Why is Miss Liberty's head so flat and without detail on this coin? I am not familiar with the date. I'd expect this from a New Orleans minted Seated $, but the nicer Unc. Philadelphia counterparts I've seen usually had full head detail. For example, my 59 O in 3 is missing some head detail but my 71 P in 4 has complete head detail.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
IMO, no it would not sticker. But that's just a matter of how I net grade all the attributes of the coin and others may net grade it slightly differently.
I give you credit for not being at all defensive about the grade guesses for your coin. It can be excruciatingly painful to post or see a nice coin posted, then watch and cringe at how the grade guesses compare to the assigned grade. You set a great example with the attitude and conduct you displayed in this thread. >>
When I ask people to guess the grade of a coin that is top pop for the type I can be pretty sure no one is going to guess too high. For example, how many PCGS MS66 or MS67 seated dollars do you think Heritage has auctioned in the last 15 years? The answer is zero, nada, nil. Let's just say my feelings aren't hurt.
Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course.
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional?
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
No, you have merely recognized that the coins that are accepted as the finest of each type by specialist dealers and collectors may or may not correspond to the ranking the TPG's have given them.
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
I don't think you're delusional. I've said something similar on these forums -- a "low-end for the grade" coin can be a good coin. Provided it is priced appropriately, I see nothing at all with a "low end" coin. That's a point that is lost in the never-ending search for "high end for the grade" coins dictated by TPG grading. Respectfully submitted as MHO...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
That's the coin that was part of a 3 piece set (Dollar, Quarter, Half) that was sold by Christies in New York back (edited to say) in 1990. Believe it or not, the quarter and the half were even better than the dollar. (The quarter was perfectly struck, which is very unusual for the issue.) If memory serves me, Tony Terranova bought the Dollar and I bought the minors. I also seem to remember the catalog mention that the coins were ex: Wayte Raymond.
Edited to add that I did later end up with the coin, and it was sold as part of my Silver Dollar type set by Superior in 1991.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic. Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
No - provided that one does their research and ensures that the reason the coin being purchased is the 'finest' is because of long time acclaim, not because of the insert.
There are plenty of coins that I know of that are the finest known by multiple grades and yet are maxxed out in their current holder. The Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar comes to mind - never could get that thing crossed.
<< <i>That's the coin that was part of a 3 piece set (Dollar, Quarter, Half) that was sold by Christies in New York back (edited to say) in 1990. Believe it or not, the quarter and the half were even better than the dollar. (The quarter was perfectly struck, which is very unusual for the issue.) If memory serves me, Tony Terranova bought the Dollar and I bought the minors. I also seem to remember the cataloging mention that the coins were ex: Wayte Raymond.
Edited to add that I did later end up with the coin, and it was sold as part of my Silver Dollar type set by Superior in 1991. >>
Thanks Andy. I'd love to find that 1990 auction catalog.
<< That's the coin that was part of a 3 piece set (Dollar, Quarter, Half) that was sold by Christies in New York back (edited to say) in 1990. Believe it or not, the quarter and the half were even better than the dollar. (The quarter was perfectly struck, which is very unusual for the issue.) If memory serves me, Tony Terranova bought the Dollar and I bought the minors. I also seem to remember the cataloging mention that the coins were ex: Wayte Raymond.
Edited to add that I did later end up with the coin, and it was sold as part of my Silver Dollar type set by Superior in 1991. >>
Thanks Andy. I'd love to find that 1990 auction catalog.
I would love to see the quarter and half as well. The quarter as Andy mentions usually is poorly struck on the reverse shield. The die was damaged early on in the mintage process, and only 16k coins were struck that year.
If I say something in the woods, and my wife isn't around. Am I still wrong?
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
No, you have merely recognized that the coins that are accepted as the finest of each type by specialist dealers and collectors may or may not correspond to the ranking the TPG's have given them. >>
No I'm making a different point. I know this scenario is not completely realistic but assume that for each type of U.S. coinage the universally acclaimed single best example is a low-end PCGS 68. The second-best coin is a high-end PCGS 67 with a CAC sticker. Let's say one collector has all the best examples and another collector has all the second-best coins. The first is a collection of low-for the grade coins and the second is a collection of high-for the grade coins with CAC stickers. Which is the better and more important collection? I hope we don't have an argument over that and that is my point.
No I'm making a different point. I know this scenario is not completely realistic but assume that for each type of U.S. coinage the universally acclaimed single best example is a low-end PCGS 68. The second-best coin is a high-end PCGS 67 with a CAC sticker. Let's say one collector has all the best examples and another collector has all the second-best coins. The first is a collection of low-for the grade coins and the second is a collection of high-for the grade coins with CAC stickers. Which is the better and more important collection? I hope we don't have an argument over that and that is my point.
In a vacuum, the first collection is finer - but actually may not be as well received in the market as the second. And the opportunity cost is tremendous.
I suppose if Bill Gates was collecting that way it would be fine - but quite frankly I'd rather have a high end gem MS67 at $150k plus other coins or money in the bank than a just made it MS68 at $300k. The opportunity cost for ME is just too much.
<< I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
SmallEagle: In reply to your above quoted post, unless you know something that I don't (about you) then I doubt you are delusional.
I find your above quoted comment to be very interesting, because just this past week during our 2 Houston Coin Shows, I was discussing with a coin collecting friend of mine (who frequents this forum) what motivates those who clearly have the financial means to purchase the best, to select their target coins and to decide which coins or series (singular or plural) to collect.
I know that many want to own the finest coins, and some want to own the highest graded coins for their Registry Set, however your comment to own the best known suggests to me that individual coin history and provenance are important for you. Perhaps it's that you want to have some connection through your coins to the great collectors of the past, which is an interesting concept.
I agree with your Type Coin collecting interest as it allows me to learn about a wide variety of series and keeps me interested. I love the quote by Joe O'Connor in your signature line:<< "To me, collecting by date/mintmark is too confining, and ultimately boring. Date collectors (most 20th Century collectors), gravitating to type collecting (primarily 1792-1916 issues), is simply a matter of maturing taste." Joe O'Connor >>
My personal preferences are best defined by the following statement in my signature line: << Collect 18th & 19th Century Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Thalers with High Eye Appeal >> I tend to gravitate towards the large Gold and Silver Coin series both American and Foreign. The longer I collect coins (I've been collecting for 40 years), the more interested I get in the history of the coins and what was going on in the world at the time the coins were designed and minted.
I focus on coins with original surfaces, strong strike, lots of mint frost, strong luster with a preference for prooflike reflective fields, and coins that I feel are either strong or high-end for the grade with mimimal (no distracting) contact marks.
I also find it helpful and instructive to compare my recent purchases with purchases made many years ago to see how my own collecting taste has been evolving and refined over the years, and to help me set my future collecting direction. I have learned a lot in this hobby, and always enjoy continuing to learn and refine my coin purchasing evaluation criteria.
During the past several years I have been studying and purchasing some 17th and 18th Century World Crowns, mostly Austrian and German European Talers. I find the history fascinating, and the coin design details to be stunningly beautiful. It's also very cool to have hand struck or rolled large silver coins.
Thanks for sharing your beautiful coins with us, and for continuing to be an active participant on the coin forum!
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
I would assume then that what looks like wear or weak strike on the head of Liberty is on the slab? I was thinking it was 58/65 depending on that. If the detail is full I would have said 66, but on high grades like that in hand viewing is necessary.
Specialist in Lincoln Cents, Toned Type, and Slab enthusiast.
<< <i>I would assume then that what looks like wear or weak strike on the head of Liberty is on the slab? I was thinking it was 58/65 depending on that. If the detail is full I would have said 66, but on high grades like that in hand viewing is necessary. >>
It's a weak strike and not wear. The earlier the coin, the more allowance is made for strike. However, it *is* written in the guidelines that a 67 shall have a full strike.
ALL classic coins are net graded for one thing or another. It's my personal opinion that PCGS has moved away from absolutes in grading toward just a sum of all attributes. Here is a coin with 70 luster and eye appeal - the starting point is very very high. The ticks that are present and the strike issues net grade the coin downward - whether that be two grades, three or even four is all part of why they make the big bucks. I can definitely state that unless he has seen just about every high grade seated dollar that a collector cannot accurately draw the line between a 66 and a 67.
I've always thought PCGS had a firm tendency on 19th century type that unless it was well struck a 65 or 66 grade was about the limit for it. The head on this coin places it in the not well struck category. For years they wouldn't give any 1877 gem MS trade dollar a 65 grade unless it had sharp stars. So how did this coin earn a 67 back in 2009? I love the coin and all. Just would have expected a max grade of 66. If regraded today I'd bet it wouldn't get a 67. It does have incredible frost and great surfaces. That little arm tick is minor but when coupled with the head, I don't see a 67. Still probably 2nd finest known after the Hayes coin. I've had a lot of nice gem type coins that wouldn't grade 65 at PCGS because of strike. They were 66's otherwise. Disappointed to see this coin as a 67. Has a head like an 1857. How many of those get a 67 grade? 5 flat stars too.
Roadrunner is incredibly good. Here's an example of what he's talking about:
I bought this coin in an NGC66 holder and downgraded it to PCGS65. The surfaces and luster are all there, but the strike is typical for the date. I felt it netted out at 65. The 1866 is absolutely a better coin - the strike is slightly better and the virgin surfaces are at least a point better.
<< The PCGS pricing on 65s is $6750; $12.5K in 66 and 41K in 67. >>
Those prices would not be correct. MS65's haven't been that cheap since either 1977 or 1982. But in checking out Coin Values on the Coin Help site, they have some incredibly stupid seated dollar prices that are similar to those above. Would love to be a coin dealer buying using that price guide.
That guide has the 1866 in MS65 at $12,650 vs. $63,000 for an MS65 1873. How stupid is that? But in their defense, I think they only change prices when they note a sale. It's possible an MS65 1866 hasn't been auctioned in a while. The 1859-0 in MS65 is $4,715. 1853 in MS65 is $18,400. Sheesh!
The reverse on the OP coin is stunning. I am surprised it graded 67 given the obverse strike, but eye appeal looks off the charts. Looking at CoinFacts, there have been 8 grading events of 65 or better at PCGS but only two coins have been to auction since 1999. Pricing this issue becomes a bear, i would think, because you have to look at other dates for comparables. Thanks for bringing it back.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
<< <i>That's the coin that was part of a 3 piece set (Dollar, Quarter, Half) that was sold by Christies in New York back (edited to say) in 1990. Believe it or not, the quarter and the half were even better than the dollar. (The quarter was perfectly struck, which is very unusual for the issue.) If memory serves me, Tony Terranova bought the Dollar and I bought the minors. I also seem to remember the catalog mention that the coins were ex: Wayte Raymond.
Edited to add that I did later end up with the coin, and it was sold as part of my Silver Dollar type set by Superior in 1991. >>
I own the half. The quarter, originally "found" in a proof set, is now again graded proof.
I would have lost money on calling the coin MS67. As booming as is the lustre, and as impeccable the surfaces, the strike is a stopper for me. Head and multiple stars are too soft. RR (since we so often agree) nails it (as usual), and his useful comparison to the 1857 is also OTM. 1857's come the same way.
Not withstanding all that, the coin is sweet
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i><< The PCGS pricing on 65s is $6750; $12.5K in 66 and 41K in 67. >>
Those prices would not be correct. MS65's haven't been that cheap since either 1977 or 1982. But in checking out Coin Values on the Coin Help site, they have some incredibly stupid seated dollar prices that are similar to those above. Would love to be a coin dealer buying using that price guide.
That guide has the 1866 in MS65 at $12,650 vs. $63,000 for an MS65 1873. How stupid is that? But in their defense, I think they only change prices when they note a sale. It's possible an MS65 1866 hasn't been auctioned in a while. The 1859-0 in MS65 is $4,715. 1853 in MS65 is $18,400. Sheesh! >>
You couldn't get a decent MS 64 1859 O for $4,715. What a joke.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
What a great looking coin, I recall seeing it sometime 20 years ago, with the other biz strike issues of the same year. 1866 Mint Set, that Andy refers to. I think one coin was toned, the quarter? Funny, Andy and I were just talking about that set the other day.
That Dollar is really nice, I am ok with the 67. The strike is the only issue. Kinda reminds me of TDN's 1849 MS67, a 68 if a stronger strike. But the fabric of the two coins are different.
The forum guesses tend to be a little harsh. Probably the #1 grading mistake collectors make was demonstrated by this thread. Penalizing a blooming original coin way too much for ticks, marks, and/or strike. Most coins leave the mint press with luster that smacks you in the face. So when you see a 100 year coin that looks new, don't pick on the little things. Start from MS70 and go down, slowly. Just my 2 cents, I'm no expert!
You couldn't get a decent MS 64 1859 O for $4,715. What a joke.
The irony of that that is that the Coin Help price guide has the 64 priced at around $500 under the MS65.....I kid you not.
I don't have issues with the tics on this MS67 1866, just the strike. Would a 1940-s half make MS67 with a strike issue like that? How about an 1895-0 Morgan?
Comments
MS-64 is my guess.
<< <i>Here's a photo in the slab I took this afternoon:
Will it get a
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>Small Eagle,
I give you credit for not being at all defensive about the grade guesses for your coin. It can be excruciatingly painful to post or see a nice coin posted, then watch and cringe at how the grade guesses compare to the assigned grade. You set a great example with the attitude and conduct you displayed in this thread. >>
When I ask people to guess the grade of a coin that is top pop for the type I can be pretty sure no one is going to guess too high. For example, how many PCGS MS66 or MS67 seated dollars do you think Heritage has auctioned in the last 15 years? The answer is zero, nada, nil. Let's just say my feelings aren't hurt.
Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
Who is John Galt?
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course.
<< <i>Will it get a sticker or would the general consensus be that it is "overgraded" ? >>
Easily gets a green sticker. Great piece!
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional?
Who is John Galt?
<< <i>
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
No, you have merely recognized that the coins that are accepted as the finest of each type by specialist dealers and collectors may or may not correspond to the ranking the TPG's have given them.
<< <i>
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
I don't think you're delusional. I've said something similar on these forums -- a "low-end for the grade" coin can be a good coin. Provided it is priced appropriately, I see nothing at all with a "low end" coin. That's a point that is lost in the never-ending search for "high end for the grade" coins dictated by TPG grading. Respectfully submitted as MHO...Mike
Edited to add that I did later end up with the coin, and it was sold as part of my Silver Dollar type set by Superior in 1991.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
No - provided that one does their research and ensures that the reason the coin being purchased is the 'finest' is because of long time acclaim, not because of the insert.
There are plenty of coins that I know of that are the finest known by multiple grades and yet are maxxed out in their current holder. The Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar comes to mind - never could get that thing crossed.
<< <i>That's the coin that was part of a 3 piece set (Dollar, Quarter, Half) that was sold by Christies in New York back (edited to say) in 1990. Believe it or not, the quarter and the half were even better than the dollar. (The quarter was perfectly struck, which is very unusual for the issue.) If memory serves me, Tony Terranova bought the Dollar and I bought the minors. I also seem to remember the cataloging mention that the coins were ex: Wayte Raymond.
Edited to add that I did later end up with the coin, and it was sold as part of my Silver Dollar type set by Superior in 1991. >>
Thanks Andy. I'd love to find that 1990 auction catalog.
Who is John Galt?
Edited to add that I did later end up with the coin, and it was sold as part of my Silver Dollar type set by Superior in 1991. >>
Thanks Andy. I'd love to find that 1990 auction catalog.
I would love to see the quarter and half as well. The quarter as Andy mentions usually is poorly struck on the reverse shield. The die was damaged early on in the mintage process, and only 16k coins were struck that year.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Regarding a CAC sticker, I am 46 years old and if CAC is still in business in 40 years perhaps my heirs will try for a famous sticker.
I agree this is one approach... but I do think in this day and age of ever escalating prices between grades that it might serve as very inexpensive feedback of what quality for the grade coins one is buying to try and get one's collection stickered. Just speaking in generalities, of course. >>
I think your comment contains in it the fallacy that a collector should necessarily have the goal of owning only high-quality for the grade coins in their collection. I'm sure many readers will read this and say "Is this man mad? Of course one should try to buy only premium quality for the grade coins." Please follow my thought. I am a type collector. Let's say I successfully build a collection that contains the best single example of every type of United States coin. Does that mean they will all be premium quality for the grade assigned? Of course not. Some will be high, some average, some low. The same is true if I'm able to buy the 2nd best of each type or sixth best of each type. I would love to own the best known seated dollar whether it is in a MS68 slab, MS67, MS66 or raw. Am I delusional? >>
No, you have merely recognized that the coins that are accepted as the finest of each type by specialist dealers and collectors may or may not correspond to the ranking the TPG's have given them. >>
No I'm making a different point. I know this scenario is not completely realistic but assume that for each type of U.S. coinage the universally acclaimed single best example is a low-end PCGS 68. The second-best coin is a high-end PCGS 67 with a CAC sticker. Let's say one collector has all the best examples and another collector has all the second-best coins. The first is a collection of low-for the grade coins and the second is a collection of high-for the grade coins with CAC stickers. Which is the better and more important collection? I hope we don't have an argument over that and that is my point.
Who is John Galt?
In a vacuum, the first collection is finer - but actually may not be as well received in the market as the second. And the opportunity cost is tremendous.
I suppose if Bill Gates was collecting that way it would be fine - but quite frankly I'd rather have a high end gem MS67 at $150k plus other coins or money in the bank than a just made it MS68 at $300k. The opportunity cost for ME is just too much.
SmallEagle: In reply to your above quoted post, unless you know something that I don't (about you) then I doubt you are delusional.
I find your above quoted comment to be very interesting, because just this past week during our 2 Houston Coin Shows, I was discussing with a coin collecting friend of mine (who frequents this forum) what motivates those who clearly have the financial means to purchase the best, to select their target coins and to decide which coins or series (singular or plural) to collect.
I know that many want to own the finest coins, and some want to own the highest graded coins for their Registry Set, however your comment to own the best known suggests to me that individual coin history and provenance are important for you. Perhaps it's that you want to have some connection through your coins to the great collectors of the past, which is an interesting concept.
I agree with your Type Coin collecting interest as it allows me to learn about a wide variety of series and keeps me interested. I love the quote by Joe O'Connor in your signature line:<< "To me, collecting by date/mintmark is too confining, and ultimately boring. Date collectors (most 20th Century collectors), gravitating to type collecting (primarily 1792-1916 issues), is simply a matter of maturing taste." Joe O'Connor >>
My personal preferences are best defined by the following statement in my signature line: << Collect 18th & 19th Century Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Thalers with High Eye Appeal >> I tend to gravitate towards the large Gold and Silver Coin series both American and Foreign. The longer I collect coins (I've been collecting for 40 years), the more interested I get in the history of the coins and what was going on in the world at the time the coins were designed and minted.
I focus on coins with original surfaces, strong strike, lots of mint frost, strong luster with a preference for prooflike reflective fields, and coins that I feel are either strong or high-end for the grade with mimimal (no distracting) contact marks.
I also find it helpful and instructive to compare my recent purchases with purchases made many years ago to see how my own collecting taste has been evolving and refined over the years, and to help me set my future collecting direction. I have learned a lot in this hobby, and always enjoy continuing to learn and refine my coin purchasing evaluation criteria.
During the past several years I have been studying and purchasing some 17th and 18th Century World Crowns, mostly Austrian and German European Talers. I find the history fascinating, and the coin design details to be stunningly beautiful. It's also very cool to have hand struck or rolled large silver coins.
Thanks for sharing your beautiful coins with us, and for continuing to be an active participant on the coin forum!
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
<< <i>I would assume then that what looks like wear or weak strike on the head of Liberty is on the slab? I was thinking it was 58/65 depending on that. If the detail is full I would have said 66, but on high grades like that in hand viewing is necessary. >>
It's a weak strike and not wear. The earlier the coin, the more allowance is made for strike. However, it *is* written in the guidelines that a 67 shall have a full strike.
ALL classic coins are net graded for one thing or another. It's my personal opinion that PCGS has moved away from absolutes in grading toward just a sum of all attributes. Here is a coin with 70 luster and eye appeal - the starting point is very very high. The ticks that are present and the strike issues net grade the coin downward - whether that be two grades, three or even four is all part of why they make the big bucks. I can definitely state that unless he has seen just about every high grade seated dollar that a collector cannot accurately draw the line between a 66 and a 67.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
bob
not well struck category. For years they wouldn't give any 1877 gem MS trade dollar a 65 grade unless it had sharp stars. So how did this coin earn a 67 back in 2009?
I love the coin and all. Just would have expected a max grade of 66. If regraded today I'd bet it wouldn't get a 67. It does have incredible frost and great surfaces. That little arm
tick is minor but when coupled with the head, I don't see a 67. Still probably 2nd finest known after the Hayes coin. I've had a lot of nice gem type coins that wouldn't grade 65 at
PCGS because of strike. They were 66's otherwise. Disappointed to see this coin as a 67. Has a head like an 1857. How many of those get a 67 grade? 5 flat stars too.
<< <i>The PCGS pricing on 65s is $6750; $12.5K in 66 and 41K in 67. >>
I don't think so. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing you're quoting the half dollar prices
I bought this coin in an NGC66 holder and downgraded it to PCGS65. The surfaces and luster are all there, but the strike is typical for the date. I felt it netted out at 65. The 1866 is absolutely a better coin - the strike is slightly better and the virgin surfaces are at least a point better.
Those prices would not be correct. MS65's haven't been that cheap since either 1977 or 1982. But in checking out Coin Values on the Coin Help site, they have some
incredibly stupid seated dollar prices that are similar to those above. Would love to be a coin dealer buying using that price guide.
That guide has the 1866 in MS65 at $12,650 vs. $63,000 for an MS65 1873. How stupid is that? But in their defense, I think they only change prices when they note a sale.
It's possible an MS65 1866 hasn't been auctioned in a while. The 1859-0 in MS65 is $4,715. 1853 in MS65 is $18,400. Sheesh!
<< <i>I checked again, and you're right a lot more money: 65s and 66s are priced not 67s.
90,000/135,000 >>
My current guesstimate would be $60k, $120k and $225k respectively.
Of course, if you need the date then opportunity is more important than price.
wow!
100% Positive BST transactions
Thanks for bringing it back.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
<< <i>That's the coin that was part of a 3 piece set (Dollar, Quarter, Half) that was sold by Christies in New York back (edited to say) in 1990. Believe it or not, the quarter and the half were even better than the dollar. (The quarter was perfectly struck, which is very unusual for the issue.) If memory serves me, Tony Terranova bought the Dollar and I bought the minors. I also seem to remember the catalog mention that the coins were ex: Wayte Raymond.
Edited to add that I did later end up with the coin, and it was sold as part of my Silver Dollar type set by Superior in 1991. >>
I own the half. The quarter, originally "found" in a proof set, is now again graded proof.
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Not withstanding all that, the coin is sweet
<< <i><< The PCGS pricing on 65s is $6750; $12.5K in 66 and 41K in 67. >>
Those prices would not be correct. MS65's haven't been that cheap since either 1977 or 1982. But in checking out Coin Values on the Coin Help site, they have some
incredibly stupid seated dollar prices that are similar to those above. Would love to be a coin dealer buying using that price guide.
That guide has the 1866 in MS65 at $12,650 vs. $63,000 for an MS65 1873. How stupid is that? But in their defense, I think they only change prices when they note a sale.
It's possible an MS65 1866 hasn't been auctioned in a while. The 1859-0 in MS65 is $4,715. 1853 in MS65 is $18,400. Sheesh! >>
You couldn't get a decent MS 64 1859 O for $4,715. What a joke.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
That Dollar is really nice, I am ok with the 67. The strike is the only issue. Kinda reminds me of TDN's 1849 MS67, a 68 if a stronger strike. But the fabric of the two coins are different.
The forum guesses tend to be a little harsh. Probably the #1 grading mistake collectors make was demonstrated by this thread. Penalizing a blooming original coin way too much for ticks, marks, and/or strike. Most coins leave the mint press with luster that smacks you in the face. So when you see a 100 year coin that looks new, don't pick on the little things. Start from MS70 and go down, slowly. Just my 2 cents, I'm no expert!
Seth
The irony of that that is that the Coin Help price guide has the 64 priced at around $500 under the MS65.....I kid you not.
I don't have issues with the tics on this MS67 1866, just the strike. Would a 1940-s half make MS67 with a strike issue like that? How about an 1895-0 Morgan?