When you are selling coins at this lofty level you need to know the players. You need to know who has the money and who has the ego that demands he/she own these trophy coins.
okay here we go thats a nice 3.2 mil coin, its has been down a few roads but still in good loving shape 1804 over 200 years old and the last of that era type of coin so hold on to it and keep it off the roads. thanks
@291fifth said:
When you are selling coins at this lofty level you need to know the players. You need to know who has the money and who has the ego that demands he/she own these trophy coins.
+1
I can guarantee you that the guy who paid $91 million for the Koons Rabbit did not use any analytical approach...all your algorithms are just going to come up with a lower price...past performance is no indicator of future results...
I can't grade a $200 coin to give a quote for someone else from a photo, so if I like the photo of the coin and really wanted it I would bid up to what I was able, and sometimes even when I am not able.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I would simply add 15% and have a estimate of $3.8 million from the last public documented price of $3.29 million in 2017.
I doubt there are a massive amount of buyers for a coin with this caliber. So I would just research a few potential buyers who would be interested in this coin and their current buying power to check if there was a significant change. Anyhow, two years is too short to have a major impact on the value of this coin.
@tradedollarnut said:
You’ve been commissioned to appraise this coin. Your client will NOT accept a WAG - you must have data to support your value conclusion . Show your method and state the current value. Best appraisal wins a lil sumptin sumptin from my old box of junk stuff.
A great coin and very interesting discussion. IMO, it's worth exactly what someone will pay for it, and the seller is willing to part with it. Seven-figure-coin transactions are rarely rational by the standards of traditional financial models.
John Feigenbaum Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com) PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
@tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Try as one might to use one's knowledge, experience, intellect and creativity to come up with a methodology that would allow one to accurately state [ in reality accurately "predict"] the market value of an item of property, including a collectible coin, successfully doing so is impossible.
For multiple reasons one cannot accurately predict any future event, including a sales price of an item.
@CoinPhysicist said: @tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
And, how does inflation affect valuation when using these numbers?
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@CoinPhysicist said: @tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
I used the three most recent ultra rarity sales...fresh data. Those particular coins last sold at auction in a tight time frame (1996/1997). An 1804 dollar of the same grade sold in the same sale. What more could a reasonable person ask for in pertinent data?
@CoinPhysicist said: @tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
I used the three most recent ultra rarity sales...fresh data. Those particular coins last sold at auction in a tight time frame (1996/1997). An 1804 dollar of the same grade sold in the same sale. What more could a reasonable person ask for in pertinent data?
But your not... your key ratios are from 1996 and 1997 in your first example and 2000 and 1999 in your second example. I think it is a Herculean size assumption to assume that these ratios might hold even remotely true today. You must agree that the market has changed a lot in the past nearly 25 years...
@CoinPhysicist said: @tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
I used the three most recent ultra rarity sales...fresh data. Those particular coins last sold at auction in a tight time frame (1996/1997). An 1804 dollar of the same grade sold in the same sale. What more could a reasonable person ask for in pertinent data?
But your not... your key ratios are from 1996 and 1997 in your first example and 2000 and 1999 in your second example. I think it is a Herculean size assumption to assume that these ratios might hold even remotely true today. You must agree that the market has changed a lot in the past nearly 25 years...
Ok, let me ask you this: if historically a gem 1804 dollar has ALWAYS sold for more than a gem 1885 trade dollar, and a gem 1885 trade dollar was just sold at auction then isn’t it logical to assign a higher value than the 1885 price realized to the 1804?
Absent some sort of dramatic change in stature between the two (none has occurred), I think it absolutely proper.
1804 sold in 1941 at auction for $4250
1885 sold in 1946 at auction for $1450
Stature
Same grade 1804 sold in 1997 at auction for $1.815M
1885 sold in 1997 at auction for $907,500
Stature
1885 just sold at auction for $3.96M...what value do you assign to 1804 in an independent appraisal using your numismatic knowledge? Methods may vary but isn’t it logically more than what the 1885 realized?
@CoinPhysicist said: @tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
I used the three most recent ultra rarity sales...fresh data. Those particular coins last sold at auction in a tight time frame (1996/1997). An 1804 dollar of the same grade sold in the same sale. What more could a reasonable person ask for in pertinent data?
But your not... your key ratios are from 1996 and 1997 in your first example and 2000 and 1999 in your second example. I think it is a Herculean size assumption to assume that these ratios might hold even remotely true today. You must agree that the market has changed a lot in the past nearly 25 years...
Ok, let me ask you this: if historically a gem 1804 dollar has ALWAYS sold for more than a gem 1885 trade dollar, and a gem 1885 trade dollar was just sold at auction then isn’t it logical to assign a higher value than the 1885 price realized to the 1804?
Absent some sort of dramatic change in stature between the two (none has occurred), I think it absolutely proper.
So you don’t think the high end coin market has changed since the late 1990s? If you don’t think so, that’s fair.
If i have time after I get off work tonight I will test that claim later. I would be surprised to see no change after 25 years.
@CoinPhysicist said: @tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
I used the three most recent ultra rarity sales...fresh data. Those particular coins last sold at auction in a tight time frame (1996/1997). An 1804 dollar of the same grade sold in the same sale. What more could a reasonable person ask for in pertinent data?
But your not... your key ratios are from 1996 and 1997 in your first example and 2000 and 1999 in your second example. I think it is a Herculean size assumption to assume that these ratios might hold even remotely true today. You must agree that the market has changed a lot in the past nearly 25 years...
Ok, let me ask you this: if historically a gem 1804 dollar has ALWAYS sold for more than a gem 1885 trade dollar, and a gem 1885 trade dollar was just sold at auction then isn’t it logical to assign a higher value than the 1885 price realized to the 1804?
Absent some sort of dramatic change in stature between the two (none has occurred), I think it absolutely proper.
So you don’t think the high end coin market has changed since the late 1990s? If you don’t think so, that’s fair.
If i have time after I get off work tonight I will test that claim later. I would be surprised to see no change after 25 years.
Meaning what - that a gem 1885 trade dollar is now more desirable than a gem 1804 dollar? No - that has not changed since 1997. Nor since 1947...or 2017 for that matter. There has NEVER been an 1885 trade dollar that was more valuable than an 1804 dollar on a grade by grade basis. Ever.
This was an interesting topic and was enjoyable to consider the input of others. I'm curious if matters such as eye appeal (comparing apples to apples), the state of the hobby, alternative investment options (that are "hot") etc factor into appraised value as well?
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
A brief comment from an old appraiser. I worked in this field for 30 years as a licensed certified appraiser and sometimes as an investor. I appraised raw land, residential property, and commercial property and on occasionally, coins. I still do but no longer as a fee appraiser.
First, for those who have indicated that a true value is only what a willing and informed seller will sell at and what a willing, informed and able buyer will pay. You are correct. It has also been said here that no one knows the future and exactly what the rare coin in question would sell if it was to be brought to auction. True.
But property of all sorts, including numismatic property often needs an appraisal. It could be for using it as collateral, for insurance or perhaps it is being valued for an estate or for a divorce. In this case, it is not possible to put it up for auction to find it's "true" value, so someone will need to appraise it.
Sometimes that is easy. Appraising a tract home is like appraising common date Morgan dollars. You check a price guide, determine what is for sale on the market and find some recent comparable sales. Adjustments are made for differences. For the tract home, does the subject have a garage or carport, an extra bathroom or a third bedroom? If so, adjustments are made to the comps. Does the silver dollar have good eye appeal, attractive toning or a sticker? If so, adjustments are made.
Now appraising the subject coin is a different animal. It is not a tract home or a common coin. It is more like trying to appraise a unique home with unusual features or a home on the historical register or a Ford dealership in a city where no Ford dealership has sold in the last 75 years. Or trying to appraise or compare with any of the other major coin rarities that seldom come to market. There are no accurate book values or recent comps. But they still have to be appraised sometimes.
When I read the op proposition, I was thinking along the same lines as @tradedollarnut outlined in his appraisal as far as the method needed to do the appraisal. I did not know where to begin to find corroborating data and know nothing of this market, so I was out. But I do understand the process enough to know that TDN had the correct approach and nailed it. At least as far as it is possible to nail something that is nearly unique. I also believe that @Cameonut, @batman and @MrEureka all had the right approach.
When appraising multi million dollar and sometimes unique properties the bank wanted to know the value right down to the dollar. No ranges or estimates. But the exact values. Which is what we appraisers gave them. It was never said to the bankers, but between appraisers this value was know as a SWAG.
A Scientific Wild Ass Guess.
Lastly, what I would do now to make a professional presentation of the subject coin appraisal would be to produce a 20 page report on a heavy cream colored linen paper with photos of all the coins mentioned as well as copies from any old auction pages. With a discussion of the data and approach used by those mentioned above, along with pertinent analysis of the current coin market, stock market, economy etc. All in a professional binder along with my invoice for $1,200.
@CoinPhysicist said: @tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
I used the three most recent ultra rarity sales...fresh data. Those particular coins last sold at auction in a tight time frame (1996/1997). An 1804 dollar of the same grade sold in the same sale. What more could a reasonable person ask for in pertinent data?
But your not... your key ratios are from 1996 and 1997 in your first example and 2000 and 1999 in your second example. I think it is a Herculean size assumption to assume that these ratios might hold even remotely true today. You must agree that the market has changed a lot in the past nearly 25 years...
Ok, let me ask you this: if historically a gem 1804 dollar has ALWAYS sold for more than a gem 1885 trade dollar, and a gem 1885 trade dollar was just sold at auction then isn’t it logical to assign a higher value than the 1885 price realized to the 1804?
Absent some sort of dramatic change in stature between the two (none has occurred), I think it absolutely proper.
So you don’t think the high end coin market has changed since the late 1990s? If you don’t think so, that’s fair.
If i have time after I get off work tonight I will test that claim later. I would be surprised to see no change after 25 years.
Meaning what - that a gem 1885 trade dollar is now more desirable than a gem 1804 dollar? No - that has not changed since 1997. Nor since 1947...or 2017 for that matter. There has NEVER been an 1885 trade dollar that was more valuable than an 1804 dollar on a grade by grade basis. Ever.
So here is another example using your ratio technique with 25 year old data. #2 condition census Olsen-Hydeman specimen 1913 Liberty Head Nickel vs 1794 SP66 Silver Dollar. Chosen because both of them were auctioned twice within a close time period to each other both times.
Nickel: HA 1/2014, $3,290,000. Dollar: 1/2013, $10,016,875.00.
Nickel/Dollar ratio: 0.33.
Things change over 25 years. In the early 1990s, the liberty head nickel was worth almost double the 1794 dollar. By 2014, the dollar was worth triple the nickel. Things can change. There is no reason that the ratio you quoted back in the 1990s should hold constant until today, in fact it probably doesn't.
Yes - Martin Logies wrote a book with scientific research showing that the 1794 was most likely the very first struck US dollar. Most certainly the first struck known example. This added many millions of dollars in value to the 1794. I know this for a fact because my high bid became $13M all in vs $7.5M all in.
I am a dollar expert and know of NO such research regarding 1804 vs 1885 trade dollars. There is no black swan event so you are talking apples to oranges.
The 1991 auction of the 1794 was at the very bottom of the market. Perhaps a distress sale which is ignored for appraisal purposes. Maybe Andy can expound.
I'm trying very hard to keep it to coins that today are probably worth on the order of $1 million or so, but it's hard to find examples where auctions of 2 happened in a reasonable time span. So here is another example with a changed ratio, using the same nickel and the SP 66 1796 quarter.
Nickel: HA 1/2014, $3,290,000. Quarter: HA 8/2014, $881,000.
Nickel/Dollar ratio: 3.73.
Anyways, I rest my case. I suppose we can agree to disagree. You're the one out there buying coins of this caliber, so in the end, my opinion really doesn't matter at all It was a fun thought experiment, so thank you for passing some time with me.
I don’t consider the 1796 quarter to be a classic rarity so I have never researched it in that manner. I can tell you that when I did extensive research on the classic rarities that they all followed the same linear path...subject to noise, of course
Regardless of finest known statures on 1913 LHN or 1885 TD'S, they don't carry the oomph of a US 1804 Silver Dollar. And a couple of grade points on an 1804 dollar from 65 to 67/68 is missing the bigger picture....when the better struck one is the PF65. It's an EAC thing. How did we get here where a couple grade points carries far more weight than a superior strike? Which one IS the best struck? Which ones are not rubbed/frictioned.
1804 $'s are the Kings of American Coins, plain and simple. It has been that way since the later 1800's (though maybe the SP1794 has wiggled in there the past 10 yrs). Based on strike and eye appeal I consider the PF65 1804 as the better looking coin of the top 3 - it's simply marvelous. Maybe the 4th most valuable non-gold US rarity.
Strike matters. And the "story" on the Type 1's is much better with deep historical data and far cleaner (ie legal) than on the Type 2 and 3's, and the 1913 5c and 1885 TD's. The higher ups in the US Govt authorized those Type 1's....that decision wasn't made at the US Mint Superintendent/Manager level as it was on the others coins. Take that all into account. Don't beat me up too hard as I'm just a bystander in this area.
@CoinPhysicist said: @tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
I used the three most recent ultra rarity sales...fresh data. Those particular coins last sold at auction in a tight time frame (1996/1997). An 1804 dollar of the same grade sold in the same sale. What more could a reasonable person ask for in pertinent data?
But your not... your key ratios are from 1996 and 1997 in your first example and 2000 and 1999 in your second example. I think it is a Herculean size assumption to assume that these ratios might hold even remotely true today. You must agree that the market has changed a lot in the past nearly 25 years...
I think TDN's point more broadly is that there is a reason that the 1804 dollars (the originals at least) have frequently been dubbed the "King of American" coins and for the longest time (through the 19th and 20th centuries if I am not mistaken), the issue was the most valuable U.S. coin. It was overtaken in the early 2000s only when the Treasury Department legitimated the Farouk 1933 Saint Gaudens Double Eagle and then TDN's specimen 1794 dollar broke the 8 figure barrier. After having outperformed the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, the 1885 Trade Dollar, and others for a century or so, it would be very unlikely (although not impossible) that the others would surpass it.
As for Mr. Lustig's point about being the finest known "V" nickel - I don't put as much weight to being "finest known" as he does. I think the 1913 LHN is more controversial and there are far fewer nickel collectors in general. I also think once you hit a certain point, the differences in grade matter less than they might for other coins and the price spread might not be as wide (rare is rare and there is a certain "basal" value). That is part of the reason that I went the other way and valued the 1804 dollar higher.
@roadrunner said:
Regardless of finest known statures on 1913 LHN or 1885 TD'S, they don't carry the oomph of a US 1804 Silver Dollar. And a couple of grade points on an 1804 dollar from 65 to 67/68 is missing the bigger picture....when the better struck one is the PF65. It's an EAC thing. How did we get here where a couple grade points carries far more weight than a superior strike? Which one IS the best struck? Which ones are not rubbed/frictioned.
1804 $'s are the Kings of American Coins, plain and simple. It has been that way since the later 1800's (though maybe the SP1794 has wiggled in there the past 10 yrs). Based on strike and eye appeal I consider the PF65 1804 as the better looking coin of the top 3 - it's simply marvelous. Maybe the 4th most valuable non-gold US rarity.
Strike matters. And the "story" on the Type 1's is much better with deep historical data and far cleaner (ie legal) than on the Type 2 and 3's, and the 1913 5c and 1885 TD's. The higher ups in the US Govt authorized those Type 1's....that decision wasn't made at the US Mint Superintendent/Manager level as it was on the others coins. Take that all into account. Don't beat me up too hard as I'm just a bystander in this area.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to duplicate the substance of your post Roadrunner. I didn't refresh the page before I posted so it didn't show.
How will we know whos right? Wait for auction? Otherwise, it is a WAG by definition. Remember the counter-stamped Trade dollar you "appraised." You were off by more than 100%. No one can predict auction prices well enough to avoid having an item in an auction. That is all a crap shoot.
MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
I would have used the same comparison logic, but if I were to bid on such a coin I would use numerous other comparisons to form a greater data set.
It doesn’t appear that this method, in hindsight, would have accurately predicted the hammer from prior sales. Even a change in the ratio from 1.5 to 2.0 ends up being a large disparity in final price.
I’d use the 10 or 20 most comparable issues I could come up with. (Realizing they really aren’t that comparable). I’d then weigh the results in accordance to the relative level of comparability.
And the things you can't predict or estimate going into the auction?
Who the competition is? How badly do they want it? Filling a hole in a set or just for "fun." What's there time frame of ownership? How much $$ do they have ready? These alone can vary the price another 10-20%. When the whales last fought "to the death" at major auctions in 2007-2008 some of the prices realized were stunning.
The 1991 auction of the 1794 was at the very bottom of the market. Perhaps a distress sale which is ignored for appraisal purposes. Maybe Andy can expound.
Well, it was a distress sale, but it was at public auction and I thought that the coin brought a realistic price at the time. And it wasn't the bottom of the market. A year later, things were significantly worse. But on the other hand, I turned down 950K in 1990, which I consider a valid data point. As was the 375K price I paid for it privately in 1988.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
this topic is interesting. I would love to live in a world that debating the valuation of a 1804 $ is irrelevant... if you have enough money is valuation is necessary? otherwise you were not in the position to acquire the piece for aesthetic pleasure.
apprasisal is important. but its like buying based on future appreciation... which means you are stretched and subject to market fluctuations.
WTB... errors, New Orleans gold, and circulated 20th key date coins!
@2ltdjorn said:
this topic is interesting. I would love to live in a world that debating the valuation of a 1804 $ is irrelevant... if you have enough money is valuation is necessary? otherwise you were not in the position to acquire the piece for aesthetic pleasure.
apprasisal is important. but its like buying based on future appreciation... which means you are stretched and subject to market fluctuations.
If you have all money in the world, it’s still more fun to get a good deal than to overpay. It’s human nature, and it’s the nature of our game.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Comments
Eh. It’s all for fun. Doesn’t matter much in the real world
When you are selling coins at this lofty level you need to know the players. You need to know who has the money and who has the ego that demands he/she own these trophy coins.
okay here we go thats a nice 3.2 mil coin, its has been down a few roads but still in good loving shape 1804 over 200 years old and the last of that era type of coin so hold on to it and keep it off the roads. thanks
M> @privaterarecoincollector said:
There appeared to be an underbidder on the phone. If it was a real bidder and not a shill of some sort, his bid is a valid data point.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
+1
I can guarantee you that the guy who paid $91 million for the Koons Rabbit did not use any analytical approach...all your algorithms are just going to come up with a lower price...past performance is no indicator of future results...
I can't grade a $200 coin to give a quote for someone else from a photo, so if I like the photo of the coin and really wanted it I would bid up to what I was able, and sometimes even when I am not able.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I would simply add 15% and have a estimate of $3.8 million from the last public documented price of $3.29 million in 2017.
I doubt there are a massive amount of buyers for a coin with this caliber. So I would just research a few potential buyers who would be interested in this coin and their current buying power to check if there was a significant change. Anyhow, two years is too short to have a major impact on the value of this coin.
When does the contest end?
It already did. I need to sit down and review each response...preferably without two five year olds yelling in my ear
So which Board members are you referring to?
Well, I'm glad I'll never need to worry about such things.
A great coin and very interesting discussion. IMO, it's worth exactly what someone will pay for it, and the seller is willing to part with it. Seven-figure-coin transactions are rarely rational by the standards of traditional financial models.
Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com)
PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
@tradedollarnut Do you not think that using 20-25 year old data is a little questionable in this pricing exercise? The market has changed a lot in 25 years, has it not? I personally don't think it's a fair comparison. Especially when newer data is available. I understand why you might have chosen that data to use, but I am not convinced that was the right data to use.
Edit: Typo.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Interesting thread.
Try as one might to use one's knowledge, experience, intellect and creativity to come up with a methodology that would allow one to accurately state [ in reality accurately "predict"] the market value of an item of property, including a collectible coin, successfully doing so is impossible.
For multiple reasons one cannot accurately predict any future event, including a sales price of an item.
And, how does inflation affect valuation when using these numbers?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I used the three most recent ultra rarity sales...fresh data. Those particular coins last sold at auction in a tight time frame (1996/1997). An 1804 dollar of the same grade sold in the same sale. What more could a reasonable person ask for in pertinent data?
Winner: cameonut
Honorable mention: batman
Both used comparative methods in their evaluation. PM me your mailing addresses and I’ll send you out a lil sumtin from the stuff-box
But your not... your key ratios are from 1996 and 1997 in your first example and 2000 and 1999 in your second example. I think it is a Herculean size assumption to assume that these ratios might hold even remotely true today. You must agree that the market has changed a lot in the past nearly 25 years...
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Ok, let me ask you this: if historically a gem 1804 dollar has ALWAYS sold for more than a gem 1885 trade dollar, and a gem 1885 trade dollar was just sold at auction then isn’t it logical to assign a higher value than the 1885 price realized to the 1804?
Absent some sort of dramatic change in stature between the two (none has occurred), I think it absolutely proper.
1804 sold in 1941 at auction for $4250
1885 sold in 1946 at auction for $1450
Stature
Same grade 1804 sold in 1997 at auction for $1.815M
1885 sold in 1997 at auction for $907,500
Stature
1885 just sold at auction for $3.96M...what value do you assign to 1804 in an independent appraisal using your numismatic knowledge? Methods may vary but isn’t it logically more than what the 1885 realized?
S
So you don’t think the high end coin market has changed since the late 1990s? If you don’t think so, that’s fair.
If i have time after I get off work tonight I will test that claim later. I would be surprised to see no change after 25 years.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Meaning what - that a gem 1885 trade dollar is now more desirable than a gem 1804 dollar? No - that has not changed since 1997. Nor since 1947...or 2017 for that matter. There has NEVER been an 1885 trade dollar that was more valuable than an 1804 dollar on a grade by grade basis. Ever.
This was an interesting topic and was enjoyable to consider the input of others. I'm curious if matters such as eye appeal (comparing apples to apples), the state of the hobby, alternative investment options (that are "hot") etc factor into appraised value as well?
A brief comment from an old appraiser. I worked in this field for 30 years as a licensed certified appraiser and sometimes as an investor. I appraised raw land, residential property, and commercial property and on occasionally, coins. I still do but no longer as a fee appraiser.
First, for those who have indicated that a true value is only what a willing and informed seller will sell at and what a willing, informed and able buyer will pay. You are correct. It has also been said here that no one knows the future and exactly what the rare coin in question would sell if it was to be brought to auction. True.
But property of all sorts, including numismatic property often needs an appraisal. It could be for using it as collateral, for insurance or perhaps it is being valued for an estate or for a divorce. In this case, it is not possible to put it up for auction to find it's "true" value, so someone will need to appraise it.
Sometimes that is easy. Appraising a tract home is like appraising common date Morgan dollars. You check a price guide, determine what is for sale on the market and find some recent comparable sales. Adjustments are made for differences. For the tract home, does the subject have a garage or carport, an extra bathroom or a third bedroom? If so, adjustments are made to the comps. Does the silver dollar have good eye appeal, attractive toning or a sticker? If so, adjustments are made.
Now appraising the subject coin is a different animal. It is not a tract home or a common coin. It is more like trying to appraise a unique home with unusual features or a home on the historical register or a Ford dealership in a city where no Ford dealership has sold in the last 75 years. Or trying to appraise or compare with any of the other major coin rarities that seldom come to market. There are no accurate book values or recent comps. But they still have to be appraised sometimes.
When I read the op proposition, I was thinking along the same lines as @tradedollarnut outlined in his appraisal as far as the method needed to do the appraisal. I did not know where to begin to find corroborating data and know nothing of this market, so I was out. But I do understand the process enough to know that TDN had the correct approach and nailed it. At least as far as it is possible to nail something that is nearly unique. I also believe that @Cameonut, @batman and @MrEureka all had the right approach.
When appraising multi million dollar and sometimes unique properties the bank wanted to know the value right down to the dollar. No ranges or estimates. But the exact values. Which is what we appraisers gave them. It was never said to the bankers, but between appraisers this value was know as a SWAG.
A Scientific Wild Ass Guess.
Lastly, what I would do now to make a professional presentation of the subject coin appraisal would be to produce a 20 page report on a heavy cream colored linen paper with photos of all the coins mentioned as well as copies from any old auction pages. With a discussion of the data and approach used by those mentioned above, along with pertinent analysis of the current coin market, stock market, economy etc. All in a professional binder along with my invoice for $1,200.
Great post
So here is another example using your ratio technique with 25 year old data. #2 condition census Olsen-Hydeman specimen 1913 Liberty Head Nickel vs 1794 SP66 Silver Dollar. Chosen because both of them were auctioned twice within a close time period to each other both times.
Nickel: Stack's 10/1993:245, $962,500. Dollar: 5/1991, $506,000.
Nickel/Dollar ratio: 1.9.
Nickel: HA 1/2014, $3,290,000. Dollar: 1/2013, $10,016,875.00.
Nickel/Dollar ratio: 0.33.
Things change over 25 years. In the early 1990s, the liberty head nickel was worth almost double the 1794 dollar. By 2014, the dollar was worth triple the nickel. Things can change. There is no reason that the ratio you quoted back in the 1990s should hold constant until today, in fact it probably doesn't.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Yes - Martin Logies wrote a book with scientific research showing that the 1794 was most likely the very first struck US dollar. Most certainly the first struck known example. This added many millions of dollars in value to the 1794. I know this for a fact because my high bid became $13M all in vs $7.5M all in.
I am a dollar expert and know of NO such research regarding 1804 vs 1885 trade dollars. There is no black swan event so you are talking apples to oranges.
The 1991 auction of the 1794 was at the very bottom of the market. Perhaps a distress sale which is ignored for appraisal purposes. Maybe Andy can expound.
I'm trying very hard to keep it to coins that today are probably worth on the order of $1 million or so, but it's hard to find examples where auctions of 2 happened in a reasonable time span. So here is another example with a changed ratio, using the same nickel and the SP 66 1796 quarter.
Nickel: Stack's 10/1993:245, $962,500. SP 66 1796 Quarter: 4/1997, $176,000.
Nickel/Dollar ratio: 5.46.
Nickel: HA 1/2014, $3,290,000. Quarter: HA 8/2014, $881,000.
Nickel/Dollar ratio: 3.73.
Anyways, I rest my case. I suppose we can agree to disagree. You're the one out there buying coins of this caliber, so in the end, my opinion really doesn't matter at all
It was a fun thought experiment, so thank you for passing some time with me.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
I don’t consider the 1796 quarter to be a classic rarity so I have never researched it in that manner. I can tell you that when I did extensive research on the classic rarities that they all followed the same linear path...subject to noise, of course
Regardless of finest known statures on 1913 LHN or 1885 TD'S, they don't carry the oomph of a US 1804 Silver Dollar. And a couple of grade points on an 1804 dollar from 65 to 67/68 is missing the bigger picture....when the better struck one is the PF65. It's an EAC thing. How did we get here where a couple grade points carries far more weight than a superior strike? Which one IS the best struck? Which ones are not rubbed/frictioned.
1804 $'s are the Kings of American Coins, plain and simple. It has been that way since the later 1800's (though maybe the SP1794 has wiggled in there the past 10 yrs). Based on strike and eye appeal I consider the PF65 1804 as the better looking coin of the top 3 - it's simply marvelous. Maybe the 4th most valuable non-gold US rarity.
Strike matters. And the "story" on the Type 1's is much better with deep historical data and far cleaner (ie legal) than on the Type 2 and 3's, and the 1913 5c and 1885 TD's. The higher ups in the US Govt authorized those Type 1's....that decision wasn't made at the US Mint Superintendent/Manager level as it was on the others coins. Take that all into account. Don't beat me up too hard as I'm just a bystander in this area.
I think TDN's point more broadly is that there is a reason that the 1804 dollars (the originals at least) have frequently been dubbed the "King of American" coins and for the longest time (through the 19th and 20th centuries if I am not mistaken), the issue was the most valuable U.S. coin. It was overtaken in the early 2000s only when the Treasury Department legitimated the Farouk 1933 Saint Gaudens Double Eagle and then TDN's specimen 1794 dollar broke the 8 figure barrier. After having outperformed the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, the 1885 Trade Dollar, and others for a century or so, it would be very unlikely (although not impossible) that the others would surpass it.
As for Mr. Lustig's point about being the finest known "V" nickel - I don't put as much weight to being "finest known" as he does. I think the 1913 LHN is more controversial and there are far fewer nickel collectors in general. I also think once you hit a certain point, the differences in grade matter less than they might for other coins and the price spread might not be as wide (rare is rare and there is a certain "basal" value). That is part of the reason that I went the other way and valued the 1804 dollar higher.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to duplicate the substance of your post Roadrunner. I didn't refresh the page before I posted so it didn't show.
No problem Cameonut. I'm just happy that at least one person agrees with me.
How will we know whos right? Wait for auction? Otherwise, it is a WAG by definition. Remember the counter-stamped Trade dollar you "appraised." You were off by more than 100%. No one can predict auction prices well enough to avoid having an item in an auction. That is all a crap shoot.
I would have used the same comparison logic, but if I were to bid on such a coin I would use numerous other comparisons to form a greater data set.
It doesn’t appear that this method, in hindsight, would have accurately predicted the hammer from prior sales. Even a change in the ratio from 1.5 to 2.0 ends up being a large disparity in final price.
I’d use the 10 or 20 most comparable issues I could come up with. (Realizing they really aren’t that comparable). I’d then weigh the results in accordance to the relative level of comparability.
Fun exercise.
And the things you can't predict or estimate going into the auction?
Who the competition is? How badly do they want it? Filling a hole in a set or just for "fun." What's there time frame of ownership? How much $$ do they have ready? These alone can vary the price another 10-20%. When the whales last fought "to the death" at major auctions in 2007-2008 some of the prices realized were stunning.
Well, it was a distress sale, but it was at public auction and I thought that the coin brought a realistic price at the time. And it wasn't the bottom of the market. A year later, things were significantly worse. But on the other hand, I turned down 950K in 1990, which I consider a valid data point. As was the 375K price I paid for it privately in 1988.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Sounds like markets change on a dime...
this topic is interesting. I would love to live in a world that debating the valuation of a 1804 $ is irrelevant... if you have enough money is valuation is necessary? otherwise you were not in the position to acquire the piece for aesthetic pleasure.
apprasisal is important. but its like buying based on future appreciation... which means you are stretched and subject to market fluctuations.
If you have all money in the world, it’s still more fun to get a good deal than to overpay. It’s human nature, and it’s the nature of our game.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.