Home› U.S. Coin Forum

Farouk Premium

ProofmorganProofmorgan Posts: 818 ✭✭✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum

What premium would you expect on attributed Farouk gold coins vs non-Farouk.....all else being equal? Let's leave the 1933 $20 out of this, I'm thinking the many other gold coins sold.

Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.

Comments

  • DollarAfterDollarDollarAfterDollar Posts: 3,215 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  • BroadstruckBroadstruck Posts: 30,497 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 23, 2020 2:31PM

    I'd pay up for the coin if quality wise it walked, talked, and chewed bubble gum, but not just for the pedigree.

    To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
  • FredWeinbergFredWeinberg Posts: 5,930 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What if it boiled 12 pound Live Maine Lobsters?

    Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,234 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Zero

    Early Dollar Set
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited June 24, 2020 10:40AM
    This content has been removed.
  • BroadstruckBroadstruck Posts: 30,497 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FredWeinberg said:
    What if it boiled 12 pound Live Maine Lobsters?

    Shellfish allergy so that's no perk :'(

    To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
  • JimnightJimnight Posts: 10,846 ✭✭✭✭✭

    None.

  • cmerlo1cmerlo1 Posts: 7,963 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Didn't he clean his coins- er, have them cleaned?

    You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
  • cardinalcardinal Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 23, 2020 3:06PM

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

  • keyman64keyman64 Posts: 15,550 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As interesting as it may be, the coin would have to come first and foremost. After all of that, it would just be a point of conversation, not a reason to bid.

    "If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64
    Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners. :smile:
  • ironmanl63ironmanl63 Posts: 1,974 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    Does that go for any pedigree? Or is it something about Farouk?

  • GazesGazes Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭✭✭

    With a farouk pedigree i would insist on a cac approval

  • CameonutCameonut Posts: 7,386 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Let's see, Farouk was widely considered to be corrupt and incompetent. But he had some nice coins.

    Let me think a nanosecond - no premium.

    “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

    My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!

  • scubafuelscubafuel Posts: 1,948 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’d pay a premium for that pedigree. That name is part of numislore and I love the story. The premium would be based on the coin, so if the coin was cleaned I’d pay a premium to an impaired coin.

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would find it interesting that a coin was once owned by such a prominent figure, but I really consider the coin, not provenance. If the coin is not one I am interested in, I would pass - If I were interested, any provenance premium would ensure I passed as well...just will not pay for such things. Cheers, RickO

  • FredWeinbergFredWeinberg Posts: 5,930 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My second cousin is Moses Farouk, not Farouk Weinberg

    ....and...the coin was not cleaned, lacquered, etc....
    ....maybe the King didn't like his error coin enough to shellack it !

    Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
  • Sandman70gtSandman70gt Posts: 1,024 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 24, 2020 7:42AM

    Webster's dictionary defines...
    Shellac: The Original Slab
    B)

    Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone, Rob41281, clarkbar04, cactusjack55, Collectorcoins, sniocsu, coin finder

  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 29,336 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Goose egg none nothing keep it

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

  • marcmoishmarcmoish Posts: 6,714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

  • QCCoinGuyQCCoinGuy Posts: 335 ✭✭✭✭

    I'm surprised by the responses. Yes, many of the Farouk coins were impaired. Others are fine. All things being equal (non-Farouk coin vs. Farouk coin in same grade), why not pay any premium to have that kind of association? If nothing else, the story of how the coins were sold and who showed up to the sale is worth a premium, IMO.

    Dealing in Canadian and American coins and historical medals.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 15,013 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • cardinalcardinal Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    True, not all of the were cleaned. Pittman bought up most of the good stuff!

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,819 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cardinal said:

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    True, not all of the were cleaned. Pittman bought up most of the good stuff!

    I might speculate that Pittman spread rumors about the Farouk coins all being horribly cleaned to lessen his competition. I have no idea if this happened or not, but from the interactions that I had with the man it would not surprise me.

    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • marcmoishmarcmoish Posts: 6,714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    nope not all - talking about prov only .

  • tommy44tommy44 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 24, 2020 12:12PM

    @cardinal said:

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    True, not all of the were cleaned. Pittman bought up most of the good stuff!

    Pedigree or ~~provenience~~ provenance doesn't matter to me but if it did I'd rather have a gold coin from the Farouk sale attributed to Pittman vs Farouk.

    it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

  • cardinalcardinal Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @tommy44 said:

    @cardinal said:

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    True, not all of the were cleaned. Pittman bought up most of the good stuff!

    Pedigree or provenience doesn't matter to me but if it did I'd rather have a gold coin from the Farouk sale attributed to Pittman vs Farouk.

    The Pittman provenance it is favorable, especially in rare early proof gold coins as he cherry picked them out of the Farouk sale.

    @CaptHenway may be right, and Pittman may have exaggerated when saying most were impaired.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 15,013 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @marcmoish said:

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    nope not all - talking about prov only .

    I don't understand how you would want to (or could) separate completely, the contents of a collection from "provenance", And especially so, without knowing about the collection. But that's your prerogative.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • cardinalcardinal Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    nope not all - talking about prov only .

    I don't understand how you would want to (or could) separate completely, the contents of a collection from "provenance", And especially so, without knowing about the collection. But that's your prerogative.

    Of course, a collector would want the full provenance tracing back as far as possible! So, maybe I will say it as, the fact the Pittman cherry picked the extraordinary coins out of the Farouk Collection, the name Pittman ADDS value to the the Farouk provenance. Basically, it's like Pittman was an astute collector and knew a good coin from a bad one, and the Pittman provenance helps to offset the uncertainties of the coin having been in the Farouk Collection.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 15,013 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cardinal said:

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @MFeld said:

    @marcmoish said:

    @keets said:
    Boy, while I don't play in that end of the pool Farouk was gifted/bought some of the finest coins known. Having that attribution has to carry a significant premium. I'd think it would be on par with a Brand, Simpson, Pogue attribution. Certainly a conversation starter.

    @tradedollarnut said:
    Zero

    @cardinal said:
    Most of King Farouk's coins were cleaned and/or impaired.

    Not even close to any of those names - how can you even compare?

    Zilch in my book - actually on the contrary.

    Are you aware of everything that was in his collection? It doesn't sound like it and it's not as if they were all cleaned.

    nope not all - talking about prov only .

    I don't understand how you would want to (or could) separate completely, the contents of a collection from "provenance", And especially so, without knowing about the collection. But that's your prerogative.

    Of course, a collector would want the full provenance tracing back as far as possible! So, maybe I will say it as, the fact the Pittman cherry picked the extraordinary coins out of the Farouk Collection, the name Pittman ADDS value to the the Farouk provenance. Basically, it's like Pittman was an astute collector and knew a good coin from a bad one, and the Pittman provenance helps to offset the uncertainties of the coin having been in the Farouk Collection.

    Martin, you've been doing (better than) just fine, the entire time, as is your habit ;)

    This isn't directed at you... I'd want to know about a collector, his collection and the circumstances under which he lived and collected, before forming an opinion regarding his name as it related to a provenance.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Namvet69Namvet69 Posts: 9,279 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This coin would have to do the dance of the seven veils. Peace Roy

    BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...