@Wabbit2313 said:
Bill, you must have been bidding on it 2 years ago, thus the reason it went for double?
No, I would not have been bidding on that piece in the first place because I don't care for it. I would not have opened this string up the way I did if I did like it. I don't play those games.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@Wabbit2313 said:
Bill, you must have been bidding on it 2 years ago, thus the reason it went for double?
No, I would not have been bidding on that piece in the first place because I don't care for it. I would not have opened this string up the way I did if I did like it. I don't play those games.
It was a joke. All you have to do is place a bid on a coin and it's off to the races!
@AMRC said:
CAC is about grade and skin, not pretty.
I thought that it was also about avoiding traps. You can find this coin with original toning and no streak. That coin would be CAC worthy if all of the other factors are equal.
I would also be concerned about what is going on under the eagle's neck and beak.
Sorry, not seeing the whole "avoiding traps" on the CAC page. They sticker coins they think are in the top 2/3's of the grade, and that "appear" to be unmolested. "CAC" does not mean "eye appeal." If it did they would not be stikering 27% (+/-) of the coins that come through the door, it would be a number much less.
The only designation I have seen for eye appeal is the "*" used by NGC. Everything else is supposition.
MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
No, but it is supposedly grading the coin. Eye appeal is a critical component of mint state grading. A gem coin is supposedly appealing. With that dark streak, over all ho hum eye appeal, and the marks described by Col. Jessup, the coin is a marginal 65 at best. I think it is absurd to call this a solid/high end coin for a 65 let alone awarding this the lofty grade of MS66.
@cameonut2011 said:
" 'CAC' does not mean 'eye appeal.'"
No, but it is supposedly grading the coin. Eye appeal is a critical component of mint state grading. A gem coin is supposedly appealing. With that dark streak, over all ho hum eye appeal, and the marks described by Col. Jessup, the coin is a marginal 65 at best. I think it is absurd to call this a solid/high end coin for a 65 let alone awarding this the lofty grade of MS66.
I think people really should see a coin in hand before making such sweeping pronouncements. Pcgs saw it in hand - and graded it 65/66 at least twice. Cac saw it in hand and pronounced it as an A/B 65. Collectors saw an image and had a cow...
IMO, based on strike and surfaces represented in the images offered so far, the coin in the OP was over-graded as an MS65 (it's an MS64 in my opinion). It's egregiously over-graded as MS66, and this is a frighteningly common occurrence in the last decade or so.
Gradeflation sadness.
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
I think people really should see a coin in hand before making such sweeping pronouncements. Pcgs saw it in hand - and graded it 65/66 at least twice. Cac saw it in hand and pronounced it as an A/B 65. Collectors saw an image and had a cow...
Exactly! Which is why TPG's and CAC were invented. :-)
MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
I think people really should see a coin in hand before making such sweeping pronouncements. Pcgs saw it in hand - and graded it 65/66 at least twice. Cac saw it in hand and pronounced it as an A/B 65. Collectors saw an image and had a cow...
Exactly! Which is why TPG's and CAC were invented. :-)
Really? I thought they were invented to make money as middle-men and market-makers??
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
No - with the ugly dark reverse toning it's a no go for me even offered to me on the bourse at $8000 - 10 pct back of bid.
Not an A or B coin IMO. I expect MS 65 coins to have super luster and definitely no spots or ugly toning. It does not meet my standards in terms of eye appeal.
I wonder if it's gone bad in the holder since being graded.....yuck! Even without the ugly reverse toning I would find it kinda lackluster overall.
If the seller wants sell it start on the bay at 99c lol. Wb interesting c how it ends up.
I wonder if it's gone bad in the holder since being graded.....yuck! Even without the ugly reverse toning I would find it kinda lackluster overall.
No the claim is now that the coin was an "A" or "B" piece when it was in the MS-65 holder and that it now in an MS-66 holder.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I wonder if it's gone bad in the holder since being graded.....yuck! Even without the ugly reverse toning I would find it kinda lackluster overall.
No the claim is now that the coin was an "A" or "B" piece when it was in the MS-65 holder and that it now in an MS-66 holder.
That's not a claim, it's a fact. Much more accurate than sitting back and picking on coins off of poor auction images
If True Views are so horrible, then why does Legend Auctions use them for its catalogs? A lot of Legend images look like Secure Plus or True View images to me.
I wonder if it's gone bad in the holder since being graded.....yuck! Even without the ugly reverse toning I would find it kinda lackluster overall.
No the claim is now that the coin was an "A" or "B" piece when it was in the MS-65 holder and that it now in an MS-66 holder.
That's not a claim, it's a fact. Much more accurate than sitting back and picking on coins off of poor auction images
If True Views are so horrible, then why does Legend Auctions use them for its catalogs? A lot of Legend images look like Secure Plus or True View images to me.
I made no claim that True Views are horrible. You must have misunderstood something
You like everything with a CAC sticker on it, so that is hardly a surprise.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
what is this bug you have up your behind over CAC? It is extremely unbecoming.
The True Views show a wonderfully original coin. Would it be nicer without the toning streak? Of course! But I gave up wishing for fishes on 19th century coins long ago - you take what nature and circumstances leaves you and you accept them for what they are.
Two of my favorite coins (1851&52 dollars) are mottled and grey - but totally original and definite gems. The 20 cent piece in question is nicer to my eye than either of said seated dollars. I have no qualms at all about it being in a 65 holder with a CAC sticker.
If you weren't so damn anxious to make CAC look bad that you went looking for bad pics to rail against - and then refuse to acknowledge they were bad when presented with better ones - people might take your opinions more seriously
I'd have to see this coin in hand. Perhaps it looks different in hand. That said, this is an image imo of an ugly, overgraded coin. I don't want anything like that in my collection at any price.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
There was a comment earlier in this thread about how the 75-cc is the 2nd most common date. That's not quite the truth considering that in MS65 and higher, it's the 2nd toughest (MS) date behind the 1875, and not by much at all. In fact the 1875, 1875-cc, 1876 aren't all that far apart as a trio in gem. That said, there are plenty of proofs to pick from for the 1875 and 1876. No proofs for 1875-cc. There's also a hard core group of CC collectors who just want a ch/gem 1875-cc for type or CC sets. There's no such craziness for P/S mint coins. The lone affordable CC 20c piece wins on a number of accounts.
Very few of the gem 75-cc are in their natural state like this one. The colorful album toned ones are mostly on secondary toning. Short of the planchet streaking (or whatever that is) this is exactly how one should look. The funky NGC MS62 earlier in this thread has big reverse field luster breaks. I'd call it a borderline unc coin.
@tradedollarnut said:
what is this bug you have up your behind over CAC? It is extremely unbecoming.
The True Views show a wonderfully original coin. Would it be nicer without the toning streak? Of course! But I gave up wishing for fishes on 19th century coins long ago - you take what nature and circumstances leaves you and you accept them for what they are.
Two of my favorite coins (1851&52 dollars) are mottled and grey - but totally original and definite gems. The 20 cent piece in question is nicer to my eye than either of said seated dollars. I have no qualms at all about it being in a 65 holder with a CAC sticker.
If you weren't so damn anxious to make CAC look bad that you went looking for bad pics to rail against - and then refuse to acknowledge they were bad when presented with better ones - people might take your opinions more seriously
Well, I can tell you one thing with 100% certainty: The coin didn't double in value just because PCGS now thinks it is an MS66 (even though they called it an MS65 coin before).
It's the plastic that is being traded/collected here, not the coin. If anything is up anyone's behind -- it is a bunch of people's heads up the behinds of the TPGs and CAC.
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
what is this bug you have up your behind over CAC? It is extremely unbecoming.
And you can never admit that CAC ever makes a mistake. You are always making excuses for CAC, even when the problem is obvious, because you think that you have to tow the party line for the sake of your company’s marketing strategy.
Here is a better marketing slogan and strategy for you:
At Legend Numismatics we sell the best CAC approved coins that are available on the market today.
THAT statement would be almost impossible to dispute. I don’t think that any honest people could argue with that.
So, I pose it to you again. Here is that 1852 gold dollar, graded MS-63, with the “L” carved into the surface at the top of the obverse. How did this coin end up with a CAC sticker on it?
If were you, I would admit that it was a mistake on CAC’s part to sticker this or if you have to tow the party line, I would say nothing because anything you say in CAC’s defense will not reflect well upon you.
Since you are major CAC customer, I’d call up John and ask him how something like this could happen. Coins like this do not reflect well upon CAC image, given its marketing strategy. And it’s not the only example I have ever seen. But I know the excuses. It’s a picture and pictures are only good for grading speculations.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The funky NGC MS62 earlier in this thread has big reverse field luster breaks. I'd call it a borderline unc coin.
That's fine. I never tried to to pass it off as a great coin. It is fully struck which is unusual and which matters to me, and I didn't have to lay out more than $10,000 for it. I laid out a heck of a lot less. Unlike many collectors Carson City is not my favorite mint.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The CC 20c is not something I consider original. The damage from the horribly dark tarnish / dark area reverse on the first photo refutes this. Was it conserved to get the 66 grade? The obverse is bad too with dark tarnish damage plus tick on the arm. Looks like run over by truck - what a dog!
Irregardless, the coin is grossly unattractive in my view / as far as somebody get $16 k selling good luck I question if even Madoff could pull that off lol. I c nothing on it to indicate even above average luster. To be truly PQ the coin needs super luster no spots or ugly toning.
@tradedollarnut said:
How many times do I have to acknowledge that CAC does make mistakes before BJ will finally stop declaring that I never have or will???
This is first by my count, but that's progress, and I am glad that you have done it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@Cougar1978 said:
The 20c is not something I consider original. The damage from the horribly dark tarnish / dark area on the first photo refutes this.
Not if that streakiness is in the planchet. This is pretty common in seated material. High grade 1853 Arrows and Rays quarters frequently show something like this.
Legend probably does buy the best CAC certified coins available. That MS63 CAC $1 gold above is not "one of the best CAC certified" specimens. It would likely fail the Legend buy test.
@tradedollarnut said:
How many times do I have to acknowledge that CAC does make mistakes before BJ will finally stop declaring that I never have or will???
This is first by my count, but that's progress, and I am glad that you have done it.
Actually, your quoted post didn't admit anything, it just asked how many times you WOULD have to admit it before Bill was satisfied...
And apparently that satisfied him, which is nice.
I like the coin in the TV pics, but I don't think moving it from 65 to 66 will have a large impact on its subsequent auction prices. We've seen recently a few coins get upgraded and then sell for less, which makes sense because it's easier to get auction fever reaching for a likely upgrade then to stomach paying premium prices for a shiny new holder with the same coin in it.
The coin did fetch $16,450 in April 2015 as a CAC 65. In fact it was only the 2nd MS65 CAC to ever be auctioned by Heritage. It would appear someone back then felt it was nicer than most 65's. CAC by itself doesn't bring a 100% premium to lower end 65's. Decent 66's have sold at Heritage for $32K-$63K.
@BillJones said:
The piece a PCGS MS-65. The "Coin Facts" retail number is $15,000, and the curent Gray Sheet is $8,800. Would you pay $16,450 for it, given the toning issue on the reverse?
Only if you were writing the cheque on your account!
Tir nam beann, nan gleann, s'nan gaisgeach ~ Saorstat Albanaich a nis!
Comments
Bill, you must have been bidding on it 2 years ago, thus the reason it went for double?
No, I would not have been bidding on that piece in the first place because I don't care for it. I would not have opened this string up the way I did if I did like it. I don't play those games.
It was a joke. All you have to do is place a bid on a coin and it's off to the races!
Some coins need to be seen in hand... Based on the grade, this is one of them
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Agreed, but not sure about the context of this comment? Are we talking about CAC or PCGS?
Sorry, not seeing the whole "avoiding traps" on the CAC page. They sticker coins they think are in the top 2/3's of the grade, and that "appear" to be unmolested. "CAC" does not mean "eye appeal." If it did they would not be stikering 27% (+/-) of the coins that come through the door, it would be a number much less.
The only designation I have seen for eye appeal is the "*" used by NGC. Everything else is supposition.
I wouldn't pay $16,450 for any 20 cent piece
Find yourself a nice bust quarter for that price. It is worth $.05 more 
" 'CAC' does not mean 'eye appeal.'"
No, but it is supposedly grading the coin. Eye appeal is a critical component of mint state grading. A gem coin is supposedly appealing. With that dark streak, over all ho hum eye appeal, and the marks described by Col. Jessup, the coin is a marginal 65 at best. I think it is absurd to call this a solid/high end coin for a 65 let alone awarding this the lofty grade of MS66.
Both.
I think people really should see a coin in hand before making such sweeping pronouncements. Pcgs saw it in hand - and graded it 65/66 at least twice. Cac saw it in hand and pronounced it as an A/B 65. Collectors saw an image and had a cow...
IMO, based on strike and surfaces represented in the images offered so far, the coin in the OP was over-graded as an MS65 (it's an MS64 in my opinion). It's egregiously over-graded as MS66, and this is a frighteningly common occurrence in the last decade or so.
Gradeflation sadness.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Exactly! Which is why TPG's and CAC were invented. :-)
Really? I thought they were invented to make money as middle-men and market-makers??
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Only if I could pay in Hong Kong dollars.
No - with the ugly dark reverse toning it's a no go for me even offered to me on the bourse at $8000 - 10 pct back of bid.
Not an A or B coin IMO. I expect MS 65 coins to have super luster and definitely no spots or ugly toning. It does not meet my standards in terms of eye appeal.
I wonder if it's gone bad in the holder since being graded.....yuck! Even without the ugly reverse toning I would find it kinda lackluster overall.
If the seller wants sell it start on the bay at 99c lol. Wb interesting c how it ends up.
No the claim is now that the coin was an "A" or "B" piece when it was in the MS-65 holder and that it now in an MS-66 holder.
Interesting
Apparently, this is the new PQ gem.
No wonder the market has tanked...
That's not a claim, it's a fact. Much more accurate than sitting back and picking on coins off of poor auction images
I have to say that from the True View, I like it
If True Views are so horrible, then why does Legend Auctions use them for its catalogs? A lot of Legend images look like Secure Plus or True View images to me.
edited: You posted this TV
http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/25645118_46973322_2200.jpg
I made no claim that True Views are horrible. You must have misunderstood something
You like everything with a CAC sticker on it, so that is hardly a surprise.
what is this bug you have up your behind over CAC? It is extremely unbecoming.
The True Views show a wonderfully original coin. Would it be nicer without the toning streak? Of course! But I gave up wishing for fishes on 19th century coins long ago - you take what nature and circumstances leaves you and you accept them for what they are.
Two of my favorite coins (1851&52 dollars) are mottled and grey - but totally original and definite gems. The 20 cent piece in question is nicer to my eye than either of said seated dollars. I have no qualms at all about it being in a 65 holder with a CAC sticker.
If you weren't so damn anxious to make CAC look bad that you went looking for bad pics to rail against - and then refuse to acknowledge they were bad when presented with better ones - people might take your opinions more seriously
I'd have to see this coin in hand. Perhaps it looks different in hand. That said, this is an image imo of an ugly, overgraded coin. I don't want anything like that in my collection at any price.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
There was a comment earlier in this thread about how the 75-cc is the 2nd most common date. That's not quite the truth considering that in MS65 and higher, it's the 2nd toughest (MS) date behind the 1875, and not by much at all. In fact the 1875, 1875-cc, 1876 aren't all that far apart as a trio in gem. That said, there are plenty of proofs to pick from for the 1875 and 1876. No proofs for 1875-cc. There's also a hard core group of CC collectors who just want a ch/gem 1875-cc for type or CC sets. There's no such craziness for P/S mint coins. The lone affordable CC 20c piece wins on a number of accounts.
Very few of the gem 75-cc are in their natural state like this one. The colorful album toned ones are mostly on secondary toning. Short of the planchet streaking (or whatever that is) this is exactly how one should look. The funky NGC MS62 earlier in this thread has big reverse field luster breaks. I'd call it a borderline unc coin.
Well, I can tell you one thing with 100% certainty: The coin didn't double in value just because PCGS now thinks it is an MS66 (even though they called it an MS65 coin before).
It's the plastic that is being traded/collected here, not the coin. If anything is up anyone's behind -- it is a bunch of people's heads up the behinds of the TPGs and CAC.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
And you can never admit that CAC ever makes a mistake. You are always making excuses for CAC, even when the problem is obvious, because you think that you have to tow the party line for the sake of your company’s marketing strategy.
Here is a better marketing slogan and strategy for you:
At Legend Numismatics we sell the best CAC approved coins that are available on the market today.
THAT statement would be almost impossible to dispute. I don’t think that any honest people could argue with that.
So, I pose it to you again. Here is that 1852 gold dollar, graded MS-63, with the “L” carved into the surface at the top of the obverse. How did this coin end up with a CAC sticker on it?
If were you, I would admit that it was a mistake on CAC’s part to sticker this or if you have to tow the party line, I would say nothing because anything you say in CAC’s defense will not reflect well upon you.
Since you are major CAC customer, I’d call up John and ask him how something like this could happen. Coins like this do not reflect well upon CAC image, given its marketing strategy. And it’s not the only example I have ever seen. But I know the excuses. It’s a picture and pictures are only good for grading speculations.
That's fine. I never tried to to pass it off as a great coin. It is fully struck which is unusual and which matters to me, and I didn't have to lay out more than $10,000 for it. I laid out a heck of a lot less. Unlike many collectors Carson City is not my favorite mint.
How many times do I have to acknowledge that CAC does make mistakes before BJ will finally stop declaring that I never have or will???
The CC 20c is not something I consider original. The damage from the horribly dark tarnish / dark area reverse on the first photo refutes this. Was it conserved to get the 66 grade? The obverse is bad too with dark tarnish damage plus tick on the arm. Looks like run over by truck - what a dog!
Irregardless, the coin is grossly unattractive in my view / as far as somebody get $16 k selling good luck I question if even Madoff could pull that off lol. I c nothing on it to indicate even above average luster. To be truly PQ the coin needs super luster no spots or ugly toning.
This is first by my count, but that's progress, and I am glad that you have done it.
Not if that streakiness is in the planchet. This is pretty common in seated material. High grade 1853 Arrows and Rays quarters frequently show something like this.
Legend probably does buy the best CAC certified coins available. That MS63 CAC $1 gold above is not "one of the best CAC certified" specimens. It would likely fail the Legend buy test.
This is at least the tenth...
Actually, your quoted post didn't admit anything, it just asked how many times you WOULD have to admit it before Bill was satisfied...
And apparently that satisfied him, which is nice.
I like the coin in the TV pics, but I don't think moving it from 65 to 66 will have a large impact on its subsequent auction prices. We've seen recently a few coins get upgraded and then sell for less, which makes sense because it's easier to get auction fever reaching for a likely upgrade then to stomach paying premium prices for a shiny new holder with the same coin in it.
The coin did fetch $16,450 in April 2015 as a CAC 65. In fact it was only the 2nd MS65 CAC to ever be auctioned by Heritage. It would appear someone back then felt it was nicer than most 65's. CAC by itself doesn't bring a 100% premium to lower end 65's. Decent 66's have sold at Heritage for $32K-$63K.
https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?Ne=46&N=3183+790+231+362+73+3995+1580&expand=Mint+Mark&ic4=Refine-MintMark-102615
https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=3183+790+231+362+3995+1580+74+75&ic4=RemoveFilter-071515
Not if it was the only coin left on earth and I had the money to spend.
Not a chance.
I want to see TDN and Bill settle this in a cage match
Only if you were writing the cheque on your account!