Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
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
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.
I think it’s possible to have a more complete set than Eliasberg without having exactly all the coins that he did.
That being said, when people talk about the Eliasberg set, they often talk about the 1933 double eagle and 1913 Liberty head nickel. It will be interesting to see what the halo coins are in the DLH set.
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
>
I’ll bet it would fit into his “framework” at some price.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
>
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.
Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
>
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.
Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).
The one coin just happens to be a multimillion dollar coin and pop 5 should come into play when deciding top dog....just my opinion. If it was a 32-d Washington qtr in 66 (he has) this discussion would be irrelevant.
The issue is that it’s a “coin”. “Should” is determined by the set creator and the court of public opinion.
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
>
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.
Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).
The one coin just happens to be a multimillion dollar coin and pop 5 should come into play when deciding top dog....just my opinion. If it was a 32-d Washington qtr in 66 (he has) this discussion would be irrelevant.
The issue is that it’s a “coin”. “Should” is determined by the set creator and the court of public opinion.
IMHO I believe the court of public opinion when comparing the 2 sets is going to decide that the lack of the 1913 nickel strongly favors the Eliasberg set. Will it be the deciding point may not but it is very significant in the analysis
To me, the 1933 double eagle is the bigger coin of the 2, but I wonder why many 1913 proponents don’t talk about the 1933, though a few do.
At the same time, I wonder why more can’t just enjoy that a collector is doing something amazing.
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
>
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.
Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).
The one coin just happens to be a multimillion dollar coin and pop 5 should come into play when deciding top dog....just my opinion. If it was a 32-d Washington qtr in 66 (he has) this discussion would be irrelevant.
The issue is that it’s a “coin”. “Should” is determined by the set creator and the court of public opinion.
I believe the court of public option will intuitively know why it’s missing in one set and not the other thus favoring Eliasberg.
Perhaps, but why keep harping on it here? You have an opinion, as stated. Others have their opinions. He might still end up with one. Why not just give it some time?
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
>
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.
Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).
The one coin just happens to be a multimillion dollar coin and pop 5 should come into play when deciding top dog....just my opinion. If it was a 32-d Washington qtr in 66 (he has) this discussion would be irrelevant.
The issue is that it’s a “coin”. “Should” is determined by the set creator and the court of public opinion.
I believe the court of public option will intuitively know why it’s missing in one set and not the other thus favoring Eliasberg.
Perhaps, but why keep harping on it here? You have an opinion, as stated. Others have their opinions. He might still end up with one. Why not just give it some time?
I harp on it bc the whole premise of building this set was to replicate and beat Eliasberg and my point is without the 1913 he simply can’t meet that goal. Imho he competes well with the little and medium size fish but not the whales. Again my opinion. Btw why do you keep harping on my opinion since harping was brought up.
I think it’s even more the case with the 1933 double eagle. Why don’t you mention that coin?
I respond because I don’t understand why you focus on that coin so much so I’m trying to understand.
The 1913 Liberty nickel was prized by some of the owners of this famous coin- McDermott, Hawn, Walton, Mrs. Norweb, etc.
On the other hand, Newman could’ve kept one of the five but didn’t, presumably because he didn’t think it was that important an issue and he could buy more significant things with the funds. Nobody would ever doubt Newman's acumen as a numismatist.
If Mr. Hansen has had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 nickels and passed- well there are only 3 in private hands. So it sounds like he has made his decision on this issue.
The 1913 is not just some coin. It is historically one of the top two coins in American numismatics. It’s on the cover of that book because of its importance to coin collecting as a whole, that is not just my opinion.
You willfully leave out one of the top two coins then you cost yourself your place in history. And that is indeed my opinion
Bob Simpson who DOES own the greatest coin collection ever, does not have an 1913 or 1804 $1. He does not believe in them. But he has coins of classic rarity caliber that Delloy or even tyannt will never own (in Numismatic history, the Gold Amazonian set tops everything).
The problem w/Delloy not owning a 5C 1913 Lib is that he has spouted off saying he wants to be Eliasberg and complete. If he never wanted one he should have said so long ago. Well, Eliasberg had the finest 1913 -the first coin to break $1 million AND patterns!
You can't have it all ways guys. Bob Simspon FIRMLY ranks #1 and has a HUGE place in history for what he owns (about only half his collections are listed on the registries).
@specialist said:
Bob Simpson who DOES own the greatest coin collection ever, does not have an 1913 or 1804 $1.
I would imagine TDN and others may not agree since he doesn’t own those marquee coins.
TDN indicates the 1913 is one of the greatest coins, independent of Eliasberg. To quote TDN:
Then forget about being the greatest collection ever.
You are confusing greatest collection with greatest full set.
I didn’t confuse them. TDN wrote “greatest collection ever”. Laura wrote “greatest coin collection ever”. I didn’t see “greatest full set” in TDN’s statement. It’s pretty clear.
What I wrote was in the context of Eliasberg vs Hansen. Two complete or nearly complete basic sets duking it out head to head
Can a collection without a 1913 be the greatest? Sure thing- if it was more extensive than one single example each of what was in the Eliasberg basic set.
But that’s not what we were discussing as that’s not what Hansen is doing.
we do know that Hansen had the opportunity to buy a 1913 nickel and the resources and passed. I am sure he has a plan. Keep in mind he has done all this in just a few years----so give him a chance to ge there.
@Zoins said:
I’m waiting for Hansen to pick up a gold Confederate cent which Eliasberg had, but I’m not making judgements on Hansen not having one, yet
Does Simpson have one?
Simpson is not in a self stated competition with Eliasberg’s basic set
@Zoins said:
I’m waiting for Hansen to pick up a gold Confederate cent which Eliasberg had, but I’m not making judgements on Hansen not having one, yet
Does Simpson have one?
Simpson is not in a self stated competition with Eliasberg’s basic set
The question for Simpson is independent of Eliasberg. Laura put Simpson in contention for “the greatest coin collection ever” which, to me, includes Eliasberg but is more than just matching and exceeding Eliasberg.
@Zoins said:
I’m waiting for Hansen to pick up a gold Confederate cent which Eliasberg had, but I’m not making judgements on Hansen not having one, yet
Does Simpson have one?
Simpson is not in a self stated competition with Eliasberg’s basic set
The question for Simpson is independent of Eliasberg. Laura put Simpson in contention for “the greatest coin collection ever” which, to me, includes Eliasberg but is more than just matching and exceeding Eliasberg.
Greatest collection ever is hard to judge because what is the criteria? Yes, it would include patterns and quite likely coins of the world. It wouldn’t be just a bare basic set
Can Del Loy beat Eliasberg’s basic set...sure. But does he then beat Eliasberg’s collection as a whole? Not without adding patterns and foreign coins. The Eliasberg Collection was more than just a basic set of American coins
Delloys collection is one of the greatest ever-NOT THE. I give him his due.
I am still pissed he ruined Bruces STD set by putting iona cleaned 70CC he promised me he never would have. Further he replaced a HIGH END MS65 1861 CAC $1 for a washed out NO CAC MS66. Stuff liek that makes my blood curtal. Got forbid if he touched my 3CS PR set....i can't look.
@Zoins said:
I’m waiting for Hansen to pick up a gold Confederate cent which Eliasberg had, but I’m not making judgements on Hansen not having one, yet
Does Simpson have one?
Simpson is not in a self stated competition with Eliasberg’s basic set
The question for Simpson is independent of Eliasberg. Laura put Simpson in contention for “the greatest coin collection ever” which, to me, includes Eliasberg but is more than just matching and exceeding Eliasberg.
Greatest collection ever is hard to judge because what is the criteria? Yes, it would include patterns and quite likely coins of the world. It wouldn’t be just a bare basic set
Can Del Loy beat Eliasberg’s basic set...sure. But does he then beat Eliasberg’s collection as a whole? Not without adding patterns and foreign coins. The Eliasberg Collection was more than just a basic set of American coins
Don’t forget US Philippines, colonials, territorials, Confederates, tokens, and medals. Eliasberg had all of these.
@btcollects said:
As far as I'm concerned, Hansen's collection will never be complete without all 5 1913 nickels, both 1877 gold half unions, and a mountain bunker that can accommodate large aircraft. Let's not mess around here.
Don't forget the 1964-D Peace Dollar
And since we post houses on this forum, here's John Travolta's house which accommodates large aircraft
We have forgotten about the Liberty Seated Half Dollars, but they are coming back in the spotlight. This series was one of the first that Hansen completed as All-Time Finest (9/11/2017). The set was completed with a rating of 60.85. Today, the rating is 63.29. You can quickly see that in less than two years, this set has increase by about 2.5 points. If I had to guess, it is not final yet, especially with the possible purchase of a new group of coins. He also has the All-Time Finest for the Major Variety set, with only one coin remaining, 1842 “Small Date, Rev of 1839”. To continue, Hansen has the All-Time Finest Proof Series in Basic and Major Varieties. He is missing three proofs, 1839 “Drapery”, 1844, and 1853 “Arrows and Rays”. I think his Collection of Liberty Seated Half Dollars is World-Class. Maybe the Liberty Seated Half Dollars could be a candidate for Hall of Fame end of this month. I don’t think there has been a HOF Liberty Seated Half Dollar Collection.
My sources say that Hansen purchased a group of CAC'd Seated Half Dollars that should upgraded this collection significantly. I don’t know anymore about the purchase than this. The only current registry set that could have significance upgrade ability, would be MR. PERFECTION 8A. Maybe @Perfection can confirm or not. The purchased coins may not be in the registry. Either way, I am going to watch for them. I hope you do too.
There is something about this coin that just shouts out at me. Compared to some other coins in the collection, this coin is not that big of a deal. Still, the coin is an amazing addition. For the Liberty Seated Half Dollars, this is a pretty tough date. PCGS Expert Ron Guth provides these comments: The 1883 Half Dollar is a great date because of its miniscule mintage of only 8,000 coins. However, it is a tough coin to find in any condition, thus many collectors resort to a Proof version (which is twice as plentiful as the Mint State edition). To compound the problem, there are many examples that are so Prooflike that they are often confused with Proofs. On the other hand, there is a tendency to designate Proofs as Mint State because of the higher value of the latter. The typical Mint State 1883 Half Dollar grades out at MS64. The very best coins are MS67 or better, with the finest example being a single PCGS MS67+.
The coin was acquired in a David Lawrence Rare Coin Auction. As you may know, Hansen is a partner in this company. The auctioneer gives a very simple description: Key, low mintage issue. This coin comes from a tiny mintage of just 8,000 pieces struck! CAC approved for quality. PCGS+ grade for premium quality at the top of end of the assigned grade. My experience from DLRC auctions is the descriptions are very short and to the point. I think they let the coin speak for itself. The CAC coin sold on Sunday, May 26, 2019 for $49,450. This is an Auction Record for the 1883 Half Dollar.
We don’t know the provenance for the coin. The only additional info that I can find is the coin appeared in the Legend's Regency Auction XI on February 19th, 2015. The coin was passed. The description from this auction does not share much additional information for the history of the coin. This coin is the undisputed finest 1883 Half Dollar in existence! The surfaces are clean, lustrous, satiny smooth, and do have traces of semi-prooflike mirrors. A stunning ring of blue/gold/green frames the rims on both sides. We would grade the reverse full MS68. Miss Liberty and the details are frosted and crisply struck. The eye appeal is superb! 8000 were ever minted and this is the only MS67+ graded by both PCGS and NGC. The last regular PCGS MS67 to sell was in 2005, when one realized $28,750.00 in a strong market. The consignor is changing their collecting direction and has instructed us to find a good home for this rarity. Legends estimated the value at $32,500 - $37,500 in 2015. I wonder who the collector that was “changing their collecting direction”.
Provenance: Unknown
In comparison, The Eliasberg registry set describes his 1883 Half Dollar Specimen as assumed grade Choice Proof. Sold by Bowers & Merena Apr '97 price realized $4,180. Lot #2054. I am not sure if Eliasberg had a Mint State Specimen or not.
Hansen has both Mint State and Proof Specimens
1883 Liberty Seated Half Dollar MS67+ POP 1/0 Certification #06628328, PCGS #6365, CAC PCGS Price Guide Value: $49,500
1883 Liberty Seated Half Dollar PR67CAM POP 5/1 Certification #33085746, PCGS #86444 PCGS Price Guide Value: $12,500
Hanson is doing very well on the Liberty Seated Half Dollars, but missing from the All Time Set Registry comparison is Gardner's collection. He was known for having amazing Liberty Seated sets, including proofs.
@washingtonrainbows said:
Biggest miss so far IMHO was the recent 1913 Liberty Nickel that he passed on. Should have passed on hundreds of the top pop 20 k coins and got the recent 1913 IMHO. Those top pop 20k coins will always be around. Only Five 1913 Liberty nickels known who knows when next one is available and at what price.
Only he can answer that question. Perhaps he thought it would come around again as it's typically been treated as a trophy coin in the past. A big change is Forsythe is making a Lib nickel set now.
Laura speculated he may not feel the need to include it, but he does have an 1804 dollar and Eliasberg had a 1913 lib nickel.
We've addressed this several times, but happy to again.
We bought the 1804 as it was a fantastic value at the time. The 1913 Nickel is still a fantasy item and we were interested if it came in a price range that we thought it was worth, but overall this isn't a coin that Dell Loy feels like is the cornerstone of the set. He understands that total completion isn't possible, but we'll complete as much as we can with the highest quality possible...
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
@specialist said:
Further he replaced a HIGH END MS65 1861 CAC $1 for a washed out NO CAC MS66. Stuff liek that makes my blood curtal. Got forbid if he touched my HIS 3CS PR set....i can't look.
I fixed it for you (at least the most important part).
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
>
I’ll bet it would fit into his “framework” at some price.
I agree. The Eliasberg coin sold in a NGC PF66 holder 17 years before for $1.84 million. It resold in a PCGS PF66 CAC holder for $4.56 million in 2018. Did the value really increase 2.5x in that time? I have my doubts given the overall coin market and the fact that many ultra rarities were also taking a hit (compare the 1804 dollar among others). I am aware that the 64 brought over $3 million, but it also had a downward trend losing 12% in 4 years (not counting the loss from inflation). The last sale barely beat the 63 from the year before. Only time will tell.
P.S. The cynic in me wonders whether two sticker fans became obsessed with having the only "CAC" exemplar and overbid. It will be interesting to see if the data point is reproducible. Who owns it now? Is it in solid hands (e.g. collectors) or is it owned by an investment group that is likely to flip it in the near future?
Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
>
I’ll bet it would fit into his “framework” at some price.
I agree. The Eliasberg coin sold in a NGC PF66 holder 17 years before for $1.84 million. It resold in a PCGS PF66 CAC holder for $4.56 million in 2018. Did the value really increase 2.5x in that time? I have my doubts given the overall coin market and the fact that many ultra rarities were also taking a hit (compare the 1804 dollar among others). I am aware that the 64 brought over $3 million, but it also had a downward trend losing 12% in 4 years (not counting the loss from inflation). The last sale barely beat the 63 from the year before. Only time will tell.
P.S. The cynic in me wonders whether two sticker fans became obsessed with having the only "CAC" exemplar and overbid. It will be interesting to see if the data point is reproducible. Who owns it now? Is it in solid hands (e.g. collectors) or is it owned by an investment group that is likely to flip it in the near future?
The Eliasberg coin seemed like good value to me at $4.5 million, even ignoring the CAC angle. The coin is way better than the other two privately held pieces, especially in terms of eye appeal.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Good morning,
For the record my 1883 in 67 CAC is also a gem and should plus. However for reasons we all know or speculate on, certain
people have an easier time getting pluses than others.
Comments
I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.
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
And Eliasberg had rolls of 1883 nc nickels. Will he have to collect these as well?
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I think it’s possible to have a more complete set than Eliasberg without having exactly all the coins that he did.
That being said, when people talk about the Eliasberg set, they often talk about the 1933 double eagle and 1913 Liberty head nickel. It will be interesting to see what the halo coins are in the DLH set.
>
I’ll bet it would fit into his “framework” at some price.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase
Then forget about being the greatest collection ever
Is that some sort of Registry rule, or just your opinion?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I'm definitely biased, but he has to have the 1913 nickel. It's a glaring hole if he doesn't! For me, it's more important than ALL the moderns.
Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).
The issue is that it’s a “coin”. “Should” is determined by the set creator and the court of public opinion.
To me, the 1933 double eagle is the bigger coin of the 2, but I wonder why many 1913 proponents don’t talk about the 1933, though a few do.
At the same time, I wonder why more can’t just enjoy that a collector is doing something amazing.
Perhaps, but why keep harping on it here? You have an opinion, as stated. Others have their opinions. He might still end up with one. Why not just give it some time?
I think it’s even more the case with the 1933 double eagle. Why don’t you mention that coin?
I respond because I don’t understand why you focus on that coin so much so I’m trying to understand.
The 1913 Liberty nickel was prized by some of the owners of this famous coin- McDermott, Hawn, Walton, Mrs. Norweb, etc.
On the other hand, Newman could’ve kept one of the five but didn’t, presumably because he didn’t think it was that important an issue and he could buy more significant things with the funds. Nobody would ever doubt Newman's acumen as a numismatist.
If Mr. Hansen has had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 nickels and passed- well there are only 3 in private hands. So it sounds like he has made his decision on this issue.
In my opinion, apples and oranges.
Some that think the set needs the 1913 also think it needs the 1933. Why do you think one and not the other?
A picture says a thousand words...
The 1913 is not just some coin. It is historically one of the top two coins in American numismatics. It’s on the cover of that book because of its importance to coin collecting as a whole, that is not just my opinion.
You willfully leave out one of the top two coins then you cost yourself your place in history. And that is indeed my opinion
Bob Simpson who DOES own the greatest coin collection ever, does not have an 1913 or 1804 $1. He does not believe in them. But he has coins of classic rarity caliber that Delloy or even tyannt will never own (in Numismatic history, the Gold Amazonian set tops everything).
The problem w/Delloy not owning a 5C 1913 Lib is that he has spouted off saying he wants to be Eliasberg and complete. If he never wanted one he should have said so long ago. Well, Eliasberg had the finest 1913 -the first coin to break $1 million AND patterns!
You can't have it all ways guys. Bob Simspon FIRMLY ranks #1 and has a HUGE place in history for what he owns (about only half his collections are listed on the registries).
I would imagine TDN and others don’t agree since Simpson doesn’t own those marquee coins.
TDN indicates the 1913 is one of the greatest coins, independent of Eliasberg. To quote TDN on not having the 1913:
I didn’t confuse them. TDN wrote “greatest collection ever”. Laura wrote “greatest coin collection ever”. I didn’t see “greatest full set” in TDN’s statement. It’s pretty clear.
What I wrote was in the context of Eliasberg vs Hansen. Two complete or nearly complete basic sets duking it out head to head
Can a collection without a 1913 be the greatest? Sure thing- if it was more extensive than one single example each of what was in the Eliasberg basic set.
But that’s not what we were discussing as that’s not what Hansen is doing.
And no, Simpson’s collection is not the greatest ever. Brand, Farouk, Green...
But it very well may be the current finest. I suppose that depends on what the judging requirements are...
we do know that Hansen had the opportunity to buy a 1913 nickel and the resources and passed. I am sure he has a plan. Keep in mind he has done all this in just a few years----so give him a chance to ge there.
I’m waiting for Hansen to pick up a gold Confederate cent which Eliasberg had, but I’m not making judgements on Hansen not having one, yet
Does Simpson have one?
Simpson is not in a self stated competition with Eliasberg’s basic set
The question for Simpson is independent of Eliasberg. Laura put Simpson in contention for “the greatest coin collection ever” which, to me, includes Eliasberg but is more than just matching and exceeding Eliasberg.
there is a big difference between the greatest collection ever or the current greatest collection.
And then there is a difference between GREAT coins and just a complete collection.
There is no GREAT collection without many GREAT coins.
There have been many great coins at Garrett and Eliasberg, many more than I have seen here so far.
Greatest collection ever is hard to judge because what is the criteria? Yes, it would include patterns and quite likely coins of the world. It wouldn’t be just a bare basic set
Can Del Loy beat Eliasberg’s basic set...sure. But does he then beat Eliasberg’s collection as a whole? Not without adding patterns and foreign coins. The Eliasberg Collection was more than just a basic set of American coins
Delloys collection is one of the greatest ever-NOT THE. I give him his due.
I am still pissed he ruined Bruces STD set by putting iona cleaned 70CC he promised me he never would have. Further he replaced a HIGH END MS65 1861 CAC $1 for a washed out NO CAC MS66. Stuff liek that makes my blood curtal. Got forbid if he touched my 3CS PR set....i can't look.
Don’t forget US Philippines, colonials, territorials, Confederates, tokens, and medals. Eliasberg had all of these.
Don't forget the 1964-D Peace Dollar
And since we post houses on this forum, here's John Travolta's house which accommodates large aircraft
Amazing Liberty Seated Half Dollar
We have forgotten about the Liberty Seated Half Dollars, but they are coming back in the spotlight. This series was one of the first that Hansen completed as All-Time Finest (9/11/2017). The set was completed with a rating of 60.85. Today, the rating is 63.29. You can quickly see that in less than two years, this set has increase by about 2.5 points. If I had to guess, it is not final yet, especially with the possible purchase of a new group of coins. He also has the All-Time Finest for the Major Variety set, with only one coin remaining, 1842 “Small Date, Rev of 1839”. To continue, Hansen has the All-Time Finest Proof Series in Basic and Major Varieties. He is missing three proofs, 1839 “Drapery”, 1844, and 1853 “Arrows and Rays”. I think his Collection of Liberty Seated Half Dollars is World-Class. Maybe the Liberty Seated Half Dollars could be a candidate for Hall of Fame end of this month. I don’t think there has been a HOF Liberty Seated Half Dollar Collection.
My sources say that Hansen purchased a group of CAC'd Seated Half Dollars that should upgraded this collection significantly. I don’t know anymore about the purchase than this. The only current registry set that could have significance upgrade ability, would be MR. PERFECTION 8A. Maybe @Perfection can confirm or not. The purchased coins may not be in the registry. Either way, I am going to watch for them. I hope you do too.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1839-1891/alltimeset/151261
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-varieties-circulation-strikes-1839-1891/alltimeset/150248
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-basic-set-proof-1839-1857/alltimeset/151544
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-varieties-proof-1839-1857/2702
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-basic-set-proof-1858-1891/824
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-varieties-proof-1858-1891/2705
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-basic-set-circulation-strikes-proof-1839-1891/3321
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-varieties-circulation-strikes-proof-1839-1891/3320
1883 Liberty Seated Half Dollar PCGS POP 1/0
There is something about this coin that just shouts out at me. Compared to some other coins in the collection, this coin is not that big of a deal. Still, the coin is an amazing addition. For the Liberty Seated Half Dollars, this is a pretty tough date. PCGS Expert Ron Guth provides these comments: The 1883 Half Dollar is a great date because of its miniscule mintage of only 8,000 coins. However, it is a tough coin to find in any condition, thus many collectors resort to a Proof version (which is twice as plentiful as the Mint State edition). To compound the problem, there are many examples that are so Prooflike that they are often confused with Proofs. On the other hand, there is a tendency to designate Proofs as Mint State because of the higher value of the latter. The typical Mint State 1883 Half Dollar grades out at MS64. The very best coins are MS67 or better, with the finest example being a single PCGS MS67+.
The coin was acquired in a David Lawrence Rare Coin Auction. As you may know, Hansen is a partner in this company. The auctioneer gives a very simple description: Key, low mintage issue. This coin comes from a tiny mintage of just 8,000 pieces struck! CAC approved for quality. PCGS+ grade for premium quality at the top of end of the assigned grade. My experience from DLRC auctions is the descriptions are very short and to the point. I think they let the coin speak for itself. The CAC coin sold on Sunday, May 26, 2019 for $49,450. This is an Auction Record for the 1883 Half Dollar.
We don’t know the provenance for the coin. The only additional info that I can find is the coin appeared in the Legend's Regency Auction XI on February 19th, 2015. The coin was passed. The description from this auction does not share much additional information for the history of the coin. This coin is the undisputed finest 1883 Half Dollar in existence! The surfaces are clean, lustrous, satiny smooth, and do have traces of semi-prooflike mirrors. A stunning ring of blue/gold/green frames the rims on both sides. We would grade the reverse full MS68. Miss Liberty and the details are frosted and crisply struck. The eye appeal is superb! 8000 were ever minted and this is the only MS67+ graded by both PCGS and NGC. The last regular PCGS MS67 to sell was in 2005, when one realized $28,750.00 in a strong market. The consignor is changing their collecting direction and has instructed us to find a good home for this rarity. Legends estimated the value at $32,500 - $37,500 in 2015. I wonder who the collector that was “changing their collecting direction”.
Provenance: Unknown
In comparison, The Eliasberg registry set describes his 1883 Half Dollar Specimen as assumed grade Choice Proof. Sold by Bowers & Merena Apr '97 price realized $4,180. Lot #2054. I am not sure if Eliasberg had a Mint State Specimen or not.
Hansen has both Mint State and Proof Specimens
1883 Liberty Seated Half Dollar MS67+ POP 1/0
Certification #06628328, PCGS #6365, CAC
PCGS Price Guide Value: $49,500
1883 Liberty Seated Half Dollar PR67CAM POP 5/1
Certification #33085746, PCGS #86444
PCGS Price Guide Value: $12,500
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Here's the pedigree from CoinFacts and CertVerifiation (CF first, CV second):
Here's the Simpson specimen unc. specimen for comparison. It's in an old style TrueView so it's in an older holder. Does this have upgrade potential?
1883 Liberty Seated Half Dollar MS67 POP 3/1, Simpson
Certification #06666691, PCGS #6365, Non-CAC
PCGS Price Guide Value: $35,000
I really like the toning pattern in the obverse on this one. This is the Gardner-Chrismor specimen. Here's the pedigree info from CoinFacts:
This is PR67 CAM. The higher pop coin is PR67 DCAM. There's no pedigree or photo for the PR67 DCAM on CoinFacts.
Eye candy
Hanson is doing very well on the Liberty Seated Half Dollars, but missing from the All Time Set Registry comparison is Gardner's collection. He was known for having amazing Liberty Seated sets, including proofs.
I doubt it will be his last opportunity.
I fixed it for you (at least the most important part).
I agree. The Eliasberg coin sold in a NGC PF66 holder 17 years before for $1.84 million. It resold in a PCGS PF66 CAC holder for $4.56 million in 2018. Did the value really increase 2.5x in that time? I have my doubts given the overall coin market and the fact that many ultra rarities were also taking a hit (compare the 1804 dollar among others). I am aware that the 64 brought over $3 million, but it also had a downward trend losing 12% in 4 years (not counting the loss from inflation). The last sale barely beat the 63 from the year before. Only time will tell.
P.S. The cynic in me wonders whether two sticker fans became obsessed with having the only "CAC" exemplar and overbid. It will be interesting to see if the data point is reproducible. Who owns it now? Is it in solid hands (e.g. collectors) or is it owned by an investment group that is likely to flip it in the near future?
It’s the cornerstone of the Forsythe Liberty nickel collection
The Eliasberg coin seemed like good value to me at $4.5 million, even ignoring the CAC angle. The coin is way better than the other two privately held pieces, especially in terms of eye appeal.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Is it also the first coin in the Forsythe Liberty nickel collection? My understanding is it is but it’s good to be clear.
No, The #1 Circulation Strike and #1 Proof strike sets were also obtained. Forsythe has a Liberty Nickel set that cannot be topped.
Good morning,
For the record my 1883 in 67 CAC is also a gem and should plus. However for reasons we all know or speculate on, certain
people have an easier time getting pluses than others.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/liberty-seated-half-dollars-major-sets/liberty-seated-half-dollars-date-set-circulation-strikes-1839-1891/alltimeset/123708
Perfection