<< <i>I think you mean 'less conservative' in your next-to-last sentence above. >>
How do you figure? If just about everything got a sticker, that would indicate very conservative grading, no? >>
'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist.
<< <i>I think you mean 'less conservative' in your next-to-last sentence above. >>
How do you figure? If just about everything got a sticker, that would indicate very conservative grading, no? >>
'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist. >>
<< <i>'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist. >>
He was referring to TPG grading, not CAC grading.
EDIT: What does "chosen by a specialist" have to do with anything? If a TPG slaps a 67 grade on a PQ 65 coin, it most likely won't sticker, no matter how nice it is.
<< <i>I think you mean 'less conservative' in your next-to-last sentence above. >>
How do you figure? If just about everything got a sticker, that would indicate very conservative grading, no? >>
'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist. >>
I think we were talking past each other. I was addressing CAC being more or less conservative in their awarding of stickers to the Pogue coins.
<< <i>'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist. >>
He was referring to TPG grading, not CAC grading.
EDIT: What does "chosen by a specialist" have to do with anything? If a TPG slaps a 67 grade on a PQ 65 coin, it most likely won't sticker, no matter how nice it is. >>
The specialists that I know are going to 'pass' on a PQ 65 coin in a 67 slab. If we can't concede that Mr. Pogue had the ability to recognize 'solid for the grade' (i.e., CAC worthy) coins, then why is everyone so excited about the upcoming Pogue auctions?
<< <i>The specialists that I know are going to 'pass' on a PQ 65 coin in a 67 slab. If we can't concede that Mr. Pogue had the ability to recognize 'solid for the grade' (i.e., CAC worthy) coins, then why is everyone so excited about the upcoming Pogue auctions? >>
I'm assuming the coins were regraded at the time of being placed in the special holders. If that was not the case, then I can see what you are saying.
Kellogg: << Don't forget that the first Pittman auction was held almost 18 years ago --
I have not forgotten. I was writing about Pittman Collection coin then and have done so on innumerable occasions since. Is any living person more familiar with the Pittman Collection than I am? Other than the wholesalers, Richard Burdick and Stewart Blay, am I the only person who examined a large percentage of the gem quality, 19th century coins?
Kellogg: << ... when the prevalence of all-certified auctions wasn't as widespread as the situation today
This statement is not accurate. The era had come to an end, with the exception of an occasional raw consignment to Stack's (New York). Indeed, during the 1990s, except for old-time consignments to Stack's (New York), a firm that was much different from the current Stack's-Bowers, high quality, classic U.S. coins were graded by PCGS or ATS, before they were auctioned.
Kellogg: << Regardless of how the 'coin presentation' decision [to sell Pittman's coins raw] was made, I believe that it had the unqualified approval of Mr. Akers.>>
I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that this is true and there is much evidence to the contrary. Regarding the Akers-Paramount session of Auction '90, the Rarcoa-Akers Chicago '91 sale, the Akers session of Numisma '95, most gradable coins were certified, though Akers tended to 'crackout' coins that he thought were undergraded, in a commercial sense, by the TPGs. As collectors were nervous about raw coins in such events, my guess is that the reason for the crackouts was for the wholesalers to speculate that those would receive higher grades than they received before they were 'cracked out.' If Kellogg digs out those catalogues, I would be glad to provide examples.
During the ''97 and '98 Pittman sales, Akers added other auction sessions, which included many certified coins. The Wynsen Collection, if spelled correctly here, and the Thaine Price Collection included many certified coins.
Kellogg: <<I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, ...>>
This statement is false. I attended both sales. Wholesalers were not shut out. I took notes regarding the prices realized and the successful bidders. Wholesalers, including coin doctors, bought a lot of coins, especially those that were gauged to be likely to be certified as grading from 66 to 68. Moreover, I know collectors who did not participate because the coins were not certified. There was collector participation, though not to the extent that there was at the Eliasberg sales during the same time period.
For both the Eliasberg and Pittman Collections, it may be true that the auction firms were prohibited by the respective consignors from sending the coins to PCGS.
<< The auction room was packed -- standing room only.>>
I did not have trouble finding seats for all sessions. Further, the vast majority of those in attendance were dealers. Besides, if the coins had been PCGS certified, there would have been more bidders who were not physically present.
TDN: <<Point is that 1804 dollars should be carefully examined and bid on with eyes wide open. Their grades rarely translate literally, but rather represent a ranking of the known coins. >>
<< <i>Kellogg: << Don't forget that the first Pittman auction was held almost 18 years ago --
I have not forgotten. I was writing about Pittman Collection coin then and have done so on innumerable occasions since. Is any living person more familiar with the Pittman Collection than I am? Other than the wholesalers, Richard Burdick and Stewart Blay, am I the only person who examined a large percentage of the gem quality, 19th century coins
NO! VIRTUALLY EVERY MAJOR AND MANY MANY SECOND TIER DEALERS HAS SEEN EVERY COIN IN BOTH SALES. And most of us are still hanging on. Is wholesaler information excluded or discounted? What do your stats show as the total number of lots sold to dealers vs collectors and total value of lots categorized the same way. Is this useful information (scientifically gathered) from which strong correlation trends can be derived?
Stewart Blay is in prison. Did you visit him at Fort Dix?
Kellogg: << ... when the prevalence of all-certified auctions wasn't as widespread as the situation today
This statement is not accurate. The era had come to an end, with the exception of an occasional raw consignment to Stack's (New York). Indeed, during the 1990s, except for old-time consignments to Stack's (New York), a firm that was much different from the current Stack's-Bowers, high quality, classic U.S. coins were graded by PCGS or ATS, before they were auctioned. While the trend towards a higher percentage of auction coins certified began increasing from a an already solid base.
Kellogg: << Regardless of how the 'coin presentation' decision [to sell Pittman's coins raw] was made, I believe that it had the unqualified approval of Mr. Akers.>>
I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that this is true and there is much evidence to the contrary. Regarding the Akers-Paramount session of Auction '90, the Rarcoa-Akers Chicago '91 sale, the Akers session of Numisma '95, most gradable coins were certified, though Akers tended to 'crackout' coins that he thought were undergraded, in a commercial sense, by the TPGs. As collectors were nervous about raw coins in such events, my guess is that the reason for the crackouts was for the wholesalers to speculate that those would receive higher grades than they received before they were 'cracked out.' If Kellogg digs out those catalogues, I would be glad to provide examples.
Let's have a statistical study of how this strategy worked overall. Was more money made for the consignor by keeping them raw? As a whole consignment? How does one speculate on the price of gem proof Type II G$1 when the Bass coins had not yet appeared? Many would not bid on these coins at any level? Much anecdotal information has no relevance when looking at it from the consignor's perspective. Same reason that QDB went "raw' with Eliasberg non-gold.
During the ''97 and '98 Pittman sales, Akers added other auction sessions, which included many certified coins. The Wynsen Collection, if spelled correctly here, and the Thaine Price Collection included many certified coins.
So what? Separate catalogues. Nothing to do with the Pittman coins, though Thaine Price was pretty amazing.
Kellogg: <<I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, ...>>
This statement is false. I attended both sales. Wholesalers were not shut out. I took notes regarding the prices realized and the successful bidders. Wholesalers, including coin doctors, bought a lot of coins, especially those that were gauged to be likely to be certified as grading from 66 to 68.
Analyst is much more accurate. There were a LOT of marginal no-grades and bodaciously under-graded coins. Al Adams bought the 1833 $5, and the one of the Classic $5's (35 or 36) (all proof) as well as some Southern gold. You'll see the '33 in Pogue. PR67DCAM. Brent paid just under $1M about 5-6 years ago in the Platinum Night when Al sold the deal for his investor(s). Back at Pittman, I bought a 20-S Saint grade AU for under 30K that grade 63 (both TPGs) and doubled up. Jeff Garrett, as my underbidder, must have thought it was a touch more "un-new" Jeff Isaac IIRC bought a '49 Moffat $5 called EX to AU for choice to gem money 25K'ish? that graded 65.
Moreover, I know collectors who did not participate because the coins were not certified. There was collector participation, though not to the extent that there was at the Eliasberg sales during the same time period.
For both the Eliasberg and Pittman Collections, it may be true that the auction firms were prohibited by the respective consignors from sending the coins to PCGS.
And it may not. As a matter of fact, it IS NOT . The level of correlation in that speculative statement, at least as far as Pittman, is ZERO. Ask Richard, Tom Mulvaney or Polly Pittman. They are still alive.
<< The auction room was packed -- standing room only.>>
I did not have trouble finding seats for all sessions. Further, the vast majority of those in attendance were dealers.
True on seating and attendance. However, every major collector in the country had know about many of these coins for decades, even more. John had a ball showing an entire case of Southern gold at some ANA conventions. Bragged on his stuff endlessly. Any collector worth his salt would have had an agent looking at lots for him
Besides, if the coins had been PCGS certified, there would have been more bidders who were not physically present.
TDN: <<Point is that 1804 dollars should be carefully examined and bid on with eyes wide open. Their grades rarely translate literally, but rather represent a ranking of the known coins. >>
Is TDN saying that he agrees with the "ranking"?
I heard nothing at all whatsoever that suggests he doesn't. Most do, though he "might" not agree with the slab grade. I do believe the condition census matches order in the grades of the "known" "population". What I derive from TDN's remark is "buy the coin, not the holder" That I grade the Muscat-Oman/Childs coin 66+ at best has nothing to do with it being head and shoulders above the closest in both CC and Pop ranking. Maybe my grade was a scaredy-cat response. When I held the coins from the KOS set raw in my hands at Dave Bowers suggestion, I graded the $1 64+ At the time, I did not expound upon my grade to save myself the ridicule and embarrassment; LOL, few would have cared what it might have been. As far as the Muscat/Oman-Childs-Pogue 1804 goes, I may take the time to look at it again.. .
I was also at both sales. Let's remember the telecommunication problems and limitations at that time.The latter of the two was Pittman. More selective. Eliasberg had everything. Broader range of targets, more bidders. Good raw auctions of market-fresh and physically fresh planchets continued until Northern Bay. 5-6 years later? Buddy Byers 2006? Raw collections surely vanished by the end of this period.
Dave Akers made no secret that he had control of dispersal. Not approval from the family. JJP had already made a clear choice, and a very good one. John knew that his family understood this. Polly, his daughter, worked with DWA and Tom Mulvaney for months and months on cataloguing, but as a participant and advisor, not controlling the process, which had been defined as "whatever Dave says". JJP's widow Gehring IIRC had a tough time letting go. .
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
If I had a "special" Pogue holder-ed coin, I would like to think the CAC aspect of whatever it is that CAC actually does was already taken into consideration in the final grade. On another note, the visual aspect of a green bean on the new "special " holder would only be a detraction to me. I have a few hundred slabs with CAC stickers, they are in all different positions on the face of the slab and often not straight. These coins will speak for themselves, and were purchased by some of the best in the biz, long before CAC ever existed. I'm still waiting for Son of CAC to arrive on the scene, someone to verify CAC's work-LOL!
I do not agree with the 'fight for famous coins in our holder' gradeflation that led to increases of 2-3 points for each 1804 $1. However, since that cat is out of the bag then I feel that a ranking of the field of specimens is the best that's going to be accomplished. Would I love to own a famous 1804 Class I dollar despite the scratched out spot in the left obverse field? Sure....but I'd have to gulp really really hard to stomache the 67 grade on the label. Unfortunately, if downgraded then it falls below the gently cleaned gem or the counter marked specimens in ranking. Such a conundrum!!!
<< <i>I do not agree with the 'fight for famous coins in our holder' gradeflation that led to increases of 2-3 points for each 1804 $1. However, since that cat is out of the bag then I feel that a ranking of the field of specimens is the best that's going to be accomplished. Would I love to own a famous 1804 Class I dollar despite the scratched out spot in the left obverse field? Sure....but I'd have to gulp really really hard to stomache the 67 grade on the label. Unfortunately, if downgraded then it falls below the gently cleaned gem or the counter marked specimens in ranking. Such a conundrum!!! >>
Stick to your gun's.
Please don't focus on the pedigree just to add an inferior coin to your collection.
Per the CAC web site, they estimate that 50% of the PCGS/NGC-certified coins 'in the marketplace' are CAC worthy. [My take: This is because the marketplace coins are typically 'picked over' -- with most of the nice coins being 'long gone']. CAC also estimates that about 90% of the PCGS/NGC-certified coins 'at large' are CAC worthy. [My take: This higher percentage includes the larger population of PCGS/NGC-certified coins, including all of those really great coins that have been 'deep-sixed' -- many of which have never been submitted to CAC].
If CAC really stickered 90% of all PCGS/NGC coins, then we wouldn't be having these discussions....and there would be no need to. There's no way 90% of all slabbed coins are solid to high end. A 90% stickering rate would also mean no real need to do regrades....a huge drop in TPG revenues. A 90% sticker rates also suggests that 90% of the MS65 grade go MS65.4 to MS65.9....and only 10% grade from MS65.0 to MS65.3. Simply ludicrous. Even simple math/statistics would suggest 1/3 low end, 1/3 solid/average, 1/3 higher end. It also depends on the grading service too. Would there have even been a need for CAC if 90% of the coins were all solid for grade? No, of course not.
The really great coins that have been deep-sixed, probably only account for 20% of any particular grade. My own estimate of an "untouched/undistorted" grade distribution would be 20% low end, 60% solid, 20% high end (an average of the 2 grading services combined). But when you get into the distortions of upgrading/regrading/etc. then those numbers probably get skewed to something like 25/65/10%. One has to remember that all the coins graded MS64.7 to MS64.9 are good candidates to end up in MS65 holders someday (ie low end). Compare the populations of PCGS to NGC MS65 CB Halves and see if you can be convinced that 90% of those coins "are" solid for the grade. CAC's numbers must not include any gold coins because their sticker rates in MS64-67 grades are fairly low. If we just looked at the MS65 and higher grades it would be 15-25%....and half that level for $20 Libs/Saints. I once saw an order of 125 mixed PCGS/NGC MS65 Saints go into CAC....6 got stickered. On the question of stickering let's not forget the Gardner 1 sale where approx 55% of the NCG coins stickered and 65% of the PCGS coins. And those coins were often picked and evaluated by one of the best graders in the business. Can't forget the 150+ seated halves in the Dick Osburn collection. It was made up of 55% NGC and 45% PCGS coins. The NGC sticker rate was an astounding 3%....PCGS was a more reasonable 38%.....combined rate of 19%. All of these collections are a long ways from 90%.
I see that there is some disagreement with my recollections of the first John Pittman sale. My comments were solely based on my attendance during the Pittman, Part One auction in October 1997, focusing on the U.S. gold portion. The overall impression that I retain to this day was that the excitement was palpable, attendance was great, and that the prices were strong, particularly for the gold material. A close dealer friend, Al Adams, had a significant ‘buy list’ from his Gold Rush Collection client and in fact, came away with some of the stellar gold pieces from the sale, including the incredible 1833 and 1835 half eagle Proofs.
Rather than to go back-and-forth about our respective memories of an auction that occurred almost 18 years ago, I thought that it would be more beneficial for me to post two articles published in the November 10, 1997 issue of Coin World, soon after the Pittman, Part One sale was 'in the books.'
Pittman coinage awes bidders as many compete for great rarities Coins in the first three sessions realize $11.8 million total
By Mark Ferguson Special to Coin World
Part one of the John Jay Pittman collection auction, conducted in three sessions on Oct. 21-23 by David Akers Numismatics Inc. in Baltimore, realized $11,822,283, astonishing the late Pittman’s family and bidders alike.
The first session realized $1,046,870; the second session, $3,260,246; and the third session, $7,515,167.
The top bid for a single coin in the auction was $467,500 for a Proof 1833 Capped Head, Large Wide Date $5 half eagle. The winning bid, which includes the 10 percent buyer’s fee, is even more astonishing in light of Pittman’s 1954 purchase price for the coin: $635!
The 1833 half eagle is David Akers’ favorite coin of Pittman’s entire collection. Just two of these coins are known; the other one resides in the Smithsonian Institution. When the lot was reached, auctioneer Tom Mulvaney joked, “Whoever buys this lot has to grant visitation rights in perpetuity to David Akers!”
The lot opened at $300,000. Gold coin dealer Al Adams was the winner. He was acting as agent for “The Gold Rush Collection,” which is not only a high-end coin collection, but is comprised of many other historical items related to the Gold Rush days.
The Gold Rush Collection was also the purchaser of Pittman’s gem Proof 1835 Classic Head half eagle. It opened at $120,000 and climbed to settle at $308,000. Just three of these coins are known. One is in the Smithsonian, and in one easy guess we can figure out who owns the third. Yes, John Jay Pittman! (Note: There was no mention of the second example).
Additional coverage of the John Jay Pittman Collection appears on Pages 8, 16, and 30.
Pittman auction wows bidders Many coins bring thousands of times their purchase price
By Mark Ferguson Special to Coin World
Approximately 200 people, including a large contingent of family and family friends, looked on Oct. 21 in Baltimore’s Marriott Inner Harbor Hotel as David Akers Numismatics Inc. auctioneer Tom Mulvaney launched the first of a three-session auction by calling for bids on the late John Jay Pittman’s favorite coin: a 1936 Canadian “Dot” cent.
A very small dot appears below the date. The coin is one of three known, all resident in the John Jay Pittman Collection. Catalogued as a “Gem Specimen,” Lot No. 1 opened at $35,000 and after very competitive bidding – including participation from the Bank of Canada – the lot soared to reach a final price of $121,000, including the 10 percent buyer’s fee.
Prices reported throughout include the 10 percent buyer’s fee.
Thirteen lots of common Canadian coins were sold as Mulvaney worked hard at keeping up a brisk pace before Lot 15, the 1936 Canadian “Dot” dime, came up for sale. It is known for a tiny dot that appears below the wreath on its reverse. Akers cataloged it as “gem Specimen” with “Matte Proof surfaces.” The Pittman specimen is one of four known. Two are owned by the Bank of Canada, the remaining one by Pittman. No 1936 “Dot” dime had ever been offered at public auction. (Note: No mention was made of the third specimen).
Lot 15 opened at $32,500 and virtually the same group of bidders who vied for Lot 1 were in the chase. At the end of the bidding, the price had risen to an astounding $132,000.
The Dot dime surprised Polly Pittman, John’s daughter. “It went right past $80,000 and sold for more than the Dot cent!” she exclaimed.
Both “Dot” coins were sold to collectors. Their prices greatly exceeded the auction firm’s pre-sale estimates, which were $50,000 to $60,000 for the Dot cent, and $40,000 to $50,000 for the Dot dime.
Other Canadian coins in the sale comprised Uncirculated and Specimen coins, similar to Proof coins of United States issue. Bidding was intense for virtually each coin in the session. Less than 10 percent of the Canadian coins were sold to mail bidders and the vast majority sold for multiples of their opening bids.
U.S. coins brought more bidders into the action. First to cross the auction block were U.S. Colonial coins. The first was Lot 107, a Very Fine 1662 Massachusetts Oak Tree twopence, purchased at auction by Pittman on Dec. 12, 1945, for $14. It sold for $400.
Half cents and large cents followed the Colonials and fierce competition ensued, as it did for the rest of (the) first session. Competition was so tough that just one of a total of 291 lots in the U.S. section went to a mail bidder, and the auction took nearly twice as long as an average auction to sell the lots.
Catalogued as “one of the finest of JJP’s Proof Half Cents,” was a very rare 1847 Coronet half cent, “very choice Proof.” It cost John $73.50 in the B. Max Mehl sale of the Dr. C.A. Allenburger Collection on March 23, 1948. The coin fetched $12,100 in this sale.
In the large cent section a Sheldon 71 variety (Penny Whimsy, by William H. Sheldon) 1794 Liberty Cap cent graded choice Very Fine brought $3,300; an Uncirculated 1795 Liberty Cap, Plain Edge cent which cost $165 on April 23, 1960, brought $5,500.
Lot No. 196 was a “possibly unique Proof 1819/8 large cent.” It opened at $4,700 and sold to dealer Keven Lipton at $19,800 in a heated contest with dealer Anthony Terranova. The catalog states, “JJP purchased this Proof for $70 as Lot 568 of the Anderson DuPont sale of September 24-25, 1954, conducted by Stack’s.”
Lot 227 brought out “all kinds of bidders” as auctioneer Tom Mulvaney remarked during the heat of the bidding action. The coin is an 1837 Coronet, Plan Hair Cord, Medium Letters cent graded gem Uncirculated. Its price climbed from $300 to $4,125. After Lot 235, a choice Proof 1841 Coronet cent, was hammered down to dealer Kevin Lipton for $16,500, an audible whistle came from someone in the crowd who was amazed by the price. Pittman paid $80 for the coin on Aug. 7, 1952.
The Pittman collection wasn’t comprised of just rarities. He collected many coins which are also sought after by today’s collectors of average means. The home stretch (of) the first session of the auction offered a selection of Proof and Mint State Flying Eagle and Indian Head cents, Lincoln cents, 2- and 3-cent coins, and Shield, Liberty, and Indian Head 5-cent coins.
The catalog lists examples of some of the prices Pittman paid that are fun to compare to the prices for which they sold. For example, he purchased an 1877 Indian Head cent cataloged as “Good to Very Good” for $4.40; it sold for $412.50. He paid 65 cents on July 20, 1943, for a choice Uncirculated 11910-S Lincoln cent which sold for $357.50.
A “very choice Proof” 1869 2-cent coin brought $2,200. John bought that one for $40 in March 1961.
The top copper-nickel 3-cent coin, a “very choice Proof” 1865, realized $3,850. He paid $225 for the coin.
Two “gem Proof” Liberty 5-cent coins – a 1907 and a 1909 – tied for top spot in that series at $1,320 each. He paid $19 for the 1909 in July 1961.
Three “choice Uncirculated” Indian Head 5-cent coins purchased in April 1952 sold as follows: 1918-D. $1,430, original cost $31; 1919-S, $2,420, original cost $38; 1920-S, $3,300, original cost $36.
The second session of the John Jay Pittman Collection auction Oct. 22 began with a run of silver 3-cent coins forming a complete date set which included Proofs and Mint State examples except the 1859. Prices for these coins were extremely strong.
The very rare 1802 Draped Bust half dime in Extremely Fine condition came up for sale a few lots later. It brought $55,000 for a 1947 investment of $630.
A choice About Uncirculated 1805 Draped Bust half dime described as “possibly the second or third finest known,” was purchased by Pittman on May 24, 1952, for $88. It brought $14,300.
The Seated Liberty half dime offering began with an 1837, No Stars, Large Date in Gem Proof, described as “one of the finest of just 16-20 proofs known.” It opened at $24,000 and climbed to $60,500. Pittman bought the coin for $25 on July 15, 1947.
An 1840 Seated Liberty, No Drapery, choice Proof, (brought) $24,200, cost on Aug. 21, 1947, $20. An 1849 gem Proof, (brought) $38,500, cost, $17.50 on Oct. 25, 1946.
One notable coin for which loud chatter was heard in the crowd after its sale was an 1853 Seated Liberty, Arrows at Date half dime, graded Gem Uncirculated, that opened at $7,500 and soared to $77,000! This coin was described by Walter Breen as a Proof. Cataloger Akers doesn’t agree, calling it “gem Uncirculated,” but states “others may examine it and feel as Breen, Bullowa, Pittman and others did in 1952 that it is a Proof.” The coin was purchased by dealer Julian Liedman, acting as agent for a collector who, Leidman says, is building a complete set of Proofs.
The dimes began with an Uncirculated 1796 Draped Bust, Four Berries dime which brought $20,900, purchased by Pittman for $30 in June 1945.
Next was a 1797 Draped Bust, 16 Stars, Pointed 9 dime, graded very choice Uncirculated. Pittman bought it June 15, 1950, at a cost of $180. It sold for $66,000.
An 1805 Draped Bust, Four Berries dime in gem Uncirculated brought $82,500. Pittman’s cost was $27 in December 1945.
An 1807 Draped Bust dime described as gem Uncirculated that he purchased for $10.75 in February 1946 found a new home for $49,500. As its price escalated the auctioneer exclaimed, “There’s $30,000 everywhere!”
The 1839 half dollar pattern in Gem Proof, which was featured in Coin World’s pre-sale six-part series, fetched $46,750 after opening at $18,000.
The 1877 $50 “Half Union” pattern struck in copper fetched $110,000 in heated bidding. Dealer Kevin Lipton won the lot as agent for the collector he was representing while the two were communicating via cellular phone.
One coin Pittman was reluctant to reveal he owned was his 1916 Walking Liberty half dollar pattern. He believed it might be illegal to own, and therefore subject to confiscation. At auction the pattern brought $35,750.
Attendance at the second session grew from the opening session and bidding competition intensified. Total prices realized during the second session (was) $3,260,246, including the 10 percent buyer’s fee.
The very choice Proof 1854 Indian Head gold dollar featured in the six-part Coin World series sold for $176,000. It is one of four gold coins he won at auction in 1956 when he stood like the Statue of Liberty facing the crowd with his hand held high in the air, daring anyone to bid against him.
A choice Uncirculated 1854 Indian Head gold dollar may have provided the best return on his money. He paid $7 for it in October 1945. Auction attendees watched it bring $55,000 in this sale.
Pittman’s choice Proof 1855 Indian Head gold dollar brought $121,000.
Another 67 gold lots, most realizing several thousand dollars each, were auctioned before cataloger (Note: this is a sentence fragment – with the end of the sentence missing).
Gold coins are the hottest items in the coin market today, and some of the prices realized at the John Jay Pittman sale were extraordinary. Dealer Jay Parrino, who has set many price records in recent years, said he didn’t buy as much as he wanted to at the Pittman sale because prices were just too high.
Following is just a small sampling of the significant pieces: gem Proof 1836 Classic Head, Large 5 half eagle, $198,000, three are known; very choice Uncirculated 1837 Classic Head half eagle, $60,500; choice Uncirculated 1840-C Coronet half eagle, $77,000; choice Uncirculated 1841-C Coronet half eagle, $42,350; 1842 Coronet, Small Date, Small Letters Proof half eagle, $93,500; gem Uncirculated 1847 Coronet half eagle, $110,000; choice Proof 1848 Coronet half eagle, $93,500; gem Proof 1900 Coronet half eagle, $88,000; gem Uncirculated 1910-D Indian Head half eagle, $73,150. When this last lot was sold the auctioneer said, “These numbers are just too big!”
Pittman loved Proof coins, and this run of Proof Coronet $20 gold coins reveals a pricing trend: 1876 Proof, $55,000; 1888 very choice Proof, $63,250; 1889 very choice Proof, $52,800; 1890 choice Proof, $30,800.
When a gem Proof 1891 Coronet (double) eagle came up for sale the auctioneer exclaimed, “One of my favorite coins in the sale!” The coin proceeded to sell for $60,500.
After an 1896 gem Proof (double eagle) sold for $121,000, a few people applauded and an audience member yelled, “Way to go!”
One of Pittman’s favorite coins was his gem Proof 1913 Saint-Gaudens double eagle because 1913 was his birth year. The coin realized $74,250!
1) Col. Jessup: <<Let's have a statistical study of how this strategy worked overall. Was more money made for the consignor by keeping them raw? As a whole consignment?
I am challenging the assertion that there was such a strategy. The reasons why the Pittman coins were sold 'raw' may be unrelated to expectations of prices realized. Pittman's preference for raw coins and his opposition to TPGs was cultural rather than financial. I am skeptical of Jessup's point that Akers had complete authority. Even if Akers did, he may have been respecting Pittman's wishes, rather than implementing a strategy. As George Kellogg points out in this thread, it is widely believed that Pittman was opposed to the TPGs and that he did not wish for his coins to be encapsulated.
2) It is a logical deduction, not speculation, that more coins would have sold to collectors and more collectors would have competitively participated if the Pittman coins had been sent to PCGS before being auctioned. The difference between a 67-level price and a 66-level price, for the same coin, is often very large. If Akers' said that a coin is "Gem Uncirculated," as he often did in the Pittman catalogues, collectors would then have been nervous about how the coin will be graded by PCGS. Collectors with knowledge of coin markets realized that speculating wholesalers sometimes pay a 67-level price for a coin may not grade 67 before being submitted a half-dozen times, if it ever does. I was at both Pittman sales and I did interview players involved. Even someone who was not there, however, could logically conclude that many collectors would have preferred that the coins be certified before the auction. I know of a couple instances where Akers said a coin is a Proof and PCGS did not, and there is at least one gold coin that Akers said is not a Proof, though was certified as a Proof ATS. IMO, it is readily apparent that there would have been more collector bidding had the coins been certified by PCGS before the Pittman sales in 1997 and 1998.
3) Analyst: Kellogg: <<I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, ...>>
Analyst: <<This statement is false. I attended both sales. Wholesalers were not shut out. I took notes regarding the prices realized and the successful bidders. Wholesalers, including coin doctors, bought a lot of coins, especially those that were gauged to be likely to be certified as grading from 66 to 68.
Col. Jessup: Analyst is much more accurate. There were a LOT of marginal no-grades and bodaciously under-graded coins. ... Back at Pittman, I bought a 20-S Saint grade AU for under 30K that grade 63 (both TPGs) and doubled up. Jeff Garrett, as my underbidder, must have thought it was a touch more "un-new" Jeff Isaac bought a '49 Moffat $5 called EX to AU for choice to gem money 25K'ish? that graded 65>> at PCGS or ATS.
Col. Jessup is here providing examples of coins that probably would have brought higher prices in the Pittman sales had they been sent to PCGS beforehand. If I had time now, I would be glad to provide many other examples. People who know how to grade coins, and were there at these auctions, would not find this to be a controversial point.
4) George Kellogg: <<Rather than to go back-and-forth about our respective memories of an auction that occurred almost 18 years ago>>
I have detailed notes. I attended both sales and I interviewed others involved.
George Kellogg:<< I thought that it would be more beneficial for me to post two articles published in the November 10, 1997 issue of Coin World, ...>>
These two lists of prices realized, one of which points out that many of Pittman's personal friends and family members were present, does not in any way substantiate Kellogg's argument in this thread that the coins realized more in raw format than they would had they been PCGS certified. A comparison of market levels in 1998 to prices Pittman paid in the late 1940s and early 1950s is not relevant to the topics in this thread, and, IMO, the author of those auction reports made a mistake by emphasizing them. It was obvious enough that Pittman's coins were worth far more in 1998 than they were in 1948, and the prices Pittman paid are mentioned in the catalogues, anyway. Should I thank George Kellogg for ignoring my detailed analyses of auction results, which are often 3000 words long, and providing publicity for auction reports by this author?
As an example, the Proof 1833 Half Eagle, which both Kellogg and the colonel mentioned above, was later PCGS certified as Proof-67! If it had been so certified before the auction, it may have realized far more than 467,500 at the Pittman sale. Coin buyers were even more focused on 67 to 68 grades in 1997 than they are now. The possibility that it might only end up grading 66 or 65 deterred some bidders from competing at pertinent levels. During the 1990s, 'quality is everything,' in some form or another, was a motto that I often heard among leading buyers at auctions.
In Oct. 1997, none of us felt sure that PCGS would grade the Pittman 1833 Half Eagle as 67. One leading buyer at the time, who I know well, would have bid on it then if he had known that it would be PCGS graded 67. It might have realized 700k, or more, had it been PCGS certified.
5) I do not understand Roadrunner's remarks above regarding CAC percentages. I have discussed the matter with JA on many occasions. Generally, 30% to 40% of submissions receive CAC stickers.
My impression is that the % of Pogue I coins that stickered is much higher than 40%. Does Kellogg really believe that CAC stickers in this case would not lead to higher prices realized?
It is a logical deduction, not speculation, that more coins would have sold to collectors and more collectors would have competitively participated if the Pittman coins had been sent to PCGS before being auctioned. The difference between a 67-level price and a 66-level price, for the same coin, is often very large. If Akers' said that a coin is "Gem Uncirculated," as he often did in the Pittman catalogues, collectors would then have been nervous about how the coin will be graded by PCGS. Collectors with knowledge of coin markets realized that speculating wholesalers sometimes pay a 67-level price for a coin may not grade 67 before being submitted a half-dozen times, if it ever does.....
In any of the dozens of major raw coin auctions I attended from 1988-2004 I can state that if a coin was nice enough to have a shot at the next grade up, there were typically always 2 bidders (usually dealers or very high end collectors) who would bid it up near those levels. It didn't matter that the other 90% of the people in the room didn't see it that way. The 2-3 high bidders would take it up there. I've seen dozens of the big market players bid coins up that way during those years. Colonel Jessup was one of those people. And was right more often than not. Pittman, Eliasberg, Queller, Vermeulle, Buffalo Historical Society, etc. were raw sales where there were always a couple of bidders who were willing to move a higher end coin to the next grade level price. If the collectors weren't willing to jump in and do that, the dealers certainly were. At least in those sales it probably made little difference if the collectors stayed away, the dealers were happy to buy the stuff up.
I do not understand Roadrunner's remarks above regarding CAC percentages. I have discussed the matter with JA on many occasions. Generally, 30% to 40% of submissions receive CAC stickers. My impression is that the % of Pogue I coins that stickered is much higher than 40%. Does Kellogg really believe that CAC stickers in this case would not lead to higher prices realized?
You can discuss it with JA all you like, the information I presented on CAC submissions above was real. There's no way in heck that MS65 Saints and $20 Libs sticker at a 30-40% rate (it's 5% to 15% tops). This is from personal experience, not guessing. The CAC results from the Dick Osburn sale (3% NGC - 38% PCGS) is part of the record book. No doubt Pogue will sticker at levels equal or higher than Newman or Gardner (55-65%). But those kind of rates don't apply for average coins being assembled by average collectors. A quick glance thorough the pop reports of PCGS and NGC will easily show that 30-40% sticker rates on certain type coins in 64-67 grades is impossible.....especially with NGC coins. Don't let the 75-98% stickering rates of the top and fussiest collectors in the country fool anyone that picking out the best coins is simple. Now on MS65 common date Morgan dollars, walkers, mercs, commems, and other more commonly seen coins, no doubt the sticker rate is 30-50%. But for MS65 or MS66 bust halves? Forget it.
<< <i>1) Col. Jessup: <<Let's have a statistical study of how this strategy worked overall. Was more money made for the consignor by keeping them raw? As a whole consignment?
I am challenging the assertion that there was such a strategy. The reasons why the Pittman coins were sold 'raw' may be unrelated to expectations of prices realized. Pittman's preference for raw coins and his opposition to TPGs was cultural rather than financial. I am skeptical of Jessup's point that Akers had complete authority. Even if Akers did, he may have been respecting Pittman's wishes, rather than implementing a strategy. As George Kellogg points out in this thread, it is widely believed that Pittman was opposed to the TPGs and that he did not wish for his coins to be encapsulated.
You don't know the people and I did. Raw for potential was always Dave's way. Listen to QDB's memorial to Dave on Youtube. What we saw was Dave operationalizing a plan he and JJP had discussed long before and of which the whole family was aware. It meshed with John's anti-TPG sentiments and matched Dave's preferences in this area. Under-promise and over-deliver. And was a great marketing plan. Ask Polly Pittman. Ask Tom Mulvaney. Before you challenge an assertion, try to find out what probability there is that it may be true. You have no basis for your speculation. It is your fantasy, and naught else..
2) It is a logical deduction, not speculation, that more coins would have sold to collectors and more collectors would have competitively participated if the Pittman coins had been sent to PCGS before being auctioned. The difference between a 67-level price and a 66-level price, for the same coin, is often very large. If Akers' said that a coin is "Gem Uncirculated," as he often did in the Pittman catalogues, collectors would then have been nervous about how the coin will be graded by PCGS. Collectors with knowledge of coin markets realized that speculating wholesalers sometimes pay a 67-level price for a coin may not grade 67 before being submitted a half-dozen times, if it ever does. I was at both Pittman sales and I did interview players involved. Even someone who was not there, however, could logically conclude that many collectors would have preferred that the coins be certified before the auction. I know of a couple instances where Akers said a coin is a Proof and PCGS did not, and there is at least one gold coin that Akers said is not a Proof, though was certified as a Proof ATS. IMO, it is readily apparent that there would have been more collector bidding had the coins been certified by PCGS before the Pittman sales in 1997 and 1998.
The Pittman 1831 QE is not now and never a proof. Brian got very very lucky, which he does with regularity. Which is a sign of genius. But look at the reverse and try to imagine???? It has been an orphan ever since. Dave not only knew, he taught many of us. Wrong fabric. IIRC one die used for proof and regular production. Also, the LEAST doubt anyone had about one of Dave's grades was "GEM". If your guy knew Dave, he would know this.
A logical deduction or conclusion is not a fact. It is a speculation. It is merely the beginning of a theory.
What does your recording of bids show about dealer purchases as a percentage of overall sales? Many of the coins were essentially unknown at or even close to the grade level of Pittman's. How many collectors would have paid 10K-20K-50K? Damn near every would with the capability to have had an onsite expert look at the coins. Except. The values? 50% of the lots probably brought "stupid money" to 90% of the room. Many were totally unprecedented. For generations. Pop-tops? It is to laugh. It's like Andy and my old 1858 $10 now PCGS MS64, as it was before. And contrary to what might have supposed, as was with the urban legend lately, now disproved, I did not dip it. Jesse Lipka did for Warren Miller, thinking it would 65, and now it won't CAC. But it's an extreme condition rarity and the next closest is a ratty NGC MS61. Please figure what it might be worth. Mr. Simpson did"
Now bear in mind the structure of the market in the sales years. Very little internet or online bidding was around. Very few great coins were around at this time, and not much overall market activity to give them a base from which to work. The spreads on 66-68 material were usually much tighter, except perhaps for the monsters, and they are always outliers.
3) Analyst: Kellogg: <<I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, ...>>
Analyst: <<This statement is false. I attended both sales. Wholesalers were not shut out. I took notes regarding the prices realized and the successful bidders. Wholesalers, including coin doctors, bought a lot of coins, especially those that were gauged to be likely to be certified as grading from 66 to 68.
Col. Jessup: Analyst is much more accurate. There were a LOT of marginal no-grades and bodaciously under-graded coins. ... Back at Pittman, I bought a 20-S Saint grade AU for under 30K that grade 63 (both TPGs) and doubled up. Jeff Garrett, as my underbidder, must have thought it was a touch more "un-new" Jeff Isaac bought a '49 Moffat $5 called EF to AU for choice to gem money 25K'ish? that graded 65>> at PCGS or ATS.
Col. Jessup is here providing examples of coins that probably would have brought higher prices in the Pittman sales had they been sent to PCGS beforehand. If I had time now, I would be glad to provide many other examples. People who know how to grade coins, and were there at these auctions, would not find this to be a controversial point.
Then make your point by quoting them. Take the time. Collate your notes and generate a spread sheet of your price estimates before the sale as well as what coins actually brought. .
4) George Kellogg: <<Rather than to go back-and-forth about our respective memories of an auction that occurred almost 18 years ago>>
I have detailed notes. I attended both sales and I interviewed others involved.
I was there, sweating blood in the trenches and trying to figure out what was what, sometimes on the fly, a lot at a time, along with the many other dealers who had "skin in the game".
George Kellogg:<< I thought that it would be more beneficial for me to post two articles published in the November 10, 1997 issue of Coin World, ...>>
These two lists of prices realized, one of which points out that many of Pittman's personal friends and family members were present, does not in any way substantiate Kellogg's argument in this thread that the coins realized more in raw format than they would had they been PCGS certified. A comparison of market levels in 1998 to prices Pittman paid in the late 1940s and early 1950s is not relevant to the topics in this thread, and, IMO, the author of those auction reports made a mistake by emphasizing them. It was obvious enough that Pittman's coins were worth far more in 1998 than they were in 1948, and the prices Pittman paid are mentioned in the catalogues, anyway. Should I thank George Kellogg for ignoring my detailed analyses of auction results, which are often 3000 words long, and providing publicity for auction reports by this author?
As an example, the Proof 1833 Half Eagle, which both Kellogg and the colonel mentioned above, was later PCGS certified as Proof-67! If it had been so certified before the auction, it may have realized far more than 467,500 at the Pittman sale. Coin buyers were even more focused on 67 to 68 grades in 1997 than they are now. The possibility that it might only end up grading 66 or 65 deterred some bidders from competing at pertinent levels. During the 1990s, 'quality is everything,' in some form or another, was a motto that I often heard among leading buyers at auctions.
Every idiot on the block knew how very very extra special the '33 $5 was with one glance. 67 was easy. The coin is unimaginable. There are now and never were "pertinent levels" for this coin, just intensity of lust. Now in the Pogue Collection from 2005 FUN Platinum where Al sold "Gold Rush". TPG grading would have had no measurable effect on what it brought. Very few had a clue on value. No exclamation point needed. BTW, this coin is in the Pogue Collection. All a theory of mine. But formed from owning 6 proof Classic $2 1/2's, one classic $5, the Garrett 1821 proof $2 1/2 and Dave's 1838 proof $10. So maybe I have a different perspective. I bought coins on Dave's behalf from 1985 till 1989 at quite a few NYC and LA auctions. I was not alone in this. We talk amongst ourselves. Sometimes you can learn more at dinner than in the auction room.
In Oct. 1997, none of us felt sure that PCGS would grade the Pittman 1833 Half Eagle as 67. One leading buyer at the time, who I know well, would have bid on it then if he had known that it would be PCGS graded 67. It might have realized 700k, or more, had it been PCGS certified.
NONE of us????. Your buddy was blind. And a wuss if $700K was his number for a 67. What was his number if it was "only" a 66. The idea that anyone might consider 65 a, is beyond "whatever????. A cursory glance at the CoinFacts image would rule this out. And no photo can do it justice. CAM or DCAM? (and it is). Yes, that would change the value . . .
5) I do not understand Roadrunner's remarks above regarding CAC percentages. I have discussed the matter with JA on many occasions. Generally, 30% to 40% of submissions receive CAC stickers.
My impression is that the % of Pogue I coins that stickered is much higher than 40%. Does Kellogg really believe that CAC stickers in this case would not lead to higher prices realized?
Roadrunner: << There's no way in heck that MS65 Saints and $20 Libs sticker at a 30-40% rate (it's 5% to 15% tops)>>
In general, 30% to 40% of coins submitted to CAC receive stickers. I am aware that the % for generic Saints is lower. For most other series, the sticker % is higher than the sticker % is for generic Saints. The other collections that Roadrunner cited are not topics in this thread and are beside the main points here.
Roadrunner: <<In any of the dozens of major raw coin auctions I attended from 1988-2004 I can state that if a coin was nice enough to have a shot at the next grade up, there were typically always 2 bidders (usually dealers or very high end collectors) who would bid it up near those levels. It didn't matter that the other 90% of the people in the room didn't see it that way. The 2-3 high bidders would take it up there. I've seen dozens of the big market players bid coins up that way during those years. Colonel Jessup was one of those people>>
I attended many of the same auctions. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my earlier posts to this thread. I thought it was obvious that a coin certified before an auction will not always sell for a higher price at auction than it would if the same coin was raw. Many of the coins to which Roadrunner refers are type coins. Yes, some of the type coins in the Pittman Collection realized higher prices in raw format than they would have had they been certified. A few such type coins notwithstanding, there were many collectors who were eager to acquire early Proofs and better dates. There would have been much greater participation from collectors and retail dealers if the coins had been PCGS certified before the auction. A catalogue description of "Gem Uncirculated," in an Akers catalogue, may refer to a coin that would be PCGS graded anywhere from 64 to 68! Obviously, there are wealthy collectors that would have felt more comfortable and would have been more aggressive if the coins were already PCGS certified. I am astonished that my point here is being challenged.
As for collectors hiring experts as consultants, this is a great idea and many collectors do so. But, collectors want both for the coin to be already certified and to have an additional opinion from an outside expert. Besides, even the best of outside experts cannot perfectly predict how PCGS will grade coins.
Col. Jessup: <<What we saw was Dave operationalizing a plan he and JJP had discussed long before and of which the whole family was aware. It meshed with John's anti-TPG sentiments and matched Dave's preferences in this area ...>>
The colonel seems to be backtracking and coming closer to my interpretation of the reasons why the Pittman coins were sold in raw format. I demonstrated in an earlier post that Akers auctioned many certified coins, including coins from clients who would have allowed him to 'crack them out.' In other cases, Akers did just that, cracked coins out of their respective holders prior to auctioning them. The colonel seems to be lending credence to my theory that Akers and Pittman verbally agreed that the coins would be auctioned raw.
My theory, which is supported by much evidence, is that Pittman wanted it this way for personal and cultural reasons; he was genuinely opposed to TPGs and encapsulation. His position on the matter was not a secret. IMO, he was wrong; I am a believer in 3rd party grading. Even so, Pittman would have wanted us to emphasize his personal and cultural views on the matter now, as we are doing here, all these years later. I do not perceive that there was a strategy to maximize prices realized in the Pittman sales. Although he was not as opposed as Pittman, Akers had intense doubts about certification, which were not entirely financial in nature.
Col. Jessup: <<What does your recording of bids show about dealer purchases as a percentage of overall sales? >>
It is impossible to know exactly. I may have been a little too firm in my responses above to Kellogg's view. It is true that there was substantial collector participation, and there were quite a few serious collectors a the Pittman sales.
I am saying that, had the Pittman coins been PCGS certified before the auctions, there would have been more collector participation and overall prices realized would have been higher. Yes, as Roadrunner suggests, there are a few coins here and there, especially type coins, that would have brought lower prices if certified beforehand. But, a large number of coins would have brought higher prices had they been certified before the auction. There were collectors and some dealer-bidders who did not have the batting averages to get hits in an all-star game, and not everyone has the patience to submit the same coins more than once to TPGs.
Col. Jessup: <<Every idiot on the block knew how very very extra special the '33 $5 was with one glance. 67 was easy>>
This coin has readily noticeable imperfections. Although its certified grade may be widely accepted now, much grade-inflation has occurred since 1997. There are many coins that graded 65 or 66 in 1997 that now grade 67. Besides, the colonel is ignoring my point that collectors in 1997 did not know that PCGS would grade it as 67! If it had been PCGS certified before the auction, there is a good chance that it would then have brought more than it did.
Are Col. Jessup, Roadrunner and George Kellogg now agreeing, at least to an extent, with my theory that the coins the Pogue I sale would be likely to realize higher prices, on average (not in every case) with known CAC approvals than they would would have if they had never been sent to CAC?
This is not speculation. This is a theory stemming from experience, knowledge, research and careful thinking. Who else has been meticulously grading coins AND analyzing auction results for more than twenty years?
Your factoids are impressive. Let's face it, your pal was wrong about the grade, and I'm sure others were too. Proof of the pudding is in the eating. Don't bother with anecdotal reports of other grading events from which to extrapolate. Stone 67. Not perfect, just OMFUG amazing. But then I'm not much more than a partially-blind world class grader who helped JA start NGC, used to be a really good crack-out artist, and never put more than several hundred thousand dollars of my own money into any one of my opinions. Including 8 pieces of Classic and earlier proof gold.
BTW, I thought the craquelure on the Mona Lisa brought it down one point. . . .
What you state as a theory about Pittman dispersal, what you might have presumed or implied I now shift my position towards, if I'm reading this right, is something you see as confirmation of or in congruence with some part of your theory, whatever.... I'll just say you guesed right. I have what Dave told me 15 years ago. It doesn't agree or coincide with your theory. It predates it, is verifiable fact, and something diligent research would have uncovered. I would respect your having reported that. But no theory has any relevance when facts directly refuting it predate its postulation. I would like to state definitively that I KNOW LESS ABOUT THE PITTMAN COINS THAN AT LEAST 15 TO 30 OTHERS. Nevertheless, try to catch up.
I won't bother speculating about CAC vs. non-CAC prices for Pogue. If I'm reading the situation rightly, no further Pogue coins will go to CAC. Likely there's some ego involved, but I'd imagine the major factor to be considered is the "theory" that the lack of any sticker will create more interest in such coins and enthusiasm will project the crème de la crème de la crème to levels that will not reflect badly on 67 coins CAC might think are 66+ when the next finest might be miles lower in grade.
I hate to get all ego-trippy on you (a lie), but..... never mind. I'm not here to blow my own horn (mostly), but to spread good info and point out bad.
And, especially, good cheer.....
In this thread, my work is done. Actually, in more ways than one, overdone.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>I think you mean 'less conservative' in your next-to-last sentence above. >>
How do you figure? If just about everything got a sticker, that would indicate very conservative grading, no? >>
'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think you mean 'less conservative' in your next-to-last sentence above. >>
How do you figure? If just about everything got a sticker, that would indicate very conservative grading, no? >>
'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist. >>
????
That's bass ackwards
<< <i>'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist. >>
He was referring to TPG grading, not CAC grading.
EDIT: What does "chosen by a specialist" have to do with anything? If a TPG slaps a 67 grade on a PQ 65
coin, it most likely won't sticker, no matter how nice it is.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think you mean 'less conservative' in your next-to-last sentence above. >>
How do you figure? If just about everything got a sticker, that would indicate very conservative grading, no? >>
'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist. >>
I think we were talking past each other. I was addressing CAC being more or less conservative in their awarding of stickers to the Pogue coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>'More conservative' (tight grading standards) means less stickers awarded. 'Less conservative' (liberal grading standards) means more stickers awarded. My overall point, however, was that the typical marketplace CAC success rate doesn't apply to the Pogue coins -- as each Pogue coin was carefully chosen by a specialist. >>
He was referring to TPG grading, not CAC grading.
EDIT: What does "chosen by a specialist" have to do with anything? If a TPG slaps a 67 grade on a PQ 65
coin, it most likely won't sticker, no matter how nice it is. >>
The specialists that I know are going to 'pass' on a PQ 65 coin in a 67 slab. If we can't concede that Mr. Pogue had the ability to recognize 'solid for the grade' (i.e., CAC worthy) coins, then why is everyone so excited about the upcoming Pogue auctions?
<< <i>The specialists that I know are going to 'pass' on a PQ 65 coin in a 67 slab. If we can't concede that Mr. Pogue had the ability to recognize 'solid for the grade' (i.e., CAC worthy) coins, then why is everyone so excited about the upcoming Pogue auctions? >>
I'm assuming the coins were regraded at the time of being placed in the special holders. If that was not
the case, then I can see what you are saying.
Kellogg: << Don't forget that the first Pittman auction was held almost 18 years ago --
I have not forgotten. I was writing about Pittman Collection coin then and have done so on innumerable occasions since. Is any living person more familiar with the Pittman Collection than I am? Other than the wholesalers, Richard Burdick and Stewart Blay, am I the only person who examined a large percentage of the gem quality, 19th century coins?
Kellogg: << ... when the prevalence of all-certified auctions wasn't as widespread as the situation today
This statement is not accurate. The era had come to an end, with the exception of an occasional raw consignment to Stack's (New York). Indeed, during the 1990s, except for old-time consignments to Stack's (New York), a firm that was much different from the current Stack's-Bowers, high quality, classic U.S. coins were graded by PCGS or ATS, before they were auctioned.
Kellogg: << Regardless of how the 'coin presentation' decision [to sell Pittman's coins raw] was made, I believe that it had the unqualified approval of Mr. Akers.>>
I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that this is true and there is much evidence to the contrary. Regarding the Akers-Paramount session of Auction '90, the Rarcoa-Akers Chicago '91 sale, the Akers session of Numisma '95, most gradable coins were certified, though Akers tended to 'crackout' coins that he thought were undergraded, in a commercial sense, by the TPGs. As collectors were nervous about raw coins in such events, my guess is that the reason for the crackouts was for the wholesalers to speculate that those would receive higher grades than they received before they were 'cracked out.' If Kellogg digs out those catalogues, I would be glad to provide examples.
During the ''97 and '98 Pittman sales, Akers added other auction sessions, which included many certified coins. The Wynsen Collection, if spelled correctly here, and the Thaine Price Collection included many certified coins.
Kellogg: <<I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, ...>>
This statement is false. I attended both sales. Wholesalers were not shut out. I took notes regarding the prices realized and the successful bidders. Wholesalers, including coin doctors, bought a lot of coins, especially those that were gauged to be likely to be certified as grading from 66 to 68. Moreover, I know collectors who did not participate because the coins were not certified. There was collector participation, though not to the extent that there was at the Eliasberg sales during the same time period.
For both the Eliasberg and Pittman Collections, it may be true that the auction firms were prohibited by the respective consignors from sending the coins to PCGS.
<< The auction room was packed -- standing room only.>>
I did not have trouble finding seats for all sessions. Further, the vast majority of those in attendance were dealers. Besides, if the coins had been PCGS certified, there would have been more bidders who were not physically present.
TDN: <<Point is that 1804 dollars should be carefully examined and bid on with eyes wide open. Their grades rarely translate literally, but rather represent a ranking of the known coins. >>
Is TDN saying that he agrees with the "ranking"?
1804 Silver Dollar Sells for $3.88 million
<< <i>Kellogg: << Don't forget that the first Pittman auction was held almost 18 years ago --
I have not forgotten. I was writing about Pittman Collection coin then and have done so on innumerable occasions since. Is any living person more familiar with the Pittman Collection than I am? Other than the wholesalers, Richard Burdick and Stewart Blay, am I the only person who examined a large percentage of the gem quality, 19th century coins
NO! VIRTUALLY EVERY MAJOR AND MANY MANY SECOND TIER DEALERS HAS SEEN EVERY COIN IN BOTH SALES. And most of us are still hanging on. Is wholesaler information excluded or discounted?
What do your stats show as the total number of lots sold to dealers vs collectors and total value of lots categorized the same way. Is this useful information (scientifically gathered) from which strong correlation trends can be derived?
Stewart Blay is in prison. Did you visit him at Fort Dix?
Kellogg: << ... when the prevalence of all-certified auctions wasn't as widespread as the situation today
This statement is not accurate. The era had come to an end, with the exception of an occasional raw consignment to Stack's (New York). Indeed, during the 1990s, except for old-time consignments to Stack's (New York), a firm that was much different from the current Stack's-Bowers, high quality, classic U.S. coins were graded by PCGS or ATS, before they were auctioned. While the trend towards a higher percentage of auction coins certified began increasing from a an already solid base.
Kellogg: << Regardless of how the 'coin presentation' decision [to sell Pittman's coins raw] was made, I believe that it had the unqualified approval of Mr. Akers.>>
I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that this is true and there is much evidence to the contrary. Regarding the Akers-Paramount session of Auction '90, the Rarcoa-Akers Chicago '91 sale, the Akers session of Numisma '95, most gradable coins were certified, though Akers tended to 'crackout' coins that he thought were undergraded, in a commercial sense, by the TPGs. As collectors were nervous about raw coins in such events, my guess is that the reason for the crackouts was for the wholesalers to speculate that those would receive higher grades than they received before they were 'cracked out.' If Kellogg digs out those catalogues, I would be glad to provide examples.
Let's have a statistical study of how this strategy worked overall. Was more money made for the consignor by keeping them raw? As a whole consignment? How does one speculate on the price of gem proof Type II G$1 when the Bass coins had not yet appeared? Many would not bid on these coins at any level? Much anecdotal information has no relevance when looking at it from the consignor's perspective. Same reason that QDB went "raw' with Eliasberg non-gold.
During the ''97 and '98 Pittman sales, Akers added other auction sessions, which included many certified coins. The Wynsen Collection, if spelled correctly here, and the Thaine Price Collection included many certified coins.
So what? Separate catalogues. Nothing to do with the Pittman coins, though Thaine Price was pretty amazing.
Kellogg: <<I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, ...>>
This statement is false. I attended both sales. Wholesalers were not shut out. I took notes regarding the prices realized and the successful bidders. Wholesalers, including coin doctors, bought a lot of coins, especially those that were gauged to be likely to be certified as grading from 66 to 68.
Analyst is much more accurate. There were a LOT of marginal no-grades and bodaciously under-graded coins. Al Adams bought the 1833 $5, and the one of the Classic $5's (35 or 36) (all proof) as well as some Southern gold.
You'll see the '33 in Pogue. PR67DCAM. Brent paid just under $1M about 5-6 years ago in the Platinum Night when Al sold the deal for his investor(s). Back at Pittman, I bought a 20-S Saint grade AU for under 30K that grade 63 (both TPGs) and doubled up. Jeff Garrett, as my underbidder, must have thought it was a touch more "un-new" Jeff Isaac IIRC bought a '49 Moffat $5 called EX to AU for choice to gem money 25K'ish? that graded 65.
Moreover, I know collectors who did not participate because the coins were not certified. There was collector participation, though not to the extent that there was at the Eliasberg sales during the same time period.
For both the Eliasberg and Pittman Collections, it may be true that the auction firms were prohibited by the respective consignors from sending the coins to PCGS.
And it may not. As a matter of fact, it IS NOT . The level of correlation in that speculative statement, at least as far as Pittman, is ZERO. Ask Richard, Tom Mulvaney or Polly Pittman. They are still alive.
<< The auction room was packed -- standing room only.>>
I did not have trouble finding seats for all sessions. Further, the vast majority of those in attendance were dealers.
True on seating and attendance. However, every major collector in the country had know about many of these coins for decades, even more. John had a ball showing an entire case of Southern gold at some ANA conventions. Bragged on his stuff endlessly. Any collector worth his salt would have had an agent looking at lots for him
Besides, if the coins had been PCGS certified, there would have been more bidders who were not physically present.
TDN: <<Point is that 1804 dollars should be carefully examined and bid on with eyes wide open. Their grades rarely translate literally, but rather represent a ranking of the known coins. >>
Is TDN saying that he agrees with the "ranking"?
I heard nothing at all whatsoever that suggests he doesn't. Most do, though he "might" not agree with the slab grade. I do believe the condition census matches order in the grades of the "known" "population". What I derive from TDN's remark is "buy the coin, not the holder" That I grade the Muscat-Oman/Childs coin 66+ at best has nothing to do with it being head and shoulders above the closest in both CC and Pop ranking. Maybe my grade was a scaredy-cat response. When I held the coins from the KOS set raw in my hands at Dave Bowers suggestion, I graded the $1 64+ At the time, I did not expound upon my grade to save myself the ridicule and embarrassment; LOL, few would have cared what it might have been. As far as the Muscat/Oman-Childs-Pogue 1804 goes, I may take the time to look at it again.. .
1804 Silver Dollar Sells for $3.88 million >>
I was also at both sales. Let's remember the telecommunication problems and limitations at that time.The latter of the two was Pittman. More selective. Eliasberg had everything. Broader range of targets, more bidders. Good raw auctions of market-fresh and physically fresh planchets continued until Northern Bay. 5-6 years later? Buddy Byers 2006? Raw collections surely vanished by the end of this period.
Dave Akers made no secret that he had control of dispersal. Not approval from the family. JJP had already made a clear choice, and a very good one. John knew that his family understood this. Polly, his daughter, worked with DWA and Tom Mulvaney for months and months on cataloguing, but as a participant and advisor, not controlling the process, which had been defined as "whatever Dave says". JJP's widow Gehring IIRC had a tough time letting go. .
I'm still waiting for Son of CAC to arrive on the scene, someone to verify CAC's work-LOL!
<< <i>I do not agree with the 'fight for famous coins in our holder' gradeflation that led to increases of 2-3 points for each 1804 $1. However, since that cat is out of the bag then I feel that a ranking of the field of specimens is the best that's going to be accomplished. Would I love to own a famous 1804 Class I dollar despite the scratched out spot in the left obverse field? Sure....but I'd have to gulp really really hard to stomache the 67 grade on the label. Unfortunately, if downgraded then it falls below the gently cleaned gem or the counter marked specimens in ranking. Such a conundrum!!! >>
Stick to your gun's.
Please don't focus on the pedigree just to add an inferior coin to your collection.
You'll regret it the day the coin arrives.
No plastic, no plastic stickers and the market grades them at auction.
If the paper in the plastic is off, suddenly they are dreck.
Hmmmmm..... Do I look at the label and a price on a computer or look at and buy the coin. The pot is calling the coin black out there somewhere.
<< <i>I do not agree with the 'fight for famous coins in our holder' gradeflation that led to increases of 2-3 points for each 1804 $1. . . . >>
My sense is that this is exactly what went on.
Latin American Collection
<< <i>Stewart Blay is in prison. Did you visit him at Fort Dix? >>
Say what??
If CAC really stickered 90% of all PCGS/NGC coins, then we wouldn't be having these discussions....and there would be no need to. There's no way 90% of all slabbed coins are solid to high end. A 90% stickering rate would also mean no real need to do regrades....a huge drop in TPG revenues. A 90% sticker rates also suggests that 90% of the MS65 grade go MS65.4 to MS65.9....and only 10% grade from MS65.0 to MS65.3. Simply ludicrous. Even simple math/statistics would suggest 1/3 low end, 1/3 solid/average, 1/3 higher end. It also depends on the grading service too. Would there have even been a need for CAC if 90% of the coins were all solid for grade? No, of course not.
The really great coins that have been deep-sixed, probably only account for 20% of any particular grade. My own estimate of an "untouched/undistorted" grade distribution would be 20% low end, 60% solid, 20% high end (an average of the 2 grading services combined). But when you get into the distortions of upgrading/regrading/etc. then those numbers probably get skewed to something like 25/65/10%. One has to remember that all the coins graded MS64.7 to MS64.9 are good candidates to end up in MS65 holders someday (ie low end). Compare the populations of PCGS to NGC MS65 CB Halves and see if you can be convinced that 90% of those coins "are" solid for the grade. CAC's numbers must not include any gold coins because their sticker rates in MS64-67 grades are fairly low. If we just looked at the MS65 and higher grades it would be 15-25%....and half that level for $20 Libs/Saints. I once saw an order of 125 mixed PCGS/NGC MS65 Saints go into CAC....6 got stickered. On the question of stickering let's not forget the Gardner 1 sale where approx 55% of the NCG coins stickered and 65% of the PCGS coins. And those coins were often picked and evaluated by one of the best graders in the business. Can't forget the 150+ seated halves in the Dick Osburn collection. It was made up of 55% NGC and 45% PCGS coins. The NGC sticker rate was an astounding 3%....PCGS was a more reasonable 38%.....combined rate of 19%. All of these collections are a long ways from 90%.
Rather than to go back-and-forth about our respective memories of an auction that occurred almost 18 years ago, I thought that it would be more beneficial for me to post two articles published in the November 10, 1997 issue of Coin World, soon after the Pittman, Part One sale was 'in the books.'
Pittman coinage awes bidders as many compete for great rarities
Coins in the first three sessions realize $11.8 million total
By Mark Ferguson
Special to Coin World
Part one of the John Jay Pittman collection auction, conducted in three sessions on Oct. 21-23 by David Akers Numismatics Inc. in Baltimore, realized $11,822,283, astonishing the late Pittman’s family and bidders alike.
The first session realized $1,046,870; the second session, $3,260,246; and the third session, $7,515,167.
The top bid for a single coin in the auction was $467,500 for a Proof 1833 Capped Head, Large Wide Date $5 half eagle. The winning bid, which includes the 10 percent buyer’s fee, is even more astonishing in light of Pittman’s 1954 purchase price for the coin: $635!
The 1833 half eagle is David Akers’ favorite coin of Pittman’s entire collection. Just two of these coins are known; the other one resides in the Smithsonian Institution. When the lot was reached, auctioneer Tom Mulvaney joked, “Whoever buys this lot has to grant visitation rights in perpetuity to David Akers!”
The lot opened at $300,000. Gold coin dealer Al Adams was the winner. He was acting as agent for “The Gold Rush Collection,” which is not only a high-end coin collection, but is comprised of many other historical items related to the Gold Rush days.
The Gold Rush Collection was also the purchaser of Pittman’s gem Proof 1835 Classic Head half eagle. It opened at $120,000 and climbed to settle at $308,000. Just three of these coins are known. One is in the Smithsonian, and in one easy guess we can figure out who owns the third. Yes, John Jay Pittman! (Note: There was no mention of the second example).
Additional coverage of the John Jay Pittman Collection appears on Pages 8, 16, and 30.
Pittman auction wows bidders
Many coins bring thousands of times their purchase price
By Mark Ferguson
Special to Coin World
Approximately 200 people, including a large contingent of family and family friends, looked on Oct. 21 in Baltimore’s Marriott Inner Harbor Hotel as David Akers Numismatics Inc. auctioneer Tom Mulvaney launched the first of a three-session auction by calling for bids on the late John Jay Pittman’s favorite coin: a 1936 Canadian “Dot” cent.
A very small dot appears below the date. The coin is one of three known, all resident in the John Jay Pittman Collection. Catalogued as a “Gem Specimen,” Lot No. 1 opened at $35,000 and after very competitive bidding – including participation from the Bank of Canada – the lot soared to reach a final price of $121,000, including the 10 percent buyer’s fee.
Prices reported throughout include the 10 percent buyer’s fee.
Thirteen lots of common Canadian coins were sold as Mulvaney worked hard at keeping up a brisk pace before Lot 15, the 1936 Canadian “Dot” dime, came up for sale. It is known for a tiny dot that appears below the wreath on its reverse. Akers cataloged it as “gem Specimen” with “Matte Proof surfaces.” The Pittman specimen is one of four known. Two are owned by the Bank of Canada, the remaining one by Pittman. No 1936 “Dot” dime had ever been offered at public auction. (Note: No mention was made of the third specimen).
Lot 15 opened at $32,500 and virtually the same group of bidders who vied for Lot 1 were in the chase. At the end of the bidding, the price had risen to an astounding $132,000.
The Dot dime surprised Polly Pittman, John’s daughter. “It went right past $80,000 and sold for more than the Dot cent!” she exclaimed.
Both “Dot” coins were sold to collectors. Their prices greatly exceeded the auction firm’s pre-sale estimates, which were $50,000 to $60,000 for the Dot cent, and $40,000 to $50,000 for the Dot dime.
Other Canadian coins in the sale comprised Uncirculated and Specimen coins, similar to Proof coins of United States issue. Bidding was intense for virtually each coin in the session. Less than 10 percent of the Canadian coins were sold to mail bidders and the vast majority sold for multiples of their opening bids.
U.S. coins brought more bidders into the action. First to cross the auction block were U.S. Colonial coins. The first was Lot 107, a Very Fine 1662 Massachusetts Oak Tree twopence, purchased at auction by Pittman on Dec. 12, 1945, for $14. It sold for $400.
Half cents and large cents followed the Colonials and fierce competition ensued, as it did for the rest of (the) first session. Competition was so tough that just one of a total of 291 lots in the U.S. section went to a mail bidder, and the auction took nearly twice as long as an average auction to sell the lots.
Catalogued as “one of the finest of JJP’s Proof Half Cents,” was a very rare 1847 Coronet half cent, “very choice Proof.” It cost John $73.50 in the B. Max Mehl sale of the Dr. C.A. Allenburger Collection on March 23, 1948. The coin fetched $12,100 in this sale.
In the large cent section a Sheldon 71 variety (Penny Whimsy, by William H. Sheldon) 1794 Liberty Cap cent graded choice Very Fine brought $3,300; an Uncirculated 1795 Liberty Cap, Plain Edge cent which cost $165 on April 23, 1960, brought $5,500.
Lot No. 196 was a “possibly unique Proof 1819/8 large cent.” It opened at $4,700 and sold to dealer Keven Lipton at $19,800 in a heated contest with dealer Anthony Terranova. The catalog states, “JJP purchased this Proof for $70 as Lot 568 of the Anderson DuPont sale of September 24-25, 1954, conducted by Stack’s.”
Lot 227 brought out “all kinds of bidders” as auctioneer Tom Mulvaney remarked during the heat of the bidding action. The coin is an 1837 Coronet, Plan Hair Cord, Medium Letters cent graded gem Uncirculated. Its price climbed from $300 to $4,125. After Lot 235, a choice Proof 1841 Coronet cent, was hammered down to dealer Kevin Lipton for $16,500, an audible whistle came from someone in the crowd who was amazed by the price. Pittman paid $80 for the coin on Aug. 7, 1952.
The Pittman collection wasn’t comprised of just rarities. He collected many coins which are also sought after by today’s collectors of average means. The home stretch (of) the first session of the auction offered a selection of Proof and Mint State Flying Eagle and Indian Head cents, Lincoln cents, 2- and 3-cent coins, and Shield, Liberty, and Indian Head 5-cent coins.
The catalog lists examples of some of the prices Pittman paid that are fun to compare to the prices for which they sold. For example, he purchased an 1877 Indian Head cent cataloged as “Good to Very Good” for $4.40; it sold for $412.50. He paid 65 cents on July 20, 1943, for a choice Uncirculated 11910-S Lincoln cent which sold for $357.50.
A “very choice Proof” 1869 2-cent coin brought $2,200. John bought that one for $40 in March 1961.
The top copper-nickel 3-cent coin, a “very choice Proof” 1865, realized $3,850. He paid $225 for the coin.
Two “gem Proof” Liberty 5-cent coins – a 1907 and a 1909 – tied for top spot in that series at $1,320 each. He paid $19 for the 1909 in July 1961.
Three “choice Uncirculated” Indian Head 5-cent coins purchased in April 1952 sold as follows: 1918-D. $1,430, original cost $31; 1919-S, $2,420, original cost $38; 1920-S, $3,300, original cost $36.
The second session of the John Jay Pittman Collection auction Oct. 22 began with a run of silver 3-cent coins forming a complete date set which included Proofs and Mint State examples except the 1859. Prices for these coins were extremely strong.
The very rare 1802 Draped Bust half dime in Extremely Fine condition came up for sale a few lots later. It brought $55,000 for a 1947 investment of $630.
A choice About Uncirculated 1805 Draped Bust half dime described as “possibly the second or third finest known,” was purchased by Pittman on May 24, 1952, for $88. It brought $14,300.
The Seated Liberty half dime offering began with an 1837, No Stars, Large Date in Gem Proof, described as “one of the finest of just 16-20 proofs known.” It opened at $24,000 and climbed to $60,500. Pittman bought the coin for $25 on July 15, 1947.
An 1840 Seated Liberty, No Drapery, choice Proof, (brought) $24,200, cost on Aug. 21, 1947, $20. An 1849 gem Proof, (brought) $38,500, cost, $17.50 on Oct. 25, 1946.
One notable coin for which loud chatter was heard in the crowd after its sale was an 1853 Seated Liberty, Arrows at Date half dime, graded Gem Uncirculated, that opened at $7,500 and soared to $77,000! This coin was described by Walter Breen as a Proof. Cataloger Akers doesn’t agree, calling it “gem Uncirculated,” but states “others may examine it and feel as Breen, Bullowa, Pittman and others did in 1952 that it is a Proof.” The coin was purchased by dealer Julian Liedman, acting as agent for a collector who, Leidman says, is building a complete set of Proofs.
The dimes began with an Uncirculated 1796 Draped Bust, Four Berries dime which brought $20,900, purchased by Pittman for $30 in June 1945.
Next was a 1797 Draped Bust, 16 Stars, Pointed 9 dime, graded very choice Uncirculated. Pittman bought it June 15, 1950, at a cost of $180. It sold for $66,000.
An 1805 Draped Bust, Four Berries dime in gem Uncirculated brought $82,500. Pittman’s cost was $27 in December 1945.
An 1807 Draped Bust dime described as gem Uncirculated that he purchased for $10.75 in February 1946 found a new home for $49,500. As its price escalated the auctioneer exclaimed, “There’s $30,000 everywhere!”
The 1839 half dollar pattern in Gem Proof, which was featured in Coin World’s pre-sale six-part series, fetched $46,750 after opening at $18,000.
The 1877 $50 “Half Union” pattern struck in copper fetched $110,000 in heated bidding. Dealer Kevin Lipton won the lot as agent for the collector he was representing while the two were communicating via cellular phone.
One coin Pittman was reluctant to reveal he owned was his 1916 Walking Liberty half dollar pattern. He believed it might be illegal to own, and therefore subject to confiscation. At auction the pattern brought $35,750.
Attendance at the second session grew from the opening session and bidding competition intensified. Total prices realized during the second session (was) $3,260,246, including the 10 percent buyer’s fee.
The very choice Proof 1854 Indian Head gold dollar featured in the six-part Coin World series sold for $176,000. It is one of four gold coins he won at auction in 1956 when he stood like the Statue of Liberty facing the crowd with his hand held high in the air, daring anyone to bid against him.
A choice Uncirculated 1854 Indian Head gold dollar may have provided the best return on his money. He paid $7 for it in October 1945. Auction attendees watched it bring $55,000 in this sale.
Pittman’s choice Proof 1855 Indian Head gold dollar brought $121,000.
Another 67 gold lots, most realizing several thousand dollars each, were auctioned before cataloger (Note: this is a sentence fragment – with the end of the sentence missing).
Gold coins are the hottest items in the coin market today, and some of the prices realized at the John Jay Pittman sale were extraordinary. Dealer Jay Parrino, who has set many price records in recent years, said he didn’t buy as much as he wanted to at the Pittman sale because prices were just too high.
Following is just a small sampling of the significant pieces: gem Proof 1836 Classic Head, Large 5 half eagle, $198,000, three are known; very choice Uncirculated 1837 Classic Head half eagle, $60,500; choice Uncirculated 1840-C Coronet half eagle, $77,000; choice Uncirculated 1841-C Coronet half eagle, $42,350; 1842 Coronet, Small Date, Small Letters Proof half eagle, $93,500; gem Uncirculated 1847 Coronet half eagle, $110,000; choice Proof 1848 Coronet half eagle, $93,500; gem Proof 1900 Coronet half eagle, $88,000; gem Uncirculated 1910-D Indian Head half eagle, $73,150. When this last lot was sold the auctioneer said, “These numbers are just too big!”
Pittman loved Proof coins, and this run of Proof Coronet $20 gold coins reveals a pricing trend: 1876 Proof, $55,000; 1888 very choice Proof, $63,250; 1889 very choice Proof, $52,800; 1890 choice Proof, $30,800.
When a gem Proof 1891 Coronet (double) eagle came up for sale the auctioneer exclaimed, “One of my favorite coins in the sale!” The coin proceeded to sell for $60,500.
After an 1896 gem Proof (double eagle) sold for $121,000, a few people applauded and an audience member yelled, “Way to go!”
One of Pittman’s favorite coins was his gem Proof 1913 Saint-Gaudens double eagle because 1913 was his birth year. The coin realized $74,250!
1) Col. Jessup: <<Let's have a statistical study of how this strategy worked overall. Was more money made for the consignor by keeping them raw? As a whole consignment?
I am challenging the assertion that there was such a strategy. The reasons why the Pittman coins were sold 'raw' may be unrelated to expectations of prices realized. Pittman's preference for raw coins and his opposition to TPGs was cultural rather than financial. I am skeptical of Jessup's point that Akers had complete authority. Even if Akers did, he may have been respecting Pittman's wishes, rather than implementing a strategy. As George Kellogg points out in this thread, it is widely believed that Pittman was opposed to the TPGs and that he did not wish for his coins to be encapsulated.
2) It is a logical deduction, not speculation, that more coins would have sold to collectors and more collectors would have competitively participated if the Pittman coins had been sent to PCGS before being auctioned. The difference between a 67-level price and a 66-level price, for the same coin, is often very large. If Akers' said that a coin is "Gem Uncirculated," as he often did in the Pittman catalogues, collectors would then have been nervous about how the coin will be graded by PCGS. Collectors with knowledge of coin markets realized that speculating wholesalers sometimes pay a 67-level price for a coin may not grade 67 before being submitted a half-dozen times, if it ever does. I was at both Pittman sales and I did interview players involved. Even someone who was not there, however, could logically conclude that many collectors would have preferred that the coins be certified before the auction. I know of a couple instances where Akers said a coin is a Proof and PCGS did not, and there is at least one gold coin that Akers said is not a Proof, though was certified as a Proof ATS. IMO, it is readily apparent that there would have been more collector bidding had the coins been certified by PCGS before the Pittman sales in 1997 and 1998.
3) Analyst: Kellogg: <<I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, ...>>
Analyst: <<This statement is false. I attended both sales. Wholesalers were not shut out. I took notes regarding the prices realized and the successful bidders. Wholesalers, including coin doctors, bought a lot of coins, especially those that were gauged to be likely to be certified as grading from 66 to 68.
Col. Jessup: Analyst is much more accurate. There were a LOT of marginal no-grades and bodaciously under-graded coins. ... Back at Pittman, I bought a 20-S Saint grade AU for under 30K that grade 63 (both TPGs) and doubled up. Jeff Garrett, as my underbidder, must have thought it was a touch more "un-new" Jeff Isaac bought a '49 Moffat $5 called EX to AU for choice to gem money 25K'ish? that graded 65>> at PCGS or ATS.
Col. Jessup is here providing examples of coins that probably would have brought higher prices in the Pittman sales had they been sent to PCGS beforehand. If I had time now, I would be glad to provide many other examples. People who know how to grade coins, and were there at these auctions, would not find this to be a controversial point.
4) George Kellogg: <<Rather than to go back-and-forth about our respective memories of an auction that occurred almost 18 years ago>>
I have detailed notes. I attended both sales and I interviewed others involved.
George Kellogg:<< I thought that it would be more beneficial for me to post two articles published in the November 10, 1997 issue of Coin World, ...>>
These two lists of prices realized, one of which points out that many of Pittman's personal friends and family members were present, does not in any way substantiate Kellogg's argument in this thread that the coins realized more in raw format than they would had they been PCGS certified. A comparison of market levels in 1998 to prices Pittman paid in the late 1940s and early 1950s is not relevant to the topics in this thread, and, IMO, the author of those auction reports made a mistake by emphasizing them. It was obvious enough that Pittman's coins were worth far more in 1998 than they were in 1948, and the prices Pittman paid are mentioned in the catalogues, anyway. Should I thank George Kellogg for ignoring my detailed analyses of auction results, which are often 3000 words long, and providing publicity for auction reports by this author?
As an example, the Proof 1833 Half Eagle, which both Kellogg and the colonel mentioned above, was later PCGS certified as Proof-67! If it had been so certified before the auction, it may have realized far more than 467,500 at the Pittman sale. Coin buyers were even more focused on 67 to 68 grades in 1997 than they are now. The possibility that it might only end up grading 66 or 65 deterred some bidders from competing at pertinent levels. During the 1990s, 'quality is everything,' in some form or another, was a motto that I often heard among leading buyers at auctions.
In Oct. 1997, none of us felt sure that PCGS would grade the Pittman 1833 Half Eagle as 67. One leading buyer at the time, who I know well, would have bid on it then if he had known that it would be PCGS graded 67. It might have realized 700k, or more, had it been PCGS certified.
5) I do not understand Roadrunner's remarks above regarding CAC percentages. I have discussed the matter with JA on many occasions. Generally, 30% to 40% of submissions receive CAC stickers.
My impression is that the % of Pogue I coins that stickered is much higher than 40%. Does Kellogg really believe that CAC stickers in this case would not lead to higher prices realized?
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, part 1: Finest 1796 – ’97 Draped Bust Half Dollar
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 2: The Oliver Jung 1833 Half Dime
In any of the dozens of major raw coin auctions I attended from 1988-2004 I can state that if a coin was nice enough to have a shot at the next grade up, there were typically always 2 bidders (usually dealers or very high end collectors) who would bid it up near those levels. It didn't matter that the other 90% of the people in the room didn't see it that way. The 2-3 high bidders would take it up there. I've seen dozens of the big market players bid coins up that way during those years. Colonel Jessup was one of those people. And was right more often than not. Pittman, Eliasberg, Queller, Vermeulle, Buffalo Historical Society, etc. were raw sales where there were always a couple of bidders who were willing to move a higher end coin to the next grade level price. If the collectors weren't willing to jump in and do that, the dealers certainly were. At least in those sales it probably made little difference if the collectors stayed away, the dealers were happy to buy the stuff up.
I do not understand Roadrunner's remarks above regarding CAC percentages. I have discussed the matter with JA on many occasions. Generally, 30% to 40% of submissions receive CAC stickers. My impression is that the % of Pogue I coins that stickered is much higher than 40%. Does Kellogg really believe that CAC stickers in this case would not lead to higher prices realized?
You can discuss it with JA all you like, the information I presented on CAC submissions above was real. There's no way in heck that MS65 Saints and $20 Libs sticker at a 30-40% rate (it's 5% to 15% tops). This is from personal experience, not guessing. The CAC results from the Dick Osburn sale (3% NGC - 38% PCGS) is part of the record book. No doubt Pogue will sticker at levels equal or higher than Newman or Gardner (55-65%). But those kind of rates don't apply for average coins being assembled by average collectors. A quick glance thorough the pop reports of PCGS and NGC will easily show that 30-40% sticker rates on certain type coins in 64-67 grades is impossible.....especially with NGC coins. Don't let the 75-98% stickering rates of the top and fussiest collectors in the country fool anyone that picking out the best coins is simple. Now on MS65 common date Morgan dollars, walkers, mercs, commems, and other more commonly seen coins, no doubt the sticker rate is 30-50%. But for MS65 or MS66 bust halves? Forget it.
<< <i>1) Col. Jessup: <<Let's have a statistical study of how this strategy worked overall. Was more money made for the consignor by keeping them raw? As a whole consignment?
I am challenging the assertion that there was such a strategy. The reasons why the Pittman coins were sold 'raw' may be unrelated to expectations of prices realized. Pittman's preference for raw coins and his opposition to TPGs was cultural rather than financial. I am skeptical of Jessup's point that Akers had complete authority. Even if Akers did, he may have been respecting Pittman's wishes, rather than implementing a strategy. As George Kellogg points out in this thread, it is widely believed that Pittman was opposed to the TPGs and that he did not wish for his coins to be encapsulated.
You don't know the people and I did. Raw for potential was always Dave's way. Listen to QDB's memorial to Dave on Youtube. What we saw was Dave operationalizing a plan he and JJP had discussed long before and of which the whole family was aware. It meshed with John's anti-TPG sentiments and matched Dave's preferences in this area. Under-promise and over-deliver. And was a great marketing plan. Ask Polly Pittman. Ask Tom Mulvaney. Before you challenge an assertion, try to find out what probability there is that it may be true. You have no basis for your speculation. It is your fantasy, and naught else..
2) It is a logical deduction, not speculation, that more coins would have sold to collectors and more collectors would have competitively participated if the Pittman coins had been sent to PCGS before being auctioned. The difference between a 67-level price and a 66-level price, for the same coin, is often very large. If Akers' said that a coin is "Gem Uncirculated," as he often did in the Pittman catalogues, collectors would then have been nervous about how the coin will be graded by PCGS. Collectors with knowledge of coin markets realized that speculating wholesalers sometimes pay a 67-level price for a coin may not grade 67 before being submitted a half-dozen times, if it ever does. I was at both Pittman sales and I did interview players involved. Even someone who was not there, however, could logically conclude that many collectors would have preferred that the coins be certified before the auction. I know of a couple instances where Akers said a coin is a Proof and PCGS did not, and there is at least one gold coin that Akers said is not a Proof, though was certified as a Proof ATS. IMO, it is readily apparent that there would have been more collector bidding had the coins been certified by PCGS before the Pittman sales in 1997 and 1998.
The Pittman 1831 QE is not now and never a proof. Brian got very very lucky, which he does with regularity. Which is a sign of genius. But look at the reverse and try to imagine???? It has been an orphan ever since. Dave not only knew, he taught many of us. Wrong fabric. IIRC one die used for proof and regular production. Also, the LEAST doubt anyone had about one of Dave's grades was "GEM". If your guy knew Dave, he would know this.
A logical deduction or conclusion is not a fact. It is a speculation. It is merely the beginning of a theory.
What does your recording of bids show about dealer purchases as a percentage of overall sales? Many of the coins were essentially unknown at or even close to the grade level of Pittman's. How many collectors would have paid 10K-20K-50K? Damn near every would with the capability to have had an onsite expert look at the coins. Except. The values? 50% of the lots probably brought "stupid money" to 90% of the room. Many were totally unprecedented. For generations. Pop-tops? It is to laugh. It's like Andy and my old 1858 $10 now PCGS MS64, as it was before. And contrary to what might have supposed, as was with the urban legend lately, now disproved, I did not dip it. Jesse Lipka did for Warren Miller, thinking it would 65, and now it won't CAC. But it's an extreme condition rarity and the next closest is a ratty NGC MS61. Please figure what it might be worth. Mr. Simpson did"
Now bear in mind the structure of the market in the sales years. Very little internet or online bidding was around. Very few great coins were around at this time, and not much overall market activity to give them a base from which to work. The spreads on 66-68 material were usually much tighter, except perhaps for the monsters, and they are always outliers.
3) Analyst: Kellogg: <<I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, ...>>
Analyst: <<This statement is false. I attended both sales. Wholesalers were not shut out. I took notes regarding the prices realized and the successful bidders. Wholesalers, including coin doctors, bought a lot of coins, especially those that were gauged to be likely to be certified as grading from 66 to 68.
Col. Jessup: Analyst is much more accurate. There were a LOT of marginal no-grades and bodaciously under-graded coins. ... Back at Pittman, I bought a 20-S Saint grade AU for under 30K that grade 63 (both TPGs) and doubled up. Jeff Garrett, as my underbidder, must have thought it was a touch more "un-new" Jeff Isaac bought a '49 Moffat $5 called EF to AU for choice to gem money 25K'ish? that graded 65>> at PCGS or ATS.
Col. Jessup is here providing examples of coins that probably would have brought higher prices in the Pittman sales had they been sent to PCGS beforehand. If I had time now, I would be glad to provide many other examples. People who know how to grade coins, and were there at these auctions, would not find this to be a controversial point.
Then make your point by quoting them. Take the time. Collate your notes and generate a spread sheet of your price estimates before the sale as well as what coins actually brought. .
4) George Kellogg: <<Rather than to go back-and-forth about our respective memories of an auction that occurred almost 18 years ago>>
I have detailed notes. I attended both sales and I interviewed others involved.
I was there, sweating blood in the trenches and trying to figure out what was what, sometimes on the fly, a lot at a time, along with the many other dealers who had "skin in the game".
George Kellogg:<< I thought that it would be more beneficial for me to post two articles published in the November 10, 1997 issue of Coin World, ...>>
These two lists of prices realized, one of which points out that many of Pittman's personal friends and family members were present, does not in any way substantiate Kellogg's argument in this thread that the coins realized more in raw format than they would had they been PCGS certified. A comparison of market levels in 1998 to prices Pittman paid in the late 1940s and early 1950s is not relevant to the topics in this thread, and, IMO, the author of those auction reports made a mistake by emphasizing them. It was obvious enough that Pittman's coins were worth far more in 1998 than they were in 1948, and the prices Pittman paid are mentioned in the catalogues, anyway. Should I thank George Kellogg for ignoring my detailed analyses of auction results, which are often 3000 words long, and providing publicity for auction reports by this author?
As an example, the Proof 1833 Half Eagle, which both Kellogg and the colonel mentioned above, was later PCGS certified as Proof-67! If it had been so certified before the auction, it may have realized far more than 467,500 at the Pittman sale. Coin buyers were even more focused on 67 to 68 grades in 1997 than they are now. The possibility that it might only end up grading 66 or 65 deterred some bidders from competing at pertinent levels. During the 1990s, 'quality is everything,' in some form or another, was a motto that I often heard among leading buyers at auctions.
Every idiot on the block knew how very very extra special the '33 $5 was with one glance. 67 was easy. The coin is unimaginable. There are now and never were "pertinent levels" for this coin, just intensity of lust. Now in the Pogue Collection from 2005 FUN Platinum where Al sold "Gold Rush". TPG grading would have had no measurable effect on what it brought. Very few had a clue on value. No exclamation point needed. BTW, this coin is in the Pogue Collection. All a theory of mine. But formed from owning 6 proof Classic $2 1/2's, one classic $5, the Garrett 1821 proof $2 1/2 and Dave's 1838 proof $10. So maybe I have a different perspective. I bought coins on Dave's behalf from 1985 till 1989 at quite a few NYC and LA auctions. I was not alone in this. We talk amongst ourselves. Sometimes you can learn more at dinner than in the auction room.
In Oct. 1997, none of us felt sure that PCGS would grade the Pittman 1833 Half Eagle as 67. One leading buyer at the time, who I know well, would have bid on it then if he had known that it would be PCGS graded 67. It might have realized 700k, or more, had it been PCGS certified.
NONE of us????. Your buddy was blind. And a wuss if $700K was his number for a 67. What was his number if it was "only" a 66. The idea that anyone might consider 65 a, is beyond "whatever????. A cursory glance at the CoinFacts image would rule this out. And no photo can do it justice. CAM or DCAM? (and it is). Yes, that would change the value . . .
5) I do not understand Roadrunner's remarks above regarding CAC percentages. I have discussed the matter with JA on many occasions. Generally, 30% to 40% of submissions receive CAC stickers.
My impression is that the % of Pogue I coins that stickered is much higher than 40%. Does Kellogg really believe that CAC stickers in this case would not lead to higher prices realized?
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, part 1: Finest 1796 – ’97 Draped Bust Half Dollar
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 2: The Oliver Jung 1833 Half Dime >>
You're an excellent researcher. I have "sweat equity" in my knowledge. History will forget us both. . . .
Roadrunner: << There's no way in heck that MS65 Saints and $20 Libs sticker at a 30-40% rate (it's 5% to 15% tops)>>
In general, 30% to 40% of coins submitted to CAC receive stickers. I am aware that the % for generic Saints is lower. For most other series, the sticker % is higher than the sticker % is for generic Saints. The other collections that Roadrunner cited are not topics in this thread and are beside the main points here.
Roadrunner: <<In any of the dozens of major raw coin auctions I attended from 1988-2004 I can state that if a coin was nice enough to have a shot at the next grade up, there were typically always 2 bidders (usually dealers or very high end collectors) who would bid it up near those levels. It didn't matter that the other 90% of the people in the room didn't see it that way. The 2-3 high bidders would take it up there. I've seen dozens of the big market players bid coins up that way during those years. Colonel Jessup was one of those people>>
I attended many of the same auctions. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my earlier posts to this thread. I thought it was obvious that a coin certified before an auction will not always sell for a higher price at auction than it would if the same coin was raw. Many of the coins to which Roadrunner refers are type coins. Yes, some of the type coins in the Pittman Collection realized higher prices in raw format than they would have had they been certified. A few such type coins notwithstanding, there were many collectors who were eager to acquire early Proofs and better dates. There would have been much greater participation from collectors and retail dealers if the coins had been PCGS certified before the auction. A catalogue description of "Gem Uncirculated," in an Akers catalogue, may refer to a coin that would be PCGS graded anywhere from 64 to 68! Obviously, there are wealthy collectors that would have felt more comfortable and would have been more aggressive if the coins were already PCGS certified. I am astonished that my point here is being challenged.
As for collectors hiring experts as consultants, this is a great idea and many collectors do so. But, collectors want both for the coin to be already certified and to have an additional opinion from an outside expert. Besides, even the best of outside experts cannot perfectly predict how PCGS will grade coins.
Col. Jessup: <<What we saw was Dave operationalizing a plan he and JJP had discussed long before and of which the whole family was aware. It meshed with John's anti-TPG sentiments and matched Dave's preferences in this area ...>>
The colonel seems to be backtracking and coming closer to my interpretation of the reasons why the Pittman coins were sold in raw format. I demonstrated in an earlier post that Akers auctioned many certified coins, including coins from clients who would have allowed him to 'crack them out.' In other cases, Akers did just that, cracked coins out of their respective holders prior to auctioning them. The colonel seems to be lending credence to my theory that Akers and Pittman verbally agreed that the coins would be auctioned raw.
My theory, which is supported by much evidence, is that Pittman wanted it this way for personal and cultural reasons; he was genuinely opposed to TPGs and encapsulation. His position on the matter was not a secret. IMO, he was wrong; I am a believer in 3rd party grading. Even so, Pittman would have wanted us to emphasize his personal and cultural views on the matter now, as we are doing here, all these years later. I do not perceive that there was a strategy to maximize prices realized in the Pittman sales. Although he was not as opposed as Pittman, Akers had intense doubts about certification, which were not entirely financial in nature.
Col. Jessup: <<What does your recording of bids show about dealer purchases as a percentage of overall sales? >>
It is impossible to know exactly. I may have been a little too firm in my responses above to Kellogg's view. It is true that there was substantial collector participation, and there were quite a few serious collectors a the Pittman sales.
I am saying that, had the Pittman coins been PCGS certified before the auctions, there would have been more collector participation and overall prices realized would have been higher. Yes, as Roadrunner suggests, there are a few coins here and there, especially type coins, that would have brought lower prices if certified beforehand. But, a large number of coins would have brought higher prices had they been certified before the auction. There were collectors and some dealer-bidders who did not have the batting averages to get hits in an all-star game, and not everyone has the patience to submit the same coins more than once to TPGs.
Col. Jessup: <<Every idiot on the block knew how very very extra special the '33 $5 was with one glance. 67 was easy>>
This coin has readily noticeable imperfections. Although its certified grade may be widely accepted now, much grade-inflation has occurred since 1997. There are many coins that graded 65 or 66 in 1997 that now grade 67. Besides, the colonel is ignoring my point that collectors in 1997 did not know that PCGS would grade it as 67! If it had been PCGS certified before the auction, there is a good chance that it would then have brought more than it did.
Are Col. Jessup, Roadrunner and George Kellogg now agreeing, at least to an extent, with my theory that the coins the Pogue I sale would be likely to realize higher prices, on average (not in every case) with known CAC approvals than they would would have if they had never been sent to CAC?
This is not speculation. This is a theory stemming from experience, knowledge, research and careful thinking. Who else has been meticulously grading coins AND analyzing auction results for more than twenty years?
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, part 1: Finest 1796 – ’97 Draped Bust Half Dollar
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 2: The Oliver Jung 1833 Half Dime
BTW, I thought the craquelure on the Mona Lisa brought it down one point. . . .
What you state as a theory about Pittman dispersal, what you might have presumed or implied I now shift my position towards, if I'm reading this right, is something you see as confirmation of or in congruence with some part of your theory, whatever.... I'll just say you guesed right. I have what Dave told me 15 years ago. It doesn't agree or coincide with your theory. It predates it, is verifiable fact, and something diligent research would have uncovered. I would respect your having reported that. But no theory has any relevance when facts directly refuting it predate its postulation. I would like to state definitively that I KNOW LESS ABOUT THE PITTMAN COINS THAN AT LEAST 15 TO 30 OTHERS. Nevertheless, try to catch up.
I won't bother speculating about CAC vs. non-CAC prices for Pogue. If I'm reading the situation rightly, no further Pogue coins will go to CAC. Likely there's some ego involved, but I'd imagine the major factor to be considered is the "theory" that the lack of any sticker will create more interest in such coins and enthusiasm will project the crème de la crème de la crème to levels that will not reflect badly on 67 coins CAC might think are 66+ when the next finest might be miles lower in grade.
I hate to get all ego-trippy on you (a lie), but..... never mind. I'm not here to blow my own horn (mostly), but to spread good info and point out bad.
And, especially, good cheer.....
In this thread, my work is done. Actually, in more ways than one, overdone.