Hansen watch.

@washingtonrainbows said:

@JBatDavidLawrence said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.

I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.

>
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.

Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).

@washingtonrainbows said:

@Gazes said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

@JBatDavidLawrence said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.

I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.

>
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.

Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).

The one coin just happens to be a multimillion dollar coin and pop 5 should come into play when deciding top dog....just my opinion. If it was a 32-d Washington qtr in 66 (he has) this discussion would be irrelevant.

The issue is that it’s a “coin”. “Should” is determined by the set creator and the court of public opinion.

@washingtonrainbows said:

@Zoins said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

@Zoins said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

@Gazes said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

@JBatDavidLawrence said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.

I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.

>
Did Eliasberrg own one, is he competing against Eliasberg? Case closed.

Using that logic, Hansen could get coins that Eliasberg didn't have (whether it be proofs or something else) and argue, Eliasberg didn't own one, I am competing against Eliasberg, case closed. I think you have to look at the totality and quality of the each collection and one coin should not be a determining factor (although one coin should absolutely be a factor).

The one coin just happens to be a multimillion dollar coin and pop 5 should come into play when deciding top dog....just my opinion. If it was a 32-d Washington qtr in 66 (he has) this discussion would be irrelevant.

The issue is that it’s a “coin”. “Should” is determined by the set creator and the court of public opinion.

I believe the court of public option will intuitively know why it’s missing in one set and not the other thus favoring Eliasberg.

Perhaps, but why keep harping on it here? You have an opinion, as stated. Others have their opinions. He might still end up with one. Why not just give it some time?

I harp on it bc the whole premise of building this set was to replicate and beat Eliasberg and my point is without the 1913 he simply can’t meet that goal. Imho he competes well with the little and medium size fish but not the whales. Again my opinion. Btw why do you keep harping on my opinion since harping was brought up.

I think it’s even more the case with the 1933 double eagle. Why don’t you mention that coin?

I respond because I don’t understand why you focus on that coin so much so I’m trying to understand.

@Zoins said:

To me, the 1933 double eagle is the bigger coin of the 2, but I wonder why many 1913 proponents don’t talk about the 1933, though a few do.

In my opinion, apples and oranges.

@MrEureka said:

@tradedollarnut said:
the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase

Then forget about being the greatest collection ever

Is that some sort of Registry rule, or just your opinion?

A picture says a thousand words...

What I wrote was in the context of Eliasberg vs Hansen. Two complete or nearly complete basic sets duking it out head to head

Can a collection without a 1913 be the greatest? Sure thing- if it was more extensive than one single example each of what was in the Eliasberg basic set.

But that’s not what we were discussing as that’s not what Hansen is doing.

we do know that Hansen had the opportunity to buy a 1913 nickel and the resources and passed. I am sure he has a plan. Keep in mind he has done all this in just a few years----so give him a chance to ge there.

@Zoins said:
I’m waiting for Hansen to pick up a gold Confederate cent which Eliasberg had, but I’m not making judgements on Hansen not having one, yet

Does Simpson have one?

Simpson is not in a self stated competition with Eliasberg’s basic set

there is a big difference between the greatest collection ever or the current greatest collection.

And then there is a difference between GREAT coins and just a complete collection.

There is no GREAT collection without many GREAT coins.

There have been many great coins at Garrett and Eliasberg, many more than I have seen here so far.

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@Zoins said:
I’m waiting for Hansen to pick up a gold Confederate cent which Eliasberg had, but I’m not making judgements on Hansen not having one, yet

Does Simpson have one?

Simpson is not in a self stated competition with Eliasberg’s basic set

The question for Simpson is independent of Eliasberg. Laura put Simpson in contention for “the greatest coin collection ever” which, to me, includes Eliasberg but is more than just matching and exceeding Eliasberg.

Greatest collection ever is hard to judge because what is the criteria? Yes, it would include patterns and quite likely coins of the world. It wouldn’t be just a bare basic set

Can Del Loy beat Eliasberg’s basic set...sure. But does he then beat Eliasberg’s collection as a whole? Not without adding patterns and foreign coins. The Eliasberg Collection was more than just a basic set of American coins

Don’t forget US Philippines, colonials, territorials, Confederates, tokens, and medals. Eliasberg had all of these.

Eye candy

@washingtonrainbows said:

@JBatDavidLawrence said:

@Zoins said:

@washingtonrainbows said:
Biggest miss so far IMHO was the recent 1913 Liberty Nickel that he passed on. Should have passed on hundreds of the top pop 20 k coins and got the recent 1913 IMHO. Those top pop 20k coins will always be around. Only Five 1913 Liberty nickels known who knows when next one is available and at what price.

Only he can answer that question. Perhaps he thought it would come around again as it's typically been treated as a trophy coin in the past. A big change is Forsythe is making a Lib nickel set now.

Laura speculated he may not feel the need to include it, but he does have an 1804 dollar and Eliasberg had a 1913 lib nickel.

We've addressed this several times, but happy to again.
We bought the 1804 as it was a fantastic value at the time. The 1913 Nickel is still a fantasy item and we were interested if it came in a price range that we thought it was worth, but overall this isn't a coin that Dell Loy feels like is the cornerstone of the set. He understands that total completion isn't possible, but we'll complete as much as we can with the highest quality possible...

Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.

I doubt it will be his last opportunity.

@MrEureka said:

@JBatDavidLawrence said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.

I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.

>

I’ll bet it would fit into his “framework” at some price.

I agree. The Eliasberg coin sold in a NGC PF66 holder 17 years before for $1.84 million. It resold in a PCGS PF66 CAC holder for $4.56 million in 2018. Did the value really increase 2.5x in that time? I have my doubts given the overall coin market and the fact that many ultra rarities were also taking a hit (compare the 1804 dollar among others). I am aware that the 64 brought over $3 million, but it also had a downward trend losing 12% in 4 years (not counting the loss from inflation). The last sale barely beat the 63 from the year before. Only time will tell.

P.S. The cynic in me wonders whether two sticker fans became obsessed with having the only "CAC" exemplar and overbid. It will be interesting to see if the data point is reproducible. Who owns it now? Is it in solid hands (e.g. collectors) or is it owned by an investment group that is likely to flip it in the near future?

@cameonut2011 said:

@MrEureka said:

@JBatDavidLawrence said:

@washingtonrainbows said:

Not a cornerstone? At 3 years of buying coins you need to educate him. It will be a glaring empty whole. He is trying for the best set ever, I think many will consider the lack of the 1913 Nickel to be a significant missing piece. Especially since he had an opportunity to buy one.

I'm not going to criticize what someone views as the cornerstone of their collection. The beautiful thing about collecting is that it can be whatever you desire. I've seen collectors collect only the key dates of a set and not care about the common ones. We've had the opportunity to buy 3 1913 Nickels. If you speak with many major dealers, the 1913 Nickel is respected, but it's not something that everyone thinks is a no-brainer to purchase. it's not a standard issue piece and if it doesn't fit into someone's parameters of a collection, so be it. He's well aware of the historical significance of the coin, but if it doesn't fit his framework of a collection, that's not my part to judge.

>

I’ll bet it would fit into his “framework” at some price.

I agree. The Eliasberg coin sold in a NGC PF66 holder 17 years before for $1.84 million. It resold in a PCGS PF66 CAC holder for $4.56 million in 2018. Did the value really increase 2.5x in that time? I have my doubts given the overall coin market and the fact that many ultra rarities were also taking a hit (compare the 1804 dollar among others). I am aware that the 64 brought over $3 million, but it also had a downward trend losing 12% in 4 years (not counting the loss from inflation). The last sale barely beat the 63 from the year before. Only time will tell.

P.S. The cynic in me wonders whether two sticker fans became obsessed with having the only "CAC" exemplar and overbid. It will be interesting to see if the data point is reproducible. Who owns it now? Is it in solid hands (e.g. collectors) or is it owned by an investment group that is likely to flip it in the near future?

The Eliasberg coin seemed like good value to me at $4.5 million, even ignoring the CAC angle. The coin is way better than the other two privately held pieces, especially in terms of eye appeal.

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
It’s the cornerstone of the Forsythe Liberty nickel collection

Is it also the first coin in the Forsythe Liberty nickel collection? My understanding is it is but it’s good to ask to be clear.

No, The #1 Circulation Strike and #1 Proof strike sets were also obtained. Forsythe has a Liberty Nickel set that cannot be topped.