The ANA Stacks Bowers Auction will provide amazing opportunities for Mr. Hansen. Not only the 1893-S dime, but the ESM Collection of IHC PR coins with many top pops, and the Taraszka Eagles offer many upgrade possibilities.
I wonder if he might have had the opportunity to buy the ESM Collection intact?, so will follow that with much interest. Hansen's set of PR IHC's is mostly favoring nicely toned coins, but the opportunity to pick up very top pop cameo coins has to be attractive. Certainly he does have the resources to own a set of toned PR coins, which he already has, and a set of top pop cameo examples.
@tradedollarnut said:
My notes on the Eliasberg coin are very succinct: “wow!” There is an estimated ms67 on the condition census at CoinFacts. That more than likely means it graded MS68 at NGC in 1997....and is by far the finest known.
NGC lists 2 graded higher than the PCGS top pop, a MS68 and a MS67. I wonder which one, if either, is the Eliasberg coin? Anyone know how to find out and also find out if the NGC MS68 and NGC MS67 are CAC?
@zoins old buddy I’m 2.4K behind and this thing won’t die how about catching me up Brother
Jabba
Hey @jabba, Hansen is creating a complete collection of US coins, business strikes, proofs, classics, and moderns. The great thing about this journey is that it covers all coins, including lots of PCGS coins in Registry Sets and with TrueViews. You get a great history of all kinds of coins in this thread. You can get caught up here:
@OldIndianNutKase said:
The ANA Stacks Bowers Auction will provide amazing opportunities for Mr. Hansen. Not only the 1893-S dime, but the ESM Collection of IHC PR coins with many top pops, and the Taraszka Eagles offer many upgrade possibilities.
I wonder if he might have had the opportunity to buy the ESM Collection intact?, so will follow that with much interest. Hansen's set of PR IHC's is mostly favoring nicely toned coins, but the opportunity to pick up very top pop cameo coins has to be attractive. Certainly he does have the resources to own a set of toned PR coins, which he already has, and a set of top pop cameo examples.
Not to mention Heritage is selling the Castle collection of MS Indian cents in their sale.
I've been wondering if he will pick one up. It's nice that the PR66 has had only one owner, aside from dealer Fred Vollmer who purchased both from the same discoverer.
This was such a great find. I'm a big fan of error coins like this and the 1955 DDO cent, which were known by the Mint before release but still ended up getting released any way.
Creation of a Modern Rarity
Until 1996, all U.S. coinage dies were produced at the Philadelphia Mint. The dies were then shipped to the various branch mints as needed, complete with the appropriate mint mark. Proof coins were struck at the San Francisco Mint in 1975 and all 2,845,450 proof 1975 dimes should have featured the S mintmark. However, the San Francisco Mint also struck 71,991,900 business-strike dimes with no mintmark that year, to help the Philadelphia Mint provide the 585,673,900 coins needed for circulation. There is no way to differentiate the business-strike coins that were struck at San Francisco from those struck at Philadelphia, since they were all struck from dies without a mintmark. According to an excellent article by Bill Gibbs in the September 1, 2011 edition of Coin World, while all the dies were manufactured in Philadelphia, the proof dies were actually polished to impart the proof finish in San Francisco. It seems that one of the dies with no mintmark, intended for business-strike production, was accidentally polished up, along with the proof dies, and used to strike a small run of proof dimes before the mistake was noticed. The San Francisco Mint has been tight-lipped on this subject, but quality control must have been excellent that year, as it seems that only two NO S dimes escaped detection and were released with the regular proof sets. Any other NO S dimes that were struck must have been detected and destroyed before leaving the Mint.
It is nice to see Hansen is actively working on improving his Liberty Seated Half Dimes. His PCGS Basic set ranks #4 All-Times behind two retired sets and the current #1 set. The #1 set has a GPA Weight of slightly above 66. The set has 21 PCGS POP 1/0 specimens. In comparison, Hansen’s set has only 6 PCGS POP 1/0 specimens with GPA Weight slightly above 64. These two points will be hard if not impossible to achieve. That does not seem to deter Hansen as can be seen with this upgrade.
The 70 coin set is not one of the most popular series. The small size of the coin may be a factor in the lack of popularity. This is PCGS’s comments on the series: Liberty Seated Half Dimes were produced from 1837 until 1873 when they were replaced by the nickel five-cent coin. Half Dimes were minted in Philadelphia, New Orleans, and San Francisco. Due to its small size, the series has not been popular with collectors. As a result many of the issues can be found reasonably priced in all grades. However, as might be expected, Superb Uncirculated pieces may require a bit of searching.
1849 Half Dime MS67
This is another PCGS POP 1/0 specimen added to the Great Collection. The 1849 Half Dime is interesting in that it is a common coin with three major varieties. Although the variety is not listed, I believed this coin to be a V-3. The date is slightly high in the field but does not touch the base of Liberty. I believe the coin last auction appearance was the Heritage 2015 Gardner Collection IV Signature sale. At time of sale, the coin was in a MS67 NGC holder.
As I stated, the 1849 is a fairly common date. This is expert comments by Ron Guth. The 1849 Half Dime has the second largest mintage of any Half Dime date from the 1840s. However, the date is split into three major varieties: 1849 Normal Date, 1849/8, and 1849/6. While the overdates take up some of the mintage, the remaining Normal Dates are still relatively common and are valued only slightly higher than the most common P-Mints. Most 1849 Half Dimes are struck well and show strong details, especially in the central areas of the dies.
We don’t know how John Brush acquired this coin. We can assume it was a private transaction. By comparing pictures, I believe this coin is from the Gardner Collection. The coin was auctioned four times between 2004 and 2015. The finest known specimen is the MS68 NGC from The Kennywood Collection that sold in the 2005 American Numismatic Rarities auction for a record sale price of $8,625.
Presently, the Hansen’s MS67 specimen is not listed in the CoinFacts Condition Census report. When it is added, I would expect it to be in the second spot. In the 2015 auction, Heritage describe the coin as : This Superb Gem is predominantly frosty in texture, and the surfaces reveal glints of brightness in the fields at select angles. A dusting of golden-gray patina appears over both sides, a little more intense on the reverse, as well as iridescent peripheral crescents of cobalt-blue and lavender. A vertical toning line bisects the reverse to the left. An exquisite coin in terms of both technical quality and aesthetic appeal. The toning line to me appear a little distracting. Anyone know what would have been the cause this line? Other than that, the coin is a beauty. The consignor in the Heritage Auction had this to say: This coin is virtually perfect, although there are a few die polish lines on both the obverse and the reverse, especially at the bottom of the reverse. Blythe declares it a slightly better date and rates it R.4 in Mint State. This is another really nice addition.
Provenance: Thomas H. Sebring (American Numismatic Rarities, 1/2004), lot 1352; ANA Signature (Heritage, 7/2005), lot 5776; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2008), lot 892; (Heritage, 10/2015) Gardner Collection IV US Coins Signature Auction - New York lot 1229
Thanks for pointing out this coin. This would complete Hansen’s Modern Proof registry set. This would be the first time anyone has ever completed this set. As stated, only two of these coins are known, and is very rare for one to appear in auction. I don’t know where this coin falls on Hansen’s priority list. As quick count of Hansen Proof needs, Heritage have about 10-12 classic proofs being offered that Hansen may have keen interest. Many are extremely rare and expensive. To run the table, could be as much as $4-$5 Million. It will be interesting to see which of these coins being offered by Heritage that Hansen will aggressive seek. I will not attempt to guess.
There is a coin that being auctioned that Mr. Link recommend several months ago. Not the best of specimens, but is very rare. Mr. Link, any thoughts, hit or wait?
Lastly, this discussion excludes all the rarities being offered by Stacks & Bowers. If Hansen pop on everything that would Improve his collection, he could easily spend excess of $10M at ANA.
Thanks for pointing out this coin. This would complete Hansen’s Modern Proof registry set. This would be the first time anyone has ever completed this set. As stated, only two of these coins are known, and is very rare for one to appear in auction. I don’t know where this coin falls on Hansen’s priority list. As quick count of Hansen Proof needs, Heritage have about 10-12 classic proofs being offered that Hansen may have keen interest. Many are extremely rare and expensive. To run the table, could be as much as $4-$5 Million. It will be interesting to see which of these coins being offered by Heritage that Hansen will aggressive seek. I will not attempt to guess.
There is a coin that being auctioned that Mr. Link recommend several months ago. Not the best of specimens, but is very rare. Mr. Link, any thoughts, hit or wait?
Lastly, this discussion excludes all the rarities being offered by Stacks & Bowers. If Hansen pop on everything that would Improve his collection, he could easily spend excess of $10M at ANA.
Currin, You are most welcome. I really would like to see Hansen obtain this dime as he needs it.
My take on the 1975-No-S is that PCGS says there are only 2 known. W/O digging up my Kevin Flynn Roosevelt book, I want to say that he mentions that 5 total specimens are known. Maybe someone can clarify that for me. It's a modern and with that it automatically opens up to "More could be found". I could buy an unopened box of (5) 1975 Proof sets from eBay and all 5 could be No-S, it's just a matter of faith and luck. I certainly wouldn't say BOO until after the auction was up.
I know Dr. Brown had a thread on here some years ago asking if anyone knew where one was that he could buy. Does he know about this one yet, as he is hardly on here?
With it being a modern, I still stand at $400K but would love to see it go through the roof. Because the dies were meant for Business Strike dimes, being a PR68 is a great grade. Doubt that one would grade Cam or DCam d/t this die issue.
Not only that, it has some real nice toning to it.
“@wondercoin said:
“Hansen will more than likely go for the coin. If he wins, he would be the first person in history to complete a 1964-Date Proof Set. This is the last coin he needs.”
Nope. He is also missing the Unique 1976 No S Ike $1. That will be the only coin he is missing to finish that set.
Wondercoin
Mitch. You are correct. I stated on Hansen watch that if he makes this purchase, he would be the first to complete the register set.
I hear Hansen will never be able to purchase the Ike. Unless the owner’s son sells it to Hansen. 😉”
Currin: As Stooge says... every coin has a price. Justin has sold Hansen many modern coins over the past few years. Anything is possible.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Just a couple weeks left before the big ANA auctions. You would think Hansen may be taking a well-deserved breather. Nope. So, where is he looking for PGCS TOP POP coins? It appears to be ebay and GreatCollections. So what do you think Hansen can find by online shopping? How about a PCGS TOP POP late 19th century Eagle. The 1874 Eagle PCGS MS65+ Specimen, equipped with a CAC sticker. David Akers (1975/88) provide these comments on this date: The 1874 is scarce in all grades although it is not nearly as rare as any of the With Motto Philadelphia Mint issues preceding it. I n choice or gem mint state, the date is rare.
The coin first appeared on ebay in early May. Now, here is the weird part, the seller was David Lawrence Rare Coins. The coin was listed for $70,900. The coin was described as: Gorgeous, low mintage P-mint from the 1870's. Only 53,160 coins struck. The finest graded by PCGS, the surfaces and devices are absolutely immaculate. PCGS+ grade for premium quality at the top of end of the assigned grade. The listing ran for about three weeks and closed on May 20, 2019 without selling. The reason given: This listing was ended by the seller because the item is no longer available. Here is another tidbit of information, the picture of the coin on ebay did not have the sticker.
Here is where the story gets really interesting. The coin showed as item ID #720589 in GreatCollection’s July 07, 2019 online auction. The coin was featured on the weekend’s HotList. This time the coin realized $118,227.38 with buyer’s fee. Same coin in what appear to be the same holder, but this time the coin had a CAC sticker. I am assuming a brand new CAC sticker! After spending three weeks on ebay without any players, the GreatCollections listing had 1854 page views, with 53 GC members tracking. The listing ended with 15 bidders placing 52 bids. I would say a considerable difference in interest.
1874 Eagle PCGS MS65+ POP 1/0 - CAC
After all this drama, I wish I knew more about this coin. There does not appear to a provenance that I can find. The coin is listed as #1 in CoinFacts Condition Census report. There is no additional information given for Pedigree and History. The record auction price for this date is $41,800.00 for a choice MS in 1996 Spink America sale. That specimen was from the Byron Reed Collection. It would be nice if we could compare pictures. You must go all the way back to 2008 to find the most recent MS65 to be auction. The picture for that coin does not match. At this point, we don’t know. Hansen duplicate coin being replaced is an 1874 Eagle PCGS MS62 Certification #81909424. The coin has a POP of 11/7.
Provenance: Unknown (other recent listings)
In an Eliasberg comparison, the PCGS Auction website indicates Bowers & Ruddy sold in their Oct-1982 - Eliasberg Gold Collection Auction an EF45 for $385.
@Gazes said: John Brush states "Now, you may have read about these two exorbitant purchases in recent weeks as it's been over the news, but the record breaking 1931-S and 1938-S dimes are now part of the Hansen Collection. There's been much criticism regarding the 'value' on these as well, but the part that is unknown by most is that we've been offered a profit on the coins already.
Speaking for myself and any other uninformed, small-time collectors who will never ever be major "players"... Get "them" to raise the offer just a little more and SELL THEM! LOL.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
The ANA Stacks Bowers Auction will provide amazing opportunities for Mr. Hansen. Not only the 1893-S dime, but the ESM Collection of IHC PR coins with many top pops, and the Taraszka Eagles offer many upgrade possibilities.
Not to mention Heritage is selling the Castle collection of MS Indian cents in their sale.
If I recall correctly, IHC is one of the series that JB said they would like to improve. Hansen has the current #1 comprehensive set with mint state and proofs. I could see a lot of cherry picking in the upcoming auctions to get this set to #1 All-Time. The EMS Proof set has 11 PCGS POP 1/0 specimens. The Castle set is closed for public view, so not sure how many are being offered. Hansen has no PCGS POP 1/0 IHC specimens in his collection. His best coins are a couple POP 3/0 specimens. This is a significant opportunity for Hansen. Do we know if there are any serious competitors?
Hansen updates reveal a purchase of a set of Carson City Eagles. At least, the update confirms that 18 of the 19 coin set were purchased and updated in Hansen’s #1 and #2 sets. This purchased improved 10 coins in the top set and 8 in the #2 set. The only date that was not updated was the 1884-CC. I am not sure if that coin was in the purchase, or Hansen already had two better coins. From pedigree information, many of the coins are contributed to the Northern California Collection. I did not find any information on this collection, and it does not appear listed in the registry. It would be interesting if anyone know any additional information on the collection and when it was sold. It does not appear to have sold in auction. The collection appears to me to be a high-end set from this old western mint.
The 19 coin Carson City Eagles are fairly difficult set. Currently, the registry lists only 3 sets that are 100% completed. With this purchase, we know Hansen has 2 complete sets, but has not created or published his second set yet. The registry list 61.243 as the highest possible Set Rating. Hansen’s rating is a solid 57. Several of the eagles cannot be found in MS condition. PCGS set description: The Carson City mint holds a special place in the hearts and minds of U.S. numismatists, conjuring up (largely accurate) images of a small "wild west" town where gold and silver were king. In operation from 1870 through 1893, mintages were generally quite modest with only the later (1890 and after) issues being struck in decent quantity. The opening year of 1870 is clearly the key to this fairly short set with fewer than 70 pieces extant, all of which are well-circulated. There really are no "common" dates in this set, with most of the other dates in the 1870s certainly scarce at the very least.
I recalled JB telling us that they are interested in sets if the purchase improves more that 50% of existing coins. In this purchase, 10 of 19 coins were improved. In addition, two of the coins were PCGS POP 1/0 specimens, and two others were PCGS POP 2/0 coins. In the comment fields, four of them were indicated as being CAC.
1873-CC Eagle PCGS AU58 POP 1/0 - CAC
Of the two POP 1/0 specimens, I like the 1873-CC specimen the best. I am not persuaded by the CAC sticker, I just personally like it better by the pictures. The coin is pedigreed to the Northern California Collection in the Condition Census Report. That is about the extent that I can find out about this coin. Some of the other coins in the purchase have a more impressive history including the likes of Bass, Simpson, and Hall. Doug Winter describes the 1873-CC as: With very few exceptions, all 1873-CC issues (in silver and gold) are quite rare and the 1873-CC eagle is no exception. I rank the 1873-CC as the third rarest Carson City eagle in overall rarity and it may actually be the single rarest in high grades. I doubt if more than a half dozen properly graded AU pieces exist and there are currently no 1873-CC eagles known that are even close to being Uncirculated. The single finest I am aware of is in an East Coast collection (it was acquired from me via private treaty in 2008) and it grades AU55 at PCGS. As with the 1870-CC, this date is rare because of two factors. A limited number were struck (just 4,543 in this case) and many saw active use in circulation (and were later melted). Survivors are apt to be heavily worn and even accurately graded EF's are quite scarce. This tends to be a decently produced issue in terms of strike but nearly all known examples have little or no luster, abraded surfaces and poor overall eye appeal.
PCGS price guide values the coin just shy of $100K at $97,500. Without being auctioned, I would guess the real value may be undetermined. The finest 1873-CC Eagle recently appearing in auction is the 1873-CC $10 AU55 NGC from The Admiral Collection that realized $66,000 in a 2018 Heritage Auction. This is the auction record for the date and mint.
Provenance: Northern California Collection
In an Eliasberg comparison, the PCGS Auction website indicates his specimen was sold by Bowers & Ruddy in their Oct-1982 - Eliasberg Gold Collection Auction, an EF40 for $1430.
Hansen updates reveal a purchase of a set of Carson City Eagles. At least, the update confirms that 18 of the 19 coin set were purchased and updated in Hansen’s #1 and #2 sets. This purchased improved 10 coins in the top set and 8 in the #2 set. The only date that was not updated was the 1884-CC. I am not sure if that coin was in the purchase, or Hansen already had two better coins. From pedigree information, many of the coins are contributed to the Northern California Collection. I did not find any information on this collection, and it does not appear listed in the registry. It would be interesting if anyone know any additional information on the collection and when it was sold. It does not appear to have sold in auction. The collection appears to me to be a high-end set from this old western mint.
Yes, we acquired this Registry Set this past week. It was a really impressive group and it improved quite a few coins, making the $10 Liberty set a much higher quality overall set. I can't disclose the particulars on this acquisition just yet, but we'll unveil it at the ANA show. We plan to have the coins on display there as well as the #1 rated Proof Trade Dollar Set and several other recent acquisitions that we're working through at the moment.
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
@tradedollarnut said:
Positive or insightful or not - at least some of her comments were valid and inspired discussion
I miss most of her insights as well...
Being that JB made this comment on her behalf, do we know when the ban will be lifted? I thought the ban was a temporary suspension. I too would like to see the ban lifted.
Let’s see how many agrees we can get! If we can get enough, maybe Heather will take notice.
Guys, Let’s get back on track and discuss the coins....
Hansen has acquired a new pattern, 1870 25C J-922. The coin has Simpson’s Pedigree. This specimen is a PCGS POP 1/1. We can assume the Top POP Specimen is in Black Cat’s Collection, according to what we have been told that he is holding. This new Hansen coin sold twice in 2017 for an average of about $6K. As with many patterns, PCGS coin guide does not show a price for this coin. It appears the coin may have been obtained in a private transaction. Is this coin the ice breaker to a start of something? Only way to know is watch and see.
There’s been a lot of discussion in the past on patterns. Can someone briefly explain what they are? I’m assuming they’re trial pieceses or designs that were officially struck by the US Mint for consideration but were rejected by the powers that be? Is that correct?
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
I personally dont like patterns, they are not real coins in my opinion.
They were not made for circulation.
They were design recommendations to win to become a regular coin but didnt win.
Some of them are fantasy > @JBatDavidLawrence said:
@tradedollarnut said:
Positive or insightful or not - at least some of her comments were valid and inspired discussion
There’s been a lot of discussion in the past on patterns. Can someone briefly explain what they are? I’m assuming they’re trial pieceses or designs that were officially struck by the US Mint for consideration but were rejected by the powers that be? Is that correct?
The below is copied, in part, from an article I found on the net. I first saw the DuBois quote many years ago and have always loved it.
“Open for me your cabinet of Patterns, and I open for you a record, which, but for these half-forgotten witnesses, would have disappeared under the finger of Time. ....Now, only these live to tell the tale of what might have been.” Those words of Mint Curator Patterson DuBois in the January 1883 American Journal of Numismatics still speak volumes about this often neglected area of U.S. numismatics. Even more than their intended-for-commerce brethren, patterns reflect the events, economics and personalities of their time. The status, origins, the very definition of these frequently enigmatic pieces have been a subject of fascination and debate ever since the little-known Mint products first came to the attention of collectors in the 1830s.
In his 1994 reference United States Patterns and Related Issues, numismatic researcher Andrew W. Pollock III defines a pattern as “an experimental piece which either illustrates a proposed coinage design, or which embodies a proposed innovation of composition, size, or shape.” Pollock acknowledges, however, that numismatists have traditionally employed a much broader definition of the word: experimental pieces, die trials, unofficial pieces and the often more nefarious restrikes and “pieces de caprice” made primarily for collectors also fall under this heading."
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld Thank you, that helps! I thought it was something along those lines. I didn't realize so many other types have been scooped up under the umbrella of "Patterns" at this point.
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
Hansen has acquired a new pattern, 1870 25C J-922. The coin has Simpson’s Pedigree. This specimen is a PCGS POP 1/1. We can assume the Top POP Specimen is in Black Cat’s Collection, according to what we have been told that he is holding.
It isn't registered to any of his sets. In fact, the PF67 isn't registered to anyone not even as inventory FWIW.
@SiriusBlack said:
There’s been a lot of discussion in the past on patterns. Can someone briefly explain what they are? I’m assuming they’re trial pieceses or designs that were officially struck by the US Mint for consideration but were rejected by the powers that be? Is that correct?
I personally dont like patterns, they are not real coins in my opinion.
They were not made for circulation.
They were design recommendations to win to become a regular coin but didnt win.
Some of them are fantasy
As a collector/dealer in patterns for the past 45 years, I've given them a lot of thought. When I started, I loved them all. To me, they were all museum pieces, and the thought that I could own them was overwhelmingly cool to me. As time has progressed, and as I've become more sophisticated (and jaded), I now view patterns in three different categories. For the purpose of this thread only, I'm going to call them Class I, 2 and 3.
First, Class I. These are the pieces that were made for legitimate purposes, i.e., NOT solely as an opportunity for Mint employees to make things they could sell to their collector and dealer friends. These include experimental pieces, proposed issues that were actually being considered for circulation, and a small number of early regular dies trial pieces. Examples include 1792 Silver Center Cents, 1814 Half Dollars in Platinum, 1877 Morgan Half Dollars and the 1907 Indian Head $20. (PRCC: Did you really say you don't like patterns??? ) This class comprises perhaps 20-25% of the pieces listed in Judd. To my way of thinking, they are among the most interesting, desirable and historically important coins in existence.
Second, Class 2. These are the patterns that were made for "illegitimate" purposes, but which are so cool that I would collect them anyway, purely as an indulgence, a "guilty pleasure". Examples might include an 1879 Schoolgirl Dollar struck in Copper (because a "real" Schoolgirl Dollar should be silver), a proof 1885 $20 Lib struck in Aluminum (because there was no conceivable real need to produce it), and an 1863 With Motto Seated Dollar (because it was backdated and actually struck AFTER the design change of 1866).
Third, Class 3. These, like the Class 2's, served no legitimate purpose. But unlike the Class 2's, they're not cool enough to overlook that fault. Examples include Aluminum Standard Silver dimes (not only the wrong metal, but a common and boring design), most "mules" (which are coins that pair an obverse and reverse that don't belong together), and so on. Personally, I tend to avoid these unless I think I can flip them for a quick profit.
Naturally, some people will disagree on how some issues should be classified. No problem. But my point is that if you think a little harder about what each individual coin is and why they were produced, you might see the series a little differently.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka Thank you! That helps a lot as well. I didn't realize there were so many possibilities in existence. Personally I guess I would find the "official" trial pieces the most interesting since they have a history backed by the government or mint as opposed to some employees messing around unofficially
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
I personally dont like patterns, they are not real coins in my opinion.
They were not made for circulation.
They were design recommendations to win to become a regular coin but didnt win.
Some of them are fantasy
As a collector/dealer in patterns for the past 45 years, I've given them a lot of thought. When I started, I loved them all. To me, they were all museum pieces, and the thought that I could own them was overwhelmingly cool to me. As time has progressed, and as I've become more sophisticated (and jaded), I now view patterns in three different categories. For the purpose of this thread only, I'm going to call them Class I, 2 and 3.
First, Class I. These are the pieces that were made for legitimate purposes, i.e., NOT solely as an opportunity for Mint employees to make things they could sell to their collector and dealer friends. These include experimental pieces, proposed issues that were actually being considered for circulation, and a small number of early regular dies trial pieces. Examples include 1792 Silver Center Cents, 1814 Half Dollars in Platinum, 1877 Morgan Half Dollars and the 1907 Indian Head $20. (PRCC: Did you really say you don't like patterns??? ) This class comprises perhaps 20-25% of the pieces listed in Judd. To my way of thinking, they are among the most interesting, desirable and historically important coins in existence.
Second, Class 2. These are the patterns that were made for "illegitimate" purposes, but which are so cool that I would collect them anyway, purely as an indulgence, a "guilty pleasure". Examples might include an 1879 Schoolgirl Dollar struck in Copper (because a "real" Schoolgirl Dollar should be silver), a proof 1885 $20 Lib struck in Aluminum (because there was no conceivable real need to produce it), and an 1863 With Motto Seated Dollar (because it was backdated and actually struck AFTER the design change of 1866).
Third, Class 3. These, like the Class 2's, served no legitimate purpose. But unlike the Class 2's, they're not cool enough to overlook that fault. Examples include Aluminum Standard Silver dimes (not only the wrong metal, but a common and boring design), most "mules" (which are coins that pair an obverse and reverse that don't belong together), and so on. Personally, I tend to avoid these unless I think I can flip them for a quick profit.
Naturally, some people will disagree on how some issues should be classified. No problem. But my point is that if you think a little harder about what each individual coin is and why they were produced, you might see the series a little differently. @MrEureka said:
I personally dont like patterns, they are not real coins in my opinion.
They were not made for circulation.
They were design recommendations to win to become a regular coin but didnt win.
Some of them are fantasy
As a collector/dealer in patterns for the past 45 years, I've given them a lot of thought. When I started, I loved them all. To me, they were all museum pieces, and the thought that I could own them was overwhelmingly cool to me. As time has progressed, and as I've become more sophisticated (and jaded), I now view patterns in three different categories. For the purpose of this thread only, I'm going to call them Class I, 2 and 3.
First, Class I. These are the pieces that were made for legitimate purposes, i.e., NOT solely as an opportunity for Mint employees to make things they could sell to their collector and dealer friends. These include experimental pieces, proposed issues that were actually being considered for circulation, and a small number of early regular dies trial pieces. Examples include 1792 Silver Center Cents, 1814 Half Dollars in Platinum, 1877 Morgan Half Dollars and the 1907 Indian Head $20. (PRCC: Did you really say you don't like patterns??? ) This class comprises perhaps 20-25% of the pieces listed in Judd. To my way of thinking, they are among the most interesting, desirable and historically important coins in existence.
Second, Class 2. These are the patterns that were made for "illegitimate" purposes, but which are so cool that I would collect them anyway, purely as an indulgence, a "guilty pleasure". Examples might include an 1879 Schoolgirl Dollar struck in Copper (because a "real" Schoolgirl Dollar should be silver), a proof 1885 $20 Lib struck in Aluminum (because there was no conceivable real need to produce it), and an 1863 With Motto Seated Dollar (because it was backdated and actually struck AFTER the design change of 1866).
Third, Class 3. These, like the Class 2's, served no legitimate purpose. But unlike the Class 2's, they're not cool enough to overlook that fault. Examples include Aluminum Standard Silver dimes (not only the wrong metal, but a common and boring design), most "mules" (which are coins that pair an obverse and reverse that don't belong together), and so on. Personally, I tend to avoid these unless I think I can flip them for a quick profit.
Naturally, some people will disagree on how some issues should be classified. No problem. But my point is that if you think a little harder about what each individual coin is and why they were produced, you might see the series a little differently.
That's an interesting way to classify them. PCGS should group its pattern registry categories like this too.
I personally dont like patterns, they are not real coins in my opinion.
They were not made for circulation.
They were design recommendations to win to become a regular coin but didnt win.
Some of them are fantasy
As a collector/dealer in patterns for the past 45 years, I've given them a lot of thought. When I started, I loved them all. To me, they were all museum pieces, and the thought that I could own them was overwhelmingly cool to me. As time has progressed, and as I've become more sophisticated (and jaded), I now view patterns in three different categories. For the purpose of this thread only, I'm going to call them Class I, 2 and 3.
First, Class I. These are the pieces that were made for legitimate purposes, i.e., NOT solely as an opportunity for Mint employees to make things they could sell to their collector and dealer friends. These include experimental pieces, proposed issues that were actually being considered for circulation, and a small number of early regular dies trial pieces. Examples include 1792 Silver Center Cents, 1814 Half Dollars in Platinum, 1877 Morgan Half Dollars and the 1907 Indian Head $20. (PRCC: Did you really say you don't like patterns??? ) This class comprises perhaps 20-25% of the pieces listed in Judd. To my way of thinking, they are among the most interesting, desirable and historically important coins in existence.
Second, Class 2. These are the patterns that were made for "illegitimate" purposes, but which are so cool that I would collect them anyway, purely as an indulgence, a "guilty pleasure". Examples might include an 1879 Schoolgirl Dollar struck in Copper (because a "real" Schoolgirl Dollar should be silver), a proof 1885 $20 Lib struck in Aluminum (because there was no conceivable real need to produce it), and an 1863 With Motto Seated Dollar (because it was backdated and actually struck AFTER the design change of 1866).
Third, Class 3. These, like the Class 2's, served no legitimate purpose. But unlike the Class 2's, they're not cool enough to overlook that fault. Examples include Aluminum Standard Silver dimes (not only the wrong metal, but a common and boring design), most "mules" (which are coins that pair an obverse and reverse that don't belong together), and so on. Personally, I tend to avoid these unless I think I can flip them for a quick profit.
Naturally, some people will disagree on how some issues should be classified. No problem. But my point is that if you think a little harder about what each individual coin is and why they were produced, you might see the series a little differently. @MrEureka said:
I personally dont like patterns, they are not real coins in my opinion.
They were not made for circulation.
They were design recommendations to win to become a regular coin but didnt win.
Some of them are fantasy
As a collector/dealer in patterns for the past 45 years, I've given them a lot of thought. When I started, I loved them all. To me, they were all museum pieces, and the thought that I could own them was overwhelmingly cool to me. As time has progressed, and as I've become more sophisticated (and jaded), I now view patterns in three different categories. For the purpose of this thread only, I'm going to call them Class I, 2 and 3.
First, Class I. These are the pieces that were made for legitimate purposes, i.e., NOT solely as an opportunity for Mint employees to make things they could sell to their collector and dealer friends. These include experimental pieces, proposed issues that were actually being considered for circulation, and a small number of early regular dies trial pieces. Examples include 1792 Silver Center Cents, 1814 Half Dollars in Platinum, 1877 Morgan Half Dollars and the 1907 Indian Head $20. (PRCC: Did you really say you don't like patterns??? ) This class comprises perhaps 20-25% of the pieces listed in Judd. To my way of thinking, they are among the most interesting, desirable and historically important coins in existence.
Second, Class 2. These are the patterns that were made for "illegitimate" purposes, but which are so cool that I would collect them anyway, purely as an indulgence, a "guilty pleasure". Examples might include an 1879 Schoolgirl Dollar struck in Copper (because a "real" Schoolgirl Dollar should be silver), a proof 1885 $20 Lib struck in Aluminum (because there was no conceivable real need to produce it), and an 1863 With Motto Seated Dollar (because it was backdated and actually struck AFTER the design change of 1866).
Third, Class 3. These, like the Class 2's, served no legitimate purpose. But unlike the Class 2's, they're not cool enough to overlook that fault. Examples include Aluminum Standard Silver dimes (not only the wrong metal, but a common and boring design), most "mules" (which are coins that pair an obverse and reverse that don't belong together), and so on. Personally, I tend to avoid these unless I think I can flip them for a quick profit.
Naturally, some people will disagree on how some issues should be classified. No problem. But my point is that if you think a little harder about what each individual coin is and why they were produced, you might see the series a little differently.
That's an interesting way to classify them. PCGS should group its pattern registry categories like this too.
Unfortunately, there are more than a few cases where it’s not clear if the issue had a legitimate purpose. Better to leave things as is for now, but consider my comments above when deciding which patterns belong in your collection.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Hansen has acquired a new pattern, 1870 25C J-922. The coin has Simpson’s Pedigree. This specimen is a PCGS POP 1/1. We can assume the Top POP Specimen is in Black Cat’s Collection, according to what we have been told that he is holding.
It isn't registered to any of his sets. In fact, the PF67 isn't registered to anyone not even as inventory FWIW.
True, but my stated assumption was based on a knowledgeable expert statement. We know Simpson does not have POP 1/0 in his pattern registry sets (he sold the 2/0), then we can assume the finest coin is in Black Cats unregistered collection. Right?
@specialist said:
There is no physical way Delloy will ever have anywhere near the great patterns that BC or Simspon have. Considering between them they own the finest individual pieces, how can any one ever compare?
Hansen has acquired a new pattern, 1870 25C J-922. The coin has Simpson’s Pedigree. This specimen is a PCGS POP 1/1. We can assume the Top POP Specimen is in Black Cat’s Collection, according to what we have been told that he is holding.
It isn't registered to any of his sets. In fact, the PF67 isn't registered to anyone not even as inventory FWIW.
True, but my stated assumption was based on a knowledgeable expert statement. We know Simpson does not have POP 1/0 in his pattern registry sets (he sold the 2/0), then we can assume the finest coin is in Black Cats unregistered collection. Right?
@specialist said:
There is no physical way Delloy will ever have anywhere near the great patterns that BC or Simspon have. Considering between them they own the finest individual pieces, how can any one ever compare?
But there are several pattern issues, and I interpreted Laura's comments to be of a general nature and not specific to any one issue or all issues. I would not infer anything here. Her statement could still be reasonable and make sense if the two own the vast majority of the top pieces for most issues and not necessarily all of the finest known/top pop coins for every issue. For instance, neither own the unique J-1776 double eagle pattern. I think we would be nitpicking her comments if we adopted a hyper literal interpretation though.
The term "finest" is also ambiguous. By finest does she mean the highest graded numerically or the best coins? The two aren't always the same. I think it is pretty much impossible to distinguish between a PF66+ and a PF67 based on images much less two images taken under drastically different lighting conditions. With this said, I concede that my method is hardly conclusive either as it assumes that registry users put all of their coins in their inventory even if not in their registry sets. That too is also a generalization and may not always hold true either.
I believe this may be the last Kennedy in the Major Variety Category that Hansen does not have. Stacks & Bowers is offering the coin in an upcoming auction. PCGS values at $150,000. Would you advise Hansen to pop on it?
Hansen has acquired a new pattern, 1870 25C J-922. The coin has Simpson’s Pedigree. This specimen is a PCGS POP 1/1. We can assume the Top POP Specimen is in Black Cat’s Collection, according to what we have been told that he is holding.
It isn't registered to any of his sets. In fact, the PF67 isn't registered to anyone not even as inventory FWIW.
True, but my stated assumption was based on a knowledgeable expert statement. We know Simpson does not have POP 1/0 in his pattern registry sets (he sold the 2/0), then we can assume the finest coin is in Black Cats unregistered collection. Right?
@specialist said:
There is no physical way Delloy will ever have anywhere near the great patterns that BC or Simspon have. Considering between them they own the finest individual pieces, how can any one ever compare?
But there are several pattern issues, and I interpreted Laura's comments to be of a general nature and not specific to any one issue or all issues. I would not infer anything here. Her statement could still be reasonable and make sense if the two own the vast majority of the top pieces for most issues and not necessarily all of the finest known/top pop coins for every issue. For instance, neither own the unique J-1776 double eagle pattern. I think we would be nitpicking her comments if we adopted a hyper literal interpretation though.
It's generally best to try to figure out what Laura means and not so much what she actually said.
And in that spirit, I think she meant that nobody can have a better collection of patterns than Simpson without him selling. I would have to agree with that, but I doubt that it will keep DLH up at night.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@Currin said:
I believe this may be the last Kennedy in the Major Variety Category that Hansen does not have. Stacks & Bowers is offering the coin in an upcoming auction. PCGS values at $150,000. Would you advise Hansen to pop on it?
The coin is a SP68, POP 5/1
I think the coin is in the Complete Variety Collection and not in the Major Variety Set. But I may be wrong.
To answer your question, if he likes the coin and he thinks it is worth the value then buy it otherwise pass.
@Currin said:
Would you advise Hansen to pop on it?
Personally I don't understand the valuation or logic for that coin at all. Hansen was said to have passed on the Eliasberg 1913 PF66 Liberty Head nickel because he didn't consider it a priority. If a coin like that isn't a priority, I can't imagine why a six figure Kennedy half would be. It isn't necessary for his Eliasberg quest either.
This past week Hansen posted eight updates from the recent retired HOF Jung Type Set. This is just the tip of the iceberg of many of the finest coins known from this spectacular type set. I am not sure if Hansen will purchase anymore upgrades from the Jung Collection. From what I have observed the availability by Jung coins to improve the Hansen Collection is very plentiful. From the information provided by Mr. Jung in public settings, he is planning to hold on to some of his finest early US issues. It will be interesting to watch and see what happens short and long term.
1838 No Drapery, Lg Stars, Seated Liberty Half Dime MS68+
This coin is one of the highlights of the purchase. This coin is graded at MS68+ and stands alone as the finest and only PCGS certified MS68+ Type 2, No Drapery, Seated Liberty Half Dime. In the entire Seated Liberty Half Dime series, only three other coins are PCGS graded MS68+. They are all Type 3, Stars on Obverse Types, and all are dated 1859. Hansen’s 1859 is a MS67+ and he has an 1853 MS68 for his Type set. The Jung set had one of these MS68+ specimens, but Hansen did not purchase. At least, he did not purchase in the first round.
Hansen has a pretty nice set of Seated Liberty Half Dimes. Of course, his collection is not comparable to the top set that contains the unique 1870-S specimen. The top set is almost two points ahead of Hansen. If Hansen can continue upgrading with the quality coins as this one, he can close the gap.
This coin represents the best of the best for the Type 2, No Drapery coins. This was a short run type of only three years. This new specimen by Hansen is mentioned in a description by Ron Guth: Mint engravers updated the design of the Half Dime in 1838 by adding stars to the obverse. By doing so, they matched the design with every other Seated Liberty design then in circulation with the exception of the Silver Dollar (which did not appear until 1840). Two major varieties appear in this year: the Large Stars and Small Stars. There is a marked difference in the sizes of the stars on the two varieties, and they can be seen best when the two varieties are laid side-by-side. Otherwise, an attribution guide, such as the images above, will be helpful. It is important to know the difference because the Small Stars is quite scarce in comparison to the Large Stars. The 1838 Large Stars No Drapery Half Dime is fairly common, including in Mint State grades, where hundreds of examples have been certified. The best example certified by PCGS is an amazingly colorful PCGS MS68, one of the finest early Seated Liberty Half Dimes of any date.
The coin has a pedigree that dates back to 2005 in a sale of the Lull Collection. It has been is three great collection since including Simpson, Jung and now Hansen. PCGS guide values the coin at $55,000. The last time the coin was sold in public auction was by Bowers & Merena in 2005 where the coin realized $34,500 as a PCGS MS68. Being the coin in a grouping that was purchased privately, we may never know the price Hansen offered for this coin. The auction record for this coin is $37,600 for an untoned MS68 specimen sold 5/2016 by Legends Rare Auctions. I can be very confident this coin would be valued at much more.
Provenance: James W. Lull Collection - Bowers & Merena 1/2005:661, $34,500 - Bob R. Simpson Collection - The Type Set Collection (Oliver Jung) (PCGS Set Registry) - D.L. Hansen Collection
In an Eliasberg comparison, the registry lists the Eliasberg Specimen as PCGS grade MS67, V-9, that was sold by Bowers & Merena May '96. The price realized $3,850. Lot #944. The Eliasberg specimen was pedigreed 11/3/05 by PCGS.
1838 No Drapery, Lg Stars, Seated Liberty H10C MS68+ (Gold Shield) PCGS POP for Coin: 1/0 / POP for Type: 1/0 Certification #29582777, PCGS #4317 PCGS Price Guide Value: $55,000 PCGS Pedigree: Simson
This very nice MS-68+ is a V-1, which is actually the "Small Stars" obverse.
It should probably be called the "Rusty Arm" instead.
You can tell from all the rust pits on the arm, and from the repunched stars 1 3 4 5 9 10 11 12.
The reverse has a die crack that splits D S (most visible in the leaves between D and H),
and a light crack at A2 (first A of AMERICA). It does not yet have the big clash.
This establishes it as an early die state V-1 (and not a V-2, which has an uncracked reverse die). https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/995123/1838-stars-half-dime
The use of the term "Small Stars", as I said in the above response, is very misleading, and can easily lead to an incorrect attribution of the 1838 V1 and V2 (Small Stars) because the small stars are a die state, rather than a die marriage, condition. That is, the small stars are only small in the later die states, after the obverse die was lapped; on the original obverse die of the V1 and V2, the stars were of normal size. The obverse die was heavily rusted, as seen on the Heritage coin referenced by Toyonakataro. Some coins were struck using this obverse die, but it was later determined to be unsightly, and the obverse die was lapped to remove the die rust, or spawling. On a die, the fields are the highest points on the die, and the devices are incuse, or below the surface of the die. Therefore, when the die was lapped, the fields were ground down, reducing the depth, and therefore the breadth, of the stars. Apparently the lapping was not uniform, as the stars on the left were more severely diminished than those on the right, and the lower stars on both sides were more severely diminished than the upper stars, making the lower left stars the most affected.
Attributing the 1838 "small stars", 1848 "large date", and the 1849 "9/6" overdates has long been a problem.
Mostly because they appear in the Red Book without much detail, and people seem to "make up" their own criteria for identifying them.
The 1992 Blythe book has the info to properly attribute all of these, although it's out of print.
We are finally straightening out the 1849 9/6 overdates (in terms of PCGS attribution). Hopefully the others will follow soon.
I wonder, has anyone come up with a ballpark value (or at least an acquisition cost) of the complete collection that Hansen is working on? Define value any way you like and define complete any way you like, since I'm asking about ballpark anyway.
I know there are some ultra rarities that are worth millions by themselves, but I figure the "typical" piece is probably under $10,000. With a bit over 6,000 entries in the largest Registry set, that works out to about $60 million for the complete collection. Even if I'm off by 3x, that's still under $200 million.
It appear to me the collection that Hansen is assembling will be well more than 6,000 coins that you mention. When you consider the silver and gold bullion, the complete set of commemoratives to present, the silver, gold, platinum eagles, odd and ends patterns, colonials, and territorial issues, the collection will be well above 10,000. This is not considering the speciality die variety sets and the duplicate sets.
It appear to me the collection that Hansen is assembling will be well more than 6,000 coins that you mention. When you consider the silver and gold bullion, the complete set of commemoratives to present, the silver, gold, platinum eagles, odd and ends patterns, colonials, and territorial issues, the collection will be well above 10,000. This is not considering the speciality die variety sets and the duplicate sets.
Speaking of duplicates, I am surprised he hasn't sold off all of his duplicate registry sets. It would free up capital for other coins.
Comments
The ANA Stacks Bowers Auction will provide amazing opportunities for Mr. Hansen. Not only the 1893-S dime, but the ESM Collection of IHC PR coins with many top pops, and the Taraszka Eagles offer many upgrade possibilities.
I wonder if he might have had the opportunity to buy the ESM Collection intact?, so will follow that with much interest. Hansen's set of PR IHC's is mostly favoring nicely toned coins, but the opportunity to pick up very top pop cameo coins has to be attractive. Certainly he does have the resources to own a set of toned PR coins, which he already has, and a set of top pop cameo examples.
OINK
Hey @jabba, Hansen is creating a complete collection of US coins, business strikes, proofs, classics, and moderns. The great thing about this journey is that it covers all coins, including lots of PCGS coins in Registry Sets and with TrueViews. You get a great history of all kinds of coins in this thread. You can get caught up here:
1975-No/S Roosevelt Dime PCGS PR68 in upcoming Heritage sale. It's the pop (1/0) of 2 known.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/roosevelt-dimes/dimes/1975-10c-no-s-pr68-pcgs/p/1299-26003.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
Later, Paul.
Not to mention Heritage is selling the Castle collection of MS Indian cents in their sale.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
I've been wondering if he will pick one up. It's nice that the PR66 has had only one owner, aside from dealer Fred Vollmer who purchased both from the same discoverer.
This was such a great find. I'm a big fan of error coins like this and the 1955 DDO cent, which were known by the Mint before release but still ended up getting released any way.
Half Dime Upgrade
It is nice to see Hansen is actively working on improving his Liberty Seated Half Dimes. His PCGS Basic set ranks #4 All-Times behind two retired sets and the current #1 set. The #1 set has a GPA Weight of slightly above 66. The set has 21 PCGS POP 1/0 specimens. In comparison, Hansen’s set has only 6 PCGS POP 1/0 specimens with GPA Weight slightly above 64. These two points will be hard if not impossible to achieve. That does not seem to deter Hansen as can be seen with this upgrade.
The 70 coin set is not one of the most popular series. The small size of the coin may be a factor in the lack of popularity. This is PCGS’s comments on the series: Liberty Seated Half Dimes were produced from 1837 until 1873 when they were replaced by the nickel five-cent coin. Half Dimes were minted in Philadelphia, New Orleans, and San Francisco. Due to its small size, the series has not been popular with collectors. As a result many of the issues can be found reasonably priced in all grades. However, as might be expected, Superb Uncirculated pieces may require a bit of searching.
1849 Half Dime MS67
This is another PCGS POP 1/0 specimen added to the Great Collection. The 1849 Half Dime is interesting in that it is a common coin with three major varieties. Although the variety is not listed, I believed this coin to be a V-3. The date is slightly high in the field but does not touch the base of Liberty. I believe the coin last auction appearance was the Heritage 2015 Gardner Collection IV Signature sale. At time of sale, the coin was in a MS67 NGC holder.
As I stated, the 1849 is a fairly common date. This is expert comments by Ron Guth. The 1849 Half Dime has the second largest mintage of any Half Dime date from the 1840s. However, the date is split into three major varieties: 1849 Normal Date, 1849/8, and 1849/6. While the overdates take up some of the mintage, the remaining Normal Dates are still relatively common and are valued only slightly higher than the most common P-Mints. Most 1849 Half Dimes are struck well and show strong details, especially in the central areas of the dies.
We don’t know how John Brush acquired this coin. We can assume it was a private transaction. By comparing pictures, I believe this coin is from the Gardner Collection. The coin was auctioned four times between 2004 and 2015. The finest known specimen is the MS68 NGC from The Kennywood Collection that sold in the 2005 American Numismatic Rarities auction for a record sale price of $8,625.
Presently, the Hansen’s MS67 specimen is not listed in the CoinFacts Condition Census report. When it is added, I would expect it to be in the second spot. In the 2015 auction, Heritage describe the coin as : This Superb Gem is predominantly frosty in texture, and the surfaces reveal glints of brightness in the fields at select angles. A dusting of golden-gray patina appears over both sides, a little more intense on the reverse, as well as iridescent peripheral crescents of cobalt-blue and lavender. A vertical toning line bisects the reverse to the left. An exquisite coin in terms of both technical quality and aesthetic appeal. The toning line to me appear a little distracting. Anyone know what would have been the cause this line? Other than that, the coin is a beauty. The consignor in the Heritage Auction had this to say: This coin is virtually perfect, although there are a few die polish lines on both the obverse and the reverse, especially at the bottom of the reverse. Blythe declares it a slightly better date and rates it R.4 in Mint State. This is another really nice addition.
Provenance: Thomas H. Sebring (American Numismatic Rarities, 1/2004), lot 1352; ANA Signature (Heritage, 7/2005), lot 5776; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2008), lot 892; (Heritage, 10/2015) Gardner Collection IV US Coins Signature Auction - New York lot 1229
1849 Liberty Seated Half Dime MS67 (Gold Shield)
Certification #35098466, PCGS ##4341
PCGS Price Guide Value: $8,500
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Thanks for pointing out this coin. This would complete Hansen’s Modern Proof registry set. This would be the first time anyone has ever completed this set. As stated, only two of these coins are known, and is very rare for one to appear in auction. I don’t know where this coin falls on Hansen’s priority list. As quick count of Hansen Proof needs, Heritage have about 10-12 classic proofs being offered that Hansen may have keen interest. Many are extremely rare and expensive. To run the table, could be as much as $4-$5 Million. It will be interesting to see which of these coins being offered by Heritage that Hansen will aggressive seek. I will not attempt to guess.
There is a coin that being auctioned that Mr. Link recommend several months ago. Not the best of specimens, but is very rare. Mr. Link, any thoughts, hit or wait?
Lastly, this discussion excludes all the rarities being offered by Stacks & Bowers. If Hansen pop on everything that would Improve his collection, he could easily spend excess of $10M at ANA.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Currin, You are most welcome. I really would like to see Hansen obtain this dime as he needs it.
My take on the 1975-No-S is that PCGS says there are only 2 known. W/O digging up my Kevin Flynn Roosevelt book, I want to say that he mentions that 5 total specimens are known. Maybe someone can clarify that for me. It's a modern and with that it automatically opens up to "More could be found". I could buy an unopened box of (5) 1975 Proof sets from eBay and all 5 could be No-S, it's just a matter of faith and luck. I certainly wouldn't say BOO until after the auction was up.
I know Dr. Brown had a thread on here some years ago asking if anyone knew where one was that he could buy. Does he know about this one yet, as he is hardly on here?
With it being a modern, I still stand at $400K but would love to see it go through the roof. Because the dies were meant for Business Strike dimes, being a PR68 is a great grade. Doubt that one would grade Cam or DCam d/t this die issue.
Not only that, it has some real nice toning to it.
Later, Paul.
Currin said...
“@wondercoin said:
“Hansen will more than likely go for the coin. If he wins, he would be the first person in history to complete a 1964-Date Proof Set. This is the last coin he needs.”
Nope. He is also missing the Unique 1976 No S Ike $1. That will be the only coin he is missing to finish that set.
Wondercoin
Mitch. You are correct. I stated on Hansen watch that if he makes this purchase, he would be the first to complete the register set.
I hear Hansen will never be able to purchase the Ike. Unless the owner’s son sells it to Hansen. 😉”
Currin: As Stooge says... every coin has a price. Justin has sold Hansen many modern coins over the past few years. Anything is possible.
Wondercoin
Gold Eagle Upgrade
Just a couple weeks left before the big ANA auctions. You would think Hansen may be taking a well-deserved breather. Nope. So, where is he looking for PGCS TOP POP coins? It appears to be ebay and GreatCollections. So what do you think Hansen can find by online shopping? How about a PCGS TOP POP late 19th century Eagle. The 1874 Eagle PCGS MS65+ Specimen, equipped with a CAC sticker. David Akers (1975/88) provide these comments on this date: The 1874 is scarce in all grades although it is not nearly as rare as any of the With Motto Philadelphia Mint issues preceding it. I n choice or gem mint state, the date is rare.
The coin first appeared on ebay in early May. Now, here is the weird part, the seller was David Lawrence Rare Coins. The coin was listed for $70,900. The coin was described as: Gorgeous, low mintage P-mint from the 1870's. Only 53,160 coins struck. The finest graded by PCGS, the surfaces and devices are absolutely immaculate. PCGS+ grade for premium quality at the top of end of the assigned grade. The listing ran for about three weeks and closed on May 20, 2019 without selling. The reason given: This listing was ended by the seller because the item is no longer available. Here is another tidbit of information, the picture of the coin on ebay did not have the sticker.
Here is where the story gets really interesting. The coin showed as item ID #720589 in GreatCollection’s July 07, 2019 online auction. The coin was featured on the weekend’s HotList. This time the coin realized $118,227.38 with buyer’s fee. Same coin in what appear to be the same holder, but this time the coin had a CAC sticker. I am assuming a brand new CAC sticker! After spending three weeks on ebay without any players, the GreatCollections listing had 1854 page views, with 53 GC members tracking. The listing ended with 15 bidders placing 52 bids. I would say a considerable difference in interest.
1874 Eagle PCGS MS65+ POP 1/0 - CAC
After all this drama, I wish I knew more about this coin. There does not appear to a provenance that I can find. The coin is listed as #1 in CoinFacts Condition Census report. There is no additional information given for Pedigree and History. The record auction price for this date is $41,800.00 for a choice MS in 1996 Spink America sale. That specimen was from the Byron Reed Collection. It would be nice if we could compare pictures. You must go all the way back to 2008 to find the most recent MS65 to be auction. The picture for that coin does not match. At this point, we don’t know. Hansen duplicate coin being replaced is an 1874 Eagle PCGS MS62 Certification #81909424. The coin has a POP of 11/7.
Provenance: Unknown (other recent listings)
In an Eliasberg comparison, the PCGS Auction website indicates Bowers & Ruddy sold in their Oct-1982 - Eliasberg Gold Collection Auction an EF45 for $385.
1874 Eagle PCGS MS65+ (CAC Sticker)
Certification #25317545, PCGS #8669
PCGS Price Guide Value: $125,000
Link to GreatCollections listing
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/720589
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Nice $10!
My YouTube Channel
Speaking for myself and any other uninformed, small-time collectors who will never ever be major "players"... Get "them" to raise the offer just a little more and SELL THEM!
LOL.
If I recall correctly, IHC is one of the series that JB said they would like to improve. Hansen has the current #1 comprehensive set with mint state and proofs. I could see a lot of cherry picking in the upcoming auctions to get this set to #1 All-Time. The EMS Proof set has 11 PCGS POP 1/0 specimens. The Castle set is closed for public view, so not sure how many are being offered. Hansen has no PCGS POP 1/0 IHC specimens in his collection. His best coins are a couple POP 3/0 specimens. This is a significant opportunity for Hansen. Do we know if there are any serious competitors?
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-cents/indian-cents-major-sets/indian-cents-basic-set-circulation-strikes-proof-1859-1909/publishedset/150478
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Carson City Eagle Purchase
Hansen updates reveal a purchase of a set of Carson City Eagles. At least, the update confirms that 18 of the 19 coin set were purchased and updated in Hansen’s #1 and #2 sets. This purchased improved 10 coins in the top set and 8 in the #2 set. The only date that was not updated was the 1884-CC. I am not sure if that coin was in the purchase, or Hansen already had two better coins. From pedigree information, many of the coins are contributed to the Northern California Collection. I did not find any information on this collection, and it does not appear listed in the registry. It would be interesting if anyone know any additional information on the collection and when it was sold. It does not appear to have sold in auction. The collection appears to me to be a high-end set from this old western mint.
The 19 coin Carson City Eagles are fairly difficult set. Currently, the registry lists only 3 sets that are 100% completed. With this purchase, we know Hansen has 2 complete sets, but has not created or published his second set yet. The registry list 61.243 as the highest possible Set Rating. Hansen’s rating is a solid 57. Several of the eagles cannot be found in MS condition. PCGS set description: The Carson City mint holds a special place in the hearts and minds of U.S. numismatists, conjuring up (largely accurate) images of a small "wild west" town where gold and silver were king. In operation from 1870 through 1893, mintages were generally quite modest with only the later (1890 and after) issues being struck in decent quantity. The opening year of 1870 is clearly the key to this fairly short set with fewer than 70 pieces extant, all of which are well-circulated. There really are no "common" dates in this set, with most of the other dates in the 1870s certainly scarce at the very least.
I recalled JB telling us that they are interested in sets if the purchase improves more that 50% of existing coins. In this purchase, 10 of 19 coins were improved. In addition, two of the coins were PCGS POP 1/0 specimens, and two others were PCGS POP 2/0 coins. In the comment fields, four of them were indicated as being CAC.
1873-CC Eagle PCGS AU58 POP 1/0 - CAC
Of the two POP 1/0 specimens, I like the 1873-CC specimen the best. I am not persuaded by the CAC sticker, I just personally like it better by the pictures. The coin is pedigreed to the Northern California Collection in the Condition Census Report. That is about the extent that I can find out about this coin. Some of the other coins in the purchase have a more impressive history including the likes of Bass, Simpson, and Hall. Doug Winter describes the 1873-CC as: With very few exceptions, all 1873-CC issues (in silver and gold) are quite rare and the 1873-CC eagle is no exception. I rank the 1873-CC as the third rarest Carson City eagle in overall rarity and it may actually be the single rarest in high grades. I doubt if more than a half dozen properly graded AU pieces exist and there are currently no 1873-CC eagles known that are even close to being Uncirculated. The single finest I am aware of is in an East Coast collection (it was acquired from me via private treaty in 2008) and it grades AU55 at PCGS. As with the 1870-CC, this date is rare because of two factors. A limited number were struck (just 4,543 in this case) and many saw active use in circulation (and were later melted). Survivors are apt to be heavily worn and even accurately graded EF's are quite scarce. This tends to be a decently produced issue in terms of strike but nearly all known examples have little or no luster, abraded surfaces and poor overall eye appeal.
PCGS price guide values the coin just shy of $100K at $97,500. Without being auctioned, I would guess the real value may be undetermined. The finest 1873-CC Eagle recently appearing in auction is the 1873-CC $10 AU55 NGC from The Admiral Collection that realized $66,000 in a 2018 Heritage Auction. This is the auction record for the date and mint.
Provenance: Northern California Collection
In an Eliasberg comparison, the PCGS Auction website indicates his specimen was sold by Bowers & Ruddy in their Oct-1982 - Eliasberg Gold Collection Auction, an EF40 for $1430.
1873-CC Eagle PCGS AU58 (CAC Sticker)
Certification #25397579, PCGS #8667
PCGS Price Guide Value: $97,500
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Yes, we acquired this Registry Set this past week. It was a really impressive group and it improved quite a few coins, making the $10 Liberty set a much higher quality overall set. I can't disclose the particulars on this acquisition just yet, but we'll unveil it at the ANA show. We plan to have the coins on display there as well as the #1 rated Proof Trade Dollar Set and several other recent acquisitions that we're working through at the moment.
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
The 1894-S Barber Dime has broken the $1M. It is presently at $1,020,000 including BP. 11 days to go.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Being that JB made this comment on her behalf, do we know when the ban will be lifted? I thought the ban was a temporary suspension. I too would like to see the ban lifted.
Let’s see how many agrees we can get! If we can get enough, maybe Heather will take notice.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
^I'm gonna say August 9th...
New Pattern
Guys, Let’s get back on track and discuss the coins....
Hansen has acquired a new pattern, 1870 25C J-922. The coin has Simpson’s Pedigree. This specimen is a PCGS POP 1/1. We can assume the Top POP Specimen is in Black Cat’s Collection, according to what we have been told that he is holding. This new Hansen coin sold twice in 2017 for an average of about $6K. As with many patterns, PCGS coin guide does not show a price for this coin. It appears the coin may have been obtained in a private transaction. Is this coin the ice breaker to a start of something? Only way to know is watch and see.
1870 25C J-922, PR66+ CAM (CAC Sticker)
Certification #30934771, PCGS #800081
PCGS Price Guide Value: Unknown
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
There’s been a lot of discussion in the past on patterns. Can someone briefly explain what they are? I’m assuming they’re trial pieceses or designs that were officially struck by the US Mint for consideration but were rejected by the powers that be? Is that correct?
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
ok:
I personally dont like patterns, they are not real coins in my opinion.
They were not made for circulation.
They were design recommendations to win to become a regular coin but didnt win.
Some of them are fantasy > @JBatDavidLawrence said:
I loved her comments, she was so refreshing....
@SiriusBlack said:
The below is copied, in part, from an article I found on the net. I first saw the DuBois quote many years ago and have always loved it.
“Open for me your cabinet of Patterns, and I open for you a record, which, but for these half-forgotten witnesses, would have disappeared under the finger of Time. ....Now, only these live to tell the tale of what might have been.” Those words of Mint Curator Patterson DuBois in the January 1883 American Journal of Numismatics still speak volumes about this often neglected area of U.S. numismatics. Even more than their intended-for-commerce brethren, patterns reflect the events, economics and personalities of their time. The status, origins, the very definition of these frequently enigmatic pieces have been a subject of fascination and debate ever since the little-known Mint products first came to the attention of collectors in the 1830s.
In his 1994 reference United States Patterns and Related Issues, numismatic researcher Andrew W. Pollock III defines a pattern as “an experimental piece which either illustrates a proposed coinage design, or which embodies a proposed innovation of composition, size, or shape.” Pollock acknowledges, however, that numismatists have traditionally employed a much broader definition of the word: experimental pieces, die trials, unofficial pieces and the often more nefarious restrikes and “pieces de caprice” made primarily for collectors also fall under this heading."
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld Thank you, that helps! I thought it was something along those lines. I didn't realize so many other types have been scooped up under the umbrella of "Patterns" at this point.
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
It isn't registered to any of his sets. In fact, the PF67 isn't registered to anyone not even as inventory FWIW.
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/35343097
@privaterarecoincollector
I saw Hansen purchased approx 8 of your great top pop type coins. Is the negotiations over, or more to come. If you can’t say, I understand.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
hey PCGS, give us Laura back please > @Currin said:
the truth is I dont know, Joe is managing everything here.
This thread is a better place without voices of derision.
Link fixed:
https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/whatarepatpi.html
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy, I tried your link twice and it didn't work for me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As a collector/dealer in patterns for the past 45 years, I've given them a lot of thought. When I started, I loved them all. To me, they were all museum pieces, and the thought that I could own them was overwhelmingly cool to me. As time has progressed, and as I've become more sophisticated (and jaded), I now view patterns in three different categories. For the purpose of this thread only, I'm going to call them Class I, 2 and 3.
First, Class I. These are the pieces that were made for legitimate purposes, i.e., NOT solely as an opportunity for Mint employees to make things they could sell to their collector and dealer friends. These include experimental pieces, proposed issues that were actually being considered for circulation, and a small number of early regular dies trial pieces. Examples include 1792 Silver Center Cents, 1814 Half Dollars in Platinum, 1877 Morgan Half Dollars and the 1907 Indian Head $20. (PRCC: Did you really say you don't like patterns???
) This class comprises perhaps 20-25% of the pieces listed in Judd. To my way of thinking, they are among the most interesting, desirable and historically important coins in existence.
Second, Class 2. These are the patterns that were made for "illegitimate" purposes, but which are so cool that I would collect them anyway, purely as an indulgence, a "guilty pleasure". Examples might include an 1879 Schoolgirl Dollar struck in Copper (because a "real" Schoolgirl Dollar should be silver), a proof 1885 $20 Lib struck in Aluminum (because there was no conceivable real need to produce it), and an 1863 With Motto Seated Dollar (because it was backdated and actually struck AFTER the design change of 1866).
Third, Class 3. These, like the Class 2's, served no legitimate purpose. But unlike the Class 2's, they're not cool enough to overlook that fault. Examples include Aluminum Standard Silver dimes (not only the wrong metal, but a common and boring design), most "mules" (which are coins that pair an obverse and reverse that don't belong together), and so on. Personally, I tend to avoid these unless I think I can flip them for a quick profit.
Naturally, some people will disagree on how some issues should be classified. No problem. But my point is that if you think a little harder about what each individual coin is and why they were produced, you might see the series a little differently.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Fixed it. Thanks!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka Thank you! That helps a lot as well. I didn't realize there were so many possibilities in existence. Personally I guess I would find the "official" trial pieces the most interesting since they have a history backed by the government or mint as opposed to some employees messing around unofficially
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
That's an interesting way to classify them. PCGS should group its pattern registry categories like this too.
Unfortunately, there are more than a few cases where it’s not clear if the issue had a legitimate purpose. Better to leave things as is for now, but consider my comments above when deciding which patterns belong in your collection.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
True, but my stated assumption was based on a knowledgeable expert statement. We know Simpson does not have POP 1/0 in his pattern registry sets (he sold the 2/0), then we can assume the finest coin is in Black Cats unregistered collection. Right?
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
But there are several pattern issues, and I interpreted Laura's comments to be of a general nature and not specific to any one issue or all issues. I would not infer anything here. Her statement could still be reasonable and make sense if the two own the vast majority of the top pieces for most issues and not necessarily all of the finest known/top pop coins for every issue. For instance, neither own the unique J-1776 double eagle pattern. I think we would be nitpicking her comments if we adopted a hyper literal interpretation though.
The term "finest" is also ambiguous. By finest does she mean the highest graded numerically or the best coins? The two aren't always the same. I think it is pretty much impossible to distinguish between a PF66+ and a PF67 based on images much less two images taken under drastically different lighting conditions. With this said, I concede that my method is hardly conclusive either as it assumes that registry users put all of their coins in their inventory even if not in their registry sets. That too is also a generalization and may not always hold true either.
I believe this may be the last Kennedy in the Major Variety Category that Hansen does not have. Stacks & Bowers is offering the coin in an upcoming auction. PCGS values at $150,000. Would you advise Hansen to pop on it?
The coin is a SP68, POP 5/1
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
It's generally best to try to figure out what Laura means and not so much what she actually said.
And in that spirit, I think she meant that nobody can have a better collection of patterns than Simpson without him selling. I would have to agree with that, but I doubt that it will keep DLH up at night.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think the coin is in the Complete Variety Collection and not in the Major Variety Set. But I may be wrong.
To answer your question, if he likes the coin and he thinks it is worth the value then buy it otherwise pass.
Personally I don't understand the valuation or logic for that coin at all. Hansen was said to have passed on the Eliasberg 1913 PF66 Liberty Head nickel because he didn't consider it a priority. If a coin like that isn't a priority, I can't imagine why a six figure Kennedy half would be. It isn't necessary for his Eliasberg quest either.
You are correct. Hansen is complete with Kennedy Major Varieties. The 1964 SMS is needed for the Complete Variety Set. This is the last coin needed.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/half-dollars/kennedy-half-dollars-specialty-sets/kennedy-half-dollars-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-proof-1964-present/2038
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
@JBatDavidLawrence is Hansen going after the 1975-No/S Dime?
Later, Paul.
Jung Type Set Upgrade
This past week Hansen posted eight updates from the recent retired HOF Jung Type Set. This is just the tip of the iceberg of many of the finest coins known from this spectacular type set. I am not sure if Hansen will purchase anymore upgrades from the Jung Collection. From what I have observed the availability by Jung coins to improve the Hansen Collection is very plentiful. From the information provided by Mr. Jung in public settings, he is planning to hold on to some of his finest early US issues. It will be interesting to watch and see what happens short and long term.
1838 No Drapery, Lg Stars, Seated Liberty Half Dime MS68+
This coin is one of the highlights of the purchase. This coin is graded at MS68+ and stands alone as the finest and only PCGS certified MS68+ Type 2, No Drapery, Seated Liberty Half Dime. In the entire Seated Liberty Half Dime series, only three other coins are PCGS graded MS68+. They are all Type 3, Stars on Obverse Types, and all are dated 1859. Hansen’s 1859 is a MS67+ and he has an 1853 MS68 for his Type set. The Jung set had one of these MS68+ specimens, but Hansen did not purchase. At least, he did not purchase in the first round.
Hansen has a pretty nice set of Seated Liberty Half Dimes. Of course, his collection is not comparable to the top set that contains the unique 1870-S specimen. The top set is almost two points ahead of Hansen. If Hansen can continue upgrading with the quality coins as this one, he can close the gap.
This coin represents the best of the best for the Type 2, No Drapery coins. This was a short run type of only three years. This new specimen by Hansen is mentioned in a description by Ron Guth: Mint engravers updated the design of the Half Dime in 1838 by adding stars to the obverse. By doing so, they matched the design with every other Seated Liberty design then in circulation with the exception of the Silver Dollar (which did not appear until 1840). Two major varieties appear in this year: the Large Stars and Small Stars. There is a marked difference in the sizes of the stars on the two varieties, and they can be seen best when the two varieties are laid side-by-side. Otherwise, an attribution guide, such as the images above, will be helpful. It is important to know the difference because the Small Stars is quite scarce in comparison to the Large Stars. The 1838 Large Stars No Drapery Half Dime is fairly common, including in Mint State grades, where hundreds of examples have been certified. The best example certified by PCGS is an amazingly colorful PCGS MS68, one of the finest early Seated Liberty Half Dimes of any date.
The coin has a pedigree that dates back to 2005 in a sale of the Lull Collection. It has been is three great collection since including Simpson, Jung and now Hansen. PCGS guide values the coin at $55,000. The last time the coin was sold in public auction was by Bowers & Merena in 2005 where the coin realized $34,500 as a PCGS MS68. Being the coin in a grouping that was purchased privately, we may never know the price Hansen offered for this coin. The auction record for this coin is $37,600 for an untoned MS68 specimen sold 5/2016 by Legends Rare Auctions. I can be very confident this coin would be valued at much more.
Provenance: James W. Lull Collection - Bowers & Merena 1/2005:661, $34,500 - Bob R. Simpson Collection - The Type Set Collection (Oliver Jung) (PCGS Set Registry) - D.L. Hansen Collection
In an Eliasberg comparison, the registry lists the Eliasberg Specimen as PCGS grade MS67, V-9, that was sold by Bowers & Merena May '96. The price realized $3,850. Lot #944. The Eliasberg specimen was pedigreed 11/3/05 by PCGS.
1838 No Drapery, Lg Stars, Seated Liberty H10C MS68+ (Gold Shield)
PCGS POP for Coin: 1/0 / POP for Type: 1/0
Certification #29582777, PCGS #4317
PCGS Price Guide Value: $55,000
PCGS Pedigree: Simson
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
This very nice MS-68+ is a V-1, which is actually the "Small Stars" obverse.
It should probably be called the "Rusty Arm" instead.
You can tell from all the rust pits on the arm, and from the repunched stars 1 3 4 5 9 10 11 12.
The reverse has a die crack that splits D S (most visible in the leaves between D and H),
and a light crack at A2 (first A of AMERICA). It does not yet have the big clash.
This establishes it as an early die state V-1 (and not a V-2, which has an uncracked reverse die).
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/995123/1838-stars-half-dime
@MrHalfDime provided this helpful post in 2006:
Attributing the 1838 "small stars", 1848 "large date", and the 1849 "9/6" overdates has long been a problem.
Mostly because they appear in the Red Book without much detail, and people seem to "make up" their own criteria for identifying them.
The 1992 Blythe book has the info to properly attribute all of these, although it's out of print.
We are finally straightening out the 1849 9/6 overdates (in terms of PCGS attribution). Hopefully the others will follow soon.
Thanks Yos for this additional information. Hansen Collection may one day become the encyclopedia of US Coins issues.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
I wonder, has anyone come up with a ballpark value (or at least an acquisition cost) of the complete collection that Hansen is working on? Define value any way you like and define complete any way you like, since I'm asking about ballpark anyway.
I know there are some ultra rarities that are worth millions by themselves, but I figure the "typical" piece is probably under $10,000. With a bit over 6,000 entries in the largest Registry set, that works out to about $60 million for the complete collection. Even if I'm off by 3x, that's still under $200 million.
Anyone want to suggest a different number?
It appear to me the collection that Hansen is assembling will be well more than 6,000 coins that you mention. When you consider the silver and gold bullion, the complete set of commemoratives to present, the silver, gold, platinum eagles, odd and ends patterns, colonials, and territorial issues, the collection will be well above 10,000. This is not considering the speciality die variety sets and the duplicate sets.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Speaking of duplicates, I am surprised he hasn't sold off all of his duplicate registry sets. It would free up capital for other coins.