@Boosibri said:
If I owned it and was offering it for sale I would absolutely send it through CAC. It can only help the results, no?
It, being a "unique coin", is what it is, with or without the sticker. I don't think a person who wanted such a coin would be swayed by the CAC sticker. CAC stickers add value to coins that can be compared to others with similar features - a comparison tool.
If you aren't willing to spend $29 on the off chance that it gets one bidder to place one further bid at $250,000 per increment then you are a fool.
@ilikemonsters said:
When I saw the CAC sticker on the slab I sorta laughed. There are a handful of collectors/dealers who will pay $5M on a coin. That being said, why would a sticker matter when it's already a coin of this multitude.
TDN, I'm sure you will think great things about it, considering your stance on CAC, and I don't disagree! But a sticker isn't what will be worth the cut bid. Another perspective is, what if a collector buys it, one who doesn't want the sticker? The collector would then have to mail it to JA just to have a sticker removed and risk a $5M coin being lost/stolen in the mail.
CAC stickers aren't hard to remove. Trust me on this.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Kkathyl said:
no but it verifies what we already know.
Which is what? That it’s accurately graded? The 1804$1s aren’t. That it’s not doctored? The KOS 1804 has a pin scratched spot. The norweb 1885 has been cigar smoked
That it’s a 1913 liberty head nickel? Yup
This. Iconic coins such as the 1804 dollars, I could argue, have a higher liability for 'grade inflation' or 'grade forgiveness' for past mishandling. There is one of the most recently discovered 1817/4 halves was straight-graded by PCGS as G-6 with a prominent gouge on the obverse. If this were an ordinary 1817 CBH, it would be in a Genuine holder.
A CAC sticker perhaps has more relevance when on an iconic coin as not all who bid on these coins have the skills to determine doctoring or acknowledge grade inflation.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I agree with @astrorat. I would also argue that condition always matters, even for a unique coin (which this is not). A solid 66 should be worth more than a weak 66.
@AngryTurtle said:
Seems like a lot of folks missed @specialist and @billjones point, the insurance is the buy price posted by CAC for the coin, - I am assuming this one would work like other CACed coins since I am not privy to CACs bid list.
There's no insurance in that. This coin at retail has cache. If the allure of the 1913 nickels wanes, the CAC bid list will drop even faster.
@ilikemonsters said:
When I saw the CAC sticker on the slab I sorta laughed. There are a handful of collectors/dealers who will pay $5M on a coin. That being said, why would a sticker matter when it's already a coin of this multitude.
TDN, I'm sure you will think great things about it, considering your stance on CAC, and I don't disagree! But a sticker isn't what will be worth the cut bid. Another perspective is, what if a collector buys it, one who doesn't want the sticker? The collector would then have to mail it to JA just to have a sticker removed and risk a $5M coin being lost/stolen in the mail.
CAC stickers aren't hard to remove. Trust me on this.
@david3142 said:
I agree with @astrorat. I would also argue that condition always matters, even for a unique coin (which this is not). A solid 66 should be worth more than a weak 66.
Really? So, you think if this was a weak 66, it would get less because...what? The bidder would wait for a strong 66? This is a Pop 1 coin that can't EVER have a competitor. The Finest That Will Ever Be will garner whatever bid the Finest That Will Ever Be garners - strong 66, weak 66, inflated 65. Its cachet has little to do with the grade and everything to do with its history and its status as the Finest That Will Ever Be. Even the PCGS slab is meaningless to the value of this coin.
@ilikemonsters said:
When I saw the CAC sticker on the slab I sorta laughed. There are a handful of collectors/dealers who will pay $5M on a coin. That being said, why would a sticker matter when it's already a coin of this multitude.
TDN, I'm sure you will think great things about it, considering your stance on CAC, and I don't disagree! But a sticker isn't what will be worth the cut bid. Another perspective is, what if a collector buys it, one who doesn't want the sticker? The collector would then have to mail it to JA just to have a sticker removed and risk a $5M coin being lost/stolen in the mail.
CAC stickers aren't hard to remove. Trust me on this.
Oh, I am a fan of stickers. But I don't really like the contrast between the gold foiled insert label and the green CAC sticker.
Edited to add:
A gold sticker would've made the color contrast peak for me.
@ilikemonsters said:
When I saw the CAC sticker on the slab I sorta laughed. There are a handful of collectors/dealers who will pay $5M on a coin. That being said, why would a sticker matter when it's already a coin of this multitude.
TDN, I'm sure you will think great things about it, considering your stance on CAC, and I don't disagree! But a sticker isn't what will be worth the cut bid. Another perspective is, what if a collector buys it, one who doesn't want the sticker? The collector would then have to mail it to JA just to have a sticker removed and risk a $5M coin being lost/stolen in the mail.
CAC stickers aren't hard to remove. Trust me on this.
Intact or rendered not reuseable?
They are designed to not remain intact when removed but I've heard it can be done. CAC has a slab serial number lookup on their web site to verify that the slab has been approved by CAC.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@david3142 said:
I agree with @astrorat. I would also argue that condition always matters, even for a unique coin (which this is not). A solid 66 should be worth more than a weak 66.
Really? So, you think if this was a weak 66, it would get less because...what? The bidder would wait for a strong 66? This is a Pop 1 coin that can't EVER have a competitor. The Finest That Will Ever Be will garner whatever bid the Finest That Will Ever Be garners - strong 66, weak 66, inflated 65. Its cachet has little to do with the grade and everything to do with its history and its status as the Finest That Will Ever Be. Even the PCGS slab is meaningless to the value of this coin.
Keep in mind that one of the 1804 dollars (I forget which example) was first graded as an AU-58, then I think a MS-62, and then a MS-63 as it jumped from TPG to TPG [forgive me if I got the trivia wrong ... Tom knows to which coin I am referring]. The point I am feebly trying to make is that even the grades of iconic, well-documented coins can get 'inflated.' So ... whose to say if someday one of the other 1913 nickels isn't holdered at a grade of 66 or higher? To say this coin can't ever have a competitor is relying on the stability of grading these iconic coins.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Keep in mind that one of the 1804 dollars (I forget which example) was first graded as an AU-58, then I think a MS-62, and then a MS-63 as it jumped from TPG to TPG [forgive me if I got the trivia wrong ... Tom knows to which coin I am referring]. The point I am feebly trying to make is that even the grades of iconic, well-documented coins can get 'inflated.' So ... whose to say if someday one of the other 1913 nickels isn't holdered at a grade of 66 or higher? To say this coin can't ever have a competitor is relying on the stability of grading these iconic coins.
That is wholly inaccurate. All 5 of the coins have been viewed in the same room at the same time. This one is the unquestioned best of the lot. There is ZERO CHANCE of any of the other 4 equaling it much less surpassing it. Grade inflation or not. If one of the others gets a 66, this one ends up at 68 or 69.
Keep in mind that one of the 1804 dollars (I forget which example) was first graded as an AU-58, then I think a MS-62, and then a MS-63 as it jumped from TPG to TPG [forgive me if I got the trivia wrong ... Tom knows to which coin I am referring]. The point I am feebly trying to make is that even the grades of iconic, well-documented coins can get 'inflated.' So ... whose to say if someday one of the other 1913 nickels isn't holdered at a grade of 66 or higher? To say this coin can't ever have a competitor is relying on the stability of grading these iconic coins.
That is wholly inaccurate. All 5 of the coins have been viewed in the same room at the same time. This one is the unquestioned best of the lot. There is ZERO CHANCE of any of the other 4 equaling it much less surpassing it. Grade inflation or not. If one of the others gets a 66, this one ends up at 68 or 69.
if it was actually the best wouldn't have been picked to be on Hawaii Five-O instead of the other one?
If one is willing to say the CAC sticker has 0 value on this coin, I think one also has to be willing to say that condition does not matter at all outside of ranking. This coin would have to be worth the same as if it were a true 68. I just don’t see any basis in making that claim. Also, not everyone has to agree that it adds value - if only 1 competitive bidder does, then it does.
Keep in mind that one of the 1804 dollars (I forget which example) was first graded as an AU-58, then I think a MS-62, and then a MS-63 as it jumped from TPG to TPG [forgive me if I got the trivia wrong ... Tom knows to which coin I am referring]. The point I am feebly trying to make is that even the grades of iconic, well-documented coins can get 'inflated.' So ... whose to say if someday one of the other 1913 nickels isn't holdered at a grade of 66 or higher? To say this coin can't ever have a competitor is relying on the stability of grading these iconic coins.
That is wholly inaccurate. All 5 of the coins have been viewed in the same room at the same time. This one is the unquestioned best of the lot. There is ZERO CHANCE of any of the other 4 equaling it much less surpassing it. Grade inflation or not. If one of the others gets a 66, this one ends up at 68 or 69.
if it was actually the best wouldn't have been picked to be on Hawaii Five-O instead of the other one?
It's been many years since that episode aired. MANY YEARS. Do you know if a real coin was even used for that show?
Keep in mind that one of the 1804 dollars (I forget which example) was first graded as an AU-58, then I think a MS-62, and then a MS-63 as it jumped from TPG to TPG [forgive me if I got the trivia wrong ... Tom knows to which coin I am referring]. The point I am feebly trying to make is that even the grades of iconic, well-documented coins can get 'inflated.' So ... whose to say if someday one of the other 1913 nickels isn't holdered at a grade of 66 or higher? To say this coin can't ever have a competitor is relying on the stability of grading these iconic coins.
That is wholly inaccurate. All 5 of the coins have been viewed in the same room at the same time. This one is the unquestioned best of the lot. There is ZERO CHANCE of any of the other 4 equaling it much less surpassing it. Grade inflation or not. If one of the others gets a 66, this one ends up at 68 or 69.
if it was actually the best wouldn't have been picked to be on Hawaii Five-O instead of the other one?
It's been many years since that episode aired. MANY YEARS. Do you know if a real coin was even used for that show?
pretty sure there is a thread about it. By that member who makes those threads. Lots of pics as I recall
@david3142 said:
If one is willing to say the CAC sticker has 0 value on this coin, I think one also has to be willing to say that condition does not matter at all outside of ranking. This coin would have to be worth the same as if it were a true 68. I just don’t see any basis in making that claim. Also, not everyone has to agree that it adds value - if only 1 competitive bidder does, then it does.
On this coin, condition would not matter. (IMHO). even if this coin were an XF and the other 4 were downgraded relatively, it would still command the same price. It is simply the finest known of the storied 5 coins. That is why anyone cares about it. The grade is completely irrelevant to the price on these 5.
Keep in mind that one of the 1804 dollars (I forget which example) was first graded as an AU-58, then I think a MS-62, and then a MS-63 as it jumped from TPG to TPG [forgive me if I got the trivia wrong ... Tom knows to which coin I am referring]. The point I am feebly trying to make is that even the grades of iconic, well-documented coins can get 'inflated.' So ... whose to say if someday one of the other 1913 nickels isn't holdered at a grade of 66 or higher? To say this coin can't ever have a competitor is relying on the stability of grading these iconic coins.
That is wholly inaccurate. All 5 of the coins have been viewed in the same room at the same time. This one is the unquestioned best of the lot. There is ZERO CHANCE of any of the other 4 equaling it much less surpassing it. Grade inflation or not. If one of the others gets a 66, this one ends up at 68 or 69.
I am not arguing that others are 'better' in a coin-to-coin comparison, just that one may grade higher at some point. What if the 'second best' coin was crossed over? Do you think the graders at the new TPG are bound by the grades assigned by the 'other' TP? How do you think that 1804 dollar I mentioned above went from AU to Choice MS? Because of how it ranks amongst the known pieces? Of course not. It was crossed over to a higher grade as an enticement to be in another TPG's plastic. I don't think you can claim there is ZERO CHANCE this could never happen with a 1913 nickel.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Keep in mind that one of the 1804 dollars (I forget which example) was first graded as an AU-58, then I think a MS-62, and then a MS-63 as it jumped from TPG to TPG [forgive me if I got the trivia wrong ... Tom knows to which coin I am referring]. The point I am feebly trying to make is that even the grades of iconic, well-documented coins can get 'inflated.' So ... whose to say if someday one of the other 1913 nickels isn't holdered at a grade of 66 or higher? To say this coin can't ever have a competitor is relying on the stability of grading these iconic coins.
That is wholly inaccurate. All 5 of the coins have been viewed in the same room at the same time. This one is the unquestioned best of the lot. There is ZERO CHANCE of any of the other 4 equaling it much less surpassing it. Grade inflation or not. If one of the others gets a 66, this one ends up at 68 or 69.
if it was actually the best wouldn't have been picked to be on Hawaii Five-O instead of the other one?
It's been many years since that episode aired. MANY YEARS. Do you know if a real coin was even used for that show?
pretty sure there is a thread about it. By that member who makes those threads. Lots of pics as I recall
IIRC TDN had a post/thread about a bunch of experts reviewing all 5 coins together. Was the best one even singled out when that episode aired? Remember back then it was merely a $100,000 nickel.
This coin was graded PF66 at NGC and PR66 at PCGS. The Olsen coin was gradedPR64 at PCGS (it is still in the pops) and is currently graded PF64 at NGC.
At NGC, this coin has the cert number 999999-001 (that is the number shown on the photo proof)
At PCGS the Olsen had the number 4000000 (https://pcgs.com/cert/04000000
As for Baltimore 2003, all 5 were together. Did not recall hearing any stories of peoples opinions differing from Eric Newman's as to which was the finest.
As for the Hawaii 5-0 episode, the Olsen coin was in the show. Bowers owned (at least part of it) at the time.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Dang I'm getting old! Was it really 2003 when the 5 were together in Baltimore? That's 15 years ago....where did all those years go?
@dbldie55 said:
This coin was graded PF66 at NGC and PR66 at PCGS. The Olsen coin was gradedPR64 at PCGS (it is still in the pops) and is currently graded PF64 at NGC.
At NGC, this coin has the cert number 999999-001 (that is the number shown on the photo proof)
At PCGS the Olsen had the number 4000000 (https://pcgs.com/cert/04000000
As for Baltimore 2003, all 5 were together. Did not recall hearing any stories of peoples opinions differing from Eric Newman's as to which was the finest.
As for the Hawaii 5-0 episode, the Olsen coin was in the show. Bowers owned (at least part of it) at the time.
ntioned above went from AU to Choice MS? Because of how it ranks amongst the known pieces? Of course not. It was crossed over to a higher grade as an enticement to be in another TPG's plastic. I don't think you can claim there is ZERO CHANCE this could never happen with a 1913 nickel.
There is ZERO CHANCE. They've all been seen side-by-side. I don't know of anyone who thinks that it's even close.
Comments
If you aren't willing to spend $29 on the off chance that it gets one bidder to place one further bid at $250,000 per increment then you are a fool.
Latin American Collection
If you’re great southern you better state it in your Ebay listing
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Perhaps to those that collect stickers and not coins. Strange world we live in.
CAC stickers aren't hard to remove. Trust me on this.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
This. Iconic coins such as the 1804 dollars, I could argue, have a higher liability for 'grade inflation' or 'grade forgiveness' for past mishandling. There is one of the most recently discovered 1817/4 halves was straight-graded by PCGS as G-6 with a prominent gouge on the obverse. If this were an ordinary 1817 CBH, it would be in a Genuine holder.
A CAC sticker perhaps has more relevance when on an iconic coin as not all who bid on these coins have the skills to determine doctoring or acknowledge grade inflation.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I agree with @astrorat. I would also argue that condition always matters, even for a unique coin (which this is not). A solid 66 should be worth more than a weak 66.
There's no insurance in that. This coin at retail has cache. If the allure of the 1913 nickels wanes, the CAC bid list will drop even faster.
Intact or rendered not reuseable?
Really? So, you think if this was a weak 66, it would get less because...what? The bidder would wait for a strong 66? This is a Pop 1 coin that can't EVER have a competitor. The Finest That Will Ever Be will garner whatever bid the Finest That Will Ever Be garners - strong 66, weak 66, inflated 65. Its cachet has little to do with the grade and everything to do with its history and its status as the Finest That Will Ever Be. Even the PCGS slab is meaningless to the value of this coin.
Oh, I am a fan of stickers. But I don't really like the contrast between the gold foiled insert label and the green CAC sticker.
Edited to add:
A gold sticker would've made the color contrast peak for me.
How long ago was it graded and would it get a higher grade today?
Never mind this dreck where is the hawaii five -O coin?
They are designed to not remain intact when removed but I've heard it can be done. CAC has a slab serial number lookup on their web site to verify that the slab has been approved by CAC.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Keep in mind that one of the 1804 dollars (I forget which example) was first graded as an AU-58, then I think a MS-62, and then a MS-63 as it jumped from TPG to TPG [forgive me if I got the trivia wrong ... Tom knows to which coin I am referring]. The point I am feebly trying to make is that even the grades of iconic, well-documented coins can get 'inflated.' So ... whose to say if someday one of the other 1913 nickels isn't holdered at a grade of 66 or higher? To say this coin can't ever have a competitor is relying on the stability of grading these iconic coins.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
That is wholly inaccurate. All 5 of the coins have been viewed in the same room at the same time. This one is the unquestioned best of the lot. There is ZERO CHANCE of any of the other 4 equaling it much less surpassing it. Grade inflation or not. If one of the others gets a 66, this one ends up at 68 or 69.
if it was actually the best wouldn't have been picked to be on Hawaii Five-O instead of the other one?
If one is willing to say the CAC sticker has 0 value on this coin, I think one also has to be willing to say that condition does not matter at all outside of ranking. This coin would have to be worth the same as if it were a true 68. I just don’t see any basis in making that claim. Also, not everyone has to agree that it adds value - if only 1 competitive bidder does, then it does.
It's been many years since that episode aired. MANY YEARS. Do you know if a real coin was even used for that show?
It would cost a small fortune to ship a $6,000,000 coin round trip to CAC.
Wonder if JA makes house calls?
Doesn't matter -- not even one cent, or two-bits, or four-bits, or a shave-and-a-haircut.
pretty sure there is a thread about it. By that member who makes those threads. Lots of pics as I recall
On this coin, condition would not matter. (IMHO). even if this coin were an XF and the other 4 were downgraded relatively, it would still command the same price. It is simply the finest known of the storied 5 coins. That is why anyone cares about it. The grade is completely irrelevant to the price on these 5.
I am not arguing that others are 'better' in a coin-to-coin comparison, just that one may grade higher at some point. What if the 'second best' coin was crossed over? Do you think the graders at the new TPG are bound by the grades assigned by the 'other' TP? How do you think that 1804 dollar I mentioned above went from AU to Choice MS? Because of how it ranks amongst the known pieces? Of course not. It was crossed over to a higher grade as an enticement to be in another TPG's plastic. I don't think you can claim there is ZERO CHANCE this could never happen with a 1913 nickel.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
IIRC TDN had a post/thread about a bunch of experts reviewing all 5 coins together. Was the best one even singled out when that episode aired? Remember back then it was merely a $100,000 nickel.
This coin was graded PF66 at NGC and PR66 at PCGS. The Olsen coin was gradedPR64 at PCGS (it is still in the pops) and is currently graded PF64 at NGC.
At NGC, this coin has the cert number 999999-001 (that is the number shown on the photo proof)
At PCGS the Olsen had the number 4000000 (https://pcgs.com/cert/04000000
As for Baltimore 2003, all 5 were together. Did not recall hearing any stories of peoples opinions differing from Eric Newman's as to which was the finest.
As for the Hawaii 5-0 episode, the Olsen coin was in the show. Bowers owned (at least part of it) at the time.
Dang I'm getting old! Was it really 2003 when the 5 were together in Baltimore? That's 15 years ago....where did all those years go?
ntioned above went from AU to Choice MS? Because of how it ranks amongst the known pieces? Of course not. It was crossed over to a higher grade as an enticement to be in another TPG's plastic. I don't think you can claim there is ZERO CHANCE this could never happen with a 1913 nickel.
There is ZERO CHANCE. They've all been seen side-by-side. I don't know of anyone who thinks that it's even close.
Maybe to the person who owns it.