delete

@tradedollarnut said:
There were at least 5 unique bidders. That’s a fact

How many were clients of Legend?

i noticed PCGS and other price reporting entities raised the prices of most $20 Libs and Saints.

was this just a timing coincidence?

For those who are extremely wealthy, the final bid on the 1933 Double Eagle was probably little more than pocket change.

@ReadyFireAim said:

@oreville said:
i noticed PCGS and other price reporting entities raised the prices of most $20 Libs and Saints.
was this just a timing coincidence?

About 2 weeks ago the price list turned majority green.
This was a few months late from what I've seen.
There used to be many more saint available and now, not so much.

I agree. The sheet lagged the market. The premiums have gotten stupid. I would actually pay a premium for MS62 common date coins...I never thought I'd see the day.

@tradedollarnut said:
Bottom line is the underbidder was willing to pay $19.2M for the coin. So representing it as sold at $18.9M is just as misleading as sold at $19.5M

Based on Mr. Eureka's excellent explanation, what the guarantor did was write a put option to the auction house. It's an economically distinct transaction from their winning bid, unless that put also required them to bid above their 'strike'. The back-end accounting of subtracting the option premium from the guarantor's winning bid is a red herring.

@ranshdow said:

@MsMorrisine said:
What does one do with multiple irrevocable bids?

That's not in the auction house's economic interest. Remember, they're paying for the puts, either notionally (if one of the guarantors wins) or economically (to the non-winning guarantor). Why buy puts from more than one party?

there's theoretical value to the second to the extent there's risk that the first wouldn't perform but yeah that would be weird

interesting discussion btw