Actually, @specialist 's post confirms what I have long argued. There is a logical point at which most people will question the PCGS-CAC premium; thus, as CAC drives down the non-CAC market, it is inevitably reducing demand for its own product at higher levels as the market will only support but so much of a premium. Alternatively, it at least reduces the number of willing buyers at higher premiums adversely affecting liquidity even if there are enough bidders to push the prices realized up.
I have no problems with a true premium quality coin fetching a 50%+++ premium as long as the increase in quality is commensurate with an increase in the coin's quality as opposed to merely having a sticker. When people artificially decrease the supply based on plastic and stickers alone, they create artificial plastic rarity which skews the prices realized. In many cases it would make more sense to find a wholesome low end coin for the grade up and try to downgrade it so it stickers. To be sure there is no guarantee and you must know what you're doing. Specialist notes that most people do not. I think she is right about that which is what I find so terrifying about the rare coin market. Too few people know what they are doing so they blindly rely on others (PCGS/CAC). Any time people throw large sums of money into a field blindly without understanding it, I become concerned about that market. It is not healthy and creates the potential for market volatility with huge price swings.
Two interesting examples there. After comparing CAC to non-CAC, in one scenario the collector went CAC but in another the collector liked the non-CAC. We’ve been saying all along here that the coin needs to stand on it’s own, even when it is CAC. It would be useful to see the coins.
@specialist said:
Delloy woke up to quality a little late and really is sort of shut out on certain areas. He is still doing fine with what he can buy
Perhaps, but timing and time in the market are part of the game and I think Dell Loy is doing pretty awesomely. Imagine if he started a decade or two earlier?
Of course, others can also be doing well. Imagine if only one collector could build a great and fun collection. It also seems like you are working with some new collectors. Imagine what they missed out on before they started collecting. Do you tell them they are doing fine with what they can buy?
While you may not be intending this, the continued posting on this angle does come across as sour grapes and envy. You’ve made your point. Enjoy the coins.
Two interesting examples there. After comparing CAC to non-CAC, in one scenario the collector went CAC but in another the collector liked the non-CAC. We’ve been saying all along here that the coin needs to stand on it’s own, even when it is CAC. It would be useful to see the coins.
I interpreted the Legend article as the client not preferring the non-CAC coin but being befuddled why the CAC coin is costing them so much more.
Two interesting examples there. After comparing CAC to non-CAC, in one scenario the collector went CAC but in another the collector liked the non-CAC. We’ve been saying all along here that the coin needs to stand on it’s own, even when it is CAC. It would be useful to see the coins.
I interpreted the Legend article as the client not preferring the non-CAC coin but being befuddled why the CAC coin is costing them so much more.
I didn’t say the collector preferred the non-CAC but that he “liked” the coin which I interpreted from the article’s “looked okay.” It was liked enough to cause wonder at the 50% premium and ask for a refund on the CAC coin.
I’d also be more careful with premiums on top pops with the change in CoinFacts. I hope Legend is explaining the situation to their customers.
The other 54S probably is for sale. He'll end up w/that. I'd kill to watch the negotiations.
I would beg to differ on both statements here...
John Brush President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com email: John@davidlawrence.com 2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
No-he never raised his hand. I should know, I bought it.
Hansen wasn't even in the room. Although I heard that he had the high bid the day before he coin crossed the block. Don't quote me on that though.
He wasn't even in the city until the next day...but I was there for him.
We've mentioned this several times before, but we weren't interested in pursuing the 1913 Nickel to that level. If it fell to us too cheaply, we'd have been ok with that, but it's not part of the Circulation Strike set, so it was never a "must have" for the collection.
John Brush President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com email: John@davidlawrence.com 2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
I too don't understand why he gave up the 1854-S $5
Simply put, we didn't like the coin at all.
We loved the value, but not the coin. When we received an offer immediately afterwards, it was easy to sell it. When you don't like something and you buy it based on the value, there's no need to keep it...Heck, we bought a lot more coins because of the quick flip later in the day
John Brush President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com email: John@davidlawrence.com 2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
I think this is the first feature for the Three Dollar Gold Collection. When I started the thread, I was uncertain of the popularity and how long I would provide updates and features. At the time, I did not consider keeping an index. After almost a year, and a mostly faulty memory, it is sometimes hard to remember if I have provided information before. So, to best of my knowledge, other than the Gazes Challenge, this will be our first discussion on the Three Dollar Collection.
One reason this series in this great collection has not been discussed is due to the lack of activity since I started the Hansen watch. There may have been one or two upgrades during this time. Hansen purchased the Bob Simpson Three Dollar Collection in fall of 2016. The Simpson set is not registered, so it is not known exactly how many of his coins are in the Hansen’s Top Set. I would place the estimate at about 30.
The All-Time top registry set is from the Brent Pogue Collection. Hansen has some of his coins, but not all them. The Pogue Collection had (16) PCGS POP 1/0 and (8) tied for the PCGS finest. In comparison, Hansen Collection has (15) PCGS POP 1/0 and (12) tied for the PCGS finest. Hansen is just a couple coins away from taking the top spot. Eliasberg set is #5 on the All-Time Finest list. Diana’s Set of $3 Gold is only 90% completed, but that 2nd tier Hansen set is more than eight GPA Weighted points ahead of Eliasberg. I am going to make this statement for the first time, and it is just my observation. In some series, Eliasberg’s set is so inferior, that Hansen’s second set will be better.
This is what PCGS say about the series: The $3 gold piece was first issued in 1854, and the series lasted until 1889. While several dates were hoarded to a limited extent, most $3 gold issues are rare in any mint state grade, let alone in MS65 or better. It is a series filled with tiny mintages. In 1883, for instance, only 900 business strikes were made. The mintage for 1881 is 500. In 1885 there were 801 pieces struck. For 1873 the mintage is believed to be 100 coins. Key dates? There are lots of them, including 1854-D, the only Dahlonega Mint $3 gold piece. PCGS has graded only four examples mint state. Then there’s the 1854-O, the only New Orleans $3 gold piece. PCGS has graded hundreds of specimens, but only two in mint state. For the 1855-S, PCGS has graded two coins mint state. In these three cases, the highest grade is only MS-62!
Pair of MS68s!
1854 Three Dollar MS68 / Awe-Inspiring MS68 PCGS Quality
According the PCGS Population Report, there are three coins graded MS68 and only one finer, a MS68+ specimen. Hansen has two MS68s. He has the 1854 and 1867. Ron Guth writes this about the 1854: I'm shocked -- shocked I say -- that David Akers called this an "unecessary" denomination. How else were people expected to purchase a hundred Three Cent stamps in 1854? Yes, it was an unusual denomination, but collectors today are certainly glad they were made. Akers was correct that this is the second most common date of the series. The 1878 $3 is the big winner and the 1874 is a distant third, with all other dates way back in the pack. Hundreds of Mint State 1854 $3's exist, mostly in MS62 followed by MS63, then MS64. Gems make up only a small percentage of the Mint State population and anything above MS65 is extremely rare. The best example is a PCGS MS68 that sold in a 2004 Heritage sale for $112,125. I cannot find the recent pedigree on this coin. It may be from the Bob Simpson Collection, but if so, it is not contributed to him. It has not appeared in public auction since 2004. Is it possible the coin was picked up in a private transaction from someone, else? PCGS Price Guide places preset day value at $150,000.
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, his registry set describes his specimen as 1854 assumed grade Choice Proof. Therefore, I do not believe he had a Mist State coin. Ex: .Jenks; Chapman (1921); Clapp Collection (1942). Sold by Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 price realized $39,600. Lot #272. .
1854 Three Dollar, PCGS MS68 (OGH) PCGS Coin #7969 / PCGS Serial #09346961 / POP 1/0
1867 Three Dollar MS68 / Akers – Simpson
From a mintage perspective, David Akers describes this coin very differently. The 1867 has the second lowest number of total appearances in our auction survey of any Philadelphia Mint three dollar gold piece in the 1860's. Overall, it is 13th in the entire series according to rarity by number of appearances in our 238 catalogue auction survey and tied for 16th with three other dates according to rarity by average grade. Although the 1867 is rare in full mint state, I have seen perhaps a half a dozen very choice specimens that graded MS-65 or better. All were fully proof-like and looked deceptively like proofs. However, proofs can be distinguished from proof-like first strike uncs by the position of the date. Business strikes have the date very low in the field, with the left upright serif of the 7 directly below the left foot of the A in DOLLARS. On proofs, the date is slightly higher in the field and more to the right, with the upright serif of the 7 centered below the middle of the A.
This specimen is traced to the Simpson Set that Hansen purchased. It can also be traced to the David & Sharron Akers Collection. The coin has never appeared at auction in a PCGS MS68 holder, but has couple times as a MS67. It was last sold as a MS67 in the 2014 Heritage FUN US Coin Signature Auction in Orlando. The auction description as follows: This Superb Gem survivor, certified by PCGS, is one of only two such at that service, and none are finer (11/13). On the obverse slight doubling appears (known as Longacre doubling, caused by sinking the punch too deeply into the die) on TED, seen on all circulation strikes. The reverse shows the date 1867 deeply incised into the die, giving it a sculptural relief on the coin. Die striations are more prominent on the reverse, running diagonally, but they must not be confused with hairlines. The striations are raised slightly from the surface, indicative of their status as part of the die preparation. The color ranges from medium yellow-gold to reddish-gold, with a significant amount of lilac interspersed. The strike is overall quite sharp save for minor weakness on the tips of the feather plumes. Contact marks are nearly unseen, save for a small scattering of picayune tiny marks in the lower-left obverse field, just before the profile of Liberty. This is a coin of remarkable quality and desirability, as one might expect given its provenance. The specimen realized $141,000. PCGS Price Guide places preset day value at $175,000.
Provenance: Akers – Simpson. Superior 5/1990:5517, $100,000 - David & Sharron Akers Collection - Heritage 1/2014:5389, $141,000.
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, his registry set describes his specimen as 1867 assumed grade Choice Proof. Therefore, I do not believe he had a Mist State coin. Ex: . Ex. Smith Collection; Chapman (1906); Clapp Collection (1942). Sold by Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 price realized $12,100. Lot #292.
1867 Three Dollar, PCGS MS68 PCGS Coin #7988 / PCGS Serial #29582989 / POP 1/0
This series commemorates our third US President, Thomas Jefferson. As we have seen with some other modern series, Hansen does not pull punches just because a series is considered modern. I think this demonstrates that “The Collection” as having something for everybody. In a collection with coins valued at hundreds thousands of dollars as well as a few in the millions of dollars, a series as Jefferson Nickels could be very low on Hansen’s priority list. That does not seem to be the case. This update highlights a MS68FS POP 5/0 Jefferson that replaces a MS67+ POP 99/5. The MS67+ works well in the collection, but as you can see, when Hansen has an opportunity to replace with better, he does.
Hansen has the All-Time Finest in all eras for Jefferson Nickels FS Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1938-present). This set is described by PCGS as: Spanning nearly 80 years, the Basic Set of Jeffersons includes all dates and mints from 1938 to date. While no major rarities are in this set, the mintmarked issues of 1939 are the keys to this set. The full-step requirement ups the financial ante somewhat, with the D and S issues of the late 1930s crossing into four figures in top grade. This remains a very popular and completable set however, and will be a worthy accomplishment when complete. The set can be thought of as being in two parts. The first being 1938-1964, where Hansen is solidly in the #1 spot. The other being 1965-Present, where Hansen is in second behind the ErasmusHall Collection. As I previously stated, the complete set 1938-present, Hansen is finest of all times.
His set has 9 PCGS POP 1/0 specimens. They are almost equal split with four being in the set prior to 1965, and five after. As we know from previously comments by JB, they are not chasing top pop post-1964 coins. In my observation, they do take advantage when opportunity presents. This latest opportunity is not a POP 1/0, but WOW it sure is an extremely appealing POP 5/0. If you are a Jefferson guy, let us know how you think the coin look. If I recall, some Jefferson specialists dinged Hansen on some of his coin strikes. With my limited knowledge, the strike does look good to me, and the color is amazing, even to a guy like me that don’t particular have an appreciation for tone coins.
1943-D Jefferson Nickel, MS68FS
Ron Guth: The 1943-D Jefferson Nickel is the most common of all the War-time "Silver" issues. Thus, collectors have thousands of high-grade Mint State examples from which to choose, including hundreds in MS-67. The quality of the 1943-D Nickels is excellent. In fact, this is one of the rare instances where the Full Step population exceeds that of the non-Full Steps. The finest examples certified by PCGS (as of February 2012) include 137 MS-67 non-Full Steps and 2 MS-68 Full Steps. Does it not make you wonder why Hansen would be even waste his valuable time with this common coin. It is my observation that every coin is important in the 3676 piece Master Set. That level of detail is amazing. Do you think some of the other high-end collectors that are frequently mention in this thread would even be bothered with replacing a $350 67+ specimen with a $6250 specimen? In addition, do you think the people counselling them would waste their time on this? Don’t know? Interesting question.
Provenance: unknown.
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, his registry set describes his specimen as estimated grade MS65. The specimen was sold by Bowers & Merena May '96 as part of a large lot #858.
1943-D Jefferson Nickel, MS68FS (Gold Shield) PCGS Coin #84020 / PCGS Serial #36618193 / POP 5/0 PCGS Price Guide: $6250
Not that there are many clunkers in this thread but the '77 looks like a "head and shoulders coin". It stands head and shoulders above the best I've ever seen.
Not that there are many clunkers in this thread but the '77 looks like a "head and shoulders coin". It stands head and shoulders above the best I've ever seen.
That’s my former 77, and it was definitely the nicest one I’ve owned.
@Currin said:
Does it not make you wonder why Hansen would be even waste his valuable time with this common coin. It is my observation that every coin is important in the 3676 piece Master Set. That level of detail is amazing. Do you think some of the other high-end collectors that are frequently mention in this thread would even be bothered with replacing a $350 67+ specimen with a $6250 specimen? In addition, do you think the people counselling them would waste their time on this? Don’t know? Interesting question.
One of the best comments I've read on here so far.
You cannot have a world class complete set/cabinet of U.S. Coins w/o having ALL denominations and dates of EVERY series. This isn't just about Gold and Sillver Dollars. It's also about Dimes and Nickels too. It's not just about pop top $100,000 coins with a CAC sticker, it's about all of the coins.
You left off the list the exceedingly scarce 1981-P Jefferson Nickel in MS67FS (pop 2/0) that Justin (Monstercoinmart on eBay) also just sold on eBay in addition to that 1977-P (pop 1) nickel that he sold and is posted above (81-P also a former coin of Eli). Both - great coins! Both I recently submitted to PCGS working with Eli.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
You left off the list the exceedingly scarce 1981-P Jefferson Nickel in MS67FS (pop 2/0) that Justin (Monstercoinmart on eBay) also just sold on eBay in addition to that 1977-P (pop 1) nickel that he sold and is posted above (81-P also a former coin of Eli). Both - great coins! Both I recently submitted to PCGS working with Eli.
Wondercoin.
The 1981-P Jefferson Nickel in MS67FS is a monster of a specimen. As Mitch stated, this coin was purchase from Monster Coin thru an eBay listings. The coin sold on eBay a few days ago for $5,995 plus shipping. Mitch indicated the former owner was Eli. This coin and the 1977 5C, FS MS67FS are truly amazing. Can anyone determine the better one?
1981-P Jefferson Nickel, MS67FS PCGS Coin #84106 / PCGS Serial #6308555 / POP 2/0 PCGS Price Guide: $5,000
The 1981-P MS67FS and the1977 MS67FS to me pale in comparison to the 1943-D MS68FS. The 81 and the 77 may only be attractive to those that find beauty in coins with a loupe. The '43-D nickel does not need a loupe.
OINK... You are comparing apples to oranges... a silver War nickel (that often tones pretty) vs. non-silver modern nickels (that routinely do not tone pretty).
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I have to say that it's great to read about a single collection which covers both 3 dollar gold and Jefferson nickels on a single page (of 35 no less).
@wondercoin said:
OINK... You are comparing apples to oranges... a silver War nickel (that often tones pretty) vs. non-silver modern nickels (that routinely do not tone pretty).
Wondercoin, I am just comparing Jefferson nickels to Jefferson nickels, regardless of date minted. I was only trying to differentiate coins with low POP versus those with great eye appeal. Perhaps we will not know rarity with moderns for another 50 years.
I like the 43d, but imagine it gets a point for toning. I have a hard time with the "toning bump" grading practice...it's very subjective! Then, there's apparently no deduction for streaks and spots?
Hansen has the All-Time Finest in all eras for Jefferson Nickels FS Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1938-present). Hansen is finest of all times.
First of all, PCGS has a different grading standard than what I have applied to my collection for over 25 years. Almost every coin in my collection has the best detailed strike, the best condition I could find them in with that full strike and with the best of steps. Congratulations to Mr Hansen for what he has achieved with his nickels. I particularly like the following two coins in his early set and there may be 1 or 2 others.
The strike on the next coin is amazing and I imagine there's an example out there with 6 steps
But here's a question for Mr Currin. The following coin is Mr Hansen's, the 2nd is mine, which of the two coins do you like better?
Regards, Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Leo your ‘56 is much better struck. I’m not a nickel guy but it’s quite obvious which has the better strike. Overall technical grade is tougher to tell when all we have is pictures.
This is a big week for gold issues. The half eagles may the most popular gold coins by some accounts. This week we will cover seven dates for this issue, and it is not one of Hansen’s better weeks. Eliasberg makes a comeback by winning the half eagle challenge. Hansen loses his double digit lead, but still maintains a significant lead. After this week, Hansen leads is (28-20-7). Again this week, most of the Eliasberg coins are estimated grades from his registry set. Eliasberg has the best coin of the day with a PCGS POP 1/0. The big difference in this week and last week; last week all of Hansen’s Three Dollar Gold Pieces were condition census top 5, and this week he has none.
As stated, we are comparing seven different five dollars eagles. Hansen takes the lead out of the gate with his 1795 “Small Eagle” in MS62. This is his best coin of the week for Hansen. In the four Charlotte and Dahlonega branch mint coins are the dates, 1838 & 1839, Eliasberg takes two of them, with Hansen one and one tie. Eliasberg closes strong by winning the 1870-CC with his XF40 specimen. Hansen has a very nice 1870-CC set, but the half eagle is the lowest grade coin at F12. The last coin was fabulous Eliasberg 1909-O Indian Head from New Orleans that is the finest known.
This week’s challenge was competitive with Hansen’s getting the short end of the stick. Hansen lead drops to an eight coin lead with 3 weeks to go. Is it possible for Eliasberg to come back with Eagles, Double Eagles, and just a few commemorative issues?
Half Eagle Challenge
1795 Small Eagle Half Eagle: First year of issue and one of the first U.S. gold coins.
Hansen Coin: 1795 Small Eagle Half Eagle PCGS MS62 (PCGS POP 28/15)
Eliasberg Coin: 1795 Small Eagle Est. AU58 (POP 44/73)
1838-C Half Eagle: First half eagles from this mint; one year types.
Hansen Coin: 1838-C Half Eagle PCGS AU53 (PCGS POP 5/7)
Eliasberg Coin: 1838-C Half Eagle Est. AU55 (POP 3/4)
1838-D Half Eagle: First half eagles from this mint; one year types.
Hansen Coin: 1838-D Half Eagle PCGS AU55 (PCGS POP 17/35)
Eliasberg Coin: 1838-D Half Eagle Est. AU55 (POP 17/35)
1839-C Half Eagle: One year type coins from this mint; only $5 Libs. with obverse mintmark.
Hansen Coin: 1839-C Half Eagle PCGS AU53 (PCGS POP 6/20)
Eliasberg Coin: 1839-C Half Eagle Est. MS62 (POP 2/3)
1839-D Half Eagle: One year type coin from this mint; only $5 Libs. with obverse mintmark.
Hansen Coin: 1839-D Half Eagle PCGS AU58 (PCGS POP 7/7)
Eliasberg Coin: 1839-D Half Eagle Est. AU50 (POP 11/36)
1870-CC Half Eagle: First Carson City issue of this denomination.
Hansen Coin: 1870-CC Half Eagle PCGS F12 (PCGS POP 3/70)
Eliasberg Coin: 1870-CC Half Eagle Est. XF40 (POP 8/29)
1909-O Half Eagle: Only 20th century New Orleans half eagle.
Hansen Coin: 1909-O Half Eagle PCGS AU58+ (PCGS POP 1/81)
Eliasberg Coin: 1909-O Half Eagle PCGS MS66 (PCGS POP 1/0)
Winning Coins: (except for the 1909-O Half Eagle, I could not find pictures of the other Eliasberg winners. If anyone has a picture, please share.)
Hansen’s 1795 Small Eagle Half Eagle PCGS MS62 (PCGS POP 28/15) Ex: A.J. Vanderbilt Collection. Earlier from our (Stack's) sale of the R.T. Davis Collection, February 1968, lot 121.; Stack's Bowers March 2018 Baltimore Auction, $132,000
.
. Hansen’s 1839-D Half Eagle PCGS AU58 (PCGS POP 7/7) Ex: Stack's Bowers June 2017 Baltimore Auction, $30,550
.
. Eliasberg’s 1909-O Half Eagle PCGS MS66 (PCGS POP 1/0) Ex: J.C. Mitchelson (6/1909); John H. Clapp; Clapp Estate (1942); Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr.; Eliasberg Estate (Bowers and Ruddy, 10/1982), lot 623, $30,800; David Hall and Gordon Wrubel; Auction '83 (Paramount, 7/1983), lot 404, $46,750; Texas Collector; Auction '89 (David Akers, 7/1989), lot 1405, $71,500; Dr. Thaine B. Price (David Akers, 5/1998), lot 21, $374,000; "Stellar Collection"; Jim O'Neal #1 All-Time Finest Collection of Indian Half Eagles / FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2011), lot 5138, where it brought $690,000; Heritage Auctions 2014 January 8 - 12 FUN US Coin Signature Auction - Orlando #120, $646,250- Not in Registry
.
. Next Week - Eagles:
1795 Small Eagle Reverse Eagle: First year of issue and one of the first U.S. gold coins.
1799 Eagle: Only affordable 18th century issue of this denomination.
1838 Eagle: First year of issue ; scarce, low mintage date.
1854-S Eagle: Earliest collectible issue from this mint.
1870-CC Eagle: First Carson City issue of this denomination.
1883-O Eagle: Lowest mintage New Orleans gold coin (800 struck).
1907 Wire Edge Eagle: Popular, low mintage, beautiful issue.
1933 Eagle: Only gold coin dated 1933 that is legal to own.
But here's a question for Mr Currin. The following coin is Mr Hansen's, the 2nd is mine, which of the two coins do you like better?
Regards, Leo
Leo,
First, I want to thank you for contributing to the thread. It means a lot when a Series Specialist as you with Jefferson Nickels contributes. I would encourage more to do so. I have been watching Hansen build his collection for some time now. I really think in the grand scheme of coin collecting, the Hansen collections will not take anything away from the specialty sets. I think you may agree, there are many very beautiful sets and collections that would not compete head to head in the registry. Especially ones built on just beauty, consistency, toning, non-toning, matching, best strikes, and many other themes that specialist uses. If you follow the thread from the beginning, the high-end specialty collector Perfection have spoken along these lines several times. In other words, the grading system for the registry does not favor any of these criteria’s, only grades and bonuses for finest and tied for finest . When I reference Hansen sets, I am referring to the registry and the ranking listed in the registry. At the end of the day, I think Hansen is completing against Eliasberg and the PCGS grading system. In one way, I think this is similar to profession golfers. Many of them will say they are competing against the course and not the other golfers. Which is different from NASCAR, but I will save that for another day.
Second, I am not one to question any of your comments referring to Jefferson Nickels. I have read many of your post over time, and I know you are one of the top dogs when it comes to knowledge of Jefferson Nickels. Commenting on your knowledge of Jefferson Nickels, would be similar if I was to comment on Bill Belichick’s play calling in his super bowls. I would look foolish in both cases.
You did ask me a question. I agree with @OriginalDan comments. I would also added, it is something about the fields that looks a little more appealing on yours. I am certain not a grader, but it appear to me, your coin should be higher than a MS65FS. What is your grade on your coin? And, why do you think it is graded only MS65?
I was looking at some of the recent updates to "The Collection". I noticed that Hansen have added several new additions to his Large Cents Die Variety Set by Newcomb, Circulation Strikes (1816-1839). This is a specialty set with 244 coins that is one end of the collection spectrum. On the other end, Hansen added a key 1995-W $1 Silver Eagle to his Eagles and Modern Bullion collection. I have shared these two examples below. Hansen added six new additions to his Newcomb set. I may do a deep dive into the Newcomb Cents at a later date.
1817 N-7 R3 "Mouse Top" PCGS graded MS64 Brown
1817 1C Newcomb 7 Large Cent, MS64BN PCGS Coin #36568 / PCGS Serial #36186628 / POP 1/1 Goldberg Auction Realized: $11,100
Ex: Ex Oscar J. Pearl, Abe Kosoff 1/22/1944:242-Sol Kaplan-1946 ANA Sale, Abe Kosoff 8/20/1946:1450-S. Levenson 8/1974-Jerry A. Bobbe-C. Douglas Smith-Herman Halpern, Stack's 3/16/1988:314 (as MS63)-R. E. Naftzger, Jr.-Chris McCawley 3/2001-Jim Neiswinter Collection.
But here's a question for Mr Currin. The following coin is Mr Hansen's, the 2nd is mine, which of the two coins do you like better?
Leo,
You did ask me a question. I agree with @OriginalDan comments. I would also added, it is something about the fields that looks a little more appealing on yours. I am certain not a grader, but it appear to me, your coin should be higher than a MS65FS. What is your grade on your coin? And, why do you think it is graded only MS65?
When I find a coin with the greatest strike I've ever seen, the marks become less important to me although I prefer them less central to the viewer's eyes. For instance, the following coin, there are some nasty marks in the upper hair and on the forehead but knowing the history of this date, they don't matter/bother me as much. For the time being, there's little or no other choice. This example was Bern Nagengast's #1 set coin and I have it. Of course, I'll keep my eyes open for a better example with a few less marks only. The rest of that coin, it's strike and luster must remain intact.
What's written in with the photo is a quote from Nagengast's book, The Jefferson Nickel Analyst although I changed it a little. But it's a great piece of advise for any collector and with growing experience, the quality of coin can only get better.
Regards, Leon
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@Currin Lady Liberty looks as if she has has a turtle on her head (re 1817 large cent shown above). Is that something to do with a particular variety? Don’t think I’ve seen that before.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Currin those Jeffersons are impressive. The 81 full steps are great looking, I like the color on the top one more, yet the bottom one looks to have better condition and strike.
I am a dedicated Jefferson Nickel collector and I am in awe of the many fine sets Hansen has going. He now leads in most categories although I am still ahead, currently, in complete Varieties
@Catbert said: @Currin Lady Liberty looks as if she has has a turtle on her head (re 1817 large cent shown above). Is that something to do with a particular variety? Don’t think I’ve seen that before.
Hey Cartbert,
We all can learn something from the Hansen Collection. This Large Cent is Variety Newcomb-7 which can be identified by the obverse that bears the "mouse" break atop Liberty's head. It is sometimes called “Mouse Top” cent. I never heard of it until I saw it a couple days ago in “The Collection”. I am not sure there is any Large Cent Specialist watching, if so, maybe they can chime in on more details.
I have a better picture of the die break from the D. Brent Pogue specimen. This was written at his sale. One of the more charming late-state breaks in the large cent series largely due to its nickname. It is well developed on this specimen, which is so sharp that the mouse break has a fine texture as if it has fur.
As we have seen the last few days, Hansen has put some time and resources in the Jefferson Nickels. He continues his updates into a second week. I thought I would show a few more of these. The finest being the 1938-S MS67+FS PCSG POP 1/0. The reverse toning appears a little stunning. The toughest coin is the 1953-S. Jaime Hernandez comment: For Jefferson Nickels from 1938 to 1960, the 1953-S Jefferson Nickel is the most difficult coin to find with Full Steps characteristics. Even to my unexperienced eye, the strike looks weak. What do you Jefferson specialists think? Range of coins values is $350 to approx. $20,000
1938-S Jefferson Nickel, MS67+FS (Gold Shield) PCGS Coin #84002 / PCGS Serial #36580725 / POP 1/0 PCGS Price Guide: $6250
.
. 1953-S Jefferson Nickel, MS65FS (Gold Shield) PCGS Coin #84051 / PCGS Serial #36518262 / POP 4/2 PCGS Price Guide: $27,500 Purchase Great Collections, 2/24/2019, $20,812.50
.
. 1988-D Jefferson Nickel, MS66+FS (Gold Shield) PCGS Coin #84121 / PCGS Serial #36577477 / POP 6/2 PCGS Price Guide: $350.00
.
. 2016-D Jefferson Nickel, MS68FS PCGS Coin #606621 / PCGS Serial #35592183 / POP 14/0 PCGS Price Guide: $850.00 Purchase tazmicenterprises, via eBay, $$799.95
Only ANACS was grading FS nickels mid 1990's when I came across a Missouri man during my search for Jefferson nickels. He was a smelter by trade. He once told me, they would throw the bag and all in when they melted coins. But he searched a few of those bags and that's how I ended up with a few similar coins of the above 53S's. I use to sell them $100 a pop. But there were flaws in those steps and no way, in my wildest dreams, did I think any of those coins would FS. And I never heard back from anyone that they did. There's really no point to my story here other than relating my experience. The man who has the greatest 53-S is High Desert. I sold him that coin and it can be seen in CoinFacts, top right coin. Although I received top dollar for that coin, sometimes I fell like the guy below for parting with it.
Leo
I forgot to add, once I get hold of my daughter's camera, she's a photographer, I'll post a 1956-P that's very similar to Hansen's.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Leo (Leon). This is NOT the tread to essentially “trash talk” the coins Hansen is buying. Not to mention the fact that High Desert’s greatest Jefferson Nickels that he owns (and I can only assume he still owns them) came from a huge deal I put together (but will not discuss here because it is not the proper place). And, if you want to pontificate that your Undergrade 53-S nickel is the nicest, do it on your own thread. This is clearly not the place for that either. Seriously.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
Leo (Leon). This is NOT the tread to essentially “trash talk” the coins Hansen is buying. Not to mention the fact that High Desert’s greatest Jefferson Nickels that he owns (and I can only assume he still owns them) came from a huge deal I put together (but will not discuss here because it is not the proper place). And, if you want to pontificate that your Undergrade 53-S nickel is the nicest, do it on your own thread. This is clearly not the place for that either. Seriously.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Point out where I have trash talked Hansen's coins.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
“But here's a question for Mr Currin. The following coin is Mr Hansen's, the 2nd is mine, which of the two coins do you like better?”
Posts like this are really unnecessary. It would be like me posting one of my monster toned killer Washington quarters every time Mr. Currin pictured Mr. Hansen’s recent buy of the same date. Why would I be doing it on a thread entitled “Hansen Watch”.
Just saying.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@leothelyon said:
“But here's a question for Mr Currin. The following coin is Mr Hansen's, the 2nd is mine, which of the two coins do you like better?” @wondercoin said:
Posts like this are really unnecessary. It would be like me posting one of my monster toned killer Washington quarters every time Mr. Currin pictured Mr. Hansen’s recent buy of the same date. Why would I be doing it on a thread entitled “Hansen Watch”.
It looks like a friendly comparison to me.
And a reminder that not all attributes of a coin can be captured in a single grade scale.
Comments
Nice $3's!
My YouTube Channel
Actually, @specialist 's post confirms what I have long argued. There is a logical point at which most people will question the PCGS-CAC premium; thus, as CAC drives down the non-CAC market, it is inevitably reducing demand for its own product at higher levels as the market will only support but so much of a premium. Alternatively, it at least reduces the number of willing buyers at higher premiums adversely affecting liquidity even if there are enough bidders to push the prices realized up.
I have no problems with a true premium quality coin fetching a 50%+++ premium as long as the increase in quality is commensurate with an increase in the coin's quality as opposed to merely having a sticker. When people artificially decrease the supply based on plastic and stickers alone, they create artificial plastic rarity which skews the prices realized. In many cases it would make more sense to find a wholesome low end coin for the grade up and try to downgrade it so it stickers. To be sure there is no guarantee and you must know what you're doing. Specialist notes that most people do not. I think she is right about that which is what I find so terrifying about the rare coin market. Too few people know what they are doing so they blindly rely on others (PCGS/CAC). Any time people throw large sums of money into a field blindly without understanding it, I become concerned about that market. It is not healthy and creates the potential for market volatility with huge price swings.
Love those $3's!
I think this is the first time we have looked at 3 Dollars. Although, these 3 are very nice, I plan to post a couple better tonight
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Two interesting examples there. After comparing CAC to non-CAC, in one scenario the collector went CAC but in another the collector liked the non-CAC. We’ve been saying all along here that the coin needs to stand on it’s own, even when it is CAC. It would be useful to see the coins.
Perhaps, but timing and time in the market are part of the game and I think Dell Loy is doing pretty awesomely. Imagine if he started a decade or two earlier?
Of course, others can also be doing well. Imagine if only one collector could build a great and fun collection. It also seems like you are working with some new collectors. Imagine what they missed out on before they started collecting. Do you tell them they are doing fine with what they can buy?
While you may not be intending this, the continued posting on this angle does come across as sour grapes and envy. You’ve made your point. Enjoy the coins.
I interpreted the Legend article as the client not preferring the non-CAC coin but being befuddled why the CAC coin is costing them so much more.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
I didn’t say the collector preferred the non-CAC but that he “liked” the coin which I interpreted from the article’s “looked okay.” It was liked enough to cause wonder at the 50% premium and ask for a refund on the CAC coin.
I’d also be more careful with premiums on top pops with the change in CoinFacts. I hope Legend is explaining the situation to their customers.
I would beg to differ on both statements here...
President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com
email: John@davidlawrence.com
2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
He wasn't even in the city until the next day...but I was there for him.
We've mentioned this several times before, but we weren't interested in pursuing the 1913 Nickel to that level. If it fell to us too cheaply, we'd have been ok with that, but it's not part of the Circulation Strike set, so it was never a "must have" for the collection.
President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com
email: John@davidlawrence.com
2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
Simply put, we didn't like the coin at all.
We loved the value, but not the coin. When we received an offer immediately afterwards, it was easy to sell it. When you don't like something and you buy it based on the value, there's no need to keep it...Heck, we bought a lot more coins because of the quick flip later in the day
President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com
email: John@davidlawrence.com
2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
I don’t understand the logic here. ???
Three Dollar Gold Feature
I think this is the first feature for the Three Dollar Gold Collection. When I started the thread, I was uncertain of the popularity and how long I would provide updates and features. At the time, I did not consider keeping an index. After almost a year, and a mostly faulty memory, it is sometimes hard to remember if I have provided information before. So, to best of my knowledge, other than the Gazes Challenge, this will be our first discussion on the Three Dollar Collection.
One reason this series in this great collection has not been discussed is due to the lack of activity since I started the Hansen watch. There may have been one or two upgrades during this time. Hansen purchased the Bob Simpson Three Dollar Collection in fall of 2016. The Simpson set is not registered, so it is not known exactly how many of his coins are in the Hansen’s Top Set. I would place the estimate at about 30.
The All-Time top registry set is from the Brent Pogue Collection. Hansen has some of his coins, but not all them. The Pogue Collection had (16) PCGS POP 1/0 and (8) tied for the PCGS finest. In comparison, Hansen Collection has (15) PCGS POP 1/0 and (12) tied for the PCGS finest. Hansen is just a couple coins away from taking the top spot. Eliasberg set is #5 on the All-Time Finest list. Diana’s Set of $3 Gold is only 90% completed, but that 2nd tier Hansen set is more than eight GPA Weighted points ahead of Eliasberg. I am going to make this statement for the first time, and it is just my observation. In some series, Eliasberg’s set is so inferior, that Hansen’s second set will be better.
This is what PCGS say about the series: The $3 gold piece was first issued in 1854, and the series lasted until 1889. While several dates were hoarded to a limited extent, most $3 gold issues are rare in any mint state grade, let alone in MS65 or better. It is a series filled with tiny mintages. In 1883, for instance, only 900 business strikes were made. The mintage for 1881 is 500. In 1885 there were 801 pieces struck. For 1873 the mintage is believed to be 100 coins. Key dates? There are lots of them, including 1854-D, the only Dahlonega Mint $3 gold piece. PCGS has graded only four examples mint state. Then there’s the 1854-O, the only New Orleans $3 gold piece. PCGS has graded hundreds of specimens, but only two in mint state. For the 1855-S, PCGS has graded two coins mint state. In these three cases, the highest grade is only MS-62!
Pair of MS68s!
1854 Three Dollar MS68 / Awe-Inspiring MS68 PCGS Quality
According the PCGS Population Report, there are three coins graded MS68 and only one finer, a MS68+ specimen. Hansen has two MS68s. He has the 1854 and 1867. Ron Guth writes this about the 1854: I'm shocked -- shocked I say -- that David Akers called this an "unecessary" denomination. How else were people expected to purchase a hundred Three Cent stamps in 1854? Yes, it was an unusual denomination, but collectors today are certainly glad they were made. Akers was correct that this is the second most common date of the series. The 1878 $3 is the big winner and the 1874 is a distant third, with all other dates way back in the pack. Hundreds of Mint State 1854 $3's exist, mostly in MS62 followed by MS63, then MS64. Gems make up only a small percentage of the Mint State population and anything above MS65 is extremely rare. The best example is a PCGS MS68 that sold in a 2004 Heritage sale for $112,125. I cannot find the recent pedigree on this coin. It may be from the Bob Simpson Collection, but if so, it is not contributed to him. It has not appeared in public auction since 2004. Is it possible the coin was picked up in a private transaction from someone, else? PCGS Price Guide places preset day value at $150,000.
Provenance: unknown. Sotheby’s 11/1999:74 - Heritage 6/2004:6219, $112,125
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, his registry set describes his specimen as 1854 assumed grade Choice Proof. Therefore, I do not believe he had a Mist State coin. Ex: .Jenks; Chapman (1921); Clapp Collection (1942). Sold by Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 price realized $39,600. Lot #272. .
1854 Three Dollar, PCGS MS68 (OGH)
PCGS Coin #7969 / PCGS Serial #09346961 / POP 1/0
1867 Three Dollar MS68 / Akers – Simpson
From a mintage perspective, David Akers describes this coin very differently. The 1867 has the second lowest number of total appearances in our auction survey of any Philadelphia Mint three dollar gold piece in the 1860's. Overall, it is 13th in the entire series according to rarity by number of appearances in our 238 catalogue auction survey and tied for 16th with three other dates according to rarity by average grade. Although the 1867 is rare in full mint state, I have seen perhaps a half a dozen very choice specimens that graded MS-65 or better. All were fully proof-like and looked deceptively like proofs. However, proofs can be distinguished from proof-like first strike uncs by the position of the date. Business strikes have the date very low in the field, with the left upright serif of the 7 directly below the left foot of the A in DOLLARS. On proofs, the date is slightly higher in the field and more to the right, with the upright serif of the 7 centered below the middle of the A.
This specimen is traced to the Simpson Set that Hansen purchased. It can also be traced to the David & Sharron Akers Collection. The coin has never appeared at auction in a PCGS MS68 holder, but has couple times as a MS67. It was last sold as a MS67 in the 2014 Heritage FUN US Coin Signature Auction in Orlando. The auction description as follows: This Superb Gem survivor, certified by PCGS, is one of only two such at that service, and none are finer (11/13). On the obverse slight doubling appears (known as Longacre doubling, caused by sinking the punch too deeply into the die) on TED, seen on all circulation strikes. The reverse shows the date 1867 deeply incised into the die, giving it a sculptural relief on the coin. Die striations are more prominent on the reverse, running diagonally, but they must not be confused with hairlines. The striations are raised slightly from the surface, indicative of their status as part of the die preparation. The color ranges from medium yellow-gold to reddish-gold, with a significant amount of lilac interspersed. The strike is overall quite sharp save for minor weakness on the tips of the feather plumes. Contact marks are nearly unseen, save for a small scattering of picayune tiny marks in the lower-left obverse field, just before the profile of Liberty. This is a coin of remarkable quality and desirability, as one might expect given its provenance. The specimen realized $141,000. PCGS Price Guide places preset day value at $175,000.
Provenance: Akers – Simpson. Superior 5/1990:5517, $100,000 - David & Sharron Akers Collection - Heritage 1/2014:5389, $141,000.
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, his registry set describes his specimen as 1867 assumed grade Choice Proof. Therefore, I do not believe he had a Mist State coin. Ex: . Ex. Smith Collection; Chapman (1906); Clapp Collection (1942). Sold by Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 price realized $12,100. Lot #292.
1867 Three Dollar, PCGS MS68
PCGS Coin #7988 / PCGS Serial #29582989 / POP 1/0
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Oh my, that 1867 $3!
My YouTube Channel
Jefferson Nickel Update
This series commemorates our third US President, Thomas Jefferson. As we have seen with some other modern series, Hansen does not pull punches just because a series is considered modern. I think this demonstrates that “The Collection” as having something for everybody. In a collection with coins valued at hundreds thousands of dollars as well as a few in the millions of dollars, a series as Jefferson Nickels could be very low on Hansen’s priority list. That does not seem to be the case. This update highlights a MS68FS POP 5/0 Jefferson that replaces a MS67+ POP 99/5. The MS67+ works well in the collection, but as you can see, when Hansen has an opportunity to replace with better, he does.
Hansen has the All-Time Finest in all eras for Jefferson Nickels FS Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1938-present). This set is described by PCGS as: Spanning nearly 80 years, the Basic Set of Jeffersons includes all dates and mints from 1938 to date. While no major rarities are in this set, the mintmarked issues of 1939 are the keys to this set. The full-step requirement ups the financial ante somewhat, with the D and S issues of the late 1930s crossing into four figures in top grade. This remains a very popular and completable set however, and will be a worthy accomplishment when complete. The set can be thought of as being in two parts. The first being 1938-1964, where Hansen is solidly in the #1 spot. The other being 1965-Present, where Hansen is in second behind the ErasmusHall Collection. As I previously stated, the complete set 1938-present, Hansen is finest of all times.
His set has 9 PCGS POP 1/0 specimens. They are almost equal split with four being in the set prior to 1965, and five after. As we know from previously comments by JB, they are not chasing top pop post-1964 coins. In my observation, they do take advantage when opportunity presents. This latest opportunity is not a POP 1/0, but WOW it sure is an extremely appealing POP 5/0. If you are a Jefferson guy, let us know how you think the coin look. If I recall, some Jefferson specialists dinged Hansen on some of his coin strikes. With my limited knowledge, the strike does look good to me, and the color is amazing, even to a guy like me that don’t particular have an appreciation for tone coins.
1943-D Jefferson Nickel, MS68FS
Ron Guth: The 1943-D Jefferson Nickel is the most common of all the War-time "Silver" issues. Thus, collectors have thousands of high-grade Mint State examples from which to choose, including hundreds in MS-67. The quality of the 1943-D Nickels is excellent. In fact, this is one of the rare instances where the Full Step population exceeds that of the non-Full Steps. The finest examples certified by PCGS (as of February 2012) include 137 MS-67 non-Full Steps and 2 MS-68 Full Steps. Does it not make you wonder why Hansen would be even waste his valuable time with this common coin. It is my observation that every coin is important in the 3676 piece Master Set. That level of detail is amazing. Do you think some of the other high-end collectors that are frequently mention in this thread would even be bothered with replacing a $350 67+ specimen with a $6250 specimen? In addition, do you think the people counselling them would waste their time on this? Don’t know? Interesting question.
Provenance: unknown.
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, his registry set describes his specimen as estimated grade MS65. The specimen was sold by Bowers & Merena May '96 as part of a large lot #858.
1943-D Jefferson Nickel, MS68FS (Gold Shield)
PCGS Coin #84020 / PCGS Serial #36618193 / POP 5/0
PCGS Price Guide: $6250
.
.
Just added for fun, a few of Hansen TOP POPs.
1957 5C, FS MS67FS Certification #36646048, PCGS #84061, POP 1/0
.
.
1960-D 5C MS67 Certification #36073978, PCGS #4068, POP 1/0
.
.
1963-D 5C, FS MS66FS Certification #35921764, PCGS #84074, POP 1/0
.
.
1971 5C, FS MS67+ FS Certification #36161904, PCGS #84086, POP 1/0
.
.
1975-D 5C, FS MS67FS Certification #36608113, PCGS #84095, POP 1/0
.
.
1977 5C, FS MS67FS Certification #36308554, PCGS #84098, POP 1/0
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
I like that '77 nickel.
Not that there are many clunkers in this thread but the '77 looks like a "head and shoulders coin". It stands head and shoulders above the best I've ever seen.
That’s my former 77, and it was definitely the nicest one I’ve owned.
One of the best comments I've read on here so far.
You cannot have a world class complete set/cabinet of U.S. Coins w/o having ALL denominations and dates of EVERY series. This isn't just about Gold and Sillver Dollars. It's also about Dimes and Nickels too. It's not just about pop top $100,000 coins with a CAC sticker, it's about all of the coins.
Later, Paul.
You left off the list the exceedingly scarce 1981-P Jefferson Nickel in MS67FS (pop 2/0) that Justin (Monstercoinmart on eBay) also just sold on eBay in addition to that 1977-P (pop 1) nickel that he sold and is posted above (81-P also a former coin of Eli). Both - great coins! Both I recently submitted to PCGS working with Eli.
Wondercoin.
The 1981-P Jefferson Nickel in MS67FS is a monster of a specimen. As Mitch stated, this coin was purchase from Monster Coin thru an eBay listings. The coin sold on eBay a few days ago for $5,995 plus shipping. Mitch indicated the former owner was Eli. This coin and the 1977 5C, FS MS67FS are truly amazing. Can anyone determine the better one?
1981-P Jefferson Nickel, MS67FS
PCGS Coin #84106 / PCGS Serial #6308555 / POP 2/0
PCGS Price Guide: $5,000
OR THIS ONE
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
The 1981-P MS67FS and the1977 MS67FS to me pale in comparison to the 1943-D MS68FS. The 81 and the 77 may only be attractive to those that find beauty in coins with a loupe. The '43-D nickel does not need a loupe.
OINK
OINK... You are comparing apples to oranges... a silver War nickel (that often tones pretty) vs. non-silver modern nickels (that routinely do not tone pretty).
Wondercoin
I have to say that it's great to read about a single collection which covers both 3 dollar gold and Jefferson nickels on a single page (of 35 no less).
Wondercoin, I am just comparing Jefferson nickels to Jefferson nickels, regardless of date minted. I was only trying to differentiate coins with low POP versus those with great eye appeal. Perhaps we will not know rarity with moderns for another 50 years.
OINK
I like the 43d, but imagine it gets a point for toning. I have a hard time with the "toning bump" grading practice...it's very subjective! Then, there's apparently no deduction for streaks and spots?
Hansen has the All-Time Finest in all eras for Jefferson Nickels FS Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1938-present). Hansen is finest of all times.
First of all, PCGS has a different grading standard than what I have applied to my collection for over 25 years. Almost every coin in my collection has the best detailed strike, the best condition I could find them in with that full strike and with the best of steps. Congratulations to Mr Hansen for what he has achieved with his nickels. I particularly like the following two coins in his early set and there may be 1 or 2 others.
The strike on the next coin is amazing and I imagine there's an example out there with 6 steps
But here's a question for Mr Currin. The following coin is Mr Hansen's, the 2nd is mine, which of the two coins do you like better?
Regards, Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Leo your ‘56 is much better struck. I’m not a nickel guy but it’s quite obvious which has the better strike. Overall technical grade is tougher to tell when all we have is pictures.
God bless any one who can do a high grade Jeff set. You go girl (Delloy)! Tough set.
Geez, will I get yelled at for saying that?
Gazes Challenge – Part 12
This is a big week for gold issues. The half eagles may the most popular gold coins by some accounts. This week we will cover seven dates for this issue, and it is not one of Hansen’s better weeks. Eliasberg makes a comeback by winning the half eagle challenge. Hansen loses his double digit lead, but still maintains a significant lead. After this week, Hansen leads is (28-20-7). Again this week, most of the Eliasberg coins are estimated grades from his registry set. Eliasberg has the best coin of the day with a PCGS POP 1/0. The big difference in this week and last week; last week all of Hansen’s Three Dollar Gold Pieces were condition census top 5, and this week he has none.
As stated, we are comparing seven different five dollars eagles. Hansen takes the lead out of the gate with his 1795 “Small Eagle” in MS62. This is his best coin of the week for Hansen. In the four Charlotte and Dahlonega branch mint coins are the dates, 1838 & 1839, Eliasberg takes two of them, with Hansen one and one tie. Eliasberg closes strong by winning the 1870-CC with his XF40 specimen. Hansen has a very nice 1870-CC set, but the half eagle is the lowest grade coin at F12. The last coin was fabulous Eliasberg 1909-O Indian Head from New Orleans that is the finest known.
This week’s challenge was competitive with Hansen’s getting the short end of the stick. Hansen lead drops to an eight coin lead with 3 weeks to go. Is it possible for Eliasberg to come back with Eagles, Double Eagles, and just a few commemorative issues?
Half Eagle Challenge
1795 Small Eagle Half Eagle: First year of issue and one of the first U.S. gold coins.
Hansen Coin: 1795 Small Eagle Half Eagle PCGS MS62 (PCGS POP 28/15)
Eliasberg Coin: 1795 Small Eagle Est. AU58 (POP 44/73)
1838-C Half Eagle: First half eagles from this mint; one year types.
Hansen Coin: 1838-C Half Eagle PCGS AU53 (PCGS POP 5/7)
Eliasberg Coin: 1838-C Half Eagle Est. AU55 (POP 3/4)
1838-D Half Eagle: First half eagles from this mint; one year types.
Hansen Coin: 1838-D Half Eagle PCGS AU55 (PCGS POP 17/35)
Eliasberg Coin: 1838-D Half Eagle Est. AU55 (POP 17/35)
1839-C Half Eagle: One year type coins from this mint; only $5 Libs. with obverse mintmark.
Hansen Coin: 1839-C Half Eagle PCGS AU53 (PCGS POP 6/20)
Eliasberg Coin: 1839-C Half Eagle Est. MS62 (POP 2/3)
1839-D Half Eagle: One year type coin from this mint; only $5 Libs. with obverse mintmark.
Hansen Coin: 1839-D Half Eagle PCGS AU58 (PCGS POP 7/7)
Eliasberg Coin: 1839-D Half Eagle Est. AU50 (POP 11/36)
1870-CC Half Eagle: First Carson City issue of this denomination.
Hansen Coin: 1870-CC Half Eagle PCGS F12 (PCGS POP 3/70)
Eliasberg Coin: 1870-CC Half Eagle Est. XF40 (POP 8/29)
1909-O Half Eagle: Only 20th century New Orleans half eagle.
Hansen Coin: 1909-O Half Eagle PCGS AU58+ (PCGS POP 1/81)
Eliasberg Coin: 1909-O Half Eagle PCGS MS66 (PCGS POP 1/0)
Gaze Challenge Results
Half Eagles - Eliasberg (4-2-1)
Overall - Hansen (28-20-7)
Winning Coins: (except for the 1909-O Half Eagle, I could not find pictures of the other Eliasberg winners. If anyone has a picture, please share.)
Hansen’s 1795 Small Eagle Half Eagle PCGS MS62 (PCGS POP 28/15)
Ex: A.J. Vanderbilt Collection. Earlier from our (Stack's) sale of the R.T. Davis Collection, February 1968, lot 121.; Stack's Bowers March 2018 Baltimore Auction, $132,000
.
.
Hansen’s 1839-D Half Eagle PCGS AU58 (PCGS POP 7/7)
Ex: Stack's Bowers June 2017 Baltimore Auction, $30,550
.
.
Eliasberg’s 1909-O Half Eagle PCGS MS66 (PCGS POP 1/0)
Ex: J.C. Mitchelson (6/1909); John H. Clapp; Clapp Estate (1942); Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr.; Eliasberg Estate (Bowers and Ruddy, 10/1982), lot 623, $30,800; David Hall and Gordon Wrubel; Auction '83 (Paramount, 7/1983), lot 404, $46,750; Texas Collector; Auction '89 (David Akers, 7/1989), lot 1405, $71,500; Dr. Thaine B. Price (David Akers, 5/1998), lot 21, $374,000; "Stellar Collection"; Jim O'Neal #1 All-Time Finest Collection of Indian Half Eagles / FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2011), lot 5138, where it brought $690,000; Heritage Auctions 2014 January 8 - 12 FUN US Coin Signature Auction - Orlando #120, $646,250- Not in Registry
.
.
Next Week - Eagles:
1795 Small Eagle Reverse Eagle: First year of issue and one of the first U.S. gold coins.
1799 Eagle: Only affordable 18th century issue of this denomination.
1838 Eagle: First year of issue ; scarce, low mintage date.
1854-S Eagle: Earliest collectible issue from this mint.
1870-CC Eagle: First Carson City issue of this denomination.
1883-O Eagle: Lowest mintage New Orleans gold coin (800 struck).
1907 Wire Edge Eagle: Popular, low mintage, beautiful issue.
1933 Eagle: Only gold coin dated 1933 that is legal to own.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Leo,
First, I want to thank you for contributing to the thread. It means a lot when a Series Specialist as you with Jefferson Nickels contributes. I would encourage more to do so. I have been watching Hansen build his collection for some time now. I really think in the grand scheme of coin collecting, the Hansen collections will not take anything away from the specialty sets. I think you may agree, there are many very beautiful sets and collections that would not compete head to head in the registry. Especially ones built on just beauty, consistency, toning, non-toning, matching, best strikes, and many other themes that specialist uses. If you follow the thread from the beginning, the high-end specialty collector Perfection have spoken along these lines several times. In other words, the grading system for the registry does not favor any of these criteria’s, only grades and bonuses for finest and tied for finest . When I reference Hansen sets, I am referring to the registry and the ranking listed in the registry. At the end of the day, I think Hansen is completing against Eliasberg and the PCGS grading system. In one way, I think this is similar to profession golfers. Many of them will say they are competing against the course and not the other golfers. Which is different from NASCAR, but I will save that for another day.
Second, I am not one to question any of your comments referring to Jefferson Nickels. I have read many of your post over time, and I know you are one of the top dogs when it comes to knowledge of Jefferson Nickels. Commenting on your knowledge of Jefferson Nickels, would be similar if I was to comment on Bill Belichick’s play calling in his super bowls. I would look foolish in both cases.
You did ask me a question. I agree with @OriginalDan comments. I would also added, it is something about the fields that looks a little more appealing on yours. I am certain not a grader, but it appear to me, your coin should be higher than a MS65FS. What is your grade on your coin? And, why do you think it is graded only MS65?
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Well and diplomatically said, Mr. Currin!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Two Ends of the Spectrum
I was looking at some of the recent updates to "The Collection". I noticed that Hansen have added several new additions to his Large Cents Die Variety Set by Newcomb, Circulation Strikes (1816-1839). This is a specialty set with 244 coins that is one end of the collection spectrum. On the other end, Hansen added a key 1995-W $1 Silver Eagle to his Eagles and Modern Bullion collection. I have shared these two examples below. Hansen added six new additions to his Newcomb set. I may do a deep dive into the Newcomb Cents at a later date.
1817 N-7 R3 "Mouse Top" PCGS graded MS64 Brown
1817 1C Newcomb 7 Large Cent, MS64BN
PCGS Coin #36568 / PCGS Serial #36186628 / POP 1/1
Goldberg Auction Realized: $11,100
Ex: Ex Oscar J. Pearl, Abe Kosoff 1/22/1944:242-Sol Kaplan-1946 ANA Sale, Abe Kosoff 8/20/1946:1450-S. Levenson 8/1974-Jerry A. Bobbe-C. Douglas Smith-Herman Halpern, Stack's 3/16/1988:314 (as MS63)-R. E. Naftzger, Jr.-Chris McCawley 3/2001-Jim Neiswinter Collection.
.
.
1995-W $1 Silver Eagle Proof
1995-W $1 Silver Eagle, PR70DC (Gold Sheild)
PCGS Coin #9887 / PCGS Serial #36534105 / POP 185/0
PCGS Price Guide: $16,250
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
When I find a coin with the greatest strike I've ever seen, the marks become less important to me although I prefer them less central to the viewer's eyes. For instance, the following coin, there are some nasty marks in the upper hair and on the forehead but knowing the history of this date, they don't matter/bother me as much. For the time being, there's little or no other choice. This example was Bern Nagengast's #1 set coin and I have it. Of course, I'll keep my eyes open for a better example with a few less marks only. The rest of that coin, it's strike and luster must remain intact.
What's written in with the photo is a quote from Nagengast's book, The Jefferson Nickel Analyst although I changed it a little. But it's a great piece of advise for any collector and with growing experience, the quality of coin can only get better.
Regards, Leon
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
@Currin Lady Liberty looks as if she has has a turtle on her head (re 1817 large cent shown above). Is that something to do with a particular variety? Don’t think I’ve seen that before.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Currin those Jeffersons are impressive. The 81 full steps are great looking, I like the color on the top one more, yet the bottom one looks to have better condition and strike.
I am a dedicated Jefferson Nickel collector and I am in awe of the many fine sets Hansen has going. He now leads in most categories although I am still ahead, currently, in complete Varieties
Best wishes,
Rocco
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Hey Cartbert,
We all can learn something from the Hansen Collection. This Large Cent is Variety Newcomb-7 which can be identified by the obverse that bears the "mouse" break atop Liberty's head. It is sometimes called “Mouse Top” cent. I never heard of it until I saw it a couple days ago in “The Collection”. I am not sure there is any Large Cent Specialist watching, if so, maybe they can chime in on more details.
I have a better picture of the die break from the D. Brent Pogue specimen. This was written at his sale. One of the more charming late-state breaks in the large cent series largely due to its nickname. It is well developed on this specimen, which is so sharp that the mouse break has a fine texture as if it has fur.
Interesting coin.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Sweet!
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Jefferson Nickel Update Again
As we have seen the last few days, Hansen has put some time and resources in the Jefferson Nickels. He continues his updates into a second week. I thought I would show a few more of these. The finest being the 1938-S MS67+FS PCSG POP 1/0. The reverse toning appears a little stunning. The toughest coin is the 1953-S. Jaime Hernandez comment: For Jefferson Nickels from 1938 to 1960, the 1953-S Jefferson Nickel is the most difficult coin to find with Full Steps characteristics. Even to my unexperienced eye, the strike looks weak. What do you Jefferson specialists think? Range of coins values is $350 to approx. $20,000
1938-S Jefferson Nickel, MS67+FS (Gold Shield)
PCGS Coin #84002 / PCGS Serial #36580725 / POP 1/0
PCGS Price Guide: $6250
.
.
1953-S Jefferson Nickel, MS65FS (Gold Shield)
PCGS Coin #84051 / PCGS Serial #36518262 / POP 4/2
PCGS Price Guide: $27,500
Purchase Great Collections, 2/24/2019, $20,812.50
.
.
1988-D Jefferson Nickel, MS66+FS (Gold Shield)
PCGS Coin #84121 / PCGS Serial #36577477 / POP 6/2
PCGS Price Guide: $350.00
.
.
2016-D Jefferson Nickel, MS68FS
PCGS Coin #606621 / PCGS Serial #35592183 / POP 14/0
PCGS Price Guide: $850.00
Purchase tazmicenterprises, via eBay, $$799.95
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
His 38-S 5C looks a lot like my 38-D in terms of color, did a double take when I scrolled to it.
Here are six more from a google search on this date. Looks like they're fairly common. The only thing that struck up were the steps.
I also found this one and it may belong to a member here. But looks like only 4.75 steps.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Only ANACS was grading FS nickels mid 1990's when I came across a Missouri man during my search for Jefferson nickels. He was a smelter by trade. He once told me, they would throw the bag and all in when they melted coins. But he searched a few of those bags and that's how I ended up with a few similar coins of the above 53S's. I use to sell them $100 a pop. But there were flaws in those steps and no way, in my wildest dreams, did I think any of those coins would FS. And I never heard back from anyone that they did. There's really no point to my story here other than relating my experience. The man who has the greatest 53-S is High Desert. I sold him that coin and it can be seen in CoinFacts, top right coin. Although I received top dollar for that coin, sometimes I fell like the guy below for parting with it.
Leo
I forgot to add, once I get hold of my daughter's camera, she's a photographer, I'll post a 1956-P that's very similar to Hansen's.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
SO COOL!
Leo (Leon). This is NOT the tread to essentially “trash talk” the coins Hansen is buying. Not to mention the fact that High Desert’s greatest Jefferson Nickels that he owns (and I can only assume he still owns them) came from a huge deal I put together (but will not discuss here because it is not the proper place). And, if you want to pontificate that your Undergrade 53-S nickel is the nicest, do it on your own thread. This is clearly not the place for that either. Seriously.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Point out where I have trash talked Hansen's coins.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
“But here's a question for Mr Currin. The following coin is Mr Hansen's, the 2nd is mine, which of the two coins do you like better?”
Posts like this are really unnecessary. It would be like me posting one of my monster toned killer Washington quarters every time Mr. Currin pictured Mr. Hansen’s recent buy of the same date. Why would I be doing it on a thread entitled “Hansen Watch”.
Just saying.
Wondercoin.
It looks like a friendly comparison to me.
And a reminder that not all attributes of a coin can be captured in a single grade scale.