?
As in "AU-62" for coins with a bit of wear so that "Mint State" is not appropriate, but with great eye appeal?
@tradedollarnut said: "Let’s not forget that the original 70 point scale was all about value. The coin’s value was determined by the grade. So....if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?"
This is true. The Sheldon scale was an attempt to place a value on a coin based on it's condition compared to coins that were more common or more rare. Since values and population #'s change over time, it may have become obsolete within a decade or two.
Now, just because the Sheldon Scale was based on value does not make it a good idea. On a plane to NYC to teach my first grading seminar, I realized that I had never heard or read an actual "universal" definition of "grading!" You cannot teach something without defining it. I came up with this definition:
Grading is a subjective observation made to assess the condition of preservation and relative ranking among similar objects.
Note that the "Technical Grading System" being used at the first TPGS and taught to beginning students did not mention coins or value. That grading system was simple and precise. Hoskins called it an "archival" system as the grade assigned would never change as long as the condition of the coin did not change each time we saw it. Coins were graded using low power stereo microscopes. Also note that the rarity, ownership, value, and condition of the economy had absolutely no effect on a coin's technical grade. The grade was precise. A good quality to have in a system run by humans.
As to this nonsense: "...if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?"
Who can argue with that concept. Ask 99.999% of the folks on CU why we need to grade coins and they
will reply: So we can value them. In fact, that's exactly what commercial grading does! That's why many rare coins that were once considered Extremely Fine (1950's to 1970's) are now auctioned and graded as Mint State something!!! The grades were changed (raised) over the years to reflect their increase in value. LOL!
I'll add this. Grading is a personal thing. Once educated, we each set our own standards. Additionally, we must learn what the "books" say and how grading is practiced by professionals in the "real world."
I work at a TPGS. My grading standards are far different from those I have used at each of the TPGS I worked for except at the beginning of my career at ANACS in DC.
The grading argument is a black and white thing. Just as the death penalty, abortion, etc. The two sides technical/commercial will not ever be resolved until the strict grading by the old dinosaurs (who will have died off) is completely replaced by that of the YN's learning to ignore friction wear or net grade.
@tradedollarnut said:
Let’s not forget that the original 70 point scale was all about value. The coin’s value was determined by the grade. So....if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?
As in "AU-62" for coins with a bit of wear so that "Mint State" is not appropriate, but with great eye appeal?
Yes, I have advocated such for years
I could agree to "AU-xx" numbers above 59, so long as the letters themselves are not "MS." That has been my major issue with calling pretty sliders MS-61 or MS-62.
I could even see MS numbers below 60, to account for mint-made damage or outrageous contact marks or maybe unpleasant planchet issues.
Unfortunately, the ANA panel that put together the Official ANA Grading Standards book did not address this issue.
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.
Thanks all for one of the best threads on the forum.
Well it seems Pandora's box was opened when it became acceptable to change an absolute, objective criterion for coin grading (wear) and turn it into a subjective matter. When you look at the OP coin, its understandable why the box was opened.
I have long advocated for both such items. 60 is arbitrary- there are technically unc coins worth 55 money and there are technically circulated coins worth gem money
@tradedollarnut said:
I have long advocated for both such items. 60 is arbitrary- there are technically unc coins worth 55 money and there are technically circulated coins worth gem money
That is a perfect reason to let professional graders (who will no longer need to be ex-coin dealers that know which coins are rare in certain grades or specialists in each particular coin series) assign a strict grade to a coin so that the professional dealers in the present market can decide what it is worth TO THEM at this particular moment in time.
Then any particular coin will always grade XXX 95% of the time and only its value will go up and down over the years! Oops! Not a good business model.
@tradedollarnut said:
Let’s not forget that the original 70 point scale was all about value. The coin’s value was determined by the grade. So....if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?
As in "AU-62" for coins with a bit of wear so that "Mint State" is not appropriate, but with great eye appeal?
Does this vary by the coin? It seems for Double Eagles that MS61 and MS62 are reserved for coins without great eye appeal. For other coins an AU58 is deemed more desirable than a low graded MS. It seems that MS61 or MS62 is only a mark of desirability for top pop purposes when there are no MS63 or better in existence?
If this observation is correct, then the Registry Set phenom may need to share some of the blame or honor (depending on one's bias) for AU coins migrating into MS holders.
So far as the Type II double eagles (1866 to 1876) are concerned, MS-63 is the highest available grade for most all of the common dates, let alone the rarer ones. The reasons are few people could afford to collect those coins when they were issued, and there have been no shipwreck recoveries, which are the sources for most high grade early double eagles. And, yes, some of the better looking Type II double eagles are AU-58s, and some of them might now be in higher grade holders.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I had a group of better date $20 gold coins I dipped 20 or so years ago and they went from Unc. grades to AU58 by and large. Some had that dark shadowy high point "Euro" look that the grading services were calling acceptable Unc. though when dipped they went into the AU category. So what's the objective difference if an infinitesimal layer of "stuff" makes the difference? Maybe you have to go to the original intent of grading lines. Did the coin circulate or did it spend its life in bank bags?
@logger7 said:
I had a group of better date $20 gold coins I dipped 20 or so years ago and they went from Unc. grades to AU58 by and large. Some had that dark shadowy high point "Euro" look that the grading services were calling acceptable Unc. though when dipped they went into the AU category. So what's the objective difference if an infinitesimal layer of "stuff" makes the difference? Maybe you have to go to the original intent of grading lines. Did the coin circulate or did it spend its life in bank bags?
DON'T DIP GOLD. What you did was remove the desirable "skin" that many develop.
I think the HA coins (40/41) are both very beautiful. I am not a bidder but certainly would be if I had an unlimited budget.
I believe part of the story here is that collectors are beginning to more fully appreciate the rare early Philadelphia gold coins. According to PCGS coinfacts there are only about 187 of the 1840 Philadelphia eagles left in the world in ANY condition, not to mention these superb pieces in question. So if someone owned every 1840 eagle in existence they would only make a grid of 20 coins by 10 coins or so on your kitchen table (ALL conditions). And this sort of scarcity is relative to many of the other 1840's Philadelphia gold pieces.
I am so mad about what I did not buy in the sale, I went back and bought the 1850 MS63 after the sale of the $10 Libs
While most of you think the 1840 sold crazy, I assure you-it did not. If the coins makes MS62 PCGS CAC, I hope I get offer it-I will pay the owner a nice profit. The coin fell through the cracks and was under graded period. it happens.
A great thread to follow. This is the most confusing area of grading and valuation for me. I say this as a novice who has been collecting for about 10 years. AU55 to MS62 coins are just plain difficult to determine sometimes.
This thread is similar to the one I started on an 1825 quarter eagle graded AU55 and for sale on GC. A beautiful coin that folks Thought would grade 61 maybe 62. It now resides in a 58 holder and is for sale at Legend on their website. The one big difference with the 1825 $2.5 and the 1840 $10 is the price jump in the higher grade. This makes it even more dramatic. It will be interesting to see where it ends up.
The Admiral Collection had a lot of really beautiful eagles that just don't come around every day...if you hold them for a while like The Admiral did you'll make good money no matter what you paid...prices were strong but commensurate with the quality...I missed out on a couple but I am pleased with the one I got: the 66-S which I hope will cross at grade...I find in life that sometimes you get lucky but you typically get what you pay for...
@specialist said:
I would bet the new owner of the 1840 will make some good money on it.
IMHO if the buyer is able to upgrade the coin to its rightful grade of 61 and sells it within 6 months they will probably get their $33K back plus cover their expenses.
If the buyer can somehow get it upgraded to 62 or holds it through 3 cycles like The Admiral they might get a better return.
If the buyer is a collector hopefully he/she is enjoying it as a great coin and not worried about its investment return.
UPDATE: Just an update on the famous (sort of) 1840 eagle from Long Beach last year. I thought it would be interesting to see if the buyer upgraded it or attempted to do so.
Instead, I see that Mr. Hansen owns this coin and it is listed in his registry still as an AU55.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Just read this thread. The only comment I have is that people have been saying these gold coins from philly have small pops but in my opinion they will never be appreciated like some other series. I have been hearing that for a long time now. Low total pop does not equal high demand unless you have series collectors. And gold rarely does for philly. My opinion.
@breakdown said:
UPDATE: Just an update on the famous (sort of) 1840 eagle from Long Beach last year. I thought it would be interesting to see if the buyer upgraded it or attempted to do so.
Instead, I see that Mr. Hansen owns this coin and it is listed in his registry still as an AU55.
With the popularity of this coin no matter what it is graded it will eventually sell for more than the hammer price. No need to change slabs.
W.C.Fields "I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Comments
Neither, it seems, does field rub. When the fields are rubbed to the point where the cartwheel luster is broken, the coin is no longer Mint State. Increasingly I am seeing coins with such post mint modifications finding their way into MS-63 holders, which really has no validity so long that grade represents a huge in increase in price for a one point jump. In the long run the MS-63 grade, and every grade above it is going to be watered down if this practice continues.
I'd like to make a couple points based upon what I have read here.
First, the practice of putting very choice AU-58 coins into MS-62 holders was a reflection of the market. Even before there were slabs, there were collectors who were willing to pay Mint State prices for AU-58 coins that had good or great eye appeal. I am one of them. Therefore I did not see any harm in that sort of “market grading,” and I know there are those who hate that term. Perhaps we should have invented another term for the grading such coins, but the fact remains some AU coins are worth Unc. money.
Second, collectors do matter in the coin market, and they do have influence. Collectors are the ultimate consumers. They are the people who buy coins and hold them for the love the coin. When collectors stop buying, prices will fall.
Investors have their place, but without collectors, they would be gone from the scene because in the end, they could not make money. If you all you do is buy and flip coins for a profit in rapid fire order, you need to find another investor (“a bigger fool”) or collector who will pay you a profit to keep the system going. Without collectors, investors are going to run out of “bigger fools.” Coins with markets that are made up only of investors are the coins that are going collapse in value. In the long run markets cannot survive with speculators alone.
Bill, I agree that certain gorgeous AU-58 coins are worth MS-62 money just for their great eye appeal. However, that did not make the coins "Mint State," or "MS."
When I started the ANACS grading service as an addition to the existing certification service in 1979, I added "AU-58" to the official standards as a way of recognizing gorgeous coins with a bit of wear just because such coins exist. I never cared about their pricing because that was not my job, not should it be any grading service's job. They should GRADE!
Perhaps the market grading fans should have resurrected Sheldon's "Basal State" designation for such coins, and called them "BS-62's!"
TD
When Pcgs first started, they were grading gem coins with the tiniest trace of rub AU58. I know this for a fact because I bought a few walking liberty halves from a group at the time and later resubmitted them.
IMO, that’s just as wrong.
@CaptHenway said: "When I started the ANACS grading service as an addition to the existing certification service in 1979, I added "AU-58" to the official standards as a way of recognizing gorgeous coins with a bit of wear just because such coins exist. I never cared about their pricing because that was not my job, not should it be any grading service's job. They should GRADE!"
Tom, I always wondered who started the SECOND TPGS in the US. If you get the time, can you fill in some of the "lost" details of those days of the ANA's grading service for all of us? Who else was there Ed? Number on staff?
Pretty Please with ice cream on top!
@tradedollarnut said: "When Pcgs first started, they were grading gem coins with the tiniest trace of rub AU58. I know this for a fact because I bought a few walking liberty halves from a group at the time and later resubmitted them. IMO, that’s just as wrong."
At the time, PCGS was supporting the decades old PUBLISHED standards. That standard was also being followed for the internal records of ANACS (while in DC only) and the FIRST TPGS at the INS Authentication Bureau also in DC.
BTW, you have swerved into the EXACT DEFINITION of an AU-58 at that time: "A gem coin with the tiniest trace of rub."
After locking up the market, PCGS started relaxing the standards. You were not the only one resubmitting STRICTLY GRADED coins.
PS The strict "Technical Grading System" came into being TO HELP IDENTIFY a coin. It had nothing to do with the coin's value! It needed to be as simple and precise as possible. IMO, that goal was reached at DC by the former staff of ANACS (the inventors of the Technical System) who stayed in DC to establish INSAB in competition with ANA.
PPS I forgot I don't need to hide my identity
around here any more. LOL I am the person who thought up and developed the Technical Grading system to ID coins for the internal ANACS records and used to teach folks how to grade at the ANA Summer Seminars in the early 1970's.
When ANACS moved to Colorado, what they "called" technical grading was NOT because no one there learned the system. While not true technical grading, the ANACS team in CO used a strict grading system based on the newly published ANA Grading Guide. Tom will probably back me up on this.
Think about it. It would be stupid and USELESS to grade a coin AU one day, MS the next, AU a few days later, then MS the next year.
Let’s not forget that the original 70 point scale was all about value. The coin’s value was determined by the grade. So....if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?
As in "AU-62" for coins with a bit of wear so that "Mint State" is not appropriate, but with great eye appeal?
Yes, I have advocated such for years
@tradedollarnut said: "Let’s not forget that the original 70 point scale was all about value. The coin’s value was determined by the grade. So....if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?"
This is true. The Sheldon scale was an attempt to place a value on a coin based on it's condition compared to coins that were more common or more rare. Since values and population #'s change over time, it may have become obsolete within a decade or two.
Now, just because the Sheldon Scale was based on value does not make it a good idea. On a plane to NYC to teach my first grading seminar, I realized that I had never heard or read an actual "universal" definition of "grading!" You cannot teach something without defining it. I came up with this definition:
Grading is a subjective observation made to assess the condition of preservation and relative ranking among similar objects.
Note that the "Technical Grading System" being used at the first TPGS and taught to beginning students did not mention coins or value. That grading system was simple and precise. Hoskins called it an "archival" system as the grade assigned would never change as long as the condition of the coin did not change each time we saw it. Coins were graded using low power stereo microscopes. Also note that the rarity, ownership, value, and condition of the economy had absolutely no effect on a coin's technical grade. The grade was precise. A good quality to have in a system run by humans.
As to this nonsense: "...if the market values a coin a certain way then why shouldn’t it be graded appropriately?"
Who can argue with that concept. Ask 99.999% of the folks on CU why we need to grade coins and they
will reply: So we can value them. In fact, that's exactly what commercial grading does! That's why many rare coins that were once considered Extremely Fine (1950's to 1970's) are now auctioned and graded as Mint State something!!! The grades were changed (raised) over the years to reflect their increase in value. LOL!
I'll add this. Grading is a personal thing. Once educated, we each set our own standards. Additionally, we must learn what the "books" say and how grading is practiced by professionals in the "real world."
I work at a TPGS. My grading standards are far different from those I have used at each of the TPGS I worked for except at the beginning of my career at ANACS in DC.
The grading argument is a black and white thing. Just as the death penalty, abortion, etc. The two sides technical/commercial will not ever be resolved until the strict grading by the old dinosaurs (who will have died off) is completely replaced by that of the YN's learning to ignore friction wear or net grade.
I could agree to "AU-xx" numbers above 59, so long as the letters themselves are not "MS." That has been my major issue with calling pretty sliders MS-61 or MS-62.
I could even see MS numbers below 60, to account for mint-made damage or outrageous contact marks or maybe unpleasant planchet issues.
Unfortunately, the ANA panel that put together the Official ANA Grading Standards book did not address this issue.
Thanks all for one of the best threads on the forum.
Well it seems Pandora's box was opened when it became acceptable to change an absolute, objective criterion for coin grading (wear) and turn it into a subjective matter. When you look at the OP coin, its understandable why the box was opened.
I have long advocated for both such items. 60 is arbitrary- there are technically unc coins worth 55 money and there are technically circulated coins worth gem money
That is a perfect reason to let professional graders (who will no longer need to be ex-coin dealers that know which coins are rare in certain grades or specialists in each particular coin series) assign a strict grade to a coin so that the professional dealers in the present market can decide what it is worth TO THEM at this particular moment in time.
Then any particular coin will always grade XXX 95% of the time and only its value will go up and down over the years! Oops! Not a good business model.
In some ways auctions allow the marketplace to grade a coin. The market place is grading this coin far greater than AU 55.
Yes, but imagine the disappointment when the re-grade comes back AU55+ !!
Or even worse AU58 in a new holder and green sticker. I would say this is a case of CAC hurting a Coin’s value but it doesn’t appear that way.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Does this vary by the coin? It seems for Double Eagles that MS61 and MS62 are reserved for coins without great eye appeal. For other coins an AU58 is deemed more desirable than a low graded MS. It seems that MS61 or MS62 is only a mark of desirability for top pop purposes when there are no MS63 or better in existence?
If this observation is correct, then the Registry Set phenom may need to share some of the blame or honor (depending on one's bias) for AU coins migrating into MS holders.
So far as the Type II double eagles (1866 to 1876) are concerned, MS-63 is the highest available grade for most all of the common dates, let alone the rarer ones. The reasons are few people could afford to collect those coins when they were issued, and there have been no shipwreck recoveries, which are the sources for most high grade early double eagles. And, yes, some of the better looking Type II double eagles are AU-58s, and some of them might now be in higher grade holders.
I had a group of better date $20 gold coins I dipped 20 or so years ago and they went from Unc. grades to AU58 by and large. Some had that dark shadowy high point "Euro" look that the grading services were calling acceptable Unc. though when dipped they went into the AU category. So what's the objective difference if an infinitesimal layer of "stuff" makes the difference? Maybe you have to go to the original intent of grading lines. Did the coin circulate or did it spend its life in bank bags?
DON'T DIP GOLD. What you did was remove the desirable "skin" that many develop.
I think the HA coins (40/41) are both very beautiful. I am not a bidder but certainly would be if I had an unlimited budget.
I believe part of the story here is that collectors are beginning to more fully appreciate the rare early Philadelphia gold coins. According to PCGS coinfacts there are only about 187 of the 1840 Philadelphia eagles left in the world in ANY condition, not to mention these superb pieces in question. So if someone owned every 1840 eagle in existence they would only make a grid of 20 coins by 10 coins or so on your kitchen table (ALL conditions). And this sort of scarcity is relative to many of the other 1840's Philadelphia gold pieces.
history buff is so right
plus it is a darn nice coin
What did it sell for?
Lot #5803 is for sale tonight...still time to get your bid in...
$33,600.00 with the juice.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I am so mad about what I did not buy in the sale, I went back and bought the 1850 MS63 after the sale of the $10 Libs
While most of you think the 1840 sold crazy, I assure you-it did not. If the coins makes MS62 PCGS CAC, I hope I get offer it-I will pay the owner a nice profit. The coin fell through the cracks and was under graded period. it happens.
A great thread to follow. This is the most confusing area of grading and valuation for me. I say this as a novice who has been collecting for about 10 years. AU55 to MS62 coins are just plain difficult to determine sometimes.
This thread is similar to the one I started on an 1825 quarter eagle graded AU55 and for sale on GC. A beautiful coin that folks Thought would grade 61 maybe 62. It now resides in a 58 holder and is for sale at Legend on their website. The one big difference with the 1825 $2.5 and the 1840 $10 is the price jump in the higher grade. This makes it even more dramatic. It will be interesting to see where it ends up.
The Admiral Collection had a lot of really beautiful eagles that just don't come around every day...if you hold them for a while like The Admiral did you'll make good money no matter what you paid...prices were strong but commensurate with the quality...I missed out on a couple but I am pleased with the one I got: the 66-S which I hope will cross at grade...I find in life that sometimes you get lucky but you typically get what you pay for...
I can't wait to read Laura's Market Report!!!
I would bet the new owner of the 1840 will make some good money on it.
IMHO if the buyer is able to upgrade the coin to its rightful grade of 61 and sells it within 6 months they will probably get their $33K back plus cover their expenses.
If the buyer can somehow get it upgraded to 62 or holds it through 3 cycles like The Admiral they might get a better return.
If the buyer is a collector hopefully he/she is enjoying it as a great coin and not worried about its investment return.
UPDATE: Just an update on the famous (sort of) 1840 eagle from Long Beach last year. I thought it would be interesting to see if the buyer upgraded it or attempted to do so.
Instead, I see that Mr. Hansen owns this coin and it is listed in his registry still as an AU55.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Just read this thread. The only comment I have is that people have been saying these gold coins from philly have small pops but in my opinion they will never be appreciated like some other series. I have been hearing that for a long time now. Low total pop does not equal high demand unless you have series collectors. And gold rarely does for philly. My opinion.
With the popularity of this coin no matter what it is graded it will eventually sell for more than the hammer price. No need to change slabs.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.