Time will tell. In the future, I imagine it will be much more important than it is at present.
I really love what he is doing, but at this point if I consider buying coins with Hansen labels, I mentally add the expense of a re-holder, which I would initiate the day I received the coin. I feel much the same way about the goofy labels created for the Pogue collection and others. Adding a single line of text to an otherwise normal holder is informative and useful, but an entirely unique label rubs me the wrong way. The coin itself should be the focus.
@BryceM said:
Time will tell. In the future, I imagine it will be much more important than it is at present.
I really love what he is doing, but at this point if I consider buying coins with Hansen labels, I mentally add the expense of a re-holder, which I would initiate the day I received the coin. I feel much the same way about the goofy labels created for the Pogue collection and others. Adding a single line of text to an otherwise normal holder is informative and useful, but an entirely unique label rubs me the wrong way. The coin itself should be the focus.
I really like how Hansen is attaching his name on the slab for the coins he's selling. A lot of coins have no other provenance to speak of and we all know provenance is getting much more important over time.
I'm also on the opposite side regarding goofy labels. I'm a big fan of the Pogue "goofy label" and won't change it at all. Of course, it's a major reason for buying a coin like the following. I probably won't change any "goofy label" except to replace it with my own goofy label
I believe the Pogue labels were introduced when the collection was sent to PCGS prior to the big sale. As such, I feel they are more legitimate and desirable than labels applied to coins from an active collection that have been upgraded. FWIW.
The usage of the word pedigree or provenance meant something to me in the past. I would think back to the old well known names in the numismatic world and day dream about these men's and women's lives. They were either incredibly wealthy or incredibly knowledgeable or both. They usually were from the late mid 1800's to the mid 1900's and were in all good company, each on a level that you could only imagine.
Today with he advent of the grading companies allowing just bout anything to be written on the holder, like everything else that is taking place in this now world the term pedigree and provenance is getting diluted and that saddens me. How ever I still hold the old well known pedigrees/provenance in the same high regard as I used, in fact I hold them in higher regard now due to the said dilution.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
I too would reholder a Hansen coin because at this point in time they can also be more realistically described as Hansen rejects.
From what I've seen., one's view may depend on what level someone is typically buying at. If one is typically buying at the Hansen level or above, it may not mean much, but I've seen a number of forum posters cherish their Hansen slabs. One collector's reject is another collector's treasure.
@WaterSport said:
I am not saying its not a fantastic achievement at this moment, but I am not yet seeing mass articles written, Books published, and public programs on the collection just yet. Just that its being compiled. So its a wait and see thing for me.
This is a different era. The mass media has become a lot more fractured than it used to be. If any collection (Hansen or otherwise) is profiled in what is left of the mass media, it's very probable that the vast majority of the public won't even know about.
I agree with @WCC that times are different now. Is any recently sold top collection discussed the way it used to be? Pogue, Newman, Gardner, Partrick? What's the last collection to get a full spread in something like Life Magazine?
A lot of posters whose opinions I respect seem to react very negatively when this topic comes up. Many (all?) collectors upgrade their sets as their collections progress. Obviously, Hansen selling his duplicates in such a public fashion has rubbed people the wrong way but to be honest I'm not sure why. PCGS does remove the Hansen pedigree from the cert verification page once the coins are sold.
I will admit to having a few coins in Hansen slabs in my collection. The Hansen connection did not factor into my purchase decision but now that I have them, I see no reason to reholder them. He is building a historic collection. My coins were part of it (perhaps briefly) but did not make the final cut. Not worth a premium but kind of cool to be tangentially connected. Unless you are buying a top pop, someone somewhere has a better (or at least higher graded) coin than you. I don't know why I should be more bothered that it is Hansen vs. anyone else.
@TheMayor said:
A lot of posters whose opinions I respect seem to react very negatively when this topic comes up. Many (all?) collectors upgrade their sets as their collections progress. Obviously, Hansen selling his duplicates in such a public fashion has rubbed people the wrong way but to be honest I'm not sure why. PCGS does remove the Hansen pedigree from the cert verification page once the coins are sold.
I will admit to having a few coins in Hansen slabs in my collection. The Hansen connection did not factor into my purchase decision but now that I have them, I see no reason to reholder them. He is building a historic collection. My coins were part of it (perhaps briefly) but did not make the final cut. Not worth a premium but kind of cool to be tangentially connected. Unless you are buying a top pop, someone somewhere has a better (or at least higher graded) coin than you. I don't know why I should be more bothered that it is Hansen vs. anyone else.
A lot of the coins that have been sold with the Hansen label were probably bought as part of someone else's collection and upgraded at a later date. As such, they weren't handpicked in the first place. Given the volume of coins that Hansen acquired in a relatively short time frame, I can't imagine he had a special relationship with many of those coins (or he might have kept them as dupes) and may not even have been aware he owned some of them. I could be entirely wrong about this, but that is how I perceive it.
If you find the label/provenance to have a cool factor, that's great. I'm just trying to explain why myself and others do not, since you asked.
I think the provenance is more important when a collection is established as a finished product, rather than when it's perceived to be churned inventory. The Hansen collection is a rather fast moving target, as I'm sure those of other collectors of Significant Provenance were when they were still building theirs. We don't think of coins Eliasberg or Norweb sold long ago as being as important as those from their named sales, and so it will be with Hansen coins.
@TheMayor said:
A lot of posters whose opinions I respect seem to react very negatively when this topic comes up. Many (all?) collectors upgrade their sets as their collections progress. Obviously, Hansen selling his duplicates in such a public fashion has rubbed people the wrong way but to be honest I'm not sure why. PCGS does remove the Hansen pedigree from the cert verification page once the coins are sold.
I will admit to having a few coins in Hansen slabs in my collection. The Hansen connection did not factor into my purchase decision but now that I have them, I see no reason to reholder them. He is building a historic collection. My coins were part of it (perhaps briefly) but did not make the final cut. Not worth a premium but kind of cool to be tangentially connected. Unless you are buying a top pop, someone somewhere has a better (or at least higher graded) coin than you. I don't know why I should be more bothered that it is Hansen vs. anyone else.
A lot of the coins that have been sold with the Hansen label were probably bought as part of someone else's collection and upgraded at a later date. As such, they weren't handpicked in the first place. Given the volume of coins that Hansen acquired in a relatively short time frame, I can't imagine he had a special relationship with many of those coins (or he might have kept them as dupes) and may not even have been aware he owned some of them. I could be entirely wrong about this, but that is how I perceive it.
If you find the label/provenance to have a cool factor, that's great. I'm just trying to explain why myself and others do not, since you asked.
I understand and think it is completely reasonable to place no value on the Hansen label. As I said, it did not factor into my desire for the coins. I understand being completely indifferent towards purchasing a Hansen coin. Some of the comments appear to cross over from neutral to negative - that is what I don't understand. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but that is the vibe I get.
@TheMayor said:
A lot of posters whose opinions I respect seem to react very negatively when this topic comes up. Many (all?) collectors upgrade their sets as their collections progress. Obviously, Hansen selling his duplicates in such a public fashion has rubbed people the wrong way but to be honest I'm not sure why. PCGS does remove the Hansen pedigree from the cert verification page once the coins are sold.
I will admit to having a few coins in Hansen slabs in my collection. The Hansen connection did not factor into my purchase decision but now that I have them, I see no reason to reholder them. He is building a historic collection. My coins were part of it (perhaps briefly) but did not make the final cut. Not worth a premium but kind of cool to be tangentially connected. Unless you are buying a top pop, someone somewhere has a better (or at least higher graded) coin than you. I don't know why I should be more bothered that it is Hansen vs. anyone else.
A lot of the coins that have been sold with the Hansen label were probably bought as part of someone else's collection and upgraded at a later date. As such, they weren't handpicked in the first place. Given the volume of coins that Hansen acquired in a relatively short time frame, I can't imagine he had a special relationship with many of those coins (or he might have kept them as dupes) and may not even have been aware he owned some of them. I could be entirely wrong about this, but that is how I perceive it.
If you find the label/provenance to have a cool factor, that's great. I'm just trying to explain why myself and others do not, since you asked.
I understand and think it is completely reasonable to place no value on the Hansen label. As I said, it did not factor into my desire for the coins. I understand being completely indifferent towards purchasing a Hansen coin. Some of the comments appear to cross over from neutral to negative - that is what I don't understand. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but that is the vibe I get.
Fair enough. I'm neutral on the provenance (at this point) and negative on the aesthetics of the label. I guess I can't really speak for anyone else here.
@TheMayor said:
A lot of posters whose opinions I respect seem to react very negatively when this topic comes up. Many (all?) collectors upgrade their sets as their collections progress. Obviously, Hansen selling his duplicates in such a public fashion has rubbed people the wrong way but to be honest I'm not sure why. PCGS does remove the Hansen pedigree from the cert verification page once the coins are sold.
I will admit to having a few coins in Hansen slabs in my collection. The Hansen connection did not factor into my purchase decision but now that I have them, I see no reason to reholder them. He is building a historic collection. My coins were part of it (perhaps briefly) but did not make the final cut. Not worth a premium but kind of cool to be tangentially connected. Unless you are buying a top pop, someone somewhere has a better (or at least higher graded) coin than you. I don't know why I should be more bothered that it is Hansen vs. anyone else.
A lot of the coins that have been sold with the Hansen label were probably bought as part of someone else's collection and upgraded at a later date. As such, they weren't handpicked in the first place. Given the volume of coins that Hansen acquired in a relatively short time frame, I can't imagine he had a special relationship with many of those coins (or he might have kept them as dupes) and may not even have been aware he owned some of them. I could be entirely wrong about this, but that is how I perceive it.
If you find the label/provenance to have a cool factor, that's great. I'm just trying to explain why myself and others do not, since you asked.
I understand and think it is completely reasonable to place no value on the Hansen label. As I said, it did not factor into my desire for the coins. I understand being completely indifferent towards purchasing a Hansen coin. Some of the comments appear to cross over from neutral to negative - that is what I don't understand. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but that is the vibe I get.
I think this point has already been made in the thread including by myself, but I'll repeat it.
The thing that makes me neutral to negative is that the coins he is selling coins seemingly en masse get to keep the Hansen label and then he upgrades and a second coin gets the label too. It doesn't seem like the rejects being sold were coins he spent time being choosy to choose, rather they were placeholders until the coin he wanted was for sale - which I believe is ok, I don't have an issue with that. The issue I have is that it seems to be against the spirit of PCGS's rules that the old coins get to keep the pedigree/slab and for some reason for Hansen it gets a pass on it. How many duplicates do you see with other pedigrees compared to Hansen? If I wanted to get a pedigree for coins in my collection and then later upgrade them, I'd have to also resubmit the old coins I upgraded from so they go back to a normal slab with no name on it. I don't think this perspective is that hard to understand.
Edit: this was my last comment in the thread, I won’t be back here. Wish I had the collection Hansen has. I have nothing against the person or the collection. Cheers.
@CoinPhysicist said:
The issue I have is that it seems to be against the spirit of PCGS's rules that the old coins get to keep the pedigree/slab and for some reason for Hansen it gets a pass on it. How many duplicates do you see with other pedigrees compared to Hansen? If I wanted to get a pedigree for coins in my collection and then later upgrade them, I'd have to also resubmit the old coins I upgraded from so they go back to a normal slab with no name on it. I don't think this perspective is that hard to understand.
Thanks, this post was exceptionally clear and crystallized the crux of the issue for me. I think reasonable minds can disagree on whether special treatment is warranted given the volume/scale of his endeavor, so I think this is a good point for me to drop the topic as well. Happy collecting.
The main problem with this question is the fact that Hansen is still building his collection. To me there is a huge difference between once owning a coin and being part of the final completed collection. There is no comparison between the 2 categories. At the end of the day when the collection is completed and sold I think that provenance will be amongst the very best known. The problem is will it be diluted by the thousands of coins in Hansen holders that were not part of the final collection. Time will tell.
Comments
For coins collectors have sold:
Time will tell. In the future, I imagine it will be much more important than it is at present.
I really love what he is doing, but at this point if I consider buying coins with Hansen labels, I mentally add the expense of a re-holder, which I would initiate the day I received the coin. I feel much the same way about the goofy labels created for the Pogue collection and others. Adding a single line of text to an otherwise normal holder is informative and useful, but an entirely unique label rubs me the wrong way. The coin itself should be the focus.
I really like how Hansen is attaching his name on the slab for the coins he's selling. A lot of coins have no other provenance to speak of and we all know provenance is getting much more important over time.
I'm also on the opposite side regarding goofy labels. I'm a big fan of the Pogue "goofy label" and won't change it at all. Of course, it's a major reason for buying a coin like the following. I probably won't change any "goofy label" except to replace it with my own goofy label
I believe the Pogue labels were introduced when the collection was sent to PCGS prior to the big sale. As such, I feel they are more legitimate and desirable than labels applied to coins from an active collection that have been upgraded. FWIW.
If Hansen ever sells his final set he will have to put #TheRealHansen on the labels, lol
The usage of the word pedigree or provenance meant something to me in the past. I would think back to the old well known names in the numismatic world and day dream about these men's and women's lives. They were either incredibly wealthy or incredibly knowledgeable or both. They usually were from the late mid 1800's to the mid 1900's and were in all good company, each on a level that you could only imagine.
Today with he advent of the grading companies allowing just bout anything to be written on the holder, like everything else that is taking place in this now world the term pedigree and provenance is getting diluted and that saddens me. How ever I still hold the old well known pedigrees/provenance in the same high regard as I used, in fact I hold them in higher regard now due to the said dilution.
Give it time.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
From what I've seen., one's view may depend on what level someone is typically buying at. If one is typically buying at the Hansen level or above, it may not mean much, but I've seen a number of forum posters cherish their Hansen slabs. One collector's reject is another collector's treasure.
I agree with @WCC that times are different now. Is any recently sold top collection discussed the way it used to be? Pogue, Newman, Gardner, Partrick? What's the last collection to get a full spread in something like Life Magazine?
A lot of posters whose opinions I respect seem to react very negatively when this topic comes up. Many (all?) collectors upgrade their sets as their collections progress. Obviously, Hansen selling his duplicates in such a public fashion has rubbed people the wrong way but to be honest I'm not sure why. PCGS does remove the Hansen pedigree from the cert verification page once the coins are sold.
I will admit to having a few coins in Hansen slabs in my collection. The Hansen connection did not factor into my purchase decision but now that I have them, I see no reason to reholder them. He is building a historic collection. My coins were part of it (perhaps briefly) but did not make the final cut. Not worth a premium but kind of cool to be tangentially connected. Unless you are buying a top pop, someone somewhere has a better (or at least higher graded) coin than you. I don't know why I should be more bothered that it is Hansen vs. anyone else.
A lot of the coins that have been sold with the Hansen label were probably bought as part of someone else's collection and upgraded at a later date. As such, they weren't handpicked in the first place. Given the volume of coins that Hansen acquired in a relatively short time frame, I can't imagine he had a special relationship with many of those coins (or he might have kept them as dupes) and may not even have been aware he owned some of them. I could be entirely wrong about this, but that is how I perceive it.
If you find the label/provenance to have a cool factor, that's great. I'm just trying to explain why myself and others do not, since you asked.
I think the provenance is more important when a collection is established as a finished product, rather than when it's perceived to be churned inventory. The Hansen collection is a rather fast moving target, as I'm sure those of other collectors of Significant Provenance were when they were still building theirs. We don't think of coins Eliasberg or Norweb sold long ago as being as important as those from their named sales, and so it will be with Hansen coins.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I understand and think it is completely reasonable to place no value on the Hansen label. As I said, it did not factor into my desire for the coins. I understand being completely indifferent towards purchasing a Hansen coin. Some of the comments appear to cross over from neutral to negative - that is what I don't understand. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but that is the vibe I get.
Fair enough. I'm neutral on the provenance (at this point) and negative on the aesthetics of the label. I guess I can't really speak for anyone else here.
I think this point has already been made in the thread including by myself, but I'll repeat it.
The thing that makes me neutral to negative is that the coins he is selling coins seemingly en masse get to keep the Hansen label and then he upgrades and a second coin gets the label too. It doesn't seem like the rejects being sold were coins he spent time being choosy to choose, rather they were placeholders until the coin he wanted was for sale - which I believe is ok, I don't have an issue with that. The issue I have is that it seems to be against the spirit of PCGS's rules that the old coins get to keep the pedigree/slab and for some reason for Hansen it gets a pass on it. How many duplicates do you see with other pedigrees compared to Hansen? If I wanted to get a pedigree for coins in my collection and then later upgrade them, I'd have to also resubmit the old coins I upgraded from so they go back to a normal slab with no name on it. I don't think this perspective is that hard to understand.
Edit: this was my last comment in the thread, I won’t be back here. Wish I had the collection Hansen has. I have nothing against the person or the collection. Cheers.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Thanks, this post was exceptionally clear and crystallized the crux of the issue for me. I think reasonable minds can disagree on whether special treatment is warranted given the volume/scale of his endeavor, so I think this is a good point for me to drop the topic as well. Happy collecting.
I wonder how many people criticizing the provenance have their own provenance at the same level as Hansen?
The main problem with this question is the fact that Hansen is still building his collection. To me there is a huge difference between once owning a coin and being part of the final completed collection. There is no comparison between the 2 categories. At the end of the day when the collection is completed and sold I think that provenance will be amongst the very best known. The problem is will it be diluted by the thousands of coins in Hansen holders that were not part of the final collection. Time will tell.