Technically: they were submitted under the grading tier with the foreknowledge and agreement that the grades weren’t going to change in order to get them reholdered.
Guys, don’t forget Eliasberg had two 1794-s Barber Dimes. He liked the less grader one better and sold the higher grade. Sometimes this confuses people when they are looking at his pedigree.
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
I don't know... If it doesn't sticker isn't it just expensive dreck?
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
I don't know... If it doesn't sticker isn't it just expensive dreck?
LOL. Based on some of the comments on this thread, you would think so.
To my mind, anyone who bases his bid on this coin based on either plastic or sticker should have his bidding privileges revoked.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Why doesn't the grading companies just call them what they really are, proof like due to the fact that very few were made and the dies were fresh.> @Currin said:
Guys, don’t forget Eliasberg had two 1794-s Barber Dimes. He liked the less grader one better and sold the higher grade. Sometimes this confuses people when they are looking at his pedigree.
Why is that, wouldn't both have his pedigree on it, so one cannot be confused.
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
I don't know... If it doesn't sticker isn't it just expensive dreck?
LOL. Based on some of the comments on this thread, you would think so.
To my mind, anyone who bases his bid on this coin based on either plastic or sticker should have his bidding privileges revoked.
There’s enough of them around - why would you want to bid big bucks on a doctored one?
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
I don't know... If it doesn't sticker isn't it just expensive dreck?
LOL. Based on some of the comments on this thread, you would think so.
To my mind, anyone who bases his bid on this coin based on either plastic or sticker should have his bidding privileges revoked.
There’s enough of them around - why would you want to bid big bucks on a doctored one?
I wouldn't. But this coin is well known and, unless recently doctored, it is what it has long been known to be. Putting a CAC sticker on it doesn't make it better than it is.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
I don't know... If it doesn't sticker isn't it just expensive dreck?
LOL. Based on some of the comments on this thread, you would think so.
To my mind, anyone who bases his bid on this coin based on either plastic or sticker should have his bidding privileges revoked.
Nonsense. Auction companies should send limos for these guys! Now, if you want to talk about Mensa...
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@Cameonut said:
I would not be a buyer of a tiny dime for 7 figures - I'd go for something much larger at that price point.
What does the BM suffix mean on the grade? PR65+BM
Branch Mint, which seems redundant to me, seeing as how the coin bears a mintmark.
Agreed. The BM designation is silly.
BTW, I don't consider 94-S dimes to be proofs, but that's a separate issue.
>
I’ve only handled two of the high grade 94-S’s and I didn’t think that either one was Proof, but what do I know?
In order for a coin to be a 'proof', beyond striking characteristics shouldn't it be intentionally struck as a proof and not just as a specimen ?
Once you’ve seen enough Philly proofs, enough 94-S dimes, and enough PL S-Mint Barbers of other dates and denominations, you don’t worry so much about what was intended. You just know what you’re looking at.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@Walkerfan said:
Saw that. That coin's reputation speaks for itself, so the brand of plastic that it resides in, is irrelevant. JMHO.
Yes. Plastic means nothing on coins like these or 1804 dollars or similar pedigreed rarities. It's almost a waste of the submission fee. (LOL). The coin gained a plus but not one cent in value.
I don't know... If it doesn't sticker isn't it just expensive dreck?
LOL. Based on some of the comments on this thread, you would think so.
To my mind, anyone who bases his bid on this coin based on either plastic or sticker should have his bidding privileges revoked.
Nonsense. Auction companies should send limos for these guys! Now, if you want to talk about Mensa...
Oh, I'm quite sure that the auction company doesn't care who is bidding for what reason. His wife and accountant, on the other hand, might have a different opinion.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I am not terribly partial to one service over the other, but overall, I would have preferred to see such a famous, traditional rarity remain in its original holder with a traditional-style ANA grade (i.e., no "plus" or "star" or whatever). But my opinion isn't so strong as to lose any sleep over it.
@Connecticoin said:
It is in a better holder from an aesthetic standpoint. Those white prongs are hideous, and I am perplexed as to why NGC stubbornly continues to use them.
I’m not perplexed, as I can understand both sides of the debate. Aesthetically, the pronged holders aren’t pleasing. But they allow for a better view of the coin, in particular, the edge and peripheral areas.
The newer PCGS holders have had edge view for many years now, so that is no longer an advantage to just the NGC holder.
lol,
but fyi it has a bean from the cross - so we got that covered, and luckily I left "CAC" out of the subject line or we'd have multiple pages by now.
Comments
But did it sticker?
$10k max per coin on the grading fee. I’ve paid it...twice.
Cross over or regrade?
Re-holder
Really? The PCGS fee schedule lists the price of reholdering rarities (>$100k) as a flat $300.
And yet with all this change, the condition census remains unchanged
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
In order for a coin to be a 'proof', beyond striking characteristics shouldn't it be intentionally struck as a proof and not just as a specimen ?
Good luck with that
Technically: they were submitted under the grading tier with the foreknowledge and agreement that the grades weren’t going to change in order to get them reholdered.
Call it what you will.
I don’t think the 1894-S dimes were struck as Proofs. However, it’s not known as what they were “intentionally“ struck.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Guys, don’t forget Eliasberg had two 1794-s Barber Dimes. He liked the less grader one better and sold the higher grade. Sometimes this confuses people when they are looking at his pedigree.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
I don't know... If it doesn't sticker isn't it just expensive dreck?
LOL. Based on some of the comments on this thread, you would think so.
To my mind, anyone who bases his bid on this coin based on either plastic or sticker should have his bidding privileges revoked.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Why doesn't the grading companies just call them what they really are, proof like due to the fact that very few were made and the dies were fresh.> @Currin said:
Why is that, wouldn't both have his pedigree on it, so one cannot be confused.
There’s enough of them around - why would you want to bid big bucks on a doctored one?
I wouldn't. But this coin is well known and, unless recently doctored, it is what it has long been known to be. Putting a CAC sticker on it doesn't make it better than it is.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Two words....
Marketing Genius!
Talk about working a marketplace...wow!
This is exactly why I don’t collect million dollar coins.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Nonsense. Auction companies should send limos for these guys! Now, if you want to talk about Mensa...
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Once you’ve seen enough Philly proofs, enough 94-S dimes, and enough PL S-Mint Barbers of other dates and denominations, you don’t worry so much about what was intended. You just know what you’re looking at.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Oh, I'm quite sure that the auction company doesn't care who is bidding for what reason. His wife and accountant, on the other hand, might have a different opinion.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I am not terribly partial to one service over the other, but overall, I would have preferred to see such a famous, traditional rarity remain in its original holder with a traditional-style ANA grade (i.e., no "plus" or "star" or whatever). But my opinion isn't so strong as to lose any sleep over it.
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
Oh, and congratulations to the new owner - not for the "upgrade", but just for owning such a classic!
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
The newer PCGS holders have had edge view for many years now, so that is no longer an advantage to just the NGC holder.
lol,
but fyi it has a bean from the cross - so we got that covered, and luckily I left "CAC" out of the subject line or we'd have multiple pages by now.