@CoinCoins said:
Bet ya anything the Queen/England ends up with the 1c magenta. Looking forward to this auction big time. Interested to see what the '33 does, and that Jenny block. Good stuff
I doubt it will happen. Even though this is the only stamp that the British Museum doesn’t have, the queen is about service, the family gets tax dollars, and it would likely be a scandal to spend so much on a stamp.
Two thoughts on why i think the coin goes for more than 10 million. 1) we live in different times. 1.9 trillion just spent in a heartbeat. There are a group of individuals who are looking for assets that are not tied to printing money 2) the last owner was a non collector. This coin has the ability to attract a non collector. Add just a few more legitimate bidders to the pool (which is significant) and it would seem 10 million could easily be surpassed.
For decades, certain dealers have been saying that non-collectors would affect higher prices in auctions of the high end coins but it doesn't seem to play out very often. Usually collectors or dealers or consortiums of dealers end up winning.
Maybe the 33 double eagle has a story that will grab the attention of a non-collector that decides to buy something interesting and "unique." Maybe a non-collector will be more willing to ignore the dilution potential of the other 33 double eagles out there. It is one of things that will make this auction interesting.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@Gazes said:
Two thoughts on why i think the coin goes for more than 10 million. 1) we live in different times. 1.9 trillion just spent in a heartbeat. There are a group of individuals who are looking for assets that are not tied to printing money 2) the last owner was a non collector. This coin has the ability to attract a non collector. Add just a few more legitimate bidders to the pool (which is significant) and it would seem 10 million could easily be surpassed.
I don’t know that Stuart is a non-collector, it could simply be the presentation. The article says he’s been interested these since being a kid and also says these are part of his collection. It could simply be that the rest of his collection is still private.
Imagine if royalty was bidding on this, like a Saudi prince? If so, it could go for moon money. It’s pretty cool that King George V and 2 other kings bid on the 1 cent magenta.
@cameonut2011 said:
I’m thinking 6-7 million all in. I hope I’m wrong and he makes a profit.
I think this is a reasonable "ballpark" estimate. The biggest question to me is whether two bidders will ignore the existence of all the other 1933s just because this is the only legal one available to own.
If all were legal, the coin is about as scarce as the 1907 UHR and maybe due to the story that goes with it, should be worth somewhat but not much more. As the only legal one available, it should be worth a premium to its actual scarcity but not where it's treated as if none of the other coins exist. Somewhat similar thought for the 1822 half eagle.
@WCC said:
The biggest question to me is whether two bidders will ignore the existence of all the other 1933s just because this is the only legal one available to own.
There's no reason to ignore that to value the coin.
The fact that this coin is the only one can be owned does make this coin very interesting to me.
I would love to have this and the 1822 Half Eagle.
Which book has the picture of the rogue one? That is probably the one that Fred saw back in the 70’s.
The late Carl Carlson told me at an NLG Bash that he was once commissioned to photograph a piece that he wished he had kept a print of. I would bet that that is the one in the book, and very likely the one that was surrendered.
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.
@WCC said:
The biggest question to me is whether two bidders will ignore the existence of all the other 1933s just because this is the only legal one available to own.
There's no reason to ignore that to value the coin.
The fact that this coin is the only one can be owned does make this coin very interesting to me.
I would love to have this and the 1822 Half Eagle.
1822 half eagle is my #1 US US Mint coin, including patterns. There are colonials and territorial gold I prefer more and I would also rather own the 1861 CSA half.
Of course, none of this matters since I do not have the money and presumably never will.
@WCC said:
The biggest question to me is whether two bidders will ignore the existence of all the other 1933s just because this is the only legal one available to own.
There's no reason to ignore that to value the coin.
The fact that this coin is the only one can be owned does make this coin very interesting to me.
I would love to have this and the 1822 Half Eagle.
1822 half eagle is my #1 US US Mint coin, including patterns. There are colonials and territorial gold I prefer more and I would also rather own the 1861 CSA half.
Of course, none of this matters since I do not have the money and presumably never will.
4 people just won the $1 billion lottery yesterday, so you never know
@cameonut2011 said:
I’m thinking 6-7 million all in. I hope I’m wrong and he makes a profit.
I think this is a reasonable "ballpark" estimate. The biggest question to me is whether two bidders will ignore the existence of all the other 1933s just because this is the only legal one available to own.
If all were legal, the coin is about as scarce as the 1907 UHR and maybe due to the story that goes with it, should be worth somewhat but not much more. As the only legal one available, it should be worth a premium to its actual scarcity but not where it's treated as if none of the other coins exist. Somewhat similar thought for the 1822 half eagle.
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@cameonut2011 said:
I’m thinking 6-7 million all in. I hope I’m wrong and he makes a profit.
I think this is a reasonable "ballpark" estimate. The biggest question to me is whether two bidders will ignore the existence of all the other 1933s just because this is the only legal one available to own.
If all were legal, the coin is about as scarce as the 1907 UHR and maybe due to the story that goes with it, should be worth somewhat but not much more. As the only legal one available, it should be worth a premium to its actual scarcity but not where it's treated as if none of the other coins exist. Somewhat similar thought for the 1822 half eagle.
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
I think it comes down to the mindset of the buyer. It's not objective and I have no idea how those who will actually be bidding and can afford the coin perceive it.
@cameonut2011 said:
I’m thinking 6-7 million all in. I hope I’m wrong and he makes a profit.
I think this is a reasonable "ballpark" estimate. The biggest question to me is whether two bidders will ignore the existence of all the other 1933s just because this is the only legal one available to own.
If all were legal, the coin is about as scarce as the 1907 UHR and maybe due to the story that goes with it, should be worth somewhat but not much more. As the only legal one available, it should be worth a premium to its actual scarcity but not where it's treated as if none of the other coins exist. Somewhat similar thought for the 1822 half eagle.
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
I think it comes down to the mindset of the buyer. It's not objective and I have no idea how those who will actually be bidding and can afford the coin perceive it.
There are people out there that want things that no one else has.
This is one of those items.
While it's not unique, no one else can say they have one.
This particular coin also has a really interesting history and provenance.
I think there should be interest beyond standard coin collecting and collectors.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't be legally available for private ownership.
@Zoins said:
There are people out there that want things that no one else has.
While it's not unique, no one else can say they have one.
This is one of those items.
This particular coin also has a really interesting history and provenance.
I think there should be interest beyond standard coin collecting and collectors.
I will agree that the prospects are somewhat better that another non-coin collector will buy it. I wasn't aware that the current owner isn't one but this still only makes two that I know specifically for the most expensive coins, the other being the unique Brasher doubloon profiled in a Robb Report Article.
I read here this owner isn't a coin collector but as a collector of "trophy" items, I would expect another similar buyer to consider what else is available for a similar price elsewhere. They don't have the same preference for it that a coin collector does or else they would be one.
If I had the money and was in the market for an object in this price range, I'm going for a Russian Imperial Faberge Easter Egg, assuming one is even available to be bought which it probably is not. It's far more interesting in all aspects than any coin to the overwhelming majority of those who do not collect coins.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
@Zoins said:
There are people out there that want things that no one else has.
While it's not unique, no one else can say they have one.
This is one of those items.
This particular coin also has a really interesting history and provenance.
I think there should be interest beyond standard coin collecting and collectors.
I will agree that the prospects are somewhat better that another non-coin collector will buy it. I wasn't aware that the current owner isn't one but this still only makes two that I know specifically for the most expensive coins, the other being the unique Brasher doubloon profiled in a Robb Report Article.
I read here this owner isn't a coin collector but as a collector of "trophy" items, I would expect another similar buyer to consider what else is available for a similar price elsewhere. They don't have the same preference for it that a coin collector does or else they would be one.
If I had the money and was in the market for an object in this price range, I'm going for a Russian Imperial Faberge Easter Egg, assuming one is even available to be bought which it probably is not. It's far more interesting in all aspects than any coin to the overwhelming majority of those who do not collect coins.
Trophy items is a good way to think about this. The Robb Report is a good magazine for this.
For me, the issue with Faberge Eggs is that there are a bunch of them and it's harder to tell the story of one being unique to a non-Egg collector.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
@Zoins said:
There are people out there that want things that no one else has.
While it's not unique, no one else can say they have one.
This is one of those items.
This particular coin also has a really interesting history and provenance.
I think there should be interest beyond standard coin collecting and collectors.
I will agree that the prospects are somewhat better that another non-coin collector will buy it. I wasn't aware that the current owner isn't one but this still only makes two that I know specifically for the most expensive coins, the other being the unique Brasher doubloon profiled in a Robb Report Article.
I read here this owner isn't a coin collector but as a collector of "trophy" items, I would expect another similar buyer to consider what else is available for a similar price elsewhere. They don't have the same preference for it that a coin collector does or else they would be one.
If I had the money and was in the market for an object in this price range, I'm going for a Russian Imperial Faberge Easter Egg, assuming one is even available to be bought which it probably is not. It's far more interesting in all aspects than any coin to the overwhelming majority of those who do not collect coins.
For me, the issue with Faberge Eggs is that there are a bunch of them and it's harder to tell the story of one being unique to a non-Egg collector.
Yes, but each is unique and by unique, I am not referring to date rarity as with a coin. Not sure what kind of an egg collector you reference, as I doubt those who own or owned these objects were one. Never heard of one except Malcom Forbes with the rest almost always owning only one. The buyer of his collection purportedly donated it to the Russian state.
All of these items are more unique than any coin including this one. It's not even close and only a US coin collector will think otherwise. All are also far more prominent and have been owned by very wealthy and actually famous people since the beginning. Aside from the Romanovs, Elizabeth II and the Rothschild family own/owned one or more, though these are not "Imperial".
I am using this as an example only, the point being that claiming someone who isn't a coin collector wants it carries almost no probability, whether it happens or not.
The primary (if not only reason) I believe it has any here at all isn't because it's the 1933 DE, but the auction firm (Sotheby's) and the collection composition.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
A lawsuit may be needed to release the Langbord 10, but I'm also thinking about the theoretical coins that are still out there, which likely would not need a lawsuit.
@Zoins said:
There are people out there that want things that no one else has.
While it's not unique, no one else can say they have one.
This is one of those items.
This particular coin also has a really interesting history and provenance.
I think there should be interest beyond standard coin collecting and collectors.
I will agree that the prospects are somewhat better that another non-coin collector will buy it. I wasn't aware that the current owner isn't one but this still only makes two that I know specifically for the most expensive coins, the other being the unique Brasher doubloon profiled in a Robb Report Article.
I read here this owner isn't a coin collector but as a collector of "trophy" items, I would expect another similar buyer to consider what else is available for a similar price elsewhere. They don't have the same preference for it that a coin collector does or else they would be one.
If I had the money and was in the market for an object in this price range, I'm going for a Russian Imperial Faberge Easter Egg, assuming one is even available to be bought which it probably is not. It's far more interesting in all aspects than any coin to the overwhelming majority of those who do not collect coins.
For me, the issue with Faberge Eggs is that there are a bunch of them and it's harder to tell the story of one being unique to a non-Egg collector.
Yes, but each is unique and by unique, I am not referring to date rarity as with a coin. Not sure what kind of an egg collector you reference, as I doubt those who own or owned these objects were one. Never heard of one except Malcom Forbes with the rest almost always owning only one. The buyer of his collection purportedly donated it to the Russian state.
All of these items are more unique than any coin including this one. It's not even close and only a US coin collector will think otherwise. All are also far more prominent and have been owned by very wealthy and actually famous people since the beginning. Aside from the Romanovs, Elizabeth II and the Rothschild family own/owned one or more, though these are not "Imperial".
I am using this as an example only, the point being that claiming someone who isn't a coin collector wants it carries almost no probability, whether it happens or not.
The primary (if not only reason) I believe it has any here at all isn't because it's the 1933 DE, but the auction firm (Sotheby's) and the collection composition.
It's easy to say the 1933 DE is unique to own but it is a mass produced coin.
For the eggs, each one is unique but all original art is unique.
They are certainly different and people appreciate things differently.
Regarding collecting, I think having 1 item can constitute a collection and being a collector but it seems not everyone does.
It's true that the other 1933 DEs could be released or more could appear, but I think the probability of others being legally available to own is low. The Farouk-Weitzman coin is the only legally available one to own in the last 75 years. Given we all have finite lives, I can live with that.
My ultimate U.S. coin collection would have:
1878 EB on Breast Brasher
1822 Brand-Eliasberg Half Eagle
1933 Farouk-Weitzman Double Eagle
Not all may be unique, but all are unique to own privately.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
A lawsuit may be needed to release the Langbord 10, but I'm also thinking about the theoretical coins that are still out there, which likely would not need a lawsuit.
And how could someone “make these coins legal surreptitiously.”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
A lawsuit may be needed to release the Langbord 10, but I'm also thinking about the theoretical coins that are still out there, which likely would not need a lawsuit.
And how could someone “make these coins legal surreptitiously.”?
You said you think you understood what at I was getting at above. That's good enough for me on this topic for now.
@MFeld said:
I think I know what you were trying to say,
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
A lawsuit may be needed to release the Langbord 10, but I'm also thinking about the theoretical coins that are still out there, which likely would not need a lawsuit.
And how could someone “make these coins legal surreptitiously.”?
You said you think you understood what at was getting at above. That's good enough for me on this topic for now.
Apparently, I was mistaken. I see no way to surreptitiously make any other examples legal.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
A lawsuit may be needed to release the Langbord 10, but I'm also thinking about the theoretical coins that are still out there, which likely would not need a lawsuit.
And how could someone “make these coins legal surreptitiously.”?
You said you think you understood what at was getting at above. That's good enough for me on this topic for now.
Apparently, I was mistaken. I see no way to surreptitiously make any other examples legal.
I think you got it. It hasn't changed from what I posted above. The surreptitious part is about the receipt.
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
A lawsuit may be needed to release the Langbord 10, but I'm also thinking about the theoretical coins that are still out there, which likely would not need a lawsuit.
And how could someone “make these coins legal surreptitiously.”?
You said you think you understood what at was getting at above. That's good enough for me on this topic for now.
Apparently, I was mistaken. I see no way to surreptitiously make any other examples legal.
I think you got it. It hasn't changed from what I posted above. The surreptitious part is about the receipt.
Forging a receipt would not make another example legal. That was my original point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Some day I must finish that time machine in the basement and go back and buy a roll of them and get a dated receipt.
And if I did, this thread would never be exist!
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.
@tradedollarnut said:
Is location of a countermark enough to call a coin unique? Brashers are great - don’t see that one as unique tho
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Quite a few people have indicated the counterstamp on the breast means it's unique to them so this view isn't uncommon. This is likely the case because the counterstamp on the other pieces are all on the wing vs. in random locations.
The EB on breast coin also been called the "first" gold coin minted in the US.
For comparison, people have also questioned if being plugged is enough to call a coin unique. Two sides to that one too.
Stuart is a collector. He collects a lot of things. He has a broad wingspan
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@tradedollarnut said:
Let me expound - I have no interest in an artificial rarity. Just because the government deems only one legal to own doesn’t change the fact there are at least 13 [and most likely more] in existence. So to me it’s worth about what an 1894-S dime is worth.
I think it is closer to the 1804 dollars or 1913 Lib n> @Zoins said:
@tradedollarnut said:
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
A lawsuit may be needed to release the Langbord 10, but I'm also thinking about the theoretical coins that are still out there, which likely would not need a lawsuit.
The Langboard decision is res judicata. No lawsuit will have them released.
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
The feds will spend millions in all kinds of legal actions keep the 'rouge' 33's from ever being legal to own. If I were interested in this one that is 'legal', the others would not be a worry......
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
The feds will spend millions in all kinds of legal actions keep the 'rouge' 33's from ever being legal to own. If I were interested in this one that is 'legal', the others would not be a worry......
There is no doubt this is true but the lawyers and Mint witnesses are salaried and already on government payroll. The cost to them is much lower than it would be for you, me, or any other private citizen to litigate.
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
The feds will spend millions in all kinds of legal actions keep the 'rouge' 33's from ever being legal to own. If I were interested in this one that is 'legal', the others would not be a worry......
Conversely, they could buy this one for about $10M and then sell all 12 not in the smithsonian for about $3M each and do everyone a favor...
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
The feds will spend millions in all kinds of legal actions keep the 'rouge' 33's from ever being legal to own. If I were interested in this one that is 'legal', the others would not be a worry......
Conversely, they could buy this one for about $10M and then sell all 12 not in the smithsonian for about $3M each and do everyone a favor...
Which ones, other than the ten Switt coins would they be able to sell, which aren’t in the Smithsonian?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
The feds will spend millions in all kinds of legal actions keep the 'rouge' 33's from ever being legal to own. If I were interested in this one that is 'legal', the others would not be a worry......
Conversely, they could buy this one for about $10M and then sell all 12 not in the smithsonian for about $3M each and do everyone a favor...
Which ones, other than the ten Switt coins would they be able to sell, which aren’t in the Smithsonian?
Julian alluded to the existence of at least one other. He is one of the very few I would trust as credible making the claims.
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
The feds will spend millions in all kinds of legal actions keep the 'rouge' 33's from ever being legal to own. If I were interested in this one that is 'legal', the others would not be a worry......
Conversely, they could buy this one for about $10M and then sell all 12 not in the smithsonian for about $3M each and do everyone a favor...
Which ones, other than the ten Switt coins would they be able to sell, which aren’t in the Smithsonian?
Julian alluded to the existence of at least one other. He is one of the very few I would trust as credible making the claims.
I understand that there are at least a couple others that are known to be out there. But at this point, I don’t see how they could be sold by the feds. Hence, my question in response to Bruce’s post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
I doubt it will happen. Even though this is the only stamp that the British Museum doesn’t have, the queen is about service, the family gets tax dollars, and it would likely be a scandal to spend so much on a stamp.
I say dirty thirty semolinans is the high/low for the triplet
Two thoughts on why i think the coin goes for more than 10 million. 1) we live in different times. 1.9 trillion just spent in a heartbeat. There are a group of individuals who are looking for assets that are not tied to printing money 2) the last owner was a non collector. This coin has the ability to attract a non collector. Add just a few more legitimate bidders to the pool (which is significant) and it would seem 10 million could easily be surpassed.
For decades, certain dealers have been saying that non-collectors would affect higher prices in auctions of the high end coins but it doesn't seem to play out very often. Usually collectors or dealers or consortiums of dealers end up winning.
Maybe the 33 double eagle has a story that will grab the attention of a non-collector that decides to buy something interesting and "unique." Maybe a non-collector will be more willing to ignore the dilution potential of the other 33 double eagles out there. It is one of things that will make this auction interesting.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Maybe squashing the coin to be as big as a picture to hang in the mansion could excite the art buyers.
What? No?
I don’t know that Stuart is a non-collector, it could simply be the presentation. The article says he’s been interested these since being a kid and also says these are part of his collection. It could simply be that the rest of his collection is still private.
Imagine if royalty was bidding on this, like a Saudi prince? If so, it could go for moon money. It’s pretty cool that King George V and 2 other kings bid on the 1 cent magenta.
I think this is a reasonable "ballpark" estimate. The biggest question to me is whether two bidders will ignore the existence of all the other 1933s just because this is the only legal one available to own.
If all were legal, the coin is about as scarce as the 1907 UHR and maybe due to the story that goes with it, should be worth somewhat but not much more. As the only legal one available, it should be worth a premium to its actual scarcity but not where it's treated as if none of the other coins exist. Somewhat similar thought for the 1822 half eagle.
There's no reason to ignore that to value the coin.
The fact that this coin is the only one can be owned does make this coin very interesting to me.
I would love to have this and the 1822 Half Eagle.
Which book has the picture of the rogue one? That is probably the one that Fred saw back in the 70’s.
The late Carl Carlson told me at an NLG Bash that he was once commissioned to photograph a piece that he wished he had kept a print of. I would bet that that is the one in the book, and very likely the one that was surrendered.
Isn’t the Real Buyer of the 33 Twenty
either Simpson ,Hansen or Austin
First ?
1822 half eagle is my #1 US US Mint coin, including patterns. There are colonials and territorial gold I prefer more and I would also rather own the 1861 CSA half.
Of course, none of this matters since I do not have the money and presumably never will.
4 people just won the $1 billion lottery yesterday, so you never know
The existence of other 1933’s shouldn’t be ignored. But unless bidders plan to try to obtain another one surreptitiously (and risk the legal consequences), I don’t see the bidding being affected much.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm not sure what you mean by Real Buyer?
I'm wondering if the buyer of the Matt Stickney Brasher, who apparently didn't collect coins before, or someone entirely new to coins will pick it up.
I think it comes down to the mindset of the buyer. It's not objective and I have no idea how those who will actually be bidding and can afford the coin perceive it.
There are people out there that want things that no one else has.
This is one of those items.
While it's not unique, no one else can say they have one.
This particular coin also has a really interesting history and provenance.
I think there should be interest beyond standard coin collecting and collectors.
Maybe Beeple will buy it
It would be pretty neat if Tyrant was in the running for this.
If you think about it, We The People already own a bakers dozen of them.
True, but that doesn't affect my interest as that doesn't affect one of the most interesting things to me, which is adding a name to a provenance list.
This is more interesting to me than most other coins since only 1 can be owned privately. A significant thing about this coin is that private ownership of other unique coins are subject to future discoveries. For example, another 1822 Half Eagle could be be discovered. But if another 1933 DE was discovered, it also wouldn't be legally available for private ownership.
To me, this is an ultimate coin because of this.
https://www.sothebys.com/en/digital-catalogues/three-treasures-collected-by-stuart-weitzman?locale=en
I'm not sure how PCGS could have pre-graded it as a 65 with the knee dings... I sure hope it stickers when it ultimately slabs.
I will agree that the prospects are somewhat better that another non-coin collector will buy it. I wasn't aware that the current owner isn't one but this still only makes two that I know specifically for the most expensive coins, the other being the unique Brasher doubloon profiled in a Robb Report Article.
I read here this owner isn't a coin collector but as a collector of "trophy" items, I would expect another similar buyer to consider what else is available for a similar price elsewhere. They don't have the same preference for it that a coin collector does or else they would be one.
If I had the money and was in the market for an object in this price range, I'm going for a Russian Imperial Faberge Easter Egg, assuming one is even available to be bought which it probably is not. It's far more interesting in all aspects than any coin to the overwhelming majority of those who do not collect coins.
Unless a better attorney comes along and preemptively sues the US Government with definitive proof that the exchange was legal. You just never know what could pop up.
Trophy items is a good way to think about this. The Robb Report is a good magazine for this.
For me, the issue with Faberge Eggs is that there are a bunch of them and it's harder to tell the story of one being unique to a non-Egg collector.
I doubt a better attorney will be able to do anything, unless as you say definitive proof was discovered. Conjecture won't change the situation.
I think discovery of a receipt for a coin-for-coin exchange would change the situation significantly. If someone really wanted to make these coins legal surreptitiously, I imagine someone forging a receipt and trying to pass it off as genuine could be an avenue for these persons to attempt, or go to jail trying.
Yes, but each is unique and by unique, I am not referring to date rarity as with a coin. Not sure what kind of an egg collector you reference, as I doubt those who own or owned these objects were one. Never heard of one except Malcom Forbes with the rest almost always owning only one. The buyer of his collection purportedly donated it to the Russian state.
All of these items are more unique than any coin including this one. It's not even close and only a US coin collector will think otherwise. All are also far more prominent and have been owned by very wealthy and actually famous people since the beginning. Aside from the Romanovs, Elizabeth II and the Rothschild family own/owned one or more, though these are not "Imperial".
I am using this as an example only, the point being that claiming someone who isn't a coin collector wants it carries almost no probability, whether it happens or not.
The primary (if not only reason) I believe it has any here at all isn't because it's the 1933 DE, but the auction firm (Sotheby's) and the collection composition.
I don’t see how anyone could “make these coins legal surreptitiously.” In order to have any chance to make them legal, there would need to be a lawsuit. I think I know what you were trying to say, but if so, it doesn’t read correctly.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A lawsuit may be needed to release the Langbord 10, but I'm also thinking about the theoretical coins that are still out there, which likely would not need a lawsuit.
It's easy to say the 1933 DE is unique to own but it is a mass produced coin.
For the eggs, each one is unique but all original art is unique.
They are certainly different and people appreciate things differently.
Regarding collecting, I think having 1 item can constitute a collection and being a collector but it seems not everyone does.
It's true that the other 1933 DEs could be released or more could appear, but I think the probability of others being legally available to own is low. The Farouk-Weitzman coin is the only legally available one to own in the last 75 years. Given we all have finite lives, I can live with that.
My ultimate U.S. coin collection would have:
Not all may be unique, but all are unique to own privately.
And how could someone “make these coins legal surreptitiously.”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You said you think you understood what at I was getting at above. That's good enough for me on this topic for now.
Apparently, I was mistaken. I see no way to surreptitiously make any other examples legal.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think you got it. It hasn't changed from what I posted above. The surreptitious part is about the receipt.
Forging a receipt would not make another example legal. That was my original point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Got it
Even more reason to value this coin highly
Some day I must finish that time machine in the basement and go back and buy a roll of them and get a dated receipt.
And if I did, this thread would never be exist!
Is location of a countermark enough to call a coin unique? Brashers are great - don’t see that one as unique tho
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Quite a few people have indicated the counterstamp on the breast means it's unique to them so this view isn't uncommon. This is likely the case because the counterstamp on the other pieces are all on the wing vs. in random locations.
The EB on breast coin also been called the "first" gold coin minted in the US.
For comparison, people have also questioned if being plugged is enough to call a coin unique. Two sides to that one too.
Stuart is a collector. He collects a lot of things. He has a broad wingspan
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I think it is closer to the 1804 dollars or 1913 Lib n> @Zoins said:
The Langboard decision is res judicata. No lawsuit will have them released.
The feds will spend millions in all kinds of legal actions keep the 'rouge' 33's from ever being legal to own. If I were interested in this one that is 'legal', the others would not be a worry......
There is no doubt this is true but the lawyers and Mint witnesses are salaried and already on government payroll. The cost to them is much lower than it would be for you, me, or any other private citizen to litigate.
Conversely, they could buy this one for about $10M and then sell all 12 not in the smithsonian for about $3M each and do everyone a favor...
Which ones, other than the ten Switt coins would they be able to sell, which aren’t in the Smithsonian?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Julian alluded to the existence of at least one other. He is one of the very few I would trust as credible making the claims.
I understand that there are at least a couple others that are known to be out there. But at this point, I don’t see how they could be sold by the feds. Hence, my question in response to Bruce’s post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The ten Swift coins, the Farouk coin and the one turned in after the Switts lost their case.
Thanks.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I understand that this coin was alleged and accepted as being the Farouk coin.
Was there any proof? Know the dealers and history etc.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set