Swinging for the fence - 1794 and more
LanceNewmanOCC
Posts: 19,999 ✭✭✭✭✭
<--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -
0
Comments
link to owner's site?
.
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.Empty Nest Collection
Freddie
<< <i>I assure you, they are all real and available! >>
i didn't have too much concern after first viewing the listings
my guess is that if you own items like that there are probably several people that can vouch
.
GrandAm
<< <i>I have heard of swinging and of being on the fence but I know not what this "Swinging for the fence" is. Can you please explain for me?
GrandAm
with only 4 total items that have an average listed price over $300k and a top valued item over $600k, i consider that swinging for the fence
.
Looking over the Heritage results, they sold one in NGC MS-61 for just over $500,000 in 2009. The AU were in the $300,000 range.
Peter Cabral apparently has the coin and there's no doubt it's real. I seriously doubt he expects it to sell on ebay and is probably trying to expose it to a wider audience.
I agree with Bill's comments.
Lance.
<< <i>I wouldn't buy something like this based upon a picture. I'm not sure what is going on a 10 k on the reverse. I also think that the coin is over graded at AU-58. I'd put the grade at AU-50 or 53 subject to that spot on the reverese.
Looking over the Heritage results, they sold one in NGC MS-61 for just over $500,000 in 2009. The AU were in the $300,000 range. >>
Quite true, but those Heritage results were from the April 2009 Joseph C. Thomas sale. Those coins were sold at the very bottom of the market, unreserved and with very little advanced marketing, and the prices realized reflect that. No one should expect to get those kinds of deals in today's market. For example, I happened to purchase several coins in that sale, and recently have received unsolicited offers on a number of them that would represent 60% to 90% profits.
<< <i>"Swinging for the fence"...you know, trying to hit it out of the park.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, now I get it
Had this been a baseball forum I might have "Made the Connection" as this is a coin forum I did not
GrandAm
Thanks.
<< <i>The asking price is inline with a true AU58. I might consider it if it were CAC stickered. >>
Don't really see that happening in that plastic
<< <i>
<< <i>The asking price is inline with a true AU58. I might consider it if it were CAC stickered. >>
Don't really see that happening in that plastic >>
The plastic has nothing to do with it - CAC stickers NGC coins [even those that subsequently won't cross, albeit less frequently] all the time. What has more to do with it is whether or not JA agrees with the sum of the net grading going on and whether or not the coin has been boinked with.
An unmolested 1794 dollar in AU58 is a rare bird indeed ... if this coin were to sticker there would be buyers aplenty - even in its current plastic.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The asking price is inline with a true AU58. I might consider it if it were CAC stickered. >>
Don't really see that happening in that plastic >>
The plastic has nothing to do with it - CAC stickers NGC coins [even those that subsequently won't cross, albeit less frequently] all the time. What has more to do with it is whether or not JA agrees with the sum of the net grading going on and whether or not the coin has been boinked with.
An unmolested 1794 dollar in AU58 is a rare bird indeed ... if this coin were to sticker there would be buyers aplenty - even in its current plastic. >>
I agree with everything you said, my point was more in line with my opinion of the grade on the plastic rather than the brand. I see reduced detail/metal from rub (& strike, common I know but the date is strong so it isn't too late of a die state), impacted luster and neutral eye appeal. In my interpretation of the pictures (for what's that's worth) it looks like a PQ AU50, Accurate 53 or a Negative 58; I could be wrong. I am fans of coins and could care less what they come in although I chose to have my collection sit in PCGS plastic. One of my fav coins was originally found in a NGC old fatty holder
<< <i>eBay is a very cost effective way to find buyers. You guys found my postings! What more could I ask for?
Thanks. >>
I was tempted to bid on it,but held back because I would only get $100 back in Ebay Bucks!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The asking price is inline with a true AU58. I might consider it if it were CAC stickered. >>
Don't really see that happening in that plastic >>
The plastic has nothing to do with it - CAC stickers NGC coins [even those that subsequently won't cross, albeit less frequently] all the time. What has more to do with it is whether or not JA agrees with the sum of the net grading going on and whether or not the coin has been boinked with.
An unmolested 1794 dollar in AU58 is a rare bird indeed ... if this coin were to sticker there would be buyers aplenty - even in its current plastic. >>
I agree with everything you said, my point was more in line with my opinion of the grade on the plastic rather than the brand. I see reduced detail/metal from rub (& strike common I know but the date is strong so it isn't too late of a die state), impacted luster, and neutral eye appeal. In my interpretation of the pictures (for what's that's worth) it looks like a PQ AU50, Accurate 53 or a Negative 58; I could be wrong. I am fans of coins and could care less what they come in although I chose to have my collection sit in PCGS plastic. One of my fav coins was originally found in a NGC old fatty holder >>
Good analysis.
<< <i>I wouldn't buy something like this based upon a picture. I'm not sure what is going on a 10 k on the reverse. I also think that the coin is over graded at AU-58. I'd put the grade at AU-50 or 53 subject to that spot on the reverese.
Looking over the Heritage results, they sold one in NGC MS-61 for just over $500,000 in 2009. The AU were in the $300,000 range. >>
I would call it EF-45, Rim Bump, but would still be very happy to own it.
you sure that is a rim bump? looks like part of the planchet defect that is showing on the obverse from 6-9
or maybe it was harshly filed i mean adjusted
.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Yeah, the ebay history has nothing to indicate material of this caliber.. Lots of sub-$10 items, some bullion here and there, lots and lots of PCGS boxes... and all of a sudden, 6 figure rarities? >>
Hey, he's getting some cheap advertising from us.
<< <i>.
you sure that is a rim bump? looks like part of the planchet defect that is showing on the obverse from 6-9
or maybe it was harshly filed i mean adjusted
. >>
Anybody got an older auction picture of this piece before it was slabbed?
<< <i>
<< <i>.
you sure that is a rim bump? looks like part of the planchet defect that is showing on the obverse from 6-9
or maybe it was harshly filed i mean adjusted
. >>
Anybody got an older auction picture of this piece before it was slabbed? >>
When you say rim bump are you referring to the reverse of the coin at 11 o clock? That looks like a poor plastic insert that's partially covering the coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.
you sure that is a rim bump? looks like part of the planchet defect that is showing on the obverse from 6-9
or maybe it was harshly filed i mean adjusted
. >>
Anybody got an older auction picture of this piece before it was slabbed? >>
When you say rim bump are you referring to the reverse of the coin at 11 o clock? That looks like a poor plastic insert that's partially covering the coin. >>
I think you are correct!
This coin was previously auctioned by Heritage. When I look at the old auction webpage, I see pictures of the coin in the holder, and enlarged photos of the coin without the holder. Those enlarged photos clearly had been adjusted to increase the contrast and visibility of the colors of the toning, but that also made the peripheral areas of the coin (shadowed by the older-style prongless NGC holder) come out particularly dark. As stealer said, at 11 o'clock on the reverse, there is an excess bit of the white plastic insert overlapping the rim of the coin. The photos of the coin in the slab do not look like there is a rim bump (and there is no mention of one in the Heritage auction description), so it seems to me that the particularly dark crescent at 11 o'clock on the edge in the enlarged photo of the reverse is just the shadow cast by that overlapped portion of the insert.
I have seen the coin in hand, and it looks quite natural, just like Heritage's photo of the coin in the slab.
As far as the eBay seller is concerned, I know the seller does not own the coin himself. I do know the owner of the coin, and I understand that he has given his full approval to the eBay seller to list it.
<< <i>Yeah, the ebay history has nothing to indicate material of this caliber.. Lots of sub-$10 items, some bullion here and there, lots and lots of PCGS boxes... and all of a sudden, 6 figure rarities? >>
FWIW, Peter Cabral is not a recent entrant to the coin dealing profession. I have never done business with him, and know very little else about him beyond than that he's been on show circuit for as long as I can remember (for me, that's ~15 years). He's also been associated with Steve Contoursi, who is known to regularly handle high value items.
Please do not take my comments as an endorsement of (or knock against) Peter Cabral.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com