Did Newman make a mistake not keeping the gem 1794?

tradedollarnut · August 24, 2013 11:44AM

See my analysis of the Newman and Cardinal Early Dollar Sets

By keeping the AU58 instead, did Newman miss out on the chance of having the greatest Early Dollar collection to ever come to market? He has a great set, but it's missing that one coin for everyone to go gaga over. Heck, because of the weightings, he'd still be behind Cardinal if PCGS ever decides to enter his (estimated) set on the Set Registry. Did he make a mistake numismatically and/or financially?

bidask · August 24, 2013 11:57AM

Financially for sure.

Numismatically probably not.

djdilliodon · August 24, 2013 11:59AM

I'd have to see both coins to make an educated guess as to why. If it was my set I can totally live with a coin that's a few grades lower as long as its eye appeal is alot stronger than the coin of higher grade. Some 58's can be total knock outs and sometimes look better than graded 64's. This may have been the case with Newman.

brg5658 · August 24, 2013 12:04PM

I don't understand the point of this thread. Doesn't all of the "analysis" assume that Newman really cares? Since when is it a "mistake" to collect what you want to and enjoy the hobby. For something to be a "mistake" you'd have to assume that Newman's main goal was to be competitive...I don't know whether that would be the case. Yes, I realize I don't own a $10 million coin like you do, but it seems the hobby gets lost in the hype...

MrEureka · August 24, 2013 12:05PM

I'm sure Newman would have done things very differently if Registry Sets had been invented 60 years earlier.

Lakesammman · August 24, 2013 12:10PM

In the analysis it would be helpful to know what he did with the money - perhaps he had a personal or numismatic goal that was worth it at the time??

Aegis3 · August 24, 2013 12:12PM

Newman owned the Neil/Carter 1794 at one time?

CoinRaritiesOnline · August 24, 2013 12:14PM

It depends what Newman bought with the money he saved on the dollar.

Coinosaurus · August 24, 2013 12:19PM

You have to put yourself back in the 1940s to judge these decisions. It's not an easy thing to do.

Don't forget that you are not in New York or Philadelphia, you are in St. Louis.

Yes, with 70 years of hindsight we could all outscore pretty much any collector. I think that goes without saying.

The more interesting question is how Newman did with the knowledge he had at the time. Pretty darn good, I think.

bidask · August 24, 2013 12:45PM

I would think the number of numismstic treasures that passed through
his hands as an owner at one time or another in his collecting
career far surpasses any collector living or dead except for maybe Eliasberg.

Maybe.

crypto79 · August 24, 2013 1:01PM

No, I am sure he had his reasons and I contended each one of the coins are wow coins.

Julian · August 24, 2013 1:23PM

Eric Newman is a collector and researcher and never really cared about the value of his collections. The collection came first, value/potential a long way down the list.

1Bustcollector · August 24, 2013 2:04PM

If I can recall correctly, Mr. Newman was comfortable choosing examples without adjustment marks (if duplicates were available). Colorful toning was somewhat absent back then. He choose/liked brilliant looking pieces.

Also, Mr. B. Johnson and Eric had certain arrangements with certain coins throughout each series. Not sure if he always had first pick with everything. A few Browning Plate coins (quarters) had slipped through his hands unknowingly.

Looks like the "most expensive" big boy coins are currently for sale via auction and he is content retaining a nice type collection at his Museum.

Again, most of this is by memory back in 2007 and through phone conversations over the years. This is my best recollection.

cardinal · August 24, 2013 2:37PM

Interesting analysis!

In researching the history of the Neil/Carter Specimen 1794 dollar, John Dannreuther specifically contacted Eric Newman to learn if he had recalled seeing the Specimen dollar in the Colonel Green holdings. Newman responded that he did not recall that coin among the holdings, but remembered that the collection had included 11 examples of the 1794 dollar, including one mint state specimen (now identified as the Col. Green-Lelan Rogers-Stellar specimen). He purposely chose to pass up buying the mint state coin to purchase a "Nice AU" for his own collection, preferring to save the money to buy other items.

Regarding the comparison, to be fair, the 1798 Small Eagle 15 stars dollar from the Cardinal Collection (Ex: Eliasberg) is now graded MS-62+, and the 1800 Wide Date Low 8 dollar from the Cardinal Collection (Ex: Amon Carter) is now graded MS-64+. I would also suggest that the Col. Green-Newman 1794 dollar would grade AU-55+. I personally think the wear is too noticeable on both obverse and reverse (including the areas that generally do strike well) to sustain an AU58 PCGS grade.

cardinal · August 24, 2013 2:38PM

cardinal · August 24, 2013 2:39PM

CaptHenway · August 24, 2013 3:15PM

I think that Eric is quite capable of determining what is right for HIM!

tradedollarnut · August 24, 2013 3:17PM

<< I think that Eric is quite capable of determining what is right for HIM! >>

I'm sure he is. There's not a person alive that hasn't made a mistake, however.

TwoSides2aCoin · August 24, 2013 3:36PM

Regrets are one thing. Mistakes are another. Maybe yes to the former (a regret). And I won't even think about climbing the latter with an utter.

ColonelJessup · August 24, 2013 9:52PM

deleted

ColonelJessup · August 24, 2013 9:55PM

deleted

ColonelJessup · August 24, 2013 9:56PM

<< I'm sure Newman would have done things very differently if Registry Sets had been invented 60 years earlier. >>

Mistake? What incredibly egocentric chutzpah !

breakdown · August 24, 2013 10:43PM

As an academic, hypothetical question, it is interesting. The only way to know would be to get the two collections together and have an in-hand comparison. Estimated grades hardly seem a fair way to score a contest.

I enjoy the registry, but it has its place. Judging Eric Newman's collecting prowess by the PCGS registry is sort of like judging F. Scott Fitzgerald's literary prowess by whether The Great Gatsby wins any Oscars this year.

CaptHenway · August 24, 2013 11:53PM

<< 

<< I think that Eric is quite capable of determining what is right for HIM! >>

I'm sure he is. There's not a person alive that hasn't made a mistake, however. >>

So, just because he did not buy YOUR coin, he made a "mistake?"

I agree with the Colonel.

CaptHenway · August 24, 2013 11:55PM

<< Eric Newman is a collector and researcher and never really cared about the value of his collections. The collection came first, value/potential a long way down the list. >>

A true NUMISMATIST!

tradedollarnut · August 25, 2013 12:25AM

<< 

<< 

<< I think that Eric is quite capable of determining what is right for HIM! >>

I'm sure he is. There's not a person alive that hasn't made a mistake, however. >>

So, just because he did not buy YOUR coin, he made a "mistake?"

I agree with the Colonel. >>

You can twist it any way you like. Someone already said the coin he had access to was the Leland Rogers MS66 - so allow me to restate: did Newman make a numismatic mistake by not buying that centerpiece coin to his early dollar collection when he had the chance. It's a simple question and hardly worth your derision. I'm exploring numismatic strategies - don't you think Cardinal could have upgraded his more common examples if he hadn't tied up seven figures in his 1794?

MrEureka · August 25, 2013 4:28AM

did Newman make a numismatic mistake by not buying that centerpiece coin to his early dollar collection when he had the chance. It's a simple question

I suppose it depends on how you define "numismatic mistake". And that's not so simple, is it?

pennyannie · August 25, 2013 4:52AM

Did Newman make a mistake not keeping the specimen 1794? He must not have thought as highly of the coin as a few others do. I have sold a few things over the years that i later wished i had not but rarely ever try to reaquire the item.

CoinJunkie · August 25, 2013 4:53AM

<< It's a simple question and hardly worth your derision. I'm exploring numismatic strategies - don't you think Cardinal could have upgraded his more common examples if he hadn't tied up seven figures in his 1794? >>

Assuming Cardinal was financially constrained, then yes, he had to choose one path or the other.
But as MrEureka points out, how do we determine which was "correct"?

MacCrimmon · August 25, 2013 5:14AM

<< I would think the number of numismstic treasures that passed through
his hands as an owner at one time or another in his collecting
career far surpasses any collector living or dead except for maybe Eliasberg.

Maybe. >>

Let's see. who among us on this Forum owned all five 1913 V nickels at one time?

tradedollarnut · August 25, 2013 5:30AM

<< 

<< It's a simple question and hardly worth your derision. I'm exploring numismatic strategies - don't you think Cardinal could have upgraded his more common examples if he hadn't tied up seven figures in his 1794? >>

Assuming Cardinal was financially constrained, then yes, he had to choose one path or the other.
But as MrEureka points out, how do we determine which was "correct"? >>

I don't know - thus the question for discussion.

Considering that MrEureka is hoping they don't even picture some of the items in the collection, could the funds spent on those have been better utilized?

MrEureka · August 25, 2013 5:33AM

<< I would think the number of numismstic treasures that passed through
his hands as an owner at one time or another in his collecting
career far surpasses any collector living or dead except for maybe Eliasberg.

Maybe. >>

Virgil Brand comes to mind.

CoinRaritiesOnline · August 25, 2013 5:45AM

<< Considering that MrEureka is hoping they don't even picture some of the items in the collection, could the funds spent on those have been better utilized? >>

It would be interesting to learn two things:

1. What was the difference in price at that time between the 1794 $1 he kept and the SP66?

2. What could he have bought at that time for that amount of money.

If it turned out that the saving allowed Newman to buy a bunch of stuff that MrEureka refuses to even look at, then I suppose one could say it was mistake as defined by TDN.

If Newman used the money to buy the gold Washington piece and all of his colonial speculative patterns, then I think he did pretty well.

ColonelJessup · August 25, 2013 5:59AM

I guess Eric just looked at all five 1913 5c as he took them out of his pocket and said to himself ..

"I guess Mehl made our deal for us, but they are sorta fake. Nothing numismatic to be learned here. Perhaps not even novodels, but just some hinky pieces de caprice

But wait ! They're rather crappily made. I'll check the rims on these puppies for proofiness before I sell them. Someone may actually care. After Fred Weinberg is born he can double-check this some night at an ANA show".

Pissing on the heads of giants without even knowing you're standing on their shoulders.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · August 25, 2013 6:01AM

<< Did he make a mistake numismatically and/or financially? >>

Looking at his set of early dollars, I don't see any mistakes.

MrEureka · August 25, 2013 6:51AM

If it turned out that the saving allowed Newman to buy a bunch of stuff that MrEureka refuses to even look at...

CRO - You know better. I'll look at anything if there's a buck to be made. But after the sale, you're right, I don't want to see three pages of 1916 Mercury Dimes every time I refer back to the catalog. Who would?

CaptHenway · August 25, 2013 6:58AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< I think that Eric is quite capable of determining what is right for HIM! >>

I'm sure he is. There's not a person alive that hasn't made a mistake, however. >>

So, just because he did not buy YOUR coin, he made a "mistake?"

I agree with the Colonel. >>

You can twist it any way you like. Someone already said the coin he had access to was the Leland Rogers MS66 - so allow me to restate: did Newman make a numismatic mistake by not buying that centerpiece coin to his early dollar collection when he had the chance. It's a simple question and hardly worth your derision. I'm exploring numismatic strategies - don't you think Cardinal could have upgraded his more common examples if he hadn't tied up seven figures in his 1794? >>

And I don't think that Eric deserved the unprovoked derision of your thread title. I think you owe him an apology.

CoinRaritiesOnline · August 25, 2013 7:16AM

<< If it turned out that the saving allowed Newman to buy a bunch of stuff that MrEureka refuses to even look at...

CRO - You know better. I'll look at anything if there's a buck to be made. But after the sale, you're right, I don't want to see three pages of 1916 Mercury Dimes every time I refer back to the catalog. Who would? >>

Not me.

brg5658 · August 25, 2013 7:27AM

I'll restate again, I don't understand the point of this thread. It's only purpose that I can see is for a little stroking of the OP's ego. Seems unfitting to belittle someone who had at his disposal decades ago none of the 21st Century "conveniences" that make "collecting" of today so easy for the big hitters -- like the internet, real time news, etc. etc. Not to mention, Mr. Newman (as others have more elegantly stated than I could) was a numismatist, whose interest in his collection was a hobby and history first. His primary goal was not to make money.

Would TDN be asking the same question if he wasn't the current owner of the specimen coin? I doubt it. Even chutzpah doesn't touch the surface of how this appears from the outside looking in.

Disclaimer: I am a "nobody" in the numismatic world. I am a small time collector, whose collection is shadowed in value by many single coins I have seen posted by members here.

tradedollarnut · August 25, 2013 7:40AM

It has nothing to do with the specimen coin and everything to do with collecting philosophy and priorities. Capt Henway - I'm sorry you got a burr up your butt about this but if you are detecting derision then you are sadly mistaken. If you even looked at the analysis you can see that I consider the set neck to neck with Cardinal. It just got me thinking that all was missing from Newman's early dollar set was a gem 1794 and then hey wait - he passed on one. Could that have been a mistake on his part as far as his set goes.

If that's too derisive then I suggest that YOU have the problem and not me.

291fifth · August 25, 2013 7:55AM

I doubt if he could care less about registry sets. Smart man.

His collection speaks for itself.

tradedollarnut · August 25, 2013 8:00AM

<< I'll restate again, I don't understand the point of this thread. It's only purpose that I can see is for a little stroking of the OP's ego. Seems unfitting to belittle someone who had at his disposal decades ago none of the 21st Century "conveniences" that make "collecting" of today so easy for the big hitters -- like the internet, real time news, etc. etc. Not to mention, Mr. Newman (as others have more elegantly stated than I could) was a numismatist, whose interest in his collection was a hobby and history first. His primary goal was not to make money.

Would TDN be asking the same question if he wasn't the current owner of the specimen coin? I doubt it. Even chutzpah doesn't touch the surface of how this appears from the outside looking in.

Disclaimer: I am a "nobody" in the numismatic world. I am a small time collector, whose collection is shadowed in value by many single coins I have seen posted by members here. >>

Wow. A whole lot of stroking and belittling accusations being thrown around. And yes, I'd be asking the question if I didn't own the Carter coin...or the Rogers coin...or the Norweb coin. Each of those collectors chose the finest they could find. I fail to see why discussing the fact that Newman chose a gem AU is belittling, or arrogant, or any of the other extraordinary insults being thrown around in this thread.

In researching the history of the Neil/Carter Specimen 1794 dollar, John Dannreuther specifically contacted Eric Newman to learn if he had recalled seeing the Specimen dollar in the Colonel Green holdings. Newman responded that he did not recall that coin among the holdings, but remembered that the collection had included 11 examples of the 1794 dollar, including one mint state specimen (now identified as the Col. Green-Lelan Rogers-Stellar specimen). He purposely chose to pass up buying the mint state coin to purchase a "Nice AU" for his own collection, preferring to save the money to buy other items.

See, this is great info that wouldn't have come to light without starting the discussion.

MrEureka · August 25, 2013 8:12AM

It has nothing to do with the specimen coin and everything to do with collecting philosophy and priorities. Capt Henway - I'm sorry you got a burr up your butt about this but if you are detecting derision then you are sadly mistaken. If you even looked at the analysis you can see that I consider the set neck to neck with Cardinal. It just got me thinking that all was missing from Newman's early dollar set was a gem 1794 and then hey wait - he passed on one. Could that have been a mistake on his part as far as his set goes.

I guess I'll just state the obvious. Eric Newman's collecting goal was not focused on Bust Dollars. Bust Dollars are probably no more than 5% of the value of the collection, and a small portion of 1% of the bulk of the collection. That Eric ended up with one of the best Bust Dollar collections ever assembled, merely in the process of building a general collection, is cool beyond belief. And the thought of second-guessing his choice of 1794 Dollars misses the point, same as if you second-guessed one of the gifts in Santa's shopping cart.

tradedollarnut · August 25, 2013 8:15AM

<< 
It has nothing to do with the specimen coin and everything to do with collecting philosophy and priorities. Capt Henway - I'm sorry you got a burr up your butt about this but if you are detecting derision then you are sadly mistaken. If you even looked at the analysis you can see that I consider the set neck to neck with Cardinal. It just got me thinking that all was missing from Newman's early dollar set was a gem 1794 and then hey wait - he passed on one. Could that have been a mistake on his part as far as his set goes.

I guess I'll just state the obvious. Eric Newman's collecting goal was not focused on Bust Dollars. Bust Dollars are probably no more than 5% of the value of the collection, and a small portion of 1% of the bulk of the collection. That Eric ended up with one of the best Bust Dollar collections ever assembled, merely in the process of building a general collection, is cool beyond belief. And the thought of second-guessing his choice of 1794 Dollars misses the point, same as if you second-guessed one of the gifts in Santa's shopping cart. >>

Good response - More good info. Differences between philosophies of a more narrow focus vs a more general one certainly come into play.

ColonelJessup · August 25, 2013 8:31AM

Evidently you have made the mistake of not investing in any gold coins.

That is NOT a "numismatic" mistake, just a lack of ability to identify and exploit a type of coin as an investment vehicle.

There might be reasons why you choose not to play. As investing profits might have been generated (gold coins are somewhat popular) you consider your lack of participation a mistake?

If the answer is yes, it's time to go back and, like the noble Achilles, sulk, chastened, though certainly not humbled, in your tent.

If the answer is no, Mr. Newman deserve the same slack you are cutting yourself.

tradedollarnut · August 25, 2013 8:45AM

<< Evidently you have made the mistake of not investing in any gold coins.

That is NOT a "numismatic" mistake, just a lack of ability to identify and exploit a type of coin as an investment vehicle.

There might be reasons why you choose not to play. As investing profits might have been generated (gold coins are somewhat popular) you consider your lack of participation a mistake?

If the answer is yes, it's time to go back and, like the noble Achilles, sulk, chastened, though certainly not humbled, in your tent.

If the answer is no, Mr. Newman deserve the same slack you are cutting yourself. >>

Dear Colonel - I have made tons of numismatic mistakes. I am always looking to learn - including starting a thread about a different collecting philosophy. What I would have hoped to start was a good discussion - what I got was a couple of people throwing around insults. What's funny is (from what little I know of him) that I highly doubt Newman would have responded in kind - I suspect he would have rubbed his chin, said maybe and then proceeded to discuss the differences in collecting philosophy at the time, or why the AU was a better choice or etc. I'm somewhat certain he doesn't need "friends" taking offense in his honor. A humble man can admit mistakes - or even if one wasn't made at least allow for the possibility.

cardinal · August 25, 2013 9:37AM

<< 

<< Evidently you have made the mistake of not investing in any gold coins.

That is NOT a "numismatic" mistake, just a lack of ability to identify and exploit a type of coin as an investment vehicle.

There might be reasons why you choose not to play. As investing profits might have been generated (gold coins are somewhat popular) you consider your lack of participation a mistake?

If the answer is yes, it's time to go back and, like the noble Achilles, sulk, chastened, though certainly not humbled, in your tent.

If the answer is no, Mr. Newman deserve the same slack you are cutting yourself. >>

Dear Colonel - I have made tons of numismatic mistakes. I am always looking to learn - including starting a thread about a different collecting philosophy. What I would have hoped to start was a good discussion - what I got was a couple of people throwing around insults. What's funny is (from what little I know of him) that I highly doubt Newman would have responded in kind - I suspect he would have rubbed his chin, said maybe and then proceeded to discuss the differences in collecting philosophy at the time, or why the AU was a better choice or etc. I'm somewhat certain he doesn't need "friends" taking offense in his honor. A humble man can admit mistakes - or even if one wasn't made at least allow for the possibility. >>

Wow! So much angst!

I am reminded of the movie dialogue exchange between Harvey Keitel and George Clooney, when the latter felt insulted by the former's comment:

"Are you so (*^)(*^& stupid, you don't know when you've won?"

"What did you call me?"

"I didn't call you anything. I didn't make a statement, I asked a question!"

I read the OP as a question, not a statement. No statement was made, no accusations were levied, no insults nor opinions were offered. There was just a question seeking an exchange of ideas and perspectives. I feel quite confident that with his brilliant mind and legal training, Mr. Newman would have welcomed the discourse!

I think it can be difficult for us collectors in the 21st century to truly understand the collecting mind set of the 1930's. Yes, back then, there were no Registry Sets, but there also were no third party grading companies, nor even the "Sheldon Scale" for grading. Today, the difference of one grading point may mean a great difference in value. The 1995-W ASE goes for $4k-$5K in PCGS-69DCAM, but over $80K in PCGS-70DCAM. For 1794 Dollars today, the Oswald-Ostheimer-Hayes PCGS-MS66 specimen is easily worth at least a million dollars more than the Oswald-Norweb PCGS-MS64 specimen, yet back at the Lord St. Oswald sale in 1964, the two coins sold for exactly the same price, and there was honest debate about whether either one was better than the other, and if so, which. Prior to the hypersensitive focus on coin grades, collectors sought nice, attractive pieces with a target of completeness of a collection. The auction description of "fine for the coin" was quite common, and minor differences in quality had little effect on desirability or value.

As we are seeing the pedigrees, the Newman bust dollars were selected from the Col. Green estate. At the time that estate was being settled, Newman had the enviable opportunity to make purchases from the estate, but he was still a young attorney at the time, with a young professional's income. (Remember, that was nearly 80 years ago.) STILL the estate had to close within the statutory time period. The estate couldn't just stay open to accomodate Newman's cash flow to -- eventually -- pay for everything on his wish list. So, he had to make choices, and he did not have access to all of the population information available today. Seeing 11 nice 1794 dollars in one place, including several nice AU's and a very nice mint state piece, could easily suggest that other opportunities for mint state coins might come along later, and that by acquiring a super nice (and affordable) AU from the estate while it was still available might be better than waiting until enough money was in hand for the Gem, but then ultimately running out of time and ending up with neither.

ColonelJessup · August 25, 2013 10:32AM

Cardinal, I've met you and know you to be an impassioned collector and a numismatist hungry for knowledge. Generous in sharing what you have learned, and in doing so with class.

The title of this thread has to do with the "possibility" that Newman made a mistake. I for one will not accept TDN's statement that no slight was intended and that this thread would had not have been started had he not be attempted to demonstrate, once again and forever once again, that his purchase of your SP66 is possibly the smartest move anyone has ever made in the entire history of numismatics.

Perhaps this is overstating the case. Or maybe not.

Some might have misinterpreted what they perceive as TDN's characterization of Newman's mistake in contrast to TDN being so sublime in his understanding of numismatics as to now own your old piece.

Some might not.

Just asking a question? You own example gives the lie to that.

Me, I just don't buy into the Uriah Heep routine.

tradedollarnut · August 25, 2013 11:20AM

Buying the 1794 could be a mistake and maybe not. Let's look back on it in 70 years and discuss it. I invite that.

it's really not that big of a deal, folks - sheesh!

Goldbully · August 25, 2013 11:22AM

Hello Newman......

Edited to add: Just a bit of levity, hope no one is offended here.

Nickcap · August 25, 2013 11:34AM

<< 
As we are seeing the pedigrees, the Newman bust dollars were selected from the Col. Green estate. At the time that estate was being settled, Newman had the enviable opportunity to make purchases from the estate, but he was still a young attorney at the time, with a young professional's income. (Remember, that was nearly 80 years ago.) STILL the estate had to close within the statutory time period. The estate couldn't justay open to accomodate Newman's cash flow to -- eventually -- pay for everything on his wish list. So, he had to make choices, and he did not have access to all of the population information available today. Seeing 11 nice 1794 dollars in one place, including several nice AU's and a very nice mint state piece, could easily suggest that other opportunities for mint state coins might come along later, and that by acquiring a super nice (and affordable) AU from the estate while it was still available might be better than waiting until enough money was in hand for the Gem, but then ultimately running out of time and ending up with neither. >>

This statement by Cardinal is probably the best insightful info on his purchase of the coins.

Did Newman make a mistake not keeping the gem 1794?

Comments

Leave a Comment