@Currin said:
This is the latest addition to the Hansen Collection. Before I post an upgrade, can someone tell me what you would grade this coin? You can post or PM me privately, your preference. Thanks
Nice looking genuine coin. Good to know Hansen is picking up genuine coins as well.
Coin grades Superb Gem Unc. details, tooled, net MS65+
IMHO.
Yah but all my coins have graffiti on them. You’re some piece of work
Seems all your coins have problems.. Even your 1794 Dollar... it's polished!
Everybody collects their own way. Certainly the 1933 Eagle and 1964 Kennedy are iconic coins that even casual collectors are aware of while the 1827 25c and 1841 $2.5 takes more of a specialist.
@Currin said:
This is the latest addition to the Hansen Collection. Before I post an upgrade, can someone tell me what you would grade this coin? You can post or PM me privately, your preference. Thanks
Nice looking genuine coin. Good to know Hansen is picking up genuine coins as well.
Coin grades Superb Gem Unc. details, tooled, net MS65+
IMHO.
Yah but all my coins have graffiti on them. You’re some piece of work
The specific pieces you refer to (exactly 2 coins, not "all") have minor marks of whatever kind and still grade 64 or better... My point has always been that the exact origin of the friction is unknowable and doesn't matter as much as the appearance and their effect on the overall grade. Those two wonderful, condition census level coins stand on their own, and they're gorgeous coins despite the geometric figures in the fields.
Totally agreed with your "All coins' grades are net grades" comment.
Have been condemned for saying that too. Let's not either one be a victim.. better to discuss the coins, rather than the people.
As far as the 1933 eagle, it doesn't look as if it was "tooled" with a nail, needle, or knifepoint... so there's that! 😉
@Currin said:
This is the latest addition to the Hansen Collection. Before I post an upgrade, can someone tell me what you would grade this coin? You can post or PM me privately, your preference. Thanks
Nice looking genuine coin. Good to know Hansen is picking up genuine coins as well.
Coin grades Superb Gem Unc. details, tooled, net MS65+
IMHO.
Did you actually look at the coin in person in grade it? I did, and I have a really hard time getting to "net 65+". Keep in mind that the cheek was probably smoothed to remove the type of deep bagmarks often seen on this issue. So A LOT of metal was moved or removed in the process.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@Baley said:
Open minded and note the imho.
Not a buyer at any price, sadly..
Curious, what Equivalent grade level price did it sell at?
THAT'S the current Net Grade..
Certainly such a nice problem coin doesn't lose All its points, does it?
That is an illogical approach IMHO. The price can and will fluctuate wildly (look at the pricing history for the gems), but a grading scale, if it is to have any utility at all, will not fluctuate as wildly.
@tradedollarnut said:
lemmee see here....he passes on an 1827 original quarter at the ANA show but drops nearly the same amount on a tooled coin? Color me confused...
Even more baffling to me is that he paid $300k. A straight graded 64 went for $367k 5-6 years ago. Yes markets can change, but there is nothing in the other examples sold since then to suggest a huge price increase of that magnitude IMHO. (There was one gem that sold at an inflated price but examples sold since then suggest it was an outlier - namely another 65 and the price the 66 that sold for recently.)
That sucks. I wouldn't want a tooled coin for my collection regardless of price. I'd take a much lower grade as long as it's original and properly graded.
@neildrobertson said:
It's an exceptional example. I'm pleasantly surprised to see some more open mindedness at the high end of the market for details coins. Details should be treated more like an asterisk than a strikethrough. Each one should be considered on its own merit and valued on its own merit.
There are details and then there are details. Naturally occurring or historically interesting okay with me in some cases (e.g. clipped, light corrosion, rim bumps, very old cleaning). However, tooling, sorry no. Tooling was likely meant to deceive.
IMO, purchasing a tooled coin for in excess of $300k incentivizes the coin doctors and is extremely detrimental to our hobby. The proper response would’ve been “thanks but no thanks”
@Zoins said:
Everybody collects their own way. Certainly the 1933 Eagle and 1964 Kennedy are iconic coins that even casual collectors are aware of while the 1827 25c and 1841 $2.5 takes more of a specialist.
The two coins noted are essential to his stated goal so I am not sure what other way there is especially when 5-10 are extant for each issue.
@Zoins said:
Everybody collects their own way. Certainly the 1933 Eagle and 1964 Kennedy are iconic coins that even casual collectors are aware of while the 1827 25c and 1841 $2.5 takes more of a specialist.
The two coins noted are essential to his stated goal so I am not sure what other way there is especially when 5-10 are extant for each issue.
@Zoins said:
Do we know which doctor could have done this? Are any know for this type of work that we can recognize?
You're asking for answers that could lead to respondents being sued.
That maybe...and... I'd like to see this thread get back to the Hansen collection again.
Maybe start new threads to diss his choices or other questionable purpose posts.
2nd coin in last Box of 20………...Present Box Value = $1,342,800
It a hard act to follow when the last count down coin sold for $1.3M. Still, this new addition counts as one more down, just as much as a $5M coin. Down the road as we get close to the end, there definitely will be some coins values well over $5M. Maybe even more than $10M. It will be a interesting ride to watch. First things first, let’s discuss this last Dahlonega Mint coin. With this addition, the 58 piece set is now complete.
As discussed last week, the set is second only to the Harry W. Bass, Jr. Collection. For more details, look back a few posting to the Count Down 20 posting. Another popular Dahlonega Mint registry set is the 70 piece Major Varieties. This set requires an additional 12 coins. Hansen has nine of them already. This set has not been completed per the registry requirements. Hansen could be the first if he acquires the 1840-D (Small D), 1853-D (Medium D), and the 1855-D (Medium D). I have the feeling that one of Hansen’s goal is to complete this set at some point in the near future.
1854-D Quarter Eagle AU53
This 1854-D Quarter Eagle specimen is not a the condition census coin, but it is a nice specimen of this rare date and mint. A couple comments by the experts, David Akers said: In my opinion, the 1854-D is a bit overrated as a date, but it is anything but overrated in high grade. Like the other D Mint quarter eagles of this period, the 1854-D is always weakly struck at the denticles. The eagle's right leg (being opposite the high points of the head of Liberty) is always flat, as it is for virtually every early Liberty Head quarter eagle. Doug Winter comments was along the same lines: Due to its very low mintage figure, the rarity of the 1854-D quarter eagle has been somewhat overstated in the past. It is more available in lower grades than is generally believed but it is extremely rare in higher grades.
The coin was purchased in the August 15th Stacks Bowers Auction. The Auctioneer described the coin as a Rare Issue. The coin was further described as: This is an exceptionally well preserved, highly appealing example of an issue that is challenging to collect even in lower grades. Bright golden-yellow surfaces retain plenty of satin luster that is particularly lively when viewed with the aid of direct lighting. Obverse striking detail is sharp for the issue, Liberty’s portrait and the star centrils retaining ample detail in the absence of all but trivial high point wear. The reverse is typically soft in strike with the eagle and olive branch quite blunt, but we do note bolder detail in the recessed areas of the wings. Smooth in hand with no worrisome blemishes, this impressive condition rarity would serve as a highlight in an advanced Southern gold cabinet.
The coin realized $22,800, with PCGS value guide at $13,000.
Provenance: From the Maurice Snow Collection
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, the registry describes his specimen as a 1854-D Quarter Eagle, Estimated grade XF45. Ex: Purchased by Louis Eliasberg from the Belden Roach collection, auctioned by B. Max Mehl in 1944. Purchased at the Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 Eliasberg sale by Walter Perske for $4,180. Lot #168.
1854-D Quarter Eagle AU53 (Gold Shield) PCGS Coin #7771 / PCGS Serial #37621007 / POP 4/16
There are 18 remaining coins in the Eliasberg Quest. The 12 coins that are not listed in “complete registry set” are Bold below. Note: DLH was a partner in the purchase of the 1854-S XF45 Half Eagle being that he's a partner with DLRC, but after purchasing the coin, DLHC reported the specimen was sold to an undisclosed client.
Top 10 1870-S Half Dime (Unique Coin in Tom Bender PCGS Registry Collection) 1873-CC "No Arrows" Dime (Unique Coin in an anonymous collection) 1870-S Three Dollar Only (Unique Coin owned by the Bass Foundation displayed at the ANA) 1866 "No Motto" Dollar Proof Only (2 Minted, Unique Private Coin in Simpson Collection)
1822 Half Eagle (Survival 3, Unique Private Owned Coin in the Pogue Collection) 1933 Double Eagle (Known Survival 16, Unique Legally Owned Coin - anonymous collection)
1854-S Half Eagle (Survival 4, Two known in private: 1-Pogue AU58+; 2- XF45 sold July 2018)
1798 "Small Eagle" Half Eagle (Survival 7, Only 2 maybe 3 examples could be privately purchased) 1913 Liberty Head Nickel Proof Only (5 Minted, 3 private owned) 1838-0 Half Dollar BM Only (Survival 9, six known for private purchase)
Next 8 1880 Four Dollar Gold "Stella’s" (Coiled Hair) Proof Only (Survival 8) 1827 "Original" Quarter Dollar Proof Only (Survival 9) 1841 Quarter Eagle (Survival for regular strikes 12, proofs 4)
1819 Half Eagle (Survival for “No Variety” 7, for “5D/50” 17) 1880 Four Dollar Gold "Stella’s" (Flowing Hair) Proof Only (Survival 24)
1933 Ten Dollar (Survival 40, rarest issue in series) 1839 Gobrecht Dollar Proof Only (Survival 60-75)
1798 Quarter Eagle (Survival 80)
Someone posted a CNN link where DLRC is quoted as saying that he only needed to six more coins, and John made comments that he had several updates left to post. I wonder what other coins he has added that may not have made Hansen's registry set yet.
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone posted a CNN link where DLRC is quoted as saying that he only needed to six more coins, and John made comments that he had several updates left to post. I wonder what other coins he has added that may not have made Hansen's registry set yet.
Those six are likely the six coins not in bold in the above list - to complete the "regular registry set".
The next update should include the 1933 $10, which reduces this number to five.
The coins in bold above should be proof-only, unique, illegal, or considered by some to be patterns.
The 10c 1873-CC no arrows dime is really a (red book) die variety; maybe not a date-mintmark requirement,
but Eliasberg had it and almost all the coins in bold.
@cameonut2011 said:
Even more baffling to me is that he paid $300k. A straight graded 64 went for $367k 5-6 years ago. Yes markets can change, but there is nothing in the other examples sold since then to suggest a huge price increase of that magnitude IMHO. (There was one gem that sold at an inflated price but examples sold since then suggest it was an outlier - namely another 65 and the price the 66 that sold for recently.)
A few comments:
There have been more 1913 nickels on the market the last 2 years than 1933 $10 Indians. In addition, the two gems are held by the same customer who isn't selling and is demanding a rather exorbitant price as well.
Most that criticize the purchase did not view the coin in-hand. When compared to other rarities that are currently for sale, the 1933 is for some reason a tougher coin to find than some of the other "rarer" items.
That being said, it was one of the final 10 holes in the Eliasberg set at PCGS, and there are now only 6 holes left to fill in that group. Of course other coins will be/have been added to the overall collection, but that set (as defined by PCGS) has been a focus since early on.
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
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
Unfortunately, the complete basic set of circulation strikes was not Eliasberg’s accomplishment. At the time, proofs were ‘better’ and necessary..if you stop there, you’ve failed.
Of course, if you do both the complete proof and circulation strike sets, then you’ve exceeded. But make no mistake, you can’t not have a 1913 and expect to be acclaimed as complete.
I remain shocked and surprised that pcgs has not created the ‘Eliasberg Registry Set’...combined proof and circulation strike....so the pursuit can be followed apples to apples
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkeyed with coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain along the way by the Dr. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkey coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
mark
To me it’s part of our hobby. We have been lamenting doctors for decades and it seems they can’t be stopped or even identified. Even bad medical doctors who make people sign non-disclosures get outed, but coin doctors are untouchable.
Also, for better or worse, it is slabbed by our hosts. In the old days, it wouldn’t have been slabbed but times have changed.
Let’s see if it gets upgraded. The set’s not yet complete so it could happen.
@Insider2 said:
I personally grade it 65+ (beat up reverse). I'd sell it as a 66+ and I'll bet it is in a 67 slab or 67+.
Any offers?????
That will teach me to magnify a coin's image (when possible) before posting an opinion!
@tradedollarnut said:
All coins are net graded. When the picture seems nicer than the grade, more often than not it’s the picture in error.
I wish folks would stop saying this. There is a difference between lowering a coin's ACTUAL grade based on its condition of preservation and dropping THAT GRADE MORE due to placing a "Net Grade" on it (as the Large cent guys do) that does not match any grading guide or have any semblance to reality!!!
@tradedollarnut said:
All coins are net graded. When the picture seems nicer than the grade, more often than not it’s the picture in error.
I wish folks would stop saying this. There is a difference between lowering a coin's ACTUAL grade based on its condition of preservation and dropping THAT GRADE MORE due to placing a "Net Grade" on it (as the Large cent guys do) that does not match any grading guide or have any semblance to reality!!!
Oh....really?
I can’t count the number of coins in TPG holders that have a conservative grade by the remaining details...but have been silently net graded for a slight cleaning
@Justacommeman said:
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkey coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
mark
In this instance though with such a tough coin what is the alternative? And I don't mean in regards specifically to DLH who could eventually buy a different 1933 $10, just in general. If buying a coin in a tooled slab makes you part of the process what should be done with the tooled coin? Or are you more against this because of the price paid?
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
@tradedollarnut said:
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
This is a good discussion to have. I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that a coin should essentially be stricken from the record or black listed because of what someone might have done to it, if it is truly rare. I also don't want to create a market for doctored coins.
@tradedollarnut said:
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
This is a good discussion to have. I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that a coin should essentially be stricken from the record or black listed because of what someone might have done to it, if it is truly rare. I also don't want to create a market for doctored coins.
The coin is graded as a problem coin so at least people know there are issues.
I think it may be worth considering moving coin doctoring into the open like classic car and art restoration. Restoration is an open part of both of those hobbies and their top end items sell for much more than coins do.
In the meanwhile, we are still in the situation where doctors do their work but need to do it in secret with nothing to really stop them. For example, I don't think the PNG really made any progress and it doesn't seem like the PNG doctoring definition changed anything.
I don't mind the coin being a no-grade coin. It's still nice to be slabbed with a TrueView.
Yes.
So if we use @Currin's method of sorting on the grade column to bring the missing coins to the top, it shows these six:
1798 $2-1/2
1798 $5 Small Eagle
1819 $5
1822 $5
1854-S $5
1875 $10
So the 1933 $10 is in the set database now.
Hansen has the 1875 $10 in proof, so that meets the Eliasberg set definition (either business strike or proof counts).
And this matches the 6 non-bold coins in @Currin's latest update. It will be five non-bold soon.
@tradedollarnut said:
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
I would argue that there wasn't a blind eye turned here, but there's no need to further discuss it.
I, for one, am glad that the coin is off the market for a very long time, likely to not re-enter, so that a doctor was unable to buy it and work on it.
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:
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
I would argue that there wasn't a blind eye turned here, but there's no need to further discuss it.
I, for one, am glad that the coin is off the market for a very long time, likely to not re-enter, so that a doctor was unable to buy it and work on it.
There will always be ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacks”, even in coin collecting. Reading some of Tradedollarnut’s post, I have to wonder if he is just envious of Mr. Hansen’s goals and accomplishes so far.
@Justacommeman said:
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkey coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
It's not like Hansen commissioned the doctoring. The deed was already done when he came along. And knowingly purchased it as such.
Are all the coins that have ever been messed with supposed to disintegrate and disappear? Not at all. They should be accurately described and traded at a discount.
@tradedollarnut said:
All coins are net graded. When the picture seems nicer than the grade, more often than not it’s the picture in error.
I wish folks would stop saying this. There is a difference between lowering a coin's ACTUAL grade based on its condition of preservation and dropping THAT GRADE MORE due to placing a "Net Grade" on it (as the Large cent guys do) that does not match any grading guide or have any semblance to reality!!!
Oh....really?
I can’t count the number of coins in TPG holders that have a conservative grade by the remaining details...but have been silently net graded for a slight cleaning
That’s the reality
I agree 100%! Unfortunately, that is the disgusting truth. Coins with "market acceptable" problems are still problem coins. Lowering their grade does not make it right and that is not something that goes on with EVERY COIN! Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Value and subjectivity do not belong in an "ideal" grading system. I believe that sometime in the future, AI will correct the mess that has evolved into today's "market grading."
Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
@neildrobertson said:
It's an exceptional example. I'm pleasantly surprised to see some more open mindedness at the high end of the market for details coins. Details should be treated more like an asterisk than a strikethrough. Each one should be considered on its own merit and valued on its own merit.
@yosclimber said:
So if we use @Currin's method of sorting on the grade column to bring the missing coins to the top, it shows these six:
1798 $2-1/2
1798 $5 Small Eagle
1819 $5
1822 $5
1854-S $5
1875 $10
So the 1933 $10 is in the set database now.
Hansen has the 1875 $10 in proof, so that meets the Eliasberg set definition (either business strike or proof counts).
And this matches the 6 non-bold coins in @Currin's latest update. It will be five non-bold soon.
This is 100% correct. Just to prove, here is the 1875 Eagle in D.L. Hansen Collection. David Akers (1975/88): This date is by far the rarest Liberty Head Eagle, particularly as a business strike, and no more than 5-6 business strikes are known along with 7-8 proofs.
1875 $10, CAM PR63CAM Certification #03175738, PCGS #88815, POP 1/1, overall POP 1/4
.
.
I would give 5:1 odds before it is all said and done, Hansen will have one of the 5-6 known business strikes in his Collection. TOP POP for business strikes is AU53+ PCGS grade.
@Justacommeman said:
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkey coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
mark
In this instance though with such a tough coin what is the alternative? And I don't mean in regards specifically to DLH who could eventually buy a different 1933 $10, just in general. If buying a coin in a tooled slab makes you part of the process what should be done with the tooled coin? Or are you more against this because of the price paid?
With a set like the one he is building ( fantastic) I would rather have an empty spot then a known tooled worked on coin filling it. Where is the challenge in that besides writing a check?
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@tradedollarnut said: Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
LOL. Unfortunately, IMHO, you had a bad/or no actual "numismatic education." Sure, you are a very successful businessman, and a famous, knowledgeable collector - "educated" in the numismatic school of hard knocks and hard lessons. However (again IMHO), this view of yours and others only causes confusion.
Reality? Yes, your definition of the entire grading process can be called NET GRADING because that is what we all do. We take a coin in hand, imagine what it looked like hot off the dies and then NET GRADE IT by coming up with a condition number (grade shorthand) remaining **after deductions." So, we net graded it.
The problem with that view is, as I stated before, another band of folks who collect copper came up with a "loony" system (so far, no one can tell me who devised it) that they named "net grading." Oops, just to be specific after both of us understand/agree that all TPGS grading is a "net result" after deductions - I should call their system NET, NET Grading. That's because after they Net grade a coin they may decide it needs to be net graded even more! Oh my.
In the end, I will continue to make a distinction between simply grading a coin as the industry does and the "net grading" folly because they are not identical.
@tradedollarnut said: Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
LOL. Unfortunately, IMHO, you had a bad/or no actual "numismatic education." Sure, you are a very successful businessman, and a famous, knowledgeable collector - "educated" in the numismatic school of hard knocks and hard lessons. However (again IMHO), this view of yours and others only causes confusion.
Reality? Yes, your definition of the entire grading process can be called NET GRADING because that is what we all do. We take a coin in hand, imagine what it looked like hot off the dies and then NET GRADE IT by coming up with a condition number (grade shorthand) remaining **after deductions." So, we net graded it.
The problem with that view is, as I stated before, another band of folks who collect copper came up with a "loony" system (so far, no one can tell me who devised it) that they named "net grading." Oops, just to be specific after both of us understand/agree that all TPGS grading is a "net result" after deductions - I should call their system NET, NET Grading. That's because after they Net grade a coin they may decide it needs to be net graded even more! Oh my.
In the end, I will continue to make a distinction between simply grading a coin as the industry does and the "net grading" folly because they are not identical.
I think Bruce understands grading and “net grading” - silent or otherwise - just fine.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
Seems all your coins have problems.. Even your 1794 Dollar... it's polished!
I'm not familiar with the 25c and $2.5. Isn't the Kennedy very rare too? Currin's post made it seem exceptionally rare, in any grade.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Everybody collects their own way. Certainly the 1933 Eagle and 1964 Kennedy are iconic coins that even casual collectors are aware of while the 1827 25c and 1841 $2.5 takes more of a specialist.
The specific pieces you refer to (exactly 2 coins, not "all") have minor marks of whatever kind and still grade 64 or better... My point has always been that the exact origin of the friction is unknowable and doesn't matter as much as the appearance and their effect on the overall grade. Those two wonderful, condition census level coins stand on their own, and they're gorgeous coins despite the geometric figures in the fields.
Totally agreed with your "All coins' grades are net grades" comment.
Have been condemned for saying that too. Let's not either one be a victim.. better to discuss the coins, rather than the people.
As far as the 1933 eagle, it doesn't look as if it was "tooled" with a nail, needle, or knifepoint... so there's that! 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Did you actually look at the coin in person in grade it? I did, and I have a really hard time getting to "net 65+". Keep in mind that the cheek was probably smoothed to remove the type of deep bagmarks often seen on this issue. So A LOT of metal was moved or removed in the process.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Open minded and note the imho.
Not a buyer at any price, sadly..
Curious, what Equivalent grade level price did it sell at?
THAT'S the current Net Grade..
Certainly such a nice problem coin doesn't lose All its points, does it?
Edit to add: ok, we learn that the transaction price was $300k.
So, (checks pcgs price guide) the net grade (value) at that time and place was between MS63+ and MS64.
More information has come to my attention, and my initial opinion has now changed. Didn't hurt much! 😀
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Tooling is also at A3.
That is an illogical approach IMHO. The price can and will fluctuate wildly (look at the pricing history for the gems), but a grading scale, if it is to have any utility at all, will not fluctuate as wildly.
Even more baffling to me is that he paid $300k. A straight graded 64 went for $367k 5-6 years ago. Yes markets can change, but there is nothing in the other examples sold since then to suggest a huge price increase of that magnitude IMHO. (There was one gem that sold at an inflated price but examples sold since then suggest it was an outlier - namely another 65 and the price the 66 that sold for recently.)
That sucks. I wouldn't want a tooled coin for my collection regardless of price. I'd take a much lower grade as long as it's original and properly graded.
My YouTube Channel
There are details and then there are details. Naturally occurring or historically interesting okay with me in some cases (e.g. clipped, light corrosion, rim bumps, very old cleaning). However, tooling, sorry no. Tooling was likely meant to deceive.
IMO, purchasing a tooled coin for in excess of $300k incentivizes the coin doctors and is extremely detrimental to our hobby. The proper response would’ve been “thanks but no thanks”
The two coins noted are essential to his stated goal so I am not sure what other way there is especially when 5-10 are extant for each issue.
Latin American Collection
Hopefully he can answer here
Putting together a high profile coin collection in the public manner that Mr. Hansen is doing definitely has both benefits and detriments.
That maybe...and... I'd like to see this thread get back to the Hansen collection again.
Maybe start new threads to diss his choices or other questionable purpose posts.
The work was probably done 50+ years ago. Today’s doctors do much better work.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Count Down 18 – Last Dahlonega Mint Coin
2nd coin in last Box of 20………...Present Box Value = $1,342,800
It a hard act to follow when the last count down coin sold for $1.3M. Still, this new addition counts as one more down, just as much as a $5M coin. Down the road as we get close to the end, there definitely will be some coins values well over $5M. Maybe even more than $10M. It will be a interesting ride to watch. First things first, let’s discuss this last Dahlonega Mint coin. With this addition, the 58 piece set is now complete.
As discussed last week, the set is second only to the Harry W. Bass, Jr. Collection. For more details, look back a few posting to the Count Down 20 posting. Another popular Dahlonega Mint registry set is the 70 piece Major Varieties. This set requires an additional 12 coins. Hansen has nine of them already. This set has not been completed per the registry requirements. Hansen could be the first if he acquires the 1840-D (Small D), 1853-D (Medium D), and the 1855-D (Medium D). I have the feeling that one of Hansen’s goal is to complete this set at some point in the near future.
1854-D Quarter Eagle AU53
This 1854-D Quarter Eagle specimen is not a the condition census coin, but it is a nice specimen of this rare date and mint. A couple comments by the experts, David Akers said: In my opinion, the 1854-D is a bit overrated as a date, but it is anything but overrated in high grade. Like the other D Mint quarter eagles of this period, the 1854-D is always weakly struck at the denticles. The eagle's right leg (being opposite the high points of the head of Liberty) is always flat, as it is for virtually every early Liberty Head quarter eagle. Doug Winter comments was along the same lines: Due to its very low mintage figure, the rarity of the 1854-D quarter eagle has been somewhat overstated in the past. It is more available in lower grades than is generally believed but it is extremely rare in higher grades.
The coin was purchased in the August 15th Stacks Bowers Auction. The Auctioneer described the coin as a Rare Issue. The coin was further described as: This is an exceptionally well preserved, highly appealing example of an issue that is challenging to collect even in lower grades. Bright golden-yellow surfaces retain plenty of satin luster that is particularly lively when viewed with the aid of direct lighting. Obverse striking detail is sharp for the issue, Liberty’s portrait and the star centrils retaining ample detail in the absence of all but trivial high point wear. The reverse is typically soft in strike with the eagle and olive branch quite blunt, but we do note bolder detail in the recessed areas of the wings. Smooth in hand with no worrisome blemishes, this impressive condition rarity would serve as a highlight in an advanced Southern gold cabinet.
The coin realized $22,800, with PCGS value guide at $13,000.
Provenance: From the Maurice Snow Collection
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, the registry describes his specimen as a 1854-D Quarter Eagle, Estimated grade XF45. Ex: Purchased by Louis Eliasberg from the Belden Roach collection, auctioned by B. Max Mehl in 1944. Purchased at the Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 Eliasberg sale by Walter Perske for $4,180. Lot #168.
1854-D Quarter Eagle AU53 (Gold Shield)
PCGS Coin #7771 / PCGS Serial #37621007 / POP 4/16
There are 18 remaining coins in the Eliasberg Quest. The 12 coins that are not listed in “complete registry set” are Bold below. Note: DLH was a partner in the purchase of the 1854-S XF45 Half Eagle being that he's a partner with DLRC, but after purchasing the coin, DLHC reported the specimen was sold to an undisclosed client.
Top 10
1870-S Half Dime (Unique Coin in Tom Bender PCGS Registry Collection)
1873-CC "No Arrows" Dime (Unique Coin in an anonymous collection)
1870-S Three Dollar Only (Unique Coin owned by the Bass Foundation displayed at the ANA)
1866 "No Motto" Dollar Proof Only (2 Minted, Unique Private Coin in Simpson Collection)
1822 Half Eagle (Survival 3, Unique Private Owned Coin in the Pogue Collection)
1933 Double Eagle (Known Survival 16, Unique Legally Owned Coin - anonymous collection)
1854-S Half Eagle (Survival 4, Two known in private: 1-Pogue AU58+; 2- XF45 sold July 2018)
1798 "Small Eagle" Half Eagle (Survival 7, Only 2 maybe 3 examples could be privately purchased)
1913 Liberty Head Nickel Proof Only (5 Minted, 3 private owned)
1838-0 Half Dollar BM Only (Survival 9, six known for private purchase)
Next 8
1880 Four Dollar Gold "Stella’s" (Coiled Hair) Proof Only (Survival 8)
1827 "Original" Quarter Dollar Proof Only (Survival 9)
1841 Quarter Eagle (Survival for regular strikes 12, proofs 4)
1819 Half Eagle (Survival for “No Variety” 7, for “5D/50” 17)
1880 Four Dollar Gold "Stella’s" (Flowing Hair) Proof Only (Survival 24)
1933 Ten Dollar (Survival 40, rarest issue in series)
1839 Gobrecht Dollar Proof Only (Survival 60-75)
1798 Quarter Eagle (Survival 80)
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Someone posted a CNN link where DLRC is quoted as saying that he only needed to six more coins, and John made comments that he had several updates left to post. I wonder what other coins he has added that may not have made Hansen's registry set yet.
Those six are likely the six coins not in bold in the above list - to complete the "regular registry set".
The next update should include the 1933 $10, which reduces this number to five.
The coins in bold above should be proof-only, unique, illegal, or considered by some to be patterns.
The 10c 1873-CC no arrows dime is really a (red book) die variety; maybe not a date-mintmark requirement,
but Eliasberg had it and almost all the coins in bold.
A few comments:
There have been more 1913 nickels on the market the last 2 years than 1933 $10 Indians. In addition, the two gems are held by the same customer who isn't selling and is demanding a rather exorbitant price as well.
Most that criticize the purchase did not view the coin in-hand. When compared to other rarities that are currently for sale, the 1933 is for some reason a tougher coin to find than some of the other "rarer" items.
That being said, it was one of the final 10 holes in the Eliasberg set at PCGS, and there are now only 6 holes left to fill in that group. Of course other coins will be/have been added to the overall collection, but that set (as defined by PCGS) has been a focus since early on.
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
https://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/complete-sets/master-sets/u-s-coins-complete-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1792-1964/alltimeset/149665
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
As a Dahlonega gold enthusiast, I would like to see him complete the 70 coin Dahlonega Gold-Major Varieties set. It’s a very spectacular feat so far!
Unfortunately, the complete basic set of circulation strikes was not Eliasberg’s accomplishment. At the time, proofs were ‘better’ and necessary..if you stop there, you’ve failed.
Of course, if you do both the complete proof and circulation strike sets, then you’ve exceeded. But make no mistake, you can’t not have a 1913 and expect to be acclaimed as complete.
I remain shocked and surprised that pcgs has not created the ‘Eliasberg Registry Set’...combined proof and circulation strike....so the pursuit can be followed apples to apples
Pffft. What’s two years in numismatics? Patience, grasshopper....
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkeyed with coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain along the way by the Dr. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
To me it’s part of our hobby. We have been lamenting doctors for decades and it seems they can’t be stopped or even identified. Even bad medical doctors who make people sign non-disclosures get outed, but coin doctors are untouchable.
Also, for better or worse, it is slabbed by our hosts. In the old days, it wouldn’t have been slabbed but times have changed.
Let’s see if it gets upgraded. The set’s not yet complete so it could happen.
That will teach me to magnify a coin's image (when possible) before posting an opinion!
I wish folks would stop saying this. There is a difference between lowering a coin's ACTUAL grade based on its condition of preservation and dropping THAT GRADE MORE due to placing a "Net Grade" on it (as the Large cent guys do) that does not match any grading guide or have any semblance to reality!!!
Oh....really?
I can’t count the number of coins in TPG holders that have a conservative grade by the remaining details...but have been silently net graded for a slight cleaning
That’s the reality
In this instance though with such a tough coin what is the alternative? And I don't mean in regards specifically to DLH who could eventually buy a different 1933 $10, just in general. If buying a coin in a tooled slab makes you part of the process what should be done with the tooled coin? Or are you more against this because of the price paid?
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
This is a good discussion to have. I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that a coin should essentially be stricken from the record or black listed because of what someone might have done to it, if it is truly rare. I also don't want to create a market for doctored coins.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
The coin is graded as a problem coin so at least people know there are issues.
I think it may be worth considering moving coin doctoring into the open like classic car and art restoration. Restoration is an open part of both of those hobbies and their top end items sell for much more than coins do.
In the meanwhile, we are still in the situation where doctors do their work but need to do it in secret with nothing to really stop them. For example, I don't think the PNG really made any progress and it doesn't seem like the PNG doctoring definition changed anything.
I don't mind the coin being a no-grade coin. It's still nice to be slabbed with a TrueView.
"Restoration" would be a category that would be treated like a "Genuine."
Cars are different as they HAVE to be repaired to work.
But what about art, which sells for even more than cars, and coins?
Well that's a different ...picture.
Sorry. I'll behave now.
Yes.
So if we use @Currin's method of sorting on the grade column to bring the missing coins to the top, it shows these six:
1798 $2-1/2
1798 $5 Small Eagle
1819 $5
1822 $5
1854-S $5
1875 $10
So the 1933 $10 is in the set database now.
Hansen has the 1875 $10 in proof, so that meets the Eliasberg set definition (either business strike or proof counts).
And this matches the 6 non-bold coins in @Currin's latest update. It will be five non-bold soon.
I would argue that there wasn't a blind eye turned here, but there's no need to further discuss it.
I, for one, am glad that the coin is off the market for a very long time, likely to not re-enter, so that a doctor was unable to buy it and work on it.
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
There will always be ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacks”, even in coin collecting. Reading some of Tradedollarnut’s post, I have to wonder if he is just envious of Mr. Hansen’s goals and accomplishes so far.
Not at all. I’m rooting for him. I just want him to do it right. It’ll cost him a little bit more but in the end it will be worth every penny...
It's not like Hansen commissioned the doctoring. The deed was already done when he came along. And knowingly purchased it as such.
Are all the coins that have ever been messed with supposed to disintegrate and disappear? Not at all. They should be accurately described and traded at a discount.
I agree 100%! Unfortunately, that is the disgusting truth. Coins with "market acceptable" problems are still problem coins. Lowering their grade does not make it right and that is not something that goes on with EVERY COIN! Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Value and subjectivity do not belong in an "ideal" grading system. I believe that sometime in the future, AI will correct the mess that has evolved into today's "market grading."
Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
Tooled is a strikethrough.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
This is 100% correct. Just to prove, here is the 1875 Eagle in D.L. Hansen Collection. David Akers (1975/88): This date is by far the rarest Liberty Head Eagle, particularly as a business strike, and no more than 5-6 business strikes are known along with 7-8 proofs.
1875 $10, CAM PR63CAM Certification #03175738, PCGS #88815, POP 1/1, overall POP 1/4
.
.
I would give 5:1 odds before it is all said and done, Hansen will have one of the 5-6 known business strikes in his Collection. TOP POP for business strikes is AU53+ PCGS grade.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
With a set like the one he is building ( fantastic) I would rather have an empty spot then a known tooled worked on coin filling it. Where is the challenge in that besides writing a check?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
LOL. Unfortunately, IMHO, you had a bad/or no actual "numismatic education." Sure, you are a very successful businessman, and a famous, knowledgeable collector - "educated" in the numismatic school of hard knocks and hard lessons. However (again IMHO), this view of yours and others only causes confusion.
Reality? Yes, your definition of the entire grading process can be called NET GRADING because that is what we all do. We take a coin in hand, imagine what it looked like hot off the dies and then NET GRADE IT by coming up with a condition number (grade shorthand) remaining **after deductions." So, we net graded it.
The problem with that view is, as I stated before, another band of folks who collect copper came up with a "loony" system (so far, no one can tell me who devised it) that they named "net grading." Oops, just to be specific after both of us understand/agree that all TPGS grading is a "net result" after deductions - I should call their system NET, NET Grading. That's because after they Net grade a coin they may decide it needs to be net graded even more! Oh my.
In the end, I will continue to make a distinction between simply grading a coin as the industry does and the "net grading" folly because they are not identical.
Are there scratches on this coin? I see strike thru's that are fairly common on Proofs.
I think Bruce understands grading and “net grading” - silent or otherwise - just fine.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.