I've owned a few of Hansen's coins. They were nice coins. I did well when I sold them (with the Hansen label). But there certainly does seem to be a stigma associated with them and I don't think it's just on this forum.
I wouldn't do what he's doing. The greatest collection of SBA dollars has zero appeal and no way I'm dropping 500k on an Ike dollar set.
I understand what you're saying. I also have little interest in a lot of different series. But, if the financial means were there I definitely would branch out into collections that are currently out of my financial reach now.
I've owned a few of Hansen's coins. They were nice coins. I did well when I sold them (with the Hansen label). But there certainly does seem to be a stigma associated with them and I don't think it's just on this forum.
Why?
I wouldn't care about his specialty label if it wasn't so ugly.
I see Hansen as more if a dealer of sorts these days, so the label doesn’t add any value for me, nor does it bother me. I will say I will take a second look at a Hansen coin as there is a presumption that it has been vetted by knowledgeable people.
I wouldn't do what he's doing. The greatest collection of SBA dollars has zero appeal and no way I'm dropping 500k on an Ike dollar set.
I'd pick several things and focus on that. Maybe the greatest collection of seated halves, or 1795-1804 Eagles, or the greatest collection of Dahlonega coins ever assembled etc. Even something like buying up all the 1870-cc quarters in existence has more appeal than half of what Hansen is doing.
I guess you don't like what Eliasberg did? Maybe in 50 years from now the Hansen pedigree might yield a premium, if Hansen chooses to sell his collection via auction. Just saying......
I've owned a few of Hansen's coins. They were nice coins. I did well when I sold them (with the Hansen label). But there certainly does seem to be a stigma associated with them and I don't think it's just on this forum.
Why?
I wouldn't care about his specialty label if it wasn't so ugly.
I like Hansen labels. Don’t think they are ugly at all. Personal preferences I guess.
Hansen bought a lot of coins to fill holes. He then has upgraded to some great coins. Some of the coins he bought and upgraded carry his label. I think the best comparison to Eliasberg is if he sells his top collection.
As respects the scope, I believe I would ignore post-1964. I’ve included to-date coins for fun in my collection, but seems silly to spend a lot of time on moderns if one has very deep pockets.
I am not back, just a brief drop in. I did enjoy this thread when I was active, I learned a great deal about the hobby, condition census coins, and historical collections. All my work/research was obtained from the PCGS Registry and other credible online sources. I did have the honor to meet Mr. Hansen and he purchased my dinner. I was able to go in his vault, which was an amazing experience. I held several of his million dollars coins in my hands. With that be said, I never considered myself as an “insider”.
With the startup of the CACG, it became very difficult to track The Collection. It was already very difficult to track 15-20 thousand coins, even when they were all in the PCGS registry. It took me years to develop my system, and CACG changed it over night. I think I could have figured it out, but I saw an even bigger problem. I have wrote about this before, so I will not repeat all the details. Basically, I saw Mr. Hanse drive for adding and improving the Collection diminish. I thought the miss of the 1822 was a big disappoint that initiated the shift. Maybe it was. When we have disappointments, something’s we move on to other interests. I may know what that another interest that probably diverted funds from investing in coins.
I will not say much about this, but I feel this is a noble calling. I will let you draw your on conclusions. This is the public link.
I am not back, just a brief drop in. I did enjoy this thread when I was active, I learned a great deal about the hobby, condition census coins, and historical collections. All my work/research was obtained from the PCGS Registry and other credible online sources. I did have the honor to meet Mr. Hansen and he purchased my dinner. I was able to go in his vault, which was an amazing experience. I held several of his million dollars coins in my hands. With that be said, I never considered myself as an “insider”.
With the startup of the CACG, it became very difficult to track The Collection. It was already very difficult to track 15-20 thousand coins, even when they were all in the PCGS registry. It took me years to develop my system, and CACG changed it over night. I think I could have figured it out, but I saw an even bigger problem. I have wrote about this before, so I will not repeat all the details. Basically, I saw Mr. Hanse drive for adding and improving the Collection diminish. I thought the miss of the 1822 was a big disappoint that initiated the shift. Maybe it was. When we have disappointments, something’s we move on to other interests. I may know what that another interest that probably diverted funds from investing in coins.
I will not say much about this, but I feel this is a noble calling. I will let you draw your on conclusions. This is the public link.
Thanks for taking the time to explain and update all here. It was truly a yeoman effort and I understand why you've decided not to continue. All the best and thank you for sharing his journey to build the most comprehensive and top ranked collection ever assembled.
Seated Half Society member #38
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress, running like a water color in the rain...."
@Currin said:
It took me years to develop my system, and CACG changed it over night. I think I could have figured it out, but I saw an >even bigger problem. I have wrote about this before, so I will not repeat all the details. Basically, I saw Mr. Hanse drive >for adding and improving the Collection diminish.
CACG fractured an already small group of collectors into waring factions.
I've lost enthusiasm also.
My post count indicates this as well as a lack of updates to my collection.
@Exbrit said:
I applaud any attempt to combat grade inflation.
This is an interesting post for a few reasons. Over the years, DLH has had coins resubmitted to PCGS multiple times and he has received a number of upgrades (based on one series I watch). He has also done this same basic thing with CAC stickering where coins that did not have stickers ended up with stickers. When you follow one particular series very closely, these things are easy to notice. But then, it seems the majority of his coins have been crossed to CACG where I believe he is a part owner or shareholder. Some coins that would not cross at grade or higher stayed in PCGS holders when the potential value loss was too high.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Not really looking for much these days but if I were, it might be a toner.
@Exbrit said:
I applaud any attempt to combat grade inflation.
This is an interesting post for a few reasons. Over the years, DLH has had coins resubmitted to PCGS multiple times and he has received a number of upgrades (based on one series I watch). He has also done this same basic thing with CAC stickering where coins that did not have stickers ended up with stickers. When you follow one particular series very closely, these things are easy to notice. But then, it seems the majority of his coins have been crossed to CACG where I believe he is a part owner or shareholder. Some coins that would not cross at grade or higher stayed in PCGS holders when the potential value loss was too high.
That’s interesting situational awareness. DLH, John Brush or JA said the DHL didn’t mind taking a lower grade during the crossover if it was warranted. I forget who said it, maybe a couple of them. I haven’t looked to see if there were indeed any downgrades.
@Exbrit said:
I applaud any attempt to combat grade inflation.
This is an interesting post for a few reasons. Over the years, DLH has had coins resubmitted to PCGS multiple times and he has received a number of upgrades (based on one series I watch). He has also done this same basic thing with CAC stickering where coins that did not have stickers ended up with stickers. When you follow one particular series very closely, these things are easy to notice. But then, it seems the majority of his coins have been crossed to CACG where I believe he is a part owner or shareholder. Some coins that would not cross at grade or higher stayed in PCGS holders when the potential value loss was too high.
That’s interesting situational awareness. DLH, John Brush or JA said the DHL didn’t mind taking a lower grade during the crossover if it was warranted. I forget who said it, maybe a couple of them. I haven’t looked to see if there were indeed any downgrades.
What series are you referring to?
Mercury Dimes.
When he crossed his collection to CACG, he did not cross everything. I am guessing because the financial hit would be too high for some coins. Some coins were crossed at lower grades, likely when the financial hit was less significant. If you review my thread here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1120677/should-impacted-registry-sets-be-retired-or-just-deleted-by-pcgs-without-opportunity-to-retire then you will see the last coin mentioned is one where he crossed and accepted a downgrade. If you go through all of his Mercury Dimes, you will see not all of them were crossed. Just look at his registry on CACG and you’ll see which coins are still in PCGS holders. Regarding your mention of gradeflation though, based on my observations, I would venture to guess thousands of coins were resubmitted to PCGS multiple times where he would receive upgrades each time in multiple series.
Comments
What is Hansen doing, exactly?
Why is it so bad?
Why do we care so much?
I've owned a few of Hansen's coins. They were nice coins. I did well when I sold them (with the Hansen label). But there certainly does seem to be a stigma associated with them and I don't think it's just on this forum.
Why?
I understand what you're saying. I also have little interest in a lot of different series. But, if the financial means were there I definitely would branch out into collections that are currently out of my financial reach now.
I wouldn't care about his specialty label if it wasn't so ugly.
I see Hansen as more if a dealer of sorts these days, so the label doesn’t add any value for me, nor does it bother me. I will say I will take a second look at a Hansen coin as there is a presumption that it has been vetted by knowledgeable people.
I guess you don't like what Eliasberg did? Maybe in 50 years from now the Hansen pedigree might yield a premium, if Hansen chooses to sell his collection via auction. Just saying......
I like Hansen labels. Don’t think they are ugly at all. Personal preferences I guess.
Hansen bought a lot of coins to fill holes. He then has upgraded to some great coins. Some of the coins he bought and upgraded carry his label. I think the best comparison to Eliasberg is if he sells his top collection.
As respects the scope, I believe I would ignore post-1964. I’ve included to-date coins for fun in my collection, but seems silly to spend a lot of time on moderns if one has very deep pockets.
Hi Everyone,
I am not back, just a brief drop in. I did enjoy this thread when I was active, I learned a great deal about the hobby, condition census coins, and historical collections. All my work/research was obtained from the PCGS Registry and other credible online sources. I did have the honor to meet Mr. Hansen and he purchased my dinner. I was able to go in his vault, which was an amazing experience. I held several of his million dollars coins in my hands. With that be said, I never considered myself as an “insider”.
With the startup of the CACG, it became very difficult to track The Collection. It was already very difficult to track 15-20 thousand coins, even when they were all in the PCGS registry. It took me years to develop my system, and CACG changed it over night. I think I could have figured it out, but I saw an even bigger problem. I have wrote about this before, so I will not repeat all the details. Basically, I saw Mr. Hanse drive for adding and improving the Collection diminish. I thought the miss of the 1822 was a big disappoint that initiated the shift. Maybe it was. When we have disappointments, something’s we move on to other interests. I may know what that another interest that probably diverted funds from investing in coins.
I will not say much about this, but I feel this is a noble calling. I will let you draw your on conclusions. This is the public link.
https://www.hum.giving/
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Thanks for taking the time to explain and update all here. It was truly a yeoman effort and I understand why you've decided not to continue. All the best and thank you for sharing his journey to build the most comprehensive and top ranked collection ever assembled.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
One of the most amazing threads ever on the forum. Thank you.
I do know that he has become very active in Ukraine- perhaps that coincides with the diminishing drive. Very noble of him, I might add.
Well said! Thank you very much, @Currin and Mr. Hansen.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
CACG fractured an already small group of collectors into waring factions.
I've lost enthusiasm also.
My post count indicates this as well as a lack of updates to my collection.
My Saint Set
I applaud any attempt to combat grade inflation.
What else is Hansen after, other than the below?
This is an interesting post for a few reasons. Over the years, DLH has had coins resubmitted to PCGS multiple times and he has received a number of upgrades (based on one series I watch). He has also done this same basic thing with CAC stickering where coins that did not have stickers ended up with stickers. When you follow one particular series very closely, these things are easy to notice. But then, it seems the majority of his coins have been crossed to CACG where I believe he is a part owner or shareholder. Some coins that would not cross at grade or higher stayed in PCGS holders when the potential value loss was too high.
Not really looking for much these days but if I were, it might be a toner.
That’s interesting situational awareness. DLH, John Brush or JA said the DHL didn’t mind taking a lower grade during the crossover if it was warranted. I forget who said it, maybe a couple of them. I haven’t looked to see if there were indeed any downgrades.
What series are you referring to?
Mercury Dimes.
When he crossed his collection to CACG, he did not cross everything. I am guessing because the financial hit would be too high for some coins. Some coins were crossed at lower grades, likely when the financial hit was less significant. If you review my thread here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1120677/should-impacted-registry-sets-be-retired-or-just-deleted-by-pcgs-without-opportunity-to-retire then you will see the last coin mentioned is one where he crossed and accepted a downgrade. If you go through all of his Mercury Dimes, you will see not all of them were crossed. Just look at his registry on CACG and you’ll see which coins are still in PCGS holders. Regarding your mention of gradeflation though, based on my observations, I would venture to guess thousands of coins were resubmitted to PCGS multiple times where he would receive upgrades each time in multiple series.
Edit: All of that said, based on what Charles says in this thread, it seems like DLH registry sets will be gone this year. https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1120692/pcgs-set-registry-40th-anniversary-rules-forthcoming-and-competition-integrity
Not really looking for much these days but if I were, it might be a toner.