Comment on recent ANA auction
Gazes
Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
Asked about the recent ANA auction Christine Karstedt said "collectors demonstrated an enthusiasm for originality and true rarity...." My question ---going forward will originality and true rarity ever not demonstrate enthusiasm ?
0
Comments
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Asked about the recent ANA auction Christine Karstedt said "collectors demonstrated an enthusiasm for originality and true rarity...." My question ---going forward will originality and true rarity ever not demonstrate enthusiasm ?
Coins that qualify might only be 1-10% of the auction. If collectors really only wanted true rarity and originality, we'd have 90% less collectors, and 90% of the coins in auction wouldn't sell.
If there was just one coin in the auction that had both originality and true rarity, and 2 bidders aggressively went after it, then I'd guess she'd be right. There have been times in the past when the very best coins in the market, including those with TR&O, didn't do so well. The best coin I ever owned had TR&O in spades. When I bought it at auction the competition was weak. It sold for 32c on the dollar from its previous auction appearance 6 years earlier. I would have happily paid another 40% more for it. 4 years later it was worth 5X more. So there are times when even TR&O slips through the cracks. The definition of "originality" is a slippery one, especially for 1793-1807 coinage. I'd amend TR&O to be TROE. True Rarity, and Original Enough.
Is there even such a thing as an WFOM-ANA summer auction that doesn't demonstrate enthusiasm? I've been to Orlando FUN auction duds but never summer ANA auctions. Had I attended the summer 1982 ANA auction, that might have been a dud....though the buyers who were picking great coins cheap might have thought otherwise. I probably haven't been to enough summer ANA auctions.
Gazes:
19th century coins that are very much original are themselves scarce. I am not sure what Chris or Gazes here means by “true rarity.” In my articles, I consistently define rarity and/or use the term to refer to coins for which fewer than 500 survive, including Proofs, business strikes and varieties that are not classified as separate dates. A coin might be rare in Proof format, though not rare overall.
If just 450 survive of a date survive, much fewer than 450 are very much original. Since so many 19th century coins have been dipped or cleaned with chemicals, there are few that are close to being 100% original. How original would a coin have to be to meet Gazes’ definition of originality?
Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins
Roadrunner:
It is relevant that condition rarities of common 20th century coins tend to be popular, including Walkers, Buffalo Nickels and Mercs, Indian Head Quarter Eagles, too. Many are very original.
As Roadrunner notes, it is not clear which coins are part of the subject matter of this thread. Could it be true that collectors are now, more so than during the last decade, avoiding coins that have been recently dipped or apparently doctored?
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
Roadrunner:
IMO, it is best to refer to degrees of originality and degrees of rarity. There is no genuine, rare coin that is 0% original, and perhaps no 19th century coin is 100% original.
Rare Gold Coins under $5000 each, Part 9: ‘No Motto’ Liberty Head ($5 Gold) Half Eagles
US Civil War coinage
Historical Medals