Coin World: Flashy gold $20 double eagle graded Proof 64 Deep Cameo tops $200,000 at Platinum Night
Goldbully
Posts: 17,999 ✭✭✭✭✭
Flashy gold $20 double eagle graded Proof 64 Deep Cameo tops $200,000 at Platinum Night
Market Analysis: Strong bids for low mintage double eagles at Heritage’s 2018 CSNS auction
By Steve Roach , Coin World
Published : 05/08/18
Off the market for more than five decades, this 1883 Coronet $20 double eagle graded Proof 64 Deep Cameo sold
for $204,000 at Heritage’s April 26 Platinum Night auction......Original images courtesy of Heritage Auctions
An 1836 Classic Head gold $2.50 quarter eagle graded Proof 65+ Deep Cameo by Professional Coin Grading Service and bearing a Certified Acceptance Corp. green sticker realized $396,000 and emerged as the top lot of Heritage’s April 26 Platinum Night auction held at the Central States Numismatic Society’s annual convention in Schaumburg, Illinois. Heritage’s CSNS U.S. coin auctions totaled nearly $21 million, and rare gold coins led bidding.
Here is one of the low mintage Coronet gold $20 double eagles from the collection of S. Gus and Louise Alexander that demonstrate the sustained demand for fresh-to-market coins in this always popular series.
The Lot:
1883 Coronet $20 double eagle, PCGS Proof 64 Deep Cameo
The Price:
$204,000
The Story:
Well-heeled collectors and investors have long gravitated toward flashy Proof Coronet double eagles, and Heritage offered one, an 1883 $20 coin graded Proof 64 Deep Cameo by PCGS that sold for $204,000 at Central States. Much like the 1895 Morgan dollar, which is known only through Proof strikes, no 1883 double eagles were produced at the Philadelphia Mint for circulation, placing extra demand on the Proof versions as the sole representatives for the issue.
At its last public auction offering at a 1963 RARCOA sale, the cataloger noted, “Assuming there might be 10 such gem coins in existence, some of which might be in Museums, one can easily see the unlimited potential of such coins. They can easily become numismatic ‘Rembrandts.’ ”
The Proof-only mintage of 92 1883 Coronet double eagles is deceptive, since perhaps just 40 were released to collectors, of which 20 to 25 survive today in all grades, including two in the National Numismatic Collection and one at the American Numismatic Society.
Stunning coin.....would love to own her.
Just imagine owning a DCAM gold piece.
Comments
Amazing how the hair lines to the left of Liberty's neck as seen in the encapsulated coin disappear in the Tru View image. Any chance those are just scratches in the plastic?
No, it's just the lighting of the photo.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
A "proof 64" usually has hairlines from cleaning. Seems like a lot for less than the best. But it is individual choice, as in nearly everything from babies to burgers.
It's one of the most beautiful coins I've ever seen but it has so many problems LOL.
Crazy thing, the people who bid on these coins have "cheap earrings" that cost a lot more than this coin.
Absolutely, "stunning" !!!
beautiful
Thanks for sharing!
If the spot price remains less than gold, shouldn't "Platinum Night" be called something else?
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
RWB is right when he said, "A "proof 64" usually has hairlines from cleaning"....you can see the hairlines on zoom.
Not a real shocker IMHO.
Would look great to my proof set
Don't like all the scratches. ALMOST as bad as one of those toned silver coins.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
Amazing coin. Proof gold is mesmerizing
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Absolutely stunning!
Until about WW-II the gold sets sold for only a small premium.
They were the sardines of coins back then I guess. Now they are the caviar
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Rep. William Ashbrook, once bought a complete run of gold-silver-minor proof sets, 1862-1904, for about $2 over face. The Delaware widow he bought from was pleased with the price. Ashbrook quickly flipped the coins for $5 a set over face. (If I recall correctly from his diary.)
Kudos to @PCGSPhoto on a great image of a very special $20 gold proof.
There is something special about the Longacre designed $20 Proof gold. I once had a $20 PCGS PR62 1907 Liberty that I really liked. Sold it in a Summer FUN Auction a few years ago but wouldn't mind owning it again.
Here are photos, and an excerpt from the auction description:
"1907 $20 PR62 PCGS. The Liberty double eagle design had been struck since 1850, and the 1907 was the final year of issue. This date is somewhat overlooked as most of the focus in this year is on the new gold coins designed by Augustus Saint-Gaudens. Only 78 proof Liberty twenties were produced, and as on the previous five years, few show any degree of contrast. This is a deeply reflective proof with even medium orange-gold color. A few contact marks and obvious hairlines explain the grade. PCGS has certified six others in PR62, and there are only 28 finer "
Then, as pictured below, there is this one minted in the first year of circulation (1850) which I still own and which was at one time in the personal collection of its designer, James B. Longacre. When sold in his 1870 estate auction, as lot 178, it was at that time described as a "Proof."
Max Mehl in a subsequent 1949 auction, lot 719 of Dr. Green's collection, used the term "specimen," more specifically describing, "The obverse is brilliant and equal to a brilliant proof. The reverse has some proof surface, but not as brilliant as the obverse. There are traces of what seems to have been a wire edge... I classify it as a brilliant semi-proof, almost equal to a brilliant proof. It is far superior to any specimen of this date Double Eagle that has been offered. In fact, none of the collections of Double-Eagles which have appeared on the market in the history of American numismatics had a specimen to compare to it."
The subject 1850 $20 Liberty Double Eagle was more recently as lot 4170A of the 2001 Superior Galleries "Pre-Long Beach Sale" described: "The coin is ... pedigreed to Dr. C.W. Green ..... This coin has a beautiful bold strike with full stars and all other details sharp and clear. The fields are Prooflike and you can see clearly with magnification that the dies and planchet were enhanced prior to striking..."
Only one other 1850 $20 Liberty Double Eagle of similar appearance is known to exist today and it is located in a Paris museum. While Larry Briggs, as noted on the holder, has graded mine a PR-62, David Hall, based upon a viewing at the museum, has described the Paris specimen as a "cleaned" PR-61.
Having similar specimens from both 1850 and 1907 bookended the series for me. Interestingly both the 1850 $20 Liberty Double Eagle from its first year of commercial issue and the 1907 $20 Liberty Double Eagle from its last year of issue - were both opined by the respective grading services as a PR62.
As an added footnote, below are photos of the above referenced Paris museum, taken by a family member last month when meeting on my behalf with an official there regarding mine and their similar 1850 $20 Liberty Double Eagles - the only two such known to exist today.
That (and the following coins) is a truly beautiful specimen of proof gold....Just mesmerizing... I could look at that coin all day... good thing I do not own it... I would get nothing done.
Thanks for the pictures of the 1850 Northcoin... and the BnF pictures. Cheers, RickO
That's a beauty for sure.
My YouTube Channel
Thanks. 1907 was the last year of the mirror proof Double Eagles as the proof Saints that replaced them were matte proofs. I suspect that adds to the allure of the limited number of $20 gold proofs minted between 1850 and 1907.
Of course we can also add the single 1849 $20 Gold Double Eagle Proof that resides in the Smithsonian and if it or its rumored twin that allegedly ended up in private hands were ever to go on sale, it would likely be the most expensive U.S. minted coin. (Some have offered estimates of three times the ten million dollars that TDN's silver Early Dollar went for, the coin that currently holds the record for being the most expensive U.S. minted coin.)
I don’t consider that True View to be representative of the coin
Would definitely complete my collection
Thank you for sharing 
Interesting. Does this happen often? It would have been interesting to see how my 1907 $20 Proof as pictured above would have come out in a True View. My offered photographs were from the auction. Do any of the major auctions use True View photos and/or are they sometimes used on EBay Auction listings?
$200K plus and no CAC ?
So it's not just me. Funny if it was a fake haha
Am I correct in assuming that a CAC would have had to have been backed up by an agreement to purchase? If so there would likely be a disincentive for CAC to sticker very expensive coins even if the coin otherwise was deserving of a sticker?
Good observation, maybe they operate like insurance....will only "bind" up to a certain amount.
I'm confused. If the 1850 is a real PR, why isn't in a PCGS holder? They will label cleaned coins (if it is). What information do you have that 100% proves it a proof?
CAC does NOT bean coins based on value. Nor would they be so foolish as to promise a price. They pay current market for coins
It's a poor assumption to attribute many hairlines to "cleaning", and a poor generalization, when ordinary mishandling is so often the case, especially in this specific instance and on the vast majority of proof gold.
In this type of situation "cleaning" can refer to multiple ways of disturbing the very delicate original mirror surface.
It can and it might but it doesn't apply on the '83.
"Cleaning" implies intentionality and carries a stigma.. The word is usually enunciated with a snarl, this coin gets a sigh.
40 years ago, this particular piece might have been described in a Stacks or Bowers Sale as "kept from gem only by a few light wipes at the periphery of the obverse and the reverse fields." or somesuch, but that's poetry, not technical information.
Normal mishandling is not "cleaning"
Conflation of the two phenomena on this coin misinforms and leads to confusion.
OTOH, I've owned easily a hundred $20 Libs in proof, but only one thesaurus.
Anything that degrades the surface is a stigmata. Doesn't matter how it gets there. The coin in question is MS-64 in part because of the hairlines. How "intentional" that is is up to you, or a buyer to decide.
Wiping is cleaning just as much as dipping or scrubbing or tonsuring....:)
There is no conflation - the two are one and the same.
$200k is a lot to pay for that coin in my opinion. But, that does not matter 'cause someone though it was worth the price.
Why is Colonel J. so in love with this particular proof? Did you once own it? Did you once "wipe" it or "dip" it and now require community acceptance?
Note: All 40 Double Eagle proofs were made on Feb. 5, 1883.
If you can't tell if it's been dipped or not,....
As cheap a shot as your attitude in suggesting it when you doubled down on deflection? Community acceptance? I've got it as brilliant, talented, knowledgeable, erudite, generous, handsome humble and occasionally actually recognizing I've acted like a jerk. Or that I've just been wrong.
Not love or lust. I've owned two of this date but neither was this crappy.
You may see the awful gore of the blood of Christ in those wounds, but "stigmata" seems, once again, a distortion, and quite histrionic.
"The stigmata of damage surrounding this coin precludes us from grading it higher than MS68" would likely conform to your paradigm. If you're qualified as a semiotician, go for it. Want to go academic, refute me using Chomsky and Bahktin.
You should check out that "one and the same" line with someone more familiar with the influence of idealistic extremism upon Aristotlean logic.
Stigmata?
For once, I'm not going to comment on the 1883 Proof and its grade and post reasons for my opinion.
Better numismatists than I have graded it PR-64 and a collector has bought it with at least one underbidder. I will say that there is a difference between hairlines from mishandling and hairlines from improper cleaning. The hairlines on this coin are extremely serious, widespread on both sides, and very detracting; however, I lean towards mishandling being their cause.
As to the cause of hairlines on the vast majority of Proof gold...that's another story. I'll defer to the Colonel's opinion as he has examined more Proof gold than I ever will.
The hairlines are not extremely serious, but there are a lot of them. We could call them hairline scratches and that would be common numismatic nomenclature, but I would not describe the coin as "scratched". And yet I have used that term for drama when my disappointment was strong.
Vast majority? - You sir, are one of my favorite trolls
So I'll back off to "based on the thousand or so myself and loads of other has-beens and semi-revenants from the 80's have seen, this constitutes a very significant majority of proof gold, especially that PR63 and finer"
The coin has been graded "PR 64" and it's surfaces appear consistent with how that designation is applied today. It would not have been so 25 years ago, although "hairlines" and other surface defects were still to be expected on a "64" proof.
We cannot know why someone cleaned, wiped, swiped or otherwise damaged the surface of a proof coin. (Was a long-ago owner examining the coin while cogitating in the outhouse, then accidentally dropped it into the muck, and after retrieval wiped it off with a handy page from the Sears catalogue?) It's unlikely any of it was intended to cause harm, The cleaning of coins in the National Numismatic Collection long ago was not intended to be harmful - but it was.
Still do not understand the emotional response, though.
THIS: "The cleaning of coins in the National Numismatic Collection long ago was not intended to be harmful - but it was." I agree. Just about every gold coin in the collection has been ruined.
THIS: @ColonelJessup said: "The hairlines are not extremely serious, but there are a lot of them. We could call them hairline scratches and that would be common numismatic nomenclature, but I would not describe the coin as "scratched". And yet I have used that term for drama when my disappointment was strong." Vast majority? - You sir, are one of my favorite trolls
So I'll back off to "based on the thousand or so myself and loads of other has-beens and semi-revenants from the 80's have seen, this constitutes a very significant majority of proof gold, especially that PR63 and finer"
I stand by my post because I have different standards than most. That coin has been extremely "mishandled" yet I should not call it scratched either. Furthermore, I will not comment on its grade according to printed standards anyone can access. Shall we say it is still 6 points from perfection?
The limited number of Proof gold I've seen have been CLEANED not just mishandled. Since I have seen only an extremely limited number of Proof gold pieces (less than 250) compared to you and loads of other has-beens and semi-revenants from the 80's I respectfully regret that I must defer to your opinion as I already did above.
It is unfortunate that my uneducated "taste" does not allow me to think that Proof is attractive.
That was my response to your original post.
I did not give you my emotional reaction, which was "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
I left it to others to figure out that, viewed in your terms, there is minimal practical application for what you aver, and so to take it as gospel was to follow you over a cliff.
But you were astute enough to figure it out.
Stigma was the first word with emotional and semiotic resonance, so I brought up Bahktin.
Your theories and your languaging of grading and PMD are simplistic. And in grading, and language, nuance is everything.
You lack the humility and intellectual rigor to recognize these limitations.
You may be a Kentucky Derby winner in research, but you present as a "one-trick pony".
Nevertheless, if you recalled that my last name was Sear before you branded the toilet paper, I will likely not suppress my admiration
If not, it's even funnier
it is a lot prettier than it is "nice". But technical virtue is not the only criteria for beauty. And its single-minded espousal is a disservice to the nuance that a vast majority many here need articulated. I recall an @BillJones thread where we discussed the rub on the third knuckle of the eagle's left claw. No rhetoric, dialogue from/with others. Variations in surface textures and strikes were considered. Commonalities in opinion as well as differences. That was a grading discussion worth having again and again.
It is "unfortunate", but you have (some limited) potential (now that you're not watching your "disagree" count) .
BTW, the EAC guys think we're clueless.
I could argue "for" or "against".
@ColonelJessup
I'm still upset with you for not including me with the has-beens and semi-revenants from the past.
Additionally, I'm upset with myself because I'm beginning to understand some of what you post.
PS All Proof gold is pretty in some way. Just as a beat-up DMPL MS-60 Morgan would be.
Only @screwie can assign "has-been"'s
But I've got an "in" with the "wannabe" committee.
I just sold a $5 Lib in PR55 CAC.
I treat MS60DMPL's like highway accidents and look away quickly.
I once tried "You're as pretty as a High-Relief with filed rims" on a desperate 3AM and .... let's just say I slept alone for a few days while the swelling went down.
I might be able to see virtue in these coins, but I want to go on a date with Frances McDormand because she's beautiful, not "pretty". And I am intrigued by her PM saying she wants to spank me with Coin World as soon as I get my picture on the cover.
The 1963 Rarcoa sale that the 1883 came from was the first offering of J.F. Bell’s gold after he died and Rare Coin Company of America was formed by Ben Dreiske (Ben’s Stamp and Coins) and David Shapiro, “Bell’s” son.
@ColonelJessup said: "I might be able to see virtue in these coins, but I want to go on a date with Frances McDormand because she's beautiful, not "pretty". And I am intrigued by her PM saying she wants to spank me with Coin World as soon as I get my picture on the cover."
That's like GUE at a bar. While she may be a very interesting, and intelligent personality, I'll pass. Besides, we should come to blows in about ten minutes and I'd loose the fight. If I were to "punch above my weight," I'd rather have dinner with LS - she pays of course.
PS What does she collect besides retired (?) coin dealers.
After I install "voice-to-text" I intend to do 5000 words on your post....
I guess it's likely both of us deserve a spanking.
I don't think either of us should responded to a "This thread is no good without pictures" troll attack.
Smoe of us are in the process of installing a program to translate yours and Insider2 posts. Separate you guys are a handful. When you coin rap battle it’s impossible to keep up
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
You don't have to understand the lyrics.
Mostly we don't either.
The days when I understand him better than me are actually quite liberating.
@Justacommeman said: "Some of us are in the process of installing a program to translate yours and Insider2 posts. Separate you guys are a handful. When you coin rap battle it’s impossible to keep up."
So, you are one of the members here who actually understands what the Colonel writes? it's mostly Geek to me.