<< <i>You denigrated yourself just by posting back. Please don't dignify my remarks with a response
The coins are superb, I'm sure. Many of the hoi polloi (those of us with a net worth under $10M) could not hope to emulate or approach your expertise. That the owner of these put together this set is applaudable and surely a monumental task, requiring persistence, taste, money and a sense of value.
Don't respond .. below you ... I will say that your ability to outgrade me on the MS61 93-O impressed me more than the '94 $1 >>
I thought many on this board believe having money and expertise are 2 different things , are they not?
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I recently had a chance to examine this collection (which will be displayed at the PCGS table in Long Beach). I also got to know the story behind it.
First of all the coins are obviously beautiful. Congratulations to the collector and Laura who built this over a 10 year period. ( how many of us have made that kind of commitment?). Assembling this particular collection is a fantastic accomplishment regardless of how much you have to spend.
Second, those posters who are jumping to conclusions as to how this was done have no idea of the circumstances. Don't try to tear down someone else's accomplishment based on your conjecture. Why can't you congratulate him or move on?
<< <i>When I bought my very first million dollar coin back in 1999, my net worth was less than the purchase price. To presume any driven collector has a minimum net worth to own anything they do is to assume too much. >>
It's true - a person can definitely put over 50% of their assets into coins. That just seems like a non-diversified investment strategy. The risk may pay off, and it might be the right risk to take if they have deep knowledge of the coin market, especially if they want to make it a career.
Most members probably assumed that they were invited to discuss the subject referred to in the linked advertisement blog, and express their viewpoints, even if those thoughts cointained more than a simple "wow those are the best Morgans ever collected in one place, congratulations to the buyer!" and suggested that the "not quibbling over price" comment referred to an essentially blank check, and what dealer would not want to encourage more of those kinds of customers?
Its not hard to have someone like Legend do all the bird doging and find the coins if all you have to do is pay, that is a smart way to approach things if your goal is to own the pissing rights; but does that make you a great collector??
Coinbuf - Considering that you know virtually nothing about this collector's numismatic efforts and capabilities, this comment strikes me as rude and unfair.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
These coins make mine look like "rusty washers". Poor me, I don't have millions to spend on my crumby coin collection. Lets prohibit anyone from posting a coin that costs more than I can afford.
Contrary to some, I find TDN's reflections on playing in the stratosphere to be interesting. But then again I enjoyed reading The Right Stuff even though I had no prospect of ever being a test pilot or an astronaut.
And I agree with TDN that the money-envy posts have derailed this thread.
Every single coin I've bought since one month before my 19th birthday (and I didn't start collecting until I was 21) cost me more than my net worth... simply because my net worth is negative. Hell, my net worth will probably remain negative for the next two decades or so. Net worth is a nice number to look at, but it's really about cash flow... how much free cash flow did you have when you bought that million dollar coin?
You, more than anybody, should understand that net worth doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's just a pretty number people can point at. Free cash flow is what will really determine your ability to spend.
Interesting but confusing. How about explaining in further depth?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
No chip here either, but in all fairness it seems to be more of a financial accomplishment that a numismatic one.
My vision is not clouded and really enjoy what I buy and own.
That is all that matters. >>
I disagree that it's more of a financial accomplishment . Sourcing great coins like the ones in this collection took extradinary patience over a long period of time. That is a numismatic accomplishment.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Its not hard to have someone like Legend do all the bird doging and find the coins if all you have to do is pay, that is a smart way to approach things if your goal is to own the pissing rights; but does that make you a great collector??
Coinbuf - Considering that you know virtually nothing about this collector's numismatic efforts and capabilities, this comment strikes me as rude and unfair. >>
I agree. The collector has done nothing to antagonize anyone here. Why the pile on?
If you want to take a shot at Laura, she can take it. TDN? He can take care of himself. The owner of the set should be congratulated, and that's about it.
I think if folks want to discuss the appropriate percentage of one's net worth or cash flow or inheritance or the GDP of Argentina to be invested in one's collection, that would be a good topic for another thread (a topic that has been discussed before but perhaps worth revisiting).
Looking at the Jack Lee registry set, graded before the + grades, it would be cool to trace those coins to their current grades and cert numbers, make a similar table with links to the images, and recompute the set score.
<< <i>Interesting but confusing. How about explaining in further depth? >>
It doesn't matter how heavily leveraged you are as long as you have cash flow to meet those obligations. Your free cash flow (AKA discretionary income) is what determines your ability to purchase. TDN's situation is relatively unique for reasons I won't get into, but is general career trajectory is anything but normal and certain periods there would have been very conducive to attaining proper financing to make purchases beyond his current net worth due to other valuations (Future valuations) I'm betting he isn't factoring into that.
I'll use myself as an example. In my situation, I have about $30k in student loan debt, will probably have a $225k or so mortgage next year, and have other debts which, all in all, total out to about $5k. That means that despite the fact I have $20k in coins, $15k in stock, $10k in my 401k, a $15k car... my net worth is still well negative and will remain so until I save enough money/accrue enough assets/pay off a good chunk of my debts. That doesn't mean that I can't buy coins or spend money on other things, it just means my net worth is negative and any single asset I purchase with my discretionary income costs more than my net worth.
It's a misleading statement. >>
For your own benefit, you do not have negative net worth assuming the above is true.
<< <i>Every single coin I've bought since one month before my 19th birthday (and I didn't start collecting until I was 21) cost me more than my net worth... simply because my net worth is negative. Hell, my net worth will probably remain negative for the next two decades or so. Net worth is a nice number to look at, but it's really about cash flow... how much free cash flow did you have when you bought that million dollar coin?
You, more than anybody, should understand that net worth doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's just a pretty number people can point at. Free cash flow is what will really determine your ability to spend.
Interesting but confusing. How about explaining in further depth? >>
Well think about Verizon buying out Vodaphone's 45 percent interest in Verizon Wireless that they did not own for 130 billion.
They did not have the money to pay for that purchase.
Verizon had to borrow in the bond market to pay for the purchase but they have great cash flow to pay for it over the long term.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i> No kidding and I doubt the owner of this set only worked 9 to 5 to achieve his goals in life. We are all wired differently and all have different end games. >>
There's a difference between inheriting a billion dollars and working your entire life to make several million.
Learn about our world's shared history told through the first millennium of coinage: Colosseo Collection
Not on a balance sheet. Equity is the difference between the asset and the liability.
Now, he could state that the equity in his house is an asset, but if he does so then he can't say the home loan is a liability - that would be double counting it.
This tread is a perfect example of why some of the best coins and sharpest numismatic minds don't get shared on this forum. Why put up with the aggravation. Why bother. Healthy debate is one thing but blatant conjecture presented as fact, pettiness, closed minds and just plain bad information seem to be at a premium here.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I have spoken recently about the question of one dealer to assist in the assembly of a complete collection. It appears it can be done well, as with the new Coronet collection of Morgan dollars.
I am relieved that I have more to do than visit one coin forum. This place (sometimes) is worse than bad food, shrieking women, and yipping small dogs.
I am not a Morgan collector, but after looking at the new Current #1 set and drooling over the photographs of the coins I am impressed.
A gorgeous collection. The owner should be given a warm congratulation and pat on the back for a job well done. The owner may likely be motivated to improve the collection even more (I counted 39 coins where higher graded examples exist, so at least a few upgrade candidates will likely be on the market in the future).
Regardless of what end of the hobby pool one plays in, the entire process of building a high quality set should be applauded and encouraged. Hobbyists can and should admire the accomplishments of their fellow hobbyists. It helps make the hobby fun.
It does not matter if the hobbyist is one with vast resources, or is one who scrapes by day by day on Top Ramin and a beer chaser (ah college memories). Putting together a high quality, eye popping, collection is possible for everyone.
Anyone who links a Legend advertisement blog is bound to get a lot of replies, because the linked words are so controversial, it's unrealistic to expect people to not challenge assertions that they find less than credible, (e.g. that a collector with a multi million dollar collection is not a "gazillionaire", because the statement that he is one is just as accurate) there's also the blank-check concept (not quibble over prices) and the "exclusive dealer" concept (with the associated profits) It's not surprising that the OP, being one of the principles of said firm, would get more than his share of replies. We'd be a lot more surprised if all the replies were simply "congratulations" and "nice coins!"
Putting on my real estate attorney cap, I will state that (at least in California) a person's home, even with a loan secured by a mortgage or a deed of trust, is "OWNED" by the person.
The lender does not own the property. That is because California is a "lien theory" state as opposed to a "title theory" state. A lender merely has a "lien" in the property. The lien in the property is given by the borrower to secure performance of the debt (repayment of the loan). The lender does not own the property, has no right to the use, possession or control of the property, has no right to any of the benefits (rents, appreciation, mineral rights, crops, etc.) accruing from the property and has none of the burdens of the property (taxes, insurance, repairs, maintenance, landowner liability).
That is your California real estate law lesson for today.
<< <i>My Morgan collection fell from #260 to #261. Oh, well.
What has been lost to all but one poster is this collection was assembled over 10 years. That kind of persistence nearly always is well rewarded.
What a great collection! The 80-CC, 83, 84-S, 92-S, 94, 96, 97-S, 98-O, 00-S, & 21-S are dreamy.
There are two coins to my eye that I would commit to paying postage and insurance back and forth so that I could look at them in person:
The 91-CC (as per previous comments that are spot on).
And that 89-O. My vote as the most spectacular. Whew, would I like to see that one in hand!!!! >>
You dropped a spot -- that's what you get for diverting your attention to Morgans! You caused me to go back and check the 89-O. No doubt I could have a new favorite every couple of days if I keep going through this set. I have never had much interest in Morgans but love this presentation and am glad TDN posted it. If people don't want to read about a top set that Legend helped put together, why join the thread?
Trying to get it back on track about the coins themselves and away from all the pettiness (hey a guy can try!):
1. Colonel, I checked CoinFacts and confirmed the 91-CC is the Eliasberg example. The Heritage write-up states that Dave Bowers conjectured that the coin might have been a presentation piece. Very cool.
2. The suggestion that the set is too white is an interesting one. It would be very educational to see how the color/toning compares to the California collection or the Jack Lee collection. To hold a top registry spot for a full set, some sacrifice on toning may at times be necessary -- I know nothing about Morgans but that is certainly true for Walkers.
3. I would love to know what coins are the collector's favorites. He put the set together over a decade -- some must be more special than others.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I started my comment by extending my "Congrats to the owner"-
Perhaps that was overlooked as you did not include that as part of my quote in your response. It is equally disappointing that you imply that I cannot fathom this accomplishment and denigrated by claiming it is more of a financial accomplishment. Well, it is more of a financial accomplishment because very few collectors can afford anything close to the finest known 1884-s, 1886-o, 1889-cc, 1892-s, 1893-s, 1895-o, 1896-o and 1901- I am keeping the list short to be brief, but also to illustrate my point.
Your comments towards me are misplaced. I have a deep appreciation for this series. I know how difficult this set is as I completed a set, quality for the grade grading from VF35 to MS66 with many of the rare vams- but i never owned the scarface. This project took several years and over 50% were bought raw. I liked my set. It is great to see others put a set together- one that will be discussed for the ages- but the reality is that very few are able to financially swing such a project.
If you find that my comments ruin this for others- well, I suppose reasonable minds can differ.
By the way, its not too late to post a coin or even tell a story about a coin that you are proud of that cost less than $100 on a the thread started on this forum about two-three weeks ago- at least take a look at some of the great numismatic treasures that make us all collectors.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
If my earlier post regarding Legend's blog detracted from the spirit of this thread, I apologize. Indeed, this collection is nothing less than amazing.
I enjoy the hunt and don't always understand why a collector would use a dealer to find many/most of his coins. However, I have the greatest respect for any collector who shows such patience and perseverance as the owner of this set clearly displayed. Congratulations!
I know that it is not feasible, but imagine ... just imagine ... if there were a method of weighing the PCGS Registry sets by some element of net worth or financial means. Again, I know that would never be possible for many reasons, but wouldn't that level the playing field to some degree?
That being said, I know next to nothing about the PCGS Registry program. In all of my years of collecting and dealing in coins, I have never looked at the Registry unless someone sent me a link (like with this thread). Heck, even with this thread I did not bother to look at the top sets, or any sets of Morgan dollars, because I do not care. I do, however, care and love magnificent coins, such as the 93-S and 91-CC dollars posted here.
I just never grasped the concept of turning coin collecting in a competition, regardless of one's wealth. But I guess that's just me.
Perhaps I am missing something, but it is not the least bit shocking or disturbing to me that the owner of the #1 PCGS Registry Set of Morgan Dollars is very wealthy.
Took a look at the set. Didn't take a look at the past several pages of posts. Hopefully, I'll repeat the sentiment of most of them by saying "Holy Crap!™ That's some nice stuff!"
<< <i>Perhaps I am missing something, but it is not the least bit shocking or disturbing to me that the owner of the #1 PCGS Registry Set of Morgan Dollars is very wealthy. >>
I think that what some are suggesting in this thread is that the Registry program is a rich man's game, and the "average Joe" would never be able to compete. Of course there are sets that create exceptions, such as my #1 set of Chuck-E-Cheese tokens (9 years and still number one), or perhaps an Exonumia set, a die variety set, etc. Again, I do not even know what sets are available.
I know nothing about the mechanics of the Registry Set program, and I know even less about sports. However, I am aware that in some sports (bowling, golf) there are handicaps that help to level the playing field. Why not do so in the Registry program?
I think that what some are suggesting in this thread is that the Registry program is a rich man's game, and the "average Joe" would never be able to compete.
That's perhaps why they developed and marketed the "Everyman's Sets"--no MS coins.
<< <i>I do not collect Morgans but I can appreciate nice things, which even includes Morgans some times. I browsed the set and saw many very nice coins. When it comes to Morgans, the thing I always look at first, especially a top set....is the CHEEK. There were several coins in that collection that had flawless cheeks. That is not easy! Congrats to the owner and builders of the set. >>
My congratulations to the owner and I have a simple, but honest appreciation of the challenge.
I completed my Registry Morgan Set a few years ago and hit #50 on the PCGS Registry. For a schoolteacher, that was probably a huge accomplishment, and for my situation in life, I felt super. I did the "What If" on the Registry and put in a MS64 89-CC and an AU53 93-S (mine were VF35 and F15), just for fun. Something like $35,000 to invest in the two coins, just to see what it would do for me in the Registry.
The results?
I moved from #50 . . . . . . . to #49. It would cost me $35k to move one spot. At that point, I realized I had experienced the best of the Registry and the most fun I could have with the "Registry" game. It was, and continues to be . . . . fun. But, it convinced me to move on and actually, I sold my set.
I know I am thought of as a "Doily" guy . . . but this thread has been interesting, and yes, I had a top 50 set at one time . . .
Comments
<< <i>You denigrated yourself just by posting back. Please don't dignify my remarks with a response
The coins are superb, I'm sure. Many of the hoi polloi (those of us with a net worth under $10M) could not hope to emulate or approach your expertise. That the owner of these put together this set is applaudable and surely a monumental task, requiring persistence, taste, money and a sense of value.
Don't respond .. below you ... I will say that your ability to outgrade me on the MS61 93-O impressed me more than the '94 $1 >>
I thought many on this board believe having money and expertise are 2 different things , are they not?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
If you don't believe this......you are just in denial!!!
First of all the coins are obviously beautiful. Congratulations to the collector and Laura who built this over a 10 year period. ( how many of us have made that kind of commitment?). Assembling this particular collection is a fantastic accomplishment regardless of how much you have to spend.
Second, those posters who are jumping to conclusions as to how this was done have no idea of the circumstances. Don't try to tear down someone else's accomplishment based on your conjecture. Why can't you congratulate him or move on?
<< <i>When I bought my very first million dollar coin back in 1999, my net worth was less than the purchase price.
To presume any driven collector has a minimum net worth to own anything they do is to assume too much. >>
It's true - a person can definitely put over 50% of their assets into coins.
That just seems like a non-diversified investment strategy.
The risk may pay off, and it might be the right risk to take if they have deep knowledge of the coin market, especially if they want to make it a career.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/alltimeset.aspx?s=115575
Coinbuf - Considering that you know virtually nothing about this collector's numismatic efforts and capabilities, this comment strikes me as rude and unfair.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Contrary to some, I find TDN's reflections on playing in the stratosphere to be interesting. But then again I enjoyed reading The Right Stuff even though I had no prospect of ever being a test pilot or an astronaut.
And I agree with TDN that the money-envy posts have derailed this thread.
CG
You, more than anybody, should understand that net worth doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's just a pretty number people can point at. Free cash flow is what will really determine your ability to spend.
Interesting but confusing. How about explaining in further depth?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Congrats to the set owner
No chip here either, but in all fairness it seems to be more of a financial accomplishment that a numismatic one.
My vision is not clouded and really enjoy what I buy and own.
That is all that matters. >>
I disagree that it's more of a financial accomplishment .
Sourcing great coins like the ones in this collection took extradinary patience
over a long period of time. That is a numismatic accomplishment.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Its not hard to have someone like Legend do all the bird doging and find the coins if all you have to do is pay, that is a smart way to approach things if your goal is to own the pissing rights; but does that make you a great collector??
Coinbuf - Considering that you know virtually nothing about this collector's numismatic efforts and capabilities, this comment strikes me as rude and unfair. >>
I agree. The collector has done nothing to antagonize anyone here. Why the pile on?
If you want to take a shot at Laura, she can take it. TDN? He can take care of himself. The owner of the set should be congratulated, and that's about it.
I think if folks want to discuss the appropriate percentage of one's net worth or cash flow or inheritance or the GDP of Argentina to be invested in one's collection, that would be a good topic for another thread (a topic that has been discussed before but perhaps worth revisiting).
Lance.
make a similar table with links to the images, and recompute the set score.
Misleading?
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting but confusing. How about explaining in further depth? >>
It doesn't matter how heavily leveraged you are as long as you have cash flow to meet those obligations. Your free cash flow (AKA discretionary income) is what determines your ability to purchase. TDN's situation is relatively unique for reasons I won't get into, but is general career trajectory is anything but normal and certain periods there would have been very conducive to attaining proper financing to make purchases beyond his current net worth due to other valuations (Future valuations) I'm betting he isn't factoring into that.
I'll use myself as an example. In my situation, I have about $30k in student loan debt, will probably have a $225k or so mortgage next year, and have other debts which, all in all, total out to about $5k. That means that despite the fact I have $20k in coins, $15k in stock, $10k in my 401k, a $15k car... my net worth is still well negative and will remain so until I save enough money/accrue enough assets/pay off a good chunk of my debts. That doesn't mean that I can't buy coins or spend money on other things, it just means my net worth is negative and any single asset I purchase with my discretionary income costs more than my net worth.
It's a misleading statement. >>
For your own benefit, you do not have negative net worth assuming the above is true.
Assets
House: $225k
Coins: $20k
Stock: $15k
401k: $10k
Car: $15k
Total Assets = $285K
Liabilities
House Loan: $225K
Student Loan: $30K
Other: $5K
Total Liabilities = $260K
Net Worth: $25K
Edited for spelling
Latin American Collection
<< <i>Every single coin I've bought since one month before my 19th birthday (and I didn't start collecting until I was 21) cost me more than my net worth... simply because my net worth is negative. Hell, my net worth will probably remain negative for the next two decades or so. Net worth is a nice number to look at, but it's really about cash flow... how much free cash flow did you have when you bought that million dollar coin?
You, more than anybody, should understand that net worth doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's just a pretty number people can point at. Free cash flow is what will really determine your ability to spend.
Interesting but confusing. How about explaining in further depth? >>
Well think about Verizon buying out Vodaphone's 45 percent interest in Verizon Wireless that they did not own for 130 billion.
They did not have the money to pay for that purchase.
Verizon had to borrow in the bond market to pay for the purchase but they have great cash flow to pay for
it over the long term.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>
No kidding and I doubt the owner of this set only worked 9 to 5 to achieve his goals in life. We are all wired differently and all have different end games. >>
There's a difference between inheriting a billion dollars and working your entire life to make several million.
This is incorrect. If you have the liability (the mortgage) on your personal balance sheet, then you also have the corresponding asset (the house).
<< <i>You don't own your home until you pay off your mortgage, therefore it's not your asset.
This is incorrect. If you have the liability (the mortgage) on your personal balance sheet, then you also have the corresponding asset (the house). >>
This is correct.
Latin American Collection
What has been lost to all but one poster is this collection was assembled over 10 years. That kind of persistence nearly always is well rewarded.
What a great collection! The 80-CC, 83, 84-S, 92-S, 94, 96, 97-S, 98-O, 00-S, & 21-S are dreamy.
There are two coins to my eye that I would commit to paying postage and insurance back and forth so that I could look at them in person:
The 91-CC (as per previous comments that are spot on).
And that 89-O. My vote as the most spectacular. Whew, would I like to see that one in hand!!!!
Eric
<< <i>Equity is an asset. >>
Not on a balance sheet. Equity is the difference between the asset and the liability.
Now, he could state that the equity in his house is an asset, but if he does so then he can't say the home loan is a liability - that would be double counting it.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
I am relieved that I have more to do than visit one coin forum. This place (sometimes) is worse than bad food, shrieking women, and yipping small dogs.
A gorgeous collection. The owner should be given a warm congratulation and pat on the back for a job well done. The owner may likely be motivated to improve the collection even more (I counted 39 coins where higher graded examples exist, so at least a few upgrade candidates will likely be on the market in the future).
Regardless of what end of the hobby pool one plays in, the entire process of building a high quality set should be applauded and encouraged. Hobbyists can and should admire the accomplishments of their fellow hobbyists. It helps make the hobby fun.
It does not matter if the hobbyist is one with vast resources, or is one who scrapes by day by day on Top Ramin and a beer chaser (ah college memories). Putting together a high quality, eye popping, collection is possible for everyone.
Cheers.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Have I mistakenly stumbled upon the accounting geeks forum?
I prefer the term accounting nerd.
This set is awesome.
Member, Society of Silver Dollar Collectors.
Looking for PCGS AU58+ 1901-P, 1896-O, & 1894-O
Putting on my real estate attorney cap, I will state that (at least in California) a person's home, even with a loan secured by a mortgage or a deed of trust, is "OWNED" by the person.
The lender does not own the property. That is because California is a "lien theory" state as opposed to a "title theory" state. A lender merely has a "lien" in the property. The lien in the property is given by the borrower to secure performance of the debt (repayment of the loan). The lender does not own the property, has no right to the use, possession or control of the property, has no right to any of the benefits (rents, appreciation, mineral rights, crops, etc.) accruing from the property and has none of the burdens of the property (taxes, insurance, repairs, maintenance, landowner liability).
That is your California real estate law lesson for today.
<< <i>My Morgan collection fell from #260 to #261. Oh, well.
What has been lost to all but one poster is this collection was assembled over 10 years. That kind of persistence nearly always is well rewarded.
What a great collection! The 80-CC, 83, 84-S, 92-S, 94, 96, 97-S, 98-O, 00-S, & 21-S are dreamy.
There are two coins to my eye that I would commit to paying postage and insurance back and forth so that I could look at them in person:
The 91-CC (as per previous comments that are spot on).
And that 89-O. My vote as the most spectacular. Whew, would I like to see that one in hand!!!! >>
You dropped a spot -- that's what you get for diverting your attention to Morgans! You caused me to go back and check the 89-O. No doubt I could have a new favorite every couple of days if I keep going through this set. I have never had much interest in Morgans but love this presentation and am glad TDN posted it. If people don't want to read about a top set that Legend helped put together, why join the thread?
Trying to get it back on track about the coins themselves and away from all the pettiness (hey a guy can try!):
1. Colonel, I checked CoinFacts and confirmed the 91-CC is the Eliasberg example. The Heritage write-up states that Dave Bowers conjectured that the coin might have been a presentation piece. Very cool.
2. The suggestion that the set is too white is an interesting one. It would be very educational to see how the color/toning compares to the California collection or the Jack Lee collection. To hold a top registry spot for a full set, some sacrifice on toning may at times be necessary -- I know nothing about Morgans but that is certainly true for Walkers.
3. I would love to know what coins are the collector's favorites. He put the set together over a decade -- some must be more special than others.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I started my comment by extending my "Congrats to the owner"-
Perhaps that was overlooked as you did not include that as part of my quote in your response. It is equally disappointing that you imply that I cannot fathom this accomplishment and denigrated by claiming it is more of a financial accomplishment. Well, it is more of a financial accomplishment because very few collectors can afford anything close to the finest known 1884-s, 1886-o, 1889-cc, 1892-s, 1893-s, 1895-o, 1896-o and 1901- I am keeping the list short to be brief, but also to illustrate my point.
Your comments towards me are misplaced. I have a deep appreciation for this series. I know how difficult this set is as I completed a set, quality for the grade grading from VF35 to MS66 with many of the rare vams- but i never owned the scarface. This project took several years and over 50% were bought raw. I liked my set. It is great to see others put a set together- one that will be discussed for the ages- but the reality is that very few are able to financially swing such a project.
If you find that my comments ruin this for others- well, I suppose reasonable minds can differ.
By the way, its not too late to post a coin or even tell a story about a coin that you are proud of that cost less than $100 on a the thread started on this forum about two-three weeks ago- at least take a look at some of the great numismatic treasures that make us all collectors.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I enjoy the hunt and don't always understand why a collector would use a dealer to find many/most of his coins. However, I have the greatest respect for any collector who shows such patience and perseverance as the owner of this set clearly displayed. Congratulations!
I know that it is not feasible, but imagine ... just imagine ... if there were a method of weighing the PCGS Registry sets by some element of net worth or financial means. Again, I know that would never be possible for many reasons, but wouldn't that level the playing field to some degree?
That being said, I know next to nothing about the PCGS Registry program. In all of my years of collecting and dealing in coins, I have never looked at the Registry unless someone sent me a link (like with this thread). Heck, even with this thread I did not bother to look at the top sets, or any sets of Morgan dollars, because I do not care. I do, however, care and love magnificent coins, such as the 93-S and 91-CC dollars posted here.
I just never grasped the concept of turning coin collecting in a competition, regardless of one's wealth. But I guess that's just me.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>Perhaps I am missing something, but it is not the least bit shocking or disturbing to me that the owner of the #1 PCGS Registry Set of Morgan Dollars is very wealthy. >>
I think that what some are suggesting in this thread is that the Registry program is a rich man's game, and the "average Joe" would never be able to compete. Of course there are sets that create exceptions, such as my #1 set of Chuck-E-Cheese tokens (9 years and still number one), or perhaps an Exonumia set, a die variety set, etc. Again, I do not even know what sets are available.
I know nothing about the mechanics of the Registry Set program, and I know even less about sports. However, I am aware that in some sports (bowling, golf) there are handicaps that help to level the playing field. Why not do so in the Registry program?
That's perhaps why they developed and marketed the "Everyman's Sets"--no MS coins.
I'd still take Sunnywood's old set over this and feel his ole 93-S is far more eye appealing.
<< <i>I do not collect Morgans but I can appreciate nice things, which even includes Morgans some times. I browsed the set and saw many very nice coins. When it comes to Morgans, the thing I always look at first, especially a top set....is the CHEEK. There were several coins in that collection that had flawless cheeks. That is not easy! Congrats to the owner and builders of the set. >>
+1
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>Wow! They don't call this the "Hobby of Kings" for nothing! >>
+1
I completed my Registry Morgan Set a few years ago and hit #50 on the PCGS Registry. For a schoolteacher, that was probably a huge accomplishment, and for my situation in life, I felt super. I did the "What If" on the Registry and put in a MS64 89-CC and an AU53 93-S (mine were VF35 and F15), just for fun. Something like $35,000 to invest in the two coins, just to see what it would do for me in the Registry.
The results?
I moved from #50 . . . . . . . to #49. It would cost me $35k to move one spot. At that point, I realized I had experienced the best of the Registry and the most fun I could have with the "Registry" game. It was, and continues to be . . . . fun. But, it convinced me to move on and actually, I sold my set.
I know I am thought of as a "Doily" guy . . . but this thread has been interesting, and yes, I had a top 50 set at one time . . .
Drunner
(The Doily Slut)
editid to correct "top 50" set from "top 5 set"