genuis-simpson owns all the top pop patterns and no one can ever assemble the gold pattern set he did. I am not trashing Delloy, but I doubt he would ever have enough money to buy Simpsons pattern collection, The Gold Amazionan Set is worth $15,000,000++++++. I can't see Bob even thinking of ever selling it-unless he got offered something stupid like $50,000,000.00 for that set. To top him and BC he'd need to pay $250 million to buy them -and I doubt either wants to sell.
I am missing something in this discussion. Are we saying Eliasberg had all the top pop patterns? Did he have the gold Amazonian Set? Exactly what did Eliasberg have in patterns? I think we should be comparing Hansen to Eliasberg only.
Lastly, if someone not selling, I don’t think Hansen will waste time in trying to buy. There is a lot of inventory out there to buy, so it is a fancy to think Hansen will overpay for anything.
“Hey, what about the Lincoln Cents? I think that series is strong. You agree?
And the Washington Quarters? What is your opinion on how that series coming along? Does Hansen need to sign a check for one of Washington Collections? You may know someone that has a very nice and comprehensive collection.
Thanks Mitch for your insight...”
Currin. I can only assume he is building a very nice Lincoln cent collection. World class? More a question for Stuart I suppose.
Regarding quarters, his collections of silver, clad and state are certainly moving along nicely. Seriously, I started building my silver and clad quarters (36) years ago with an emphasis on color for the silvers and true quality for the clads. With at least (25) years of “hard core” pursuit in there. What can one truly expect out of a 2-3 year pursuit? Toss in an acquisition or two and that may address another 10-20 years of lost hunting. There is certainly no shortage of great coins to buy with a deep, deep checkbook. We just witnessed that this past week with the Kennedy coins.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@jerseycat101 said:
I am confident that Dell Loy, if he wants to, will dominate the pattern market when he's done dominating the Eliasberg challenge. Money is the ultimate persuador.
Unless you already have money.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
New Upgrade to D.L. Hansen Liberty Seated Dollar Set
When you have a “the absolute finest ever completed” set of Liberty Seated Dollars, Circulation Strikes (1840-1873), there will not be many times that we will observe an upgrade. The last upgrade was when Hansen replaced his 1870-CC MS63 POP of 7/1. The replacement coin was the 1870-CC Liberty Seated Silver Dollar “Variety 1-D” MS-64 POP 1/0. The recent upgrade will be second (that I know of) PCGS POP 1/0 specimen added to the collection since purchased a year ago.
I am not going to spend much time on the set. This is an amazing set assembled over a very long period of time by Bruce Morelan (aka TDN). Bruce valued the set at $10,000,000 in a 2016 interview. There were several news releases printed at the time of the transaction made by DLRC and DLH. I will provide this link to the article on COINWEEK. If you have time to view the six minute video, it will be well worth your time.
The 1861 does not catch your attention as some of the other coins in this series. As TDN described, this set is highlighted by the James A Stack specimen of the 1870-S, the finest of only 9 coins known. In addition, it contains such amazing rarities as the Starr 1844, Norweb 1845, 1850-O and 1851, Garrett 1848, Fairfield 1849, Hayes 1866, Stack 1871-CC, Austin 1872-CC and the Share 1873-CC. So, how would a 1861 even be a second thought? Well, even the 1861 has a story to tell. No one can tell the story better than Q. David Bowers: Beginning in 1861, emphasis in silver dollar distribution was not primarily export to China. Rather, in this year some pieces were sent beyond the borders of the United States, but for the first year in nearly a decade, many remained stateside. R.W. Julian relates that in one instance in 1861 a quantity amounting to 40,000 silver dollars went to the melting pot to provide silver for subsidiary coins. When it comes to 1861 dollars, rarity is the order of the day. While Proofs are occasionally seen on the market, circulation strikes in all degrees are very elusive. The relative degree of circulation strikes of all Philadelphia Mint Liberty Seated dollars of the early 1860s is difficult to calculate. Proofs come on the market with regularity, as noted, but these are more visible than circulation strikes and tend to be included in auctions more often than VF and EF coins. Although the 1861 is very rare in circulation strike form, it is not in the very top echelon of rarity in Mint State. Still, specimens are rare, and when they come on the market they attract attention, deservedly so. Uncirculated coins, when found, are just as apt to be MS-63 or MS-64 as in a lower Mint State grade. Up to a few days ago, the Morelan 1861 Specimen was highlighted in Hansen’s top set. That coin has been bumped to Hansen’s #2 Set.
D. L. Hansen Liberty Seated Dollars (1840-1873) 2nd Set
1861 Liberty Seated Silver Dollar MS65 PCGS POP 3/2, Ex: Bruce Morelan Certification #81226399, PCGS #6951, PCGS Price Guide: $52,000
Ex: Bruce Morelan’s Legend Collection of Mint State Seated Liberty Dollars, Legend Numismatics, sold privately in 2/2018 – D. L. Hansen Collection
.
. All-Time Finest / D. L. Hansen Collection of Liberty Seated Dollars (1840-1873)
I wish I know a little more about this specimen. I cannot find any history. In comparing to pictures of GEM coins sold at auctions, it does not appear that it has been in a recent sale. It is the finest coin in Coin Facts Pedigree and History list, and they give no clue on the history. We have seen this several times before that condition census coin appears in Hansen’s Collection with no public trail. There is not much else to say except this coin had no public past, but now will have a very bright future.
1861 Liberty Seated Silver Dollar MS66 PCGS POP 1/0 Certification #02070132, PCGS #6951, PCGS Price Guide: $125,000
TDN's Seated Dollar set is bonkers. When it's been put together by a well-connected enthusiast with an emphasis on preservation and eye appeal, really the only improvements that you can make will be technical upgrades, and I think that this one falls within that definition.
Sorry, i take offense to that 1861 being added (Just like the 70CC). Why is he killing the sets I worked so hard to build????? That STD set we slaved for years looking at every damn coin that hit the market. We even chased coins not on the market.
I am sorry, Bruce and I know the better coins in the STD world. Delloys impulses are a shame. Sometimes the lesser grade is the better coin.
Thanks everyone for this discussion. Your opinions are welcome here. Let me share my perspective by providing a deeper dive on this subject. It doesn’t seem that everyone is connecting the dots on this collection. What this collector is doing is very distinctive in many ways, and one of them is the way he is building this collection. I cannot speak on his long-term goal, only what I am observing today.
Some of you are upset on what is taking place. That’s OK. On the other hand, more and more people are beginning to appreciate “The Collection”. We are witnessing a historic experience first-hand. I remember reading some historic writings from Eliasberg’s day, and even he had some nay-sayers during his time. Their writings are out there, but nobody remembers them. The Hansen Collection is truly amazing collection of individual coins and sets. When you try to view this collection from the perspective of one set, you may be missing the entire purpose of what is being achieved.
For example, we have been told over and over, that if a coin becomes available, the coin is offered at a fair price, and the coin will improve the collection, then there is a good chance a deal can take place. With that thought is mind, let’s consider the 1861 MS66. Was it available? Yes, we should be able agree with that. Was it at a fair price? We have to assume it was, because the deal was made. Third, did it improve the set? Yes, stated by a previous poster, it is a PCGS technically graded better specimen than the one in the previous set. I don’t think the decision to purchase this coin was made by bad advice or being in a hurry. If you have read or have an understanding that cause you to disagree with this conclusion, please state your case.
Now, with the general understanding of acquisition practice for the collection out of the way, let’s discuss the specifics the 1861 Dollar. If you have been following my posting, you will know that I have a great deal of respect for Bruce and his grading viewpoint. This is especially true with Liberty Dollars, Trade and Early Dollars. He was proven over time his respect is earned. So, there is no way that I would intentionally dispute his opinions. I take his comments as close to the fact as you can get. So with that said, if you look closely, he did not actually say one coin is better that the other. He did show problems with one of them. I may agree with another poster, the MS65 specimen does appear to be more appealing and perhaps better preservation. At one point, Bruce had the MS65+ specimen. He replaced his MS65+ with this coin because I assume he like it better. Bruce worked on his set for many years and made numerous changes until he got the set to a point that he considered it as perfection. (Bruce, I think I am right about that, if not my apologies). On the other hand, when it come the PCGS certified grade comparison, the 61MS66 has the better grade. No one can dispute, due to being factual at this time.
I know this is longer than I like post, but I think it does provide some essential information. So to conclude, I stated the collector’s drive is unique to you and me, from principle of not being satisfied with one coin and limiting the collection to just one. Hansen still 61MS65 coin in his collection. He has not (Yet) broken up this HOF set! This coin is just not in his technically best grade registry set.
I will leave you with something to ponder. We know by past postings that Hansen made a strong bid for the 1884 Eliasberg Trade Dollar. If I recall, he dropped out somewhere around the million dollar mark, maybe less. If he was the successful bidder, who here thinks he would place the coin in his technically top graded ATF set? I don’t think so. So why was he willing to spend that kind of dollars on a coin going in a secondary set? In this history making experience that we are watching, don’t think he just building great sets, but he is also creating a great collection. So, maybe now, “The Collection” has the most appealing 1861 specimen along with the only PCGS MS66 POP 1/0 specimen. If you fail to think big, you will not be able to truly comprehend what is taking place in front of your eyes.
Bruce was being polite. I am not because I AM the one who mostly built the sets. I am protecting MY legacy too. I had a verbal promise that 70CC would never be be added. Bruce I and I KNEW there was no better 1861. if you really believe this 1861 is better because of the plastic, you should not comment as you have seen neither in hand. This 1861 flunked CAC. The reverse kills it badly. How nieve for people to not think between Bruce and I-not matter what it takes or costs, we weren't going to put the FINEST-the absolute FINEST coins in his sets. Even today when a coin or two pops up, Bruce will buy it if it was better then what he has. So, yeah, you bet I am pissed. Its like taking a work of art and destroying it. That is the new type of hero? Really? In that case no.
No more observations that are just plain WRONG please...
Yes, what Delloy is doing is difficult. I do have some respect for him. But I wish he would not destroy these once in a life time sets. I sure won't offer him any more-I can't even look at what he did to my beloved 3CS set.
am I missing something?---hansen has both the 1861 in pcgs 65 cac and pcgs 66 so one can use either one when looking at his seated dollar set depending on your preference.
Hello
This latest 1861 goes back to many of my posts. If a coin is not CAC, generally most. people
comsider it to be a half to a full grade lower, So usually adding a higher grade non CAC
coin, improves the score but not the quality. I agree with specialist on this one.
Why does DLH need to improve the score? No one is going to top this set. Leave it alone.
If he were behind i can see his reasoning but of course not agree with it.
Iit is so,difficult to build an entire CAC set of a popular series.
Tne competing sets use many higher graded non cac coins to top your score.
DLH is very close,to my world class Seated Half Date set, I have 32 coins,
all cac that are higher than his. But he is going to soon score number one with the number two
set. So be it.
I am selling my DMPL set, half this month at CSNS and half at the ANA auction. Why?
Because to improve it, I,would have to mostly buy non cac coins like the sets above it have.
I would assume that half of the top two sets would not pass cac. cac is very tough on dmpl and pl coins.
In addition I would have to spend at least one million on the non dmpl/pl key dates like the 93s.
I don't consider that fair so I never did it.
What is the sense and purpose of having excellent representation? To listen to them. Not sure what is going on in this case - one way or the other. Maybe he got a screaming deal on the MS66? Who knows.
Fair point... maybe Legend sets are still intact (as they deserve to be) and these are just add on coins for fun and/or registry point purposes only?
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@specialist said:
Currin, Please your comments are off base period.
Bruce was being polite. I am not because I AM the one who mostly built the sets. I am protecting MY legacy too. I had a verbal promise that 70CC would never be be added. Bruce I and I KNEW there was no better 1861. if you really believe this 1861 is better because of the plastic, you should not comment as you have seen neither in hand. This 1861 flunked CAC. The reverse kills it badly. How nieve for people to not think between Bruce and I-not matter what it takes or costs, we weren't going to put the FINEST-the absolute FINEST coins in his sets. Even today when a coin or two pops up, Bruce will buy it if it was better then what he has. So, yeah, you bet I am pissed. Its like taking a work of art and destroying it. That is the new type of hero? Really? In that case no.
No more observations that are just plain WRONG please...
Yes, what Delloy is doing is difficult. I do have some respect for him. But I wish he would not destroy these once in a life time sets. I sure won't offer him any more-I can't even look at what he did to my beloved 3CS set.
I don't travel at these kinds of numismatic altitudes.
But from my ground-based observation, I see the sets as Hansen's and they don't belong to anyone else.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with buying a coin that you like, regardless of who is selling it or what it is certified as.
@specialist said:
... Delloys impulses are a shame ...
... I do have some respect for him. ...
... I sure won't offer him any more ...
So you won't offer him any more coins because he bought some that you don't approve of from another source ?
If I was working with a dealer and they expressed that kind of attitude, I wouldn't work with that dealer any more either.
@specialist said:
Currin, Please your comments are off base period.
Bruce was being polite. I am not because I AM the one who mostly built the sets. I am protecting MY legacy too. I had a verbal promise that 70CC would never be be added. Bruce I and I KNEW there was no better 1861. if you really believe this 1861 is better because of the plastic, you should not comment as you have seen neither in hand. This 1861 flunked CAC. The reverse kills it badly. How nieve for people to not think between Bruce and I-not matter what it takes or costs, we weren't going to put the FINEST-the absolute FINEST coins in his sets. Even today when a coin or two pops up, Bruce will buy it if it was better then what he has. So, yeah, you bet I am pissed. Its like taking a work of art and destroying it. That is the new type of hero? Really? In that case no.
No more observations that are just plain WRONG please...
Yes, what Delloy is doing is difficult. I do have some respect for him. But I wish he would not destroy these once in a life time sets. I sure won't offer him any more-I can't even look at what he did to my beloved 3CS set.
I don't travel at these kinds of numismatic altitudes.
But from my ground-based observation, I see the sets as Hansen's and they don't belong to anyone else.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with buying a coin that you like, regardless of who is selling it or what it is certified as.
@specialist said:
... Delloys impulses are a shame ...
... I do have some respect for him. ...
... I sure won't offer him any more ...
So you won't offer him any more coins because he bought some that you don't approve of from another source ?
If I was working with a dealer and they expressed that kind of attitude, I wouldn't work with that dealer any more either.
Dealers at the top of the chain get many amazing coins and have to decide who gets first shot. They rarely get fired
@Currin said:
“The Collection” has the most appealing 1861 specimen along with the only PCGS MS66 POP 1/0 specimen. If you fail to think big, you will not be able to truly comprehend what is taking place in front of your eyes.
Agree it's nice to have both. I don't really see anything wrong with having both the most appealing coin and the top pop 1/0 in a collection. I can see someone who really loves coins and having fun wanting to have both.
I also don't think someone should feel offended if someone else has both in their collection. Collecting is about having fun so let's let people have theirs.
Quote: "For example, we have been told over and over, that if a coin becomes available, the coin is offered at a fair price, and the coin will improve the collection, then there is a good chance a deal can take place. With that thought is mind, let’s consider the 1861 MS66. Was it available? Yes, we should be able agree with that. Was it at a fair price? We have to assume it was, because the deal was made. Third, did it improve the set? Yes, stated by a previous poster, it is a PCGS technically graded better specimen than the one in the previous set. I don’t think the decision to purchase this coin was made by bad advice or being in a hurry. If you have read or have an understanding that cause you to disagree with this conclusion, please state your case."
--> the case is very simple: the holders are not always 100% correct.
Not always is a PCGS 66 better than the PCGS 65 before.
@specialist said:
Currin, Please your comments are off base period.
Bruce was being polite. I am not because I AM the one who mostly built the sets. I am protecting MY legacy too. I had a verbal promise that 70CC would never be be added. Bruce I and I KNEW there was no better 1861. if you really believe this 1861 is better because of the plastic, you should not comment as you have seen neither in hand. This 1861 flunked CAC. The reverse kills it badly. How nieve for people to not think between Bruce and I-not matter what it takes or costs, we weren't going to put the FINEST-the absolute FINEST coins in his sets. Even today when a coin or two pops up, Bruce will buy it if it was better then what he has. So, yeah, you bet I am pissed. Its like taking a work of art and destroying it. That is the new type of hero? Really? In that case no.
No more observations that are just plain WRONG please...
Yes, what Delloy is doing is difficult. I do have some respect for him. But I wish he would not destroy these once in a life time sets. I sure won't offer him any more-I can't even look at what he did to my beloved 3CS set.
Specialist, Im not sure you are aware, but the set is sold. Its theirs now. They can do with it whatever they want.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
Quote: "For example, we have been told over and over, that if a coin becomes available, the coin is offered at a fair price, and the coin will improve the collection, then there is a good chance a deal can take place. With that thought is mind, let’s consider the 1861 MS66. Was it available? Yes, we should be able agree with that. Was it at a fair price? We have to assume it was, because the deal was made. Third, did it improve the set? Yes, stated by a previous poster, it is a PCGS technically graded better specimen than the one in the previous set. I don’t think the decision to purchase this coin was made by bad advice or being in a hurry. If you have read or have an understanding that cause you to disagree with this conclusion, please state your case."
--> the case is very simple: the holders are not always 100% correct.
Not always is a PCGS 66 better than the PCGS 65 before.
The coin may not be better but the PCGS grade is better. Sometimes that is enough, especially if one has both the top pop and the most appealing.
I'm not sure PCGS will say the 66 grade is incorrect, but perhaps Dell Loy should send it in for reconsideration?
Just have to say that criticism of Hansen should be reserved for people ACTUALLY AFFECTED by anything he does or doesn't do and bearing in mind that ...VERY...few can afford to KEEP every power coin they buy.
A dealer turning inventory and spending millions at a crack is noteworthy but nowhere near as impressive as one who keeps the coins they buy.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
Quote: "For example, we have been told over and over, that if a coin becomes available, the coin is offered at a fair price, and the coin will improve the collection, then there is a good chance a deal can take place. With that thought is mind, let’s consider the 1861 MS66. Was it available? Yes, we should be able agree with that. Was it at a fair price? We have to assume it was, because the deal was made. Third, did it improve the set? Yes, stated by a previous poster, it is a PCGS technically graded better specimen than the one in the previous set. I don’t think the decision to purchase this coin was made by bad advice or being in a hurry. If you have read or have an understanding that cause you to disagree with this conclusion, please state your case."
--> the case is very simple: the holders are not always 100% correct.
Not always is a PCGS 66 better than the PCGS 65 before.
The coin may not be better but the PCGS grade is better. Sometimes that is enough, especially if one has both the top pop and the most appealing.
I'm not sure PCGS will say the 66 grade is incorrect, but perhaps Dell Loy should send it in for reconsideration?
I highly doubt he will send it for reconsideration. It defeats the whole premise for buying it.
I don’t think so either but I was putting out a suggestion for the detractors. I should have put a wink at the end
This has to be one of the most entertaining threads of all time. It has great intrigue, suspense, education and debate. ( but I’m here basically for the haymakers) I look forward to coming back to this thread on a daily basis. It’s way better then any weekly or monthly coin publication I’ve ever read.
Love when I see there are 15 new posts. You never know what you’re gonna get.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
This is latest addition to Hansen’s gold set. The Capped Bust Quarter Eagle Gold Basic Set is a tough little set. The set requires only 12 coins to complete. Only one current set is listed in the registry, and that would be Hansen’s. This is one of the series that Eliasberg still have a better graded set. For Eliasberg set, GPA Weighted is 57.16 compared to Hansen at 56.03. The Hansen Collection is closing the gap. This is Hansen’s first PCGS CAC POP1/0 coin in this set. I would guess it is not the last.
As described by PCGS: The early gold coins of the United States are among the most coveted and rarest items in the numismatic world. This is due both to extremely limited original mintages as well as prolific melting that took place during the late 1820s and early 1830s when the bullion value of the coins exceeded their face value. The Capped Bust Quarter eagles were struck intermittently during this period, with none made between 1809 and 1820. The 1808 is a one year type coin, and consequently enjoys substantial demand from those seeking a complete US type set. Most of the remaining dates are about equal in rarity, but a nice AU or better example will run into the low five-figure range.
1830 Quarter Eagle MS66, PCGS POP 1/0
This quarter eagle is finest known specimen of 1830 Capped Bust Quarter Eagles. The coin has never been sold at auction according to CoinFacts. It appeared in late January timeframe for sale by David Lawrence Rare Coins. The asking price was $336,380. The posting was ultimately removed and the coin ended up in the Hansen Collection. Coin Facts priced this coin at $195,000.
David Akers provided these expert comments: The 1830 is a very scarce date (as are all of the six dates of this type), but I have seen a fair number of extremely choice specimens in the MS65 class. Like the 1829 and 1831, the 1830 is usually well struck, at least more so than the typical 1832, 1833 or 1834. If you are wondering, Hansen had a pretty nice 1830 in his collection. The coin was BD-1 MS64 Specimen (Certification #33426403). For the BD-1 variety, the coin is a POP 1/1. I am not sure new coin is a BD-1 or not. If there is an early gold expert in the house, maybe you can help with the question.
In comparison, The Eliasberg registry set describes his specimen as estimated grade AU55, purchased at the Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 Eliasberg sale by Ed Milas for $5,775. Lot #96.
@SanctionII said:
The reality of the day to day work by Mr. Hansen and those he has enlisted to help him reach his goals would be interesting to know. There is only some much time in a day that an individual can devote to "the hunt". I expect that Mr. Hansen is very busy with all aspects of his life and that at best he can spend only 1 or 2 hours a day on this collecting endeavor himself. Thus he has enlisted the aid of others to help him reach his goal. With others involved, there must be communication on a daily basis between Mr. Hansen and those who are helping him. Opportunities arise and can disappear unless they are acted upon quickly. Evaluations of the suitability of desired coins that appear for sale must be made, discussions with Mr. Hansen about available coins and whether to make a purchase offer or not must take place and if a deal is struck the work needed to perform the deal (payment and obtaining possession of the coin] must be done. Once a new purchase is completed the newly acquired coin must be cataloged, documented, submitted to PCGS for grading (i.e. a raw purchase or a crossover from another TPG) and stored.
Further, with the large number of coins that comprise the set(s) that Mr. Hansen desires to acquire, how likely is it that he can spend time viewing, holding, studying and appreciating each individual coin or even series of coins? Particularly given that his time is likely tied up with non hobby related demands. Is it possible or even likely that once acquired the individual coins are simply stored away with the others and that Mr. Hansen does not look at his collection more than once or twice per year?
It also may be that Mr. Hansen does devote a significant amount of hands on time in the trenches working on reaching his goal and on viewing, holding and studying each individual coin.
Perhaps when he reaches his goal he will write an article or a book that tells the story of him setting his goal, working towards it and reaching it, including what his motivation is for doing so.
Kudos to Mr. Hansen and best of luck to him. His efforts do make the hobby enjoyable for fellow hobbyists.
There's a lot of good stuff written here. But, I'm too tired to elaborate on all of the questions brought up.
However, I can assure you that once Mr. Hansen acquires a coin, he views it a number of times...He truly enjoys looking at the coins. And then when it's added to the set, he likes to lay them all out beside each other and view them as a whole. Of course, he can't spend as much time doing that as he'd like, but one of my favorite parts of visiting with him is sharing in his joy of viewing the collection.
Mr. Hansen has been able to do so much because he doesn't require a ton of sleep. He spends more time than you can imagine looking for new coins. We've talked about doing a series of articles, displays, etc but it takes time to put all of these things together, but suggestions are welcome!
would love to read some of his articles especially what motivates his desire to have the best
@specialist said:
And yes, that 1830 $2.5 is amazing. I tried to buy it several times. I had to settle for a MS65+ at Baltimore.....
I’m surprised by this because your approach is to pay a premium and Dell Loy’s approach is to not over pay. What happened?
I'm guessing Hansen felt that he wasnt over paying considering the date is scarce to begin with and this example has no equal. If he ever sells, I bet he will make money on this coin.
Today, we reached 75K views. Again, big thanks and shout out to everyone that has followed along. I did the last update at 50K in mid-November. So, we are talking about a little less than 5 months ago. A lot has happen, and this is a good time to recap some of what we have seen.
I usually start with the misses first. There have not been any big misses this time. I will not call it a miss, but at least it was an opportunity for the purchase of an 1827/3 "Original" quarter in the Heritage January 2019 FUN Auction in Orlando. The coin realized $444,000. Also, there was an opportunity to purchase a matching restrike in the same auction. Hansen may be holding out for the D. Brent Pogue Specimen. Maybe he is thinking he will go with a lower graded coin due to the fact that Eliasberg had a very poor specimen. Only time will tell. The "big event" was not a miss, but the purchase of the Eliasberg 1885 Trade dollar that realized just a little less than $4,000,000. He has added five countdown coins to his collection since the 50K Update. This averages to be about one per month.
Eliasberg Quest (classic style)
This is the collection that gets the most attention at this time. According to my count, The Hansen Collection has 21 coins left. A complete collection have not been achieved but once before by Louis Eliasberg. At a rate of one per month, we can predict the set to be completed around year-end of 2020. This could be a tough or near impossible goal because the difficulty level increases with each count down.
Countdown #25 was the 1846-C Half Eagle (Legend’s Regency Auction 29, 11/2018))
Countdown #24 was the 1802 Half Dime (Purchase JRCSLM32 set)
Countdown #23 was the 1885 Trade Dollar Ex: Atwater-Eliasberg (Heritage FUN Auction 1/2019)
Countdown #22 was the 1796 Quarter Eagle “Stars” (RARCOA FUN show private auction, 1/2019)
Countdown #21 was the 1797 Half Eagle “Large Eagle, 15 Stars”
Hansen Challenge
As stated last time, it appear to me, Hansen is on a mission to collect every date, mint mark, major variety, and proof in the US issues from 1793-Present (or as close to every coin as possible). With the 2018 issues, we are talking about approx. 6300 coins. The Hansen Collection master set reached 92% as of today. This is a massive effort that maybe no one has ever made a serious attempt to achieve before. PCGS has a registry set that represents this effort.
This is a colossal set with about 6300 coins that increase every year. PCGS describes the set as: Every U.S. coin in Circulation Strike and Proof from 1792 to present, every date, every Mintmark, every major variety, this set is the ultimate challenge. A collection of this size could take years to assemble. The collector who completes this set in high grade would make numismatic history. Are you up to the challenge? To be honest, after studying the set, in some ways it is a fantasy set. There are a few proofs that are not available for private purchase and a couple major variety gold coins. I think the set could be completed to approx. 99.9%. It is going to interesting to watch and see how close he can meet the Hansen Challenge.
. Breakdown of the Hansen Challenge
CS Pre 1964 Basic – 10 coins left (down 5 from last update)
CS Pre 1964 Major Varieties -56 coins left (down 9 from last update)
CS Modern (including Major Varieties) – 95 coins left (down 28 from last update)
Proof Pre 1964 (including Major Varieties) – 333 coins left (down 21 from last update)
Proof Modern (including Major Varieties) – 1 coin left (no change)
Total – approx. 495 coins left of 6300. Roughly - 92%. (Added approx. 63 coins since the last update)
The 1830 looks like an absolutely gorgeous coin. The price did feel too high even though it is one of the best of the type. I think there are only a 4 CAC'ed in MS66 of the type and one 1829 MS67 CAC that is in PRC's collection. I recently purchased a PCGS 63 CAC at a fraction of the price. Hard for me to understand the condition rarity thing. All the same, congrats to Mr. Hansen.
I was planning to keep things a little simple today and maybe provide a summary on the challenge that we have been watching the past few weeks. Sometimes Hansen does things to change my plan as he did last night. He created a new set and added one coin. This may seem simple enough, but it is more than worthy to mention today.
Capped Bust Half Dimes, Proof (1829-1837)
This is a set that does not seem to belong or at least not appreciated. The new complete series set consist of only dates: 1829-1837. A coin is required for each year no matter the difficulty. When I say difficulty, a few dates do not have any coins certified by PCGS. The registry provides a very simple description for the set: Low mintage is the name of the game with proof Capped Bust Half Dimes. The 1829 and 1831 issues can be found, but the rest of the set is going to prove a major challenge, even in lower grades. One coin from the series is required for a complete PCGS Proof Type Set. The Hansen Collection have an 1829 PR64 POP 3/3. I am not sure when he acquired this coin, but it has been the representative in his type set for a while now. Hansen did not update his type set last night, but the 1829 is short live for the type set. There is another interesting point that I will make. If you have followed me, you know that at times I have commented on the inconsistently of the PCGS sets. This is another example. In the Proof Basic Master Set (in the Complete Sets category), for half dimes, the set starts with 1837 Half Liberty Seated Proof. Why would this entire series be excluded?
Capped Bust Half Dimes, Proof Information from PCGS POP Report. (1832, 1833, 1835, 1837 did not have any PCGS certified specimens)
1829 H10C (Est. 20-30 known) PCGS Total Pop 11 coins (1 CA)
1830 H10C (Est. 5 to 6 known) PCGS Total Pop 2 coins (1 CA)
1831 H10C (Est. 10-20 known) PCGS Total Pop 3 coins 1832 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified 1833 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1834 H10C ( Est. 20-30 known) PCGS Total Pop 5 coins (1 CA) 1835 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1836 H10C (Est. 1-5 known) PCGS Total Pop 1 coin 1837 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
Note: we need to be careful with the estimates due to proof –like coins. It is my understanding that PCGS is very selective at what they consider true proofs in many of the early issues.
1830 Half Dime, PR65+ CA CAC
These little silver coins do not get much love. I am curious, are there any half dime fans in the community? If so, this is the time to jump into the discussion. I think this coin is worth a decision. This coin appears to be a recent NGC crossover. As I indicated, PCGS certification coins in this series are very limited. This coin makes only the second 1830 certified by PCGS. The other is “The Eliasberg 1830 V-5, LM-9.1 Half Dime, PR65” that last sold in a 2008 Heritage Auction in $50,025. The coin did not have the CA designation. To be fair, the Hansen coin was certified recently and the Eliasberg Specimen more than 10 years ago. At the present time, the Hansen Specimen is the higher graded coin in a two coin PCGS race.
To the best that I can find out, there are only four (maybe as many as six) known 1830 Proof Half Dime. One is in the Smithsonian Institution (per Walter Breen). PCGS CoinFacts attributes the grade as unknown. With the Hansen POP 1/0 and Eliasberg 1/1 specimens, only one other confirmed 1830 Proof Half Dime shows up. That coin is usually contributed to Eugene H. Gardner Specimen. The coin has a cool history being that it is from Europe as: “obtained by a European noble while visiting this country in the middle 19th century and retained by the same family until the present time”. That coin is a “PR66 STAR NGC. V-10, LM-1.1, R.4” that last sold in a 2013 Heritage Auction for $49,937.50. CoinFacts list this coin after the Eliasberg’s as “PR65 estimated grade”. In any case, I will show my Condition Census report below as Hansen’s as the top coin with the PCGS POP1/0. Just keep in mind that all three of the specimens outside the Smithsonian Institution are close in grade. Places could very well switch in the future.
Only four high grade proofs of date are known (Note: NGC have certified a couple lesser than GEM and may be proof-like specimens).:
D. L. Hansen Specimen (PCGS PR65+ CA CAC) - Long Beach Connoisseur Collection (Bowers and Merena, 8/99), lot 79, which realized $18,400; Benson Collection, Part II (Ira and Larry Goldberg, 2/02), lot 350, which realized $23,172; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2007), lot 848, realized $57,500; Greensboro Collection; The Greensboro Collection, Part VI , 2/14 US Coins Signature Auction, which the coin realized $47,000, Hansen Collection 2019.
Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr. Specimen (PCGS PR65) - Bowers & Merena 5/22/1996:912, $19,800 - Heritage 12/2008:1039, $50,025 A PR66 NGC example that we offered in January 2007, earlier from the Benson Collection (Goldberg, 2/2002).
Eugene H. Gardner Specimen (NGC PR66 STAR, PCGS Est. PR65) - “Obtained by a European noble while visiting this country in the middle 19th century and retained by the same family until the present time” (Heritage) - Noblesse Collection - Heritage 9/2013:6301, $49,937.50 - Eugene H. Gardner Collection - Heritage 6/2014:30184
Smithsonian Institution Specimen (Grade Unknown), per Walter Breen.
The Hansen coin as last sold at auction at the Greensboro Collection sale in 2016. At the time, the NGC PR66 coin was described as the “Second-Finest Certified” . The finest would have been the NGC PR66 STAR. This is the Heritage description of the date: Proof 1830 half dimes are extremely rare. As of (12/13), NGC has certified only four, the present PR66 piece and another PR66 with the star designation that was recently discovered in Europe, a PR64 specimen, and a PR64 Cameo coin. An additional PCGS PR65 from the Eliasberg Collection creates a total third-party census of five examples. There is also an example in the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution.
I have reviewed pictures of the Eliasberg, Gardner, and Hansen Specimens. It is really not possible to determine the best toning from pictures. But I can say, the new TrueView picture of the Hansen coin is spectacular! Heritage describes the coins as: A delightful proof specimen of the 1830 half dime was included in the collection of Harold P. Newlin, the first numismatist to seriously study die varieties of the denomination. Lot 91 of the Newlin Collection (Captain John W. Haseltine, 4/1883) reads, "1830 A beautiful brilliant proof. Rarer than the above." The preceding coin was a proof 1829 half eagle, and it is interesting that collectors recognized the relative rarity of the 1829 and 1830 proofs as early as 1884. Recent auction appearances of the 1830 proof include the offering of the present coin in lot 848 of our January 2007 FUN Signature, which realized $57,500. Over the years, any number of prooflike pieces have been offered as proofs, but the status of the current lot is unquestioned. The portrait is thickly frosted, and the eagle is also icy, despite the presence of original golden-brown peripheral toning. The strike is needle-sharp, and the fields are flashy. A couple of trivial hairlines near star 2 and a pinpoint spot at 7 o'clock define the grade.
I have not been able to find this coin as being offered for sale in recent months. How it came into the Hansen Collection is unknown. PCGS Coin Guide places the value at $64,500. Anyone know how that value was determined?
1830 Proof Half Dime PR65+ CA CAC (PCGS Standard) PCGS Coin #84301 / PCGS Serial #25304398 / POP 1/0 PCGS Price Guide: $64,500
Long Beach Connoisseur Collection (Bowers and Merena, 8/99), lot 79, which realized $18,400; Benson Collection, Part II (Ira and Larry Goldberg, 2/02), lot 350, which realized $23,172; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2007), lot 848, realized $57,500; Greensboro Collection; The Greensboro Collection, Part VI , 2/14 US Coins Signature Auction, which the coin realized $47,000, Hansen Collection 2019.
_**Capped Bust Half Dimes, Proof Information from PCGS POP Report. (1832, 1833, 1835, 1837 did not have any PCGS certified specimens)
1829 H10C (Est. 20-30 known) PCGS Total Pop 11 coins (1 CA)
1830 H10C (Est. 5 to 6 known) PCGS Total Pop 2 coins (1 CA)
1831 H10C (Est. 10-20 known) PCGS Total Pop 3 coins
1832 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1833 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1834 H10C ( Est. 20-30 known) PCGS Total Pop 5 coins (1 CA)
1835 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1836 H10C (Est. 1-5 known) PCGS Total Pop 1 coin
1837 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified_**
Authors Logan and McCloskey stated they had not verified existence of 1837 Proofs (though Breen said they exist).
For 1836, the LM-1 die marriage (typically LM-1.2 remarriage) often comes Proof like. I believe special planchets were used in striking many of these, despite the die being used for the reverse was falling apart. In fact, WD Perkins has on his website such a half dime that Pittman carried as a Proof (Akers pish-poshed that idea in the catalog, IIRC). It is now graded NGC MS65
Although Breen reported 4 die marriages of 1835 as having Proof examples, Logan and McCloskey discount some of that claim. They do cite an 1835 LM-4 in a Stack's auction as a Proof sale in January 1991. I'm not convinced Logan and McCloskey believed any 1835 Proofs existed.
They take the same kind of approach for 1834, with reference to Breen insofar as Proofs are concerned.
And for 1833, they say they have not been able to verify any Proofs (again, despite what Breen claimed)
1832 they say "Proof examples have been reported" for the LM-3 and LM-5 die marriages, which are the most common die marriages for the year by far.
The beat goes on for the 1831 half dimes, with discussion of "interesting die states that have been erroneously reported as Proofs" (mostly due to extensive lapping and polishing of dies)
Reading what Logan and McCloskey had to say about 1830s half dimes, it becomes obvious (to me) that they don't think the US Mint intentionally produced any 1830 Proofs either!
And finally (yes, in reverse order), when discussing Proofs for 1829, Logan and McCloskey make the statement, "many 1829 half dimes were struck with lustrous planchets from highly polished dies."
So this exercise is one I have not done for a few years (reviewing Logan and McCloskey for comments on Proof capped bust half dimes). They helped me form my conclusion that I think aligns with what theirs was: strictly defined Proof coins (special purpose, special dies, special planchets) did not exist 182901837 and have only come to exist since then. YMMV
Thanks Barndog for your contribution. From your information, it appear the 1836 PCGS coin should be removed from the POP report. At some point, I would like to combine your info with the POP reports from PCGS & NGC, just to see what it looks like. From all indications, to complete this set is a fantasy.
@topstuf said:
Just have to say that criticism of Hansen should be reserved for people ACTUALLY AFFECTED by anything he does or doesn't do and bearing in mind that ...VERY...few can afford to KEEP every power coin they buy.
A dealer turning inventory and spending millions at a crack is noteworthy but nowhere near as impressive as one who keeps the coins they buy.
If I could ask Mr. Hansen a question, I would ask how does he determine what to sell? It appear he sells coins that he doesn’t like. If he likes, he keeps, no matter how many he has.
Comments
You don’t drink, either
Point made - billionaires don’t often sell to other billionaires. They toy with them
okay, share the pills......
genuis-simpson owns all the top pop patterns and no one can ever assemble the gold pattern set he did. I am not trashing Delloy, but I doubt he would ever have enough money to buy Simpsons pattern collection, The Gold Amazionan Set is worth $15,000,000++++++. I can't see Bob even thinking of ever selling it-unless he got offered something stupid like $50,000,000.00 for that set. To top him and BC he'd need to pay $250 million to buy them -and I doubt either wants to sell.
I am missing something in this discussion. Are we saying Eliasberg had all the top pop patterns? Did he have the gold Amazonian Set? Exactly what did Eliasberg have in patterns? I think we should be comparing Hansen to Eliasberg only.
Lastly, if someone not selling, I don’t think Hansen will waste time in trying to buy. There is a lot of inventory out there to buy, so it is a fancy to think Hansen will overpay for anything.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
“Hey, what about the Lincoln Cents? I think that series is strong. You agree?
And the Washington Quarters? What is your opinion on how that series coming along? Does Hansen need to sign a check for one of Washington Collections? You may know someone that has a very nice and comprehensive collection.
Thanks Mitch for your insight...”
Currin. I can only assume he is building a very nice Lincoln cent collection. World class? More a question for Stuart I suppose.
Regarding quarters, his collections of silver, clad and state are certainly moving along nicely. Seriously, I started building my silver and clad quarters (36) years ago with an emphasis on color for the silvers and true quality for the clads. With at least (25) years of “hard core” pursuit in there. What can one truly expect out of a 2-3 year pursuit? Toss in an acquisition or two and that may address another 10-20 years of lost hunting. There is certainly no shortage of great coins to buy with a deep, deep checkbook. We just witnessed that this past week with the Kennedy coins.
Wondercoin.
Unless you already have money.
I think the man likes Lincoln cents..some of his basic sets have TWO registries...for both business and proofs and some with proof varieties.
WS
New Upgrade to D.L. Hansen Liberty Seated Dollar Set
When you have a “the absolute finest ever completed” set of Liberty Seated Dollars, Circulation Strikes (1840-1873), there will not be many times that we will observe an upgrade. The last upgrade was when Hansen replaced his 1870-CC MS63 POP of 7/1. The replacement coin was the 1870-CC Liberty Seated Silver Dollar “Variety 1-D” MS-64 POP 1/0. The recent upgrade will be second (that I know of) PCGS POP 1/0 specimen added to the collection since purchased a year ago.
I am not going to spend much time on the set. This is an amazing set assembled over a very long period of time by Bruce Morelan (aka TDN). Bruce valued the set at $10,000,000 in a 2016 interview. There were several news releases printed at the time of the transaction made by DLRC and DLH. I will provide this link to the article on COINWEEK. If you have time to view the six minute video, it will be well worth your time.
https://coinweek.com/us-coins/david-lawrence-rare-coins-acquires-hall-fame-collection/
1861 Liberty Seated Dollar
The 1861 does not catch your attention as some of the other coins in this series. As TDN described, this set is highlighted by the James A Stack specimen of the 1870-S, the finest of only 9 coins known. In addition, it contains such amazing rarities as the Starr 1844, Norweb 1845, 1850-O and 1851, Garrett 1848, Fairfield 1849, Hayes 1866, Stack 1871-CC, Austin 1872-CC and the Share 1873-CC. So, how would a 1861 even be a second thought? Well, even the 1861 has a story to tell. No one can tell the story better than Q. David Bowers: Beginning in 1861, emphasis in silver dollar distribution was not primarily export to China. Rather, in this year some pieces were sent beyond the borders of the United States, but for the first year in nearly a decade, many remained stateside. R.W. Julian relates that in one instance in 1861 a quantity amounting to 40,000 silver dollars went to the melting pot to provide silver for subsidiary coins. When it comes to 1861 dollars, rarity is the order of the day. While Proofs are occasionally seen on the market, circulation strikes in all degrees are very elusive. The relative degree of circulation strikes of all Philadelphia Mint Liberty Seated dollars of the early 1860s is difficult to calculate. Proofs come on the market with regularity, as noted, but these are more visible than circulation strikes and tend to be included in auctions more often than VF and EF coins. Although the 1861 is very rare in circulation strike form, it is not in the very top echelon of rarity in Mint State. Still, specimens are rare, and when they come on the market they attract attention, deservedly so. Uncirculated coins, when found, are just as apt to be MS-63 or MS-64 as in a lower Mint State grade. Up to a few days ago, the Morelan 1861 Specimen was highlighted in Hansen’s top set. That coin has been bumped to Hansen’s #2 Set.
D. L. Hansen Liberty Seated Dollars (1840-1873) 2nd Set
1861 Liberty Seated Silver Dollar MS65 PCGS POP 3/2, Ex: Bruce Morelan
Certification #81226399, PCGS #6951, PCGS Price Guide: $52,000
Ex: Bruce Morelan’s Legend Collection of Mint State Seated Liberty Dollars, Legend Numismatics, sold privately in 2/2018 – D. L. Hansen Collection
.
.
All-Time Finest / D. L. Hansen Collection of Liberty Seated Dollars (1840-1873)
I wish I know a little more about this specimen. I cannot find any history. In comparing to pictures of GEM coins sold at auctions, it does not appear that it has been in a recent sale. It is the finest coin in Coin Facts Pedigree and History list, and they give no clue on the history. We have seen this several times before that condition census coin appears in Hansen’s Collection with no public trail. There is not much else to say except this coin had no public past, but now will have a very bright future.
1861 Liberty Seated Silver Dollar MS66 PCGS POP 1/0
Certification #02070132, PCGS #6951, PCGS Price Guide: $125,000
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Field above the eagle is kinda busy for a 66
I like the 65 better.
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
TDN's Seated Dollar set is bonkers. When it's been put together by a well-connected enthusiast with an emphasis on preservation and eye appeal, really the only improvements that you can make will be technical upgrades, and I think that this one falls within that definition.
Sorry, i take offense to that 1861 being added (Just like the 70CC). Why is he killing the sets I worked so hard to build????? That STD set we slaved for years looking at every damn coin that hit the market. We even chased coins not on the market.
I am sorry, Bruce and I know the better coins in the STD world. Delloys impulses are a shame. Sometimes the lesser grade is the better coin.
Thanks everyone for this discussion. Your opinions are welcome here. Let me share my perspective by providing a deeper dive on this subject. It doesn’t seem that everyone is connecting the dots on this collection. What this collector is doing is very distinctive in many ways, and one of them is the way he is building this collection. I cannot speak on his long-term goal, only what I am observing today.
Some of you are upset on what is taking place. That’s OK. On the other hand, more and more people are beginning to appreciate “The Collection”. We are witnessing a historic experience first-hand. I remember reading some historic writings from Eliasberg’s day, and even he had some nay-sayers during his time. Their writings are out there, but nobody remembers them. The Hansen Collection is truly amazing collection of individual coins and sets. When you try to view this collection from the perspective of one set, you may be missing the entire purpose of what is being achieved.
For example, we have been told over and over, that if a coin becomes available, the coin is offered at a fair price, and the coin will improve the collection, then there is a good chance a deal can take place. With that thought is mind, let’s consider the 1861 MS66. Was it available? Yes, we should be able agree with that. Was it at a fair price? We have to assume it was, because the deal was made. Third, did it improve the set? Yes, stated by a previous poster, it is a PCGS technically graded better specimen than the one in the previous set. I don’t think the decision to purchase this coin was made by bad advice or being in a hurry. If you have read or have an understanding that cause you to disagree with this conclusion, please state your case.
Now, with the general understanding of acquisition practice for the collection out of the way, let’s discuss the specifics the 1861 Dollar. If you have been following my posting, you will know that I have a great deal of respect for Bruce and his grading viewpoint. This is especially true with Liberty Dollars, Trade and Early Dollars. He was proven over time his respect is earned. So, there is no way that I would intentionally dispute his opinions. I take his comments as close to the fact as you can get. So with that said, if you look closely, he did not actually say one coin is better that the other. He did show problems with one of them. I may agree with another poster, the MS65 specimen does appear to be more appealing and perhaps better preservation. At one point, Bruce had the MS65+ specimen. He replaced his MS65+ with this coin because I assume he like it better. Bruce worked on his set for many years and made numerous changes until he got the set to a point that he considered it as perfection. (Bruce, I think I am right about that, if not my apologies). On the other hand, when it come the PCGS certified grade comparison, the 61MS66 has the better grade. No one can dispute, due to being factual at this time.
I know this is longer than I like post, but I think it does provide some essential information. So to conclude, I stated the collector’s drive is unique to you and me, from principle of not being satisfied with one coin and limiting the collection to just one. Hansen still 61MS65 coin in his collection. He has not (Yet) broken up this HOF set! This coin is just not in his technically best grade registry set.
I will leave you with something to ponder. We know by past postings that Hansen made a strong bid for the 1884 Eliasberg Trade Dollar. If I recall, he dropped out somewhere around the million dollar mark, maybe less. If he was the successful bidder, who here thinks he would place the coin in his technically top graded ATF set? I don’t think so. So why was he willing to spend that kind of dollars on a coin going in a secondary set? In this history making experience that we are watching, don’t think he just building great sets, but he is also creating a great collection. So, maybe now, “The Collection” has the most appealing 1861 specimen along with the only PCGS MS66 POP 1/0 specimen. If you fail to think big, you will not be able to truly comprehend what is taking place in front of your eyes.
My opinion from my observation.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Currin, Please your comments are off base period.
Bruce was being polite. I am not because I AM the one who mostly built the sets. I am protecting MY legacy too. I had a verbal promise that 70CC would never be be added. Bruce I and I KNEW there was no better 1861. if you really believe this 1861 is better because of the plastic, you should not comment as you have seen neither in hand. This 1861 flunked CAC. The reverse kills it badly. How nieve for people to not think between Bruce and I-not matter what it takes or costs, we weren't going to put the FINEST-the absolute FINEST coins in his sets. Even today when a coin or two pops up, Bruce will buy it if it was better then what he has. So, yeah, you bet I am pissed. Its like taking a work of art and destroying it. That is the new type of hero? Really? In that case no.
No more observations that are just plain WRONG please...
Yes, what Delloy is doing is difficult. I do have some respect for him. But I wish he would not destroy these once in a life time sets. I sure won't offer him any more-I can't even look at what he did to my beloved 3CS set.
am I missing something?---hansen has both the 1861 in pcgs 65 cac and pcgs 66 so one can use either one when looking at his seated dollar set depending on your preference.
Hello
This latest 1861 goes back to many of my posts. If a coin is not CAC, generally most. people
comsider it to be a half to a full grade lower, So usually adding a higher grade non CAC
coin, improves the score but not the quality. I agree with specialist on this one.
Why does DLH need to improve the score? No one is going to top this set. Leave it alone.
If he were behind i can see his reasoning but of course not agree with it.
Iit is so,difficult to build an entire CAC set of a popular series.
Tne competing sets use many higher graded non cac coins to top your score.
DLH is very close,to my world class Seated Half Date set, I have 32 coins,
all cac that are higher than his. But he is going to soon score number one with the number two
set. So be it.
I am selling my DMPL set, half this month at CSNS and half at the ANA auction. Why?
Because to improve it, I,would have to mostly buy non cac coins like the sets above it have.
I would assume that half of the top two sets would not pass cac. cac is very tough on dmpl and pl coins.
In addition I would have to spend at least one million on the non dmpl/pl key dates like the 93s.
I don't consider that fair so I never did it.
yes he can use wither coin. so in this case. it does not matter
If he had to use the non cac to improve his score to beat another set, that matters.
Two random thoughts...
What is the sense and purpose of having excellent representation? To listen to them. Not sure what is going on in this case - one way or the other. Maybe he got a screaming deal on the MS66? Who knows.
Fair point... maybe Legend sets are still intact (as they deserve to be) and these are just add on coins for fun and/or registry point purposes only?
Wondercoin.
I don't travel at these kinds of numismatic altitudes.
But from my ground-based observation, I see the sets as Hansen's and they don't belong to anyone else.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with buying a coin that you like, regardless of who is selling it or what it is certified as.
So you won't offer him any more coins because he bought some that you don't approve of from another source ?
If I was working with a dealer and they expressed that kind of attitude, I wouldn't work with that dealer any more either.
Dealers at the top of the chain get many amazing coins and have to decide who gets first shot. They rarely get fired
That's great. Another reason to attend the ANA!
Agree it's nice to have both. I don't really see anything wrong with having both the most appealing coin and the top pop 1/0 in a collection. I can see someone who really loves coins and having fun wanting to have both.
I also don't think someone should feel offended if someone else has both in their collection. Collecting is about having fun so let's let people have theirs.
Quote: "For example, we have been told over and over, that if a coin becomes available, the coin is offered at a fair price, and the coin will improve the collection, then there is a good chance a deal can take place. With that thought is mind, let’s consider the 1861 MS66. Was it available? Yes, we should be able agree with that. Was it at a fair price? We have to assume it was, because the deal was made. Third, did it improve the set? Yes, stated by a previous poster, it is a PCGS technically graded better specimen than the one in the previous set. I don’t think the decision to purchase this coin was made by bad advice or being in a hurry. If you have read or have an understanding that cause you to disagree with this conclusion, please state your case."
--> the case is very simple: the holders are not always 100% correct.
Not always is a PCGS 66 better than the PCGS 65 before.
Specialist, Im not sure you are aware, but the set is sold. Its theirs now. They can do with it whatever they want.
The coin may not be better but the PCGS grade is better. Sometimes that is enough, especially if one has both the top pop and the most appealing.
I'm not sure PCGS will say the 66 grade is incorrect, but perhaps Dell Loy should send it in for reconsideration?
Just have to say that criticism of Hansen should be reserved for people ACTUALLY AFFECTED by anything he does or doesn't do and bearing in mind that ...VERY...few can afford to KEEP every power coin they buy.
A dealer turning inventory and spending millions at a crack is noteworthy but nowhere near as impressive as one who keeps the coins they buy.
I don’t think so either but I was putting out a suggestion for the detractors. I should have put a wink at the end
This has to be one of the most entertaining threads of all time. It has great intrigue, suspense, education and debate. ( but I’m here basically for the haymakers) I look forward to coming back to this thread on a daily basis. It’s way better then any weekly or monthly coin publication I’ve ever read.
Love when I see there are 15 new posts. You never know what you’re gonna get.
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......
Gold Quarter Eagle Upgrade
This is latest addition to Hansen’s gold set. The Capped Bust Quarter Eagle Gold Basic Set is a tough little set. The set requires only 12 coins to complete. Only one current set is listed in the registry, and that would be Hansen’s. This is one of the series that Eliasberg still have a better graded set. For Eliasberg set, GPA Weighted is 57.16 compared to Hansen at 56.03. The Hansen Collection is closing the gap. This is Hansen’s first PCGS CAC POP1/0 coin in this set. I would guess it is not the last.
As described by PCGS: The early gold coins of the United States are among the most coveted and rarest items in the numismatic world. This is due both to extremely limited original mintages as well as prolific melting that took place during the late 1820s and early 1830s when the bullion value of the coins exceeded their face value. The Capped Bust Quarter eagles were struck intermittently during this period, with none made between 1809 and 1820. The 1808 is a one year type coin, and consequently enjoys substantial demand from those seeking a complete US type set. Most of the remaining dates are about equal in rarity, but a nice AU or better example will run into the low five-figure range.
1830 Quarter Eagle MS66, PCGS POP 1/0
This quarter eagle is finest known specimen of 1830 Capped Bust Quarter Eagles. The coin has never been sold at auction according to CoinFacts. It appeared in late January timeframe for sale by David Lawrence Rare Coins. The asking price was $336,380. The posting was ultimately removed and the coin ended up in the Hansen Collection. Coin Facts priced this coin at $195,000.
David Akers provided these expert comments: The 1830 is a very scarce date (as are all of the six dates of this type), but I have seen a fair number of extremely choice specimens in the MS65 class. Like the 1829 and 1831, the 1830 is usually well struck, at least more so than the typical 1832, 1833 or 1834. If you are wondering, Hansen had a pretty nice 1830 in his collection. The coin was BD-1 MS64 Specimen (Certification #33426403). For the BD-1 variety, the coin is a POP 1/1. I am not sure new coin is a BD-1 or not. If there is an early gold expert in the house, maybe you can help with the question.
In comparison, The Eliasberg registry set describes his specimen as estimated grade AU55, purchased at the Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 Eliasberg sale by Ed Milas for $5,775. Lot #96.
Finest PCGS Certified
1830 $2.50 MS66 CAC
Certification #84726659, PCGS #7670. PCGS Price $195,000
.
.
Hansen’s Duplicate (BD-1)
1830 $2.50 BD-1 MS64 Certification #33426403, PCGS #45524
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
wow--this 1830 quarter eagle addition keeps Hansen's upgrades on an amazing pace
In the HOF set, he upgraded over 100 coins last night. Most were from the Kennedy purchase, but still an amazing one time upgrade.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/complete-sets/master-sets/u-s-coins-complete-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1792-present/alltimeset/159714
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
For those who can not read, I will NOT offer him any more sets.
And yes, that 1830 $2.5 is amazing. I tried to buy it several times. I had to settle for a MS65+ at Baltimore.....
Love that 1830 QE, just a perfect look to me
Agreed. Unlike the seated dollar, this QE was a great upgrade.
I’m surprised by this because your approach is to pay a premium and Dell Loy’s approach is to not over pay. What happened?
The initial price was ridiculous. These guys love to take shots. Plus, he probably knew I bought the PCGS MS65+ CAC
So when they need money, they always go somewhere else to get it....
And heck ya, I pay SUPER STRONG for nice coins. I badly need a $20 1907 Saint PCGS MS67 CAC right now. Hedige is annoyed he only has a 66..
would love to read some of his articles especially what motivates his desire to have the best
Kennedys are my quest...
I'm guessing Hansen felt that he wasnt over paying considering the date is scarce to begin with and this example has no equal. If he ever sells, I bet he will make money on this coin.
No one said Delloy overpaid. I'm sure he got that 1830 at a much better deal then I was offered. Of course he will make $$ on a coin like that...
Today, we reached 75K views. Again, big thanks and shout out to everyone that has followed along. I did the last update at 50K in mid-November. So, we are talking about a little less than 5 months ago. A lot has happen, and this is a good time to recap some of what we have seen.
I usually start with the misses first. There have not been any big misses this time. I will not call it a miss, but at least it was an opportunity for the purchase of an 1827/3 "Original" quarter in the Heritage January 2019 FUN Auction in Orlando. The coin realized $444,000. Also, there was an opportunity to purchase a matching restrike in the same auction. Hansen may be holding out for the D. Brent Pogue Specimen. Maybe he is thinking he will go with a lower graded coin due to the fact that Eliasberg had a very poor specimen. Only time will tell. The "big event" was not a miss, but the purchase of the Eliasberg 1885 Trade dollar that realized just a little less than $4,000,000. He has added five countdown coins to his collection since the 50K Update. This averages to be about one per month.
Eliasberg Quest (classic style)
This is the collection that gets the most attention at this time. According to my count, The Hansen Collection has 21 coins left. A complete collection have not been achieved but once before by Louis Eliasberg. At a rate of one per month, we can predict the set to be completed around year-end of 2020. This could be a tough or near impossible goal because the difficulty level increases with each count down.
Countdown #25 was the 1846-C Half Eagle (Legend’s Regency Auction 29, 11/2018))
Countdown #24 was the 1802 Half Dime (Purchase JRCSLM32 set)
Countdown #23 was the 1885 Trade Dollar Ex: Atwater-Eliasberg (Heritage FUN Auction 1/2019)
Countdown #22 was the 1796 Quarter Eagle “Stars” (RARCOA FUN show private auction, 1/2019)
Countdown #21 was the 1797 Half Eagle “Large Eagle, 15 Stars”
Hansen Challenge
As stated last time, it appear to me, Hansen is on a mission to collect every date, mint mark, major variety, and proof in the US issues from 1793-Present (or as close to every coin as possible). With the 2018 issues, we are talking about approx. 6300 coins. The Hansen Collection master set reached 92% as of today. This is a massive effort that maybe no one has ever made a serious attempt to achieve before. PCGS has a registry set that represents this effort.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/complete-sets/master-sets/u-s-coins-complete-set-major-varieties-circulation-strikes-proof-1792-present/3072
This is a colossal set with about 6300 coins that increase every year. PCGS describes the set as: Every U.S. coin in Circulation Strike and Proof from 1792 to present, every date, every Mintmark, every major variety, this set is the ultimate challenge. A collection of this size could take years to assemble. The collector who completes this set in high grade would make numismatic history. Are you up to the challenge? To be honest, after studying the set, in some ways it is a fantasy set. There are a few proofs that are not available for private purchase and a couple major variety gold coins. I think the set could be completed to approx. 99.9%. It is going to interesting to watch and see how close he can meet the Hansen Challenge.
.
Breakdown of the Hansen Challenge
CS Pre 1964 Basic – 10 coins left (down 5 from last update)
CS Pre 1964 Major Varieties -56 coins left (down 9 from last update)
CS Modern (including Major Varieties) – 95 coins left (down 28 from last update)
Proof Pre 1964 (including Major Varieties) – 333 coins left (down 21 from last update)
Proof Modern (including Major Varieties) – 1 coin left (no change)
Total – approx. 495 coins left of 6300. Roughly - 92%. (Added approx. 63 coins since the last update)
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
The 1830 looks like an absolutely gorgeous coin. The price did feel too high even though it is one of the best of the type. I think there are only a 4 CAC'ed in MS66 of the type and one 1829 MS67 CAC that is in PRC's collection. I recently purchased a PCGS 63 CAC at a fraction of the price. Hard for me to understand the condition rarity thing. All the same, congrats to Mr. Hansen.
Richmond made quite a run at it, albeit at a lower grade level
Those 1827 quarters are in my box of 20
A NEW SET
I was planning to keep things a little simple today and maybe provide a summary on the challenge that we have been watching the past few weeks. Sometimes Hansen does things to change my plan as he did last night. He created a new set and added one coin. This may seem simple enough, but it is more than worthy to mention today.
Capped Bust Half Dimes, Proof (1829-1837)
This is a set that does not seem to belong or at least not appreciated. The new complete series set consist of only dates: 1829-1837. A coin is required for each year no matter the difficulty. When I say difficulty, a few dates do not have any coins certified by PCGS. The registry provides a very simple description for the set: Low mintage is the name of the game with proof Capped Bust Half Dimes. The 1829 and 1831 issues can be found, but the rest of the set is going to prove a major challenge, even in lower grades. One coin from the series is required for a complete PCGS Proof Type Set. The Hansen Collection have an 1829 PR64 POP 3/3. I am not sure when he acquired this coin, but it has been the representative in his type set for a while now. Hansen did not update his type set last night, but the 1829 is short live for the type set. There is another interesting point that I will make. If you have followed me, you know that at times I have commented on the inconsistently of the PCGS sets. This is another example. In the Proof Basic Master Set (in the Complete Sets category), for half dimes, the set starts with 1837 Half Liberty Seated Proof. Why would this entire series be excluded?
Capped Bust Half Dimes, Proof Information from PCGS POP Report. (1832, 1833, 1835, 1837 did not have any PCGS certified specimens)
1829 H10C (Est. 20-30 known) PCGS Total Pop 11 coins (1 CA)
1830 H10C (Est. 5 to 6 known) PCGS Total Pop 2 coins (1 CA)
1831 H10C (Est. 10-20 known) PCGS Total Pop 3 coins
1832 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1833 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1834 H10C ( Est. 20-30 known) PCGS Total Pop 5 coins (1 CA)
1835 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1836 H10C (Est. 1-5 known) PCGS Total Pop 1 coin
1837 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
Note: we need to be careful with the estimates due to proof –like coins. It is my understanding that PCGS is very selective at what they consider true proofs in many of the early issues.
1830 Half Dime, PR65+ CA CAC
These little silver coins do not get much love. I am curious, are there any half dime fans in the community? If so, this is the time to jump into the discussion. I think this coin is worth a decision. This coin appears to be a recent NGC crossover. As I indicated, PCGS certification coins in this series are very limited. This coin makes only the second 1830 certified by PCGS. The other is “The Eliasberg 1830 V-5, LM-9.1 Half Dime, PR65” that last sold in a 2008 Heritage Auction in $50,025. The coin did not have the CA designation. To be fair, the Hansen coin was certified recently and the Eliasberg Specimen more than 10 years ago. At the present time, the Hansen Specimen is the higher graded coin in a two coin PCGS race.
To the best that I can find out, there are only four (maybe as many as six) known 1830 Proof Half Dime. One is in the Smithsonian Institution (per Walter Breen). PCGS CoinFacts attributes the grade as unknown. With the Hansen POP 1/0 and Eliasberg 1/1 specimens, only one other confirmed 1830 Proof Half Dime shows up. That coin is usually contributed to Eugene H. Gardner Specimen. The coin has a cool history being that it is from Europe as: “obtained by a European noble while visiting this country in the middle 19th century and retained by the same family until the present time”. That coin is a “PR66 STAR NGC. V-10, LM-1.1, R.4” that last sold in a 2013 Heritage Auction for $49,937.50. CoinFacts list this coin after the Eliasberg’s as “PR65 estimated grade”. In any case, I will show my Condition Census report below as Hansen’s as the top coin with the PCGS POP1/0. Just keep in mind that all three of the specimens outside the Smithsonian Institution are close in grade. Places could very well switch in the future.
Only four high grade proofs of date are known (Note: NGC have certified a couple lesser than GEM and may be proof-like specimens).:
D. L. Hansen Specimen (PCGS PR65+ CA CAC) - Long Beach Connoisseur Collection (Bowers and Merena, 8/99), lot 79, which realized $18,400; Benson Collection, Part II (Ira and Larry Goldberg, 2/02), lot 350, which realized $23,172; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2007), lot 848, realized $57,500; Greensboro Collection; The Greensboro Collection, Part VI , 2/14 US Coins Signature Auction, which the coin realized $47,000, Hansen Collection 2019.
Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr. Specimen (PCGS PR65) - Bowers & Merena 5/22/1996:912, $19,800 - Heritage 12/2008:1039, $50,025 A PR66 NGC example that we offered in January 2007, earlier from the Benson Collection (Goldberg, 2/2002).
Eugene H. Gardner Specimen (NGC PR66 STAR, PCGS Est. PR65) - “Obtained by a European noble while visiting this country in the middle 19th century and retained by the same family until the present time” (Heritage) - Noblesse Collection - Heritage 9/2013:6301, $49,937.50 - Eugene H. Gardner Collection - Heritage 6/2014:30184
Smithsonian Institution Specimen (Grade Unknown), per Walter Breen.
The Hansen coin as last sold at auction at the Greensboro Collection sale in 2016. At the time, the NGC PR66 coin was described as the “Second-Finest Certified” . The finest would have been the NGC PR66 STAR. This is the Heritage description of the date: Proof 1830 half dimes are extremely rare. As of (12/13), NGC has certified only four, the present PR66 piece and another PR66 with the star designation that was recently discovered in Europe, a PR64 specimen, and a PR64 Cameo coin. An additional PCGS PR65 from the Eliasberg Collection creates a total third-party census of five examples. There is also an example in the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution.
I have reviewed pictures of the Eliasberg, Gardner, and Hansen Specimens. It is really not possible to determine the best toning from pictures. But I can say, the new TrueView picture of the Hansen coin is spectacular! Heritage describes the coins as: A delightful proof specimen of the 1830 half dime was included in the collection of Harold P. Newlin, the first numismatist to seriously study die varieties of the denomination. Lot 91 of the Newlin Collection (Captain John W. Haseltine, 4/1883) reads, "1830 A beautiful brilliant proof. Rarer than the above." The preceding coin was a proof 1829 half eagle, and it is interesting that collectors recognized the relative rarity of the 1829 and 1830 proofs as early as 1884. Recent auction appearances of the 1830 proof include the offering of the present coin in lot 848 of our January 2007 FUN Signature, which realized $57,500. Over the years, any number of prooflike pieces have been offered as proofs, but the status of the current lot is unquestioned. The portrait is thickly frosted, and the eagle is also icy, despite the presence of original golden-brown peripheral toning. The strike is needle-sharp, and the fields are flashy. A couple of trivial hairlines near star 2 and a pinpoint spot at 7 o'clock define the grade.
I have not been able to find this coin as being offered for sale in recent months. How it came into the Hansen Collection is unknown. PCGS Coin Guide places the value at $64,500. Anyone know how that value was determined?
1830 Proof Half Dime PR65+ CA CAC (PCGS Standard)
PCGS Coin #84301 / PCGS Serial #25304398 / POP 1/0
PCGS Price Guide: $64,500
Long Beach Connoisseur Collection (Bowers and Merena, 8/99), lot 79, which realized $18,400; Benson Collection, Part II (Ira and Larry Goldberg, 2/02), lot 350, which realized $23,172; FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2007), lot 848, realized $57,500; Greensboro Collection; The Greensboro Collection, Part VI , 2/14 US Coins Signature Auction, which the coin realized $47,000, Hansen Collection 2019.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
Yes.
@Barndog likes this series:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1017582/mrhalfdimes-capped-bust-half-dimes
and @UtahCoin has a site on the series:
http://www.everythinghalfdimes.com/
If he bought that 1830-dilly dilly! Great coin. So UNDERvalued
_**Capped Bust Half Dimes, Proof Information from PCGS POP Report. (1832, 1833, 1835, 1837 did not have any PCGS certified specimens)
1829 H10C (Est. 20-30 known) PCGS Total Pop 11 coins (1 CA)
1830 H10C (Est. 5 to 6 known) PCGS Total Pop 2 coins (1 CA)
1831 H10C (Est. 10-20 known) PCGS Total Pop 3 coins
1832 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1833 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1834 H10C ( Est. 20-30 known) PCGS Total Pop 5 coins (1 CA)
1835 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified
1836 H10C (Est. 1-5 known) PCGS Total Pop 1 coin
1837 H10C (Not in PCGS POP Report) None PCGS certified_**
Authors Logan and McCloskey stated they had not verified existence of 1837 Proofs (though Breen said they exist).
For 1836, the LM-1 die marriage (typically LM-1.2 remarriage) often comes Proof like. I believe special planchets were used in striking many of these, despite the die being used for the reverse was falling apart. In fact, WD Perkins has on his website such a half dime that Pittman carried as a Proof (Akers pish-poshed that idea in the catalog, IIRC). It is now graded NGC MS65
Although Breen reported 4 die marriages of 1835 as having Proof examples, Logan and McCloskey discount some of that claim. They do cite an 1835 LM-4 in a Stack's auction as a Proof sale in January 1991. I'm not convinced Logan and McCloskey believed any 1835 Proofs existed.
They take the same kind of approach for 1834, with reference to Breen insofar as Proofs are concerned.
And for 1833, they say they have not been able to verify any Proofs (again, despite what Breen claimed)
1832 they say "Proof examples have been reported" for the LM-3 and LM-5 die marriages, which are the most common die marriages for the year by far.
The beat goes on for the 1831 half dimes, with discussion of "interesting die states that have been erroneously reported as Proofs" (mostly due to extensive lapping and polishing of dies)
Reading what Logan and McCloskey had to say about 1830s half dimes, it becomes obvious (to me) that they don't think the US Mint intentionally produced any 1830 Proofs either!
And finally (yes, in reverse order), when discussing Proofs for 1829, Logan and McCloskey make the statement, "many 1829 half dimes were struck with lustrous planchets from highly polished dies."
So this exercise is one I have not done for a few years (reviewing Logan and McCloskey for comments on Proof capped bust half dimes). They helped me form my conclusion that I think aligns with what theirs was: strictly defined Proof coins (special purpose, special dies, special planchets) did not exist 182901837 and have only come to exist since then. YMMV
Thanks Barndog for your contribution. From your information, it appear the 1836 PCGS coin should be removed from the POP report. At some point, I would like to combine your info with the POP reports from PCGS & NGC, just to see what it looks like. From all indications, to complete this set is a fantasy.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
If I could ask Mr. Hansen a question, I would ask how does he determine what to sell? It appear he sells coins that he doesn’t like. If he likes, he keeps, no matter how many he has.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004