@Goldbully said:
I would consider it a gutsy move crossing a PCGS graded FH w/privy to CACG. Anyone have any thoughts about on this crossover?
I must be missing something, where's the risk? If it doesn't straight cross then they return it. You're out shipping and grading fees which are considerable, but nothing in comparison really to the purchase price.
I’m just considering that all 230 privies were graded by PCGS from the start. Isn’t there something to be said about originality? Maybe I’m just putting too much thought into this since both our hosts and CACG are both MLG….Major League Graders.
I don’t see any extra value in that type of “originality”. On the other hand, I can at least imagine the possibility of a premium for a CACG example of the same grade, due to either perceived or actual stricter grading on their part. Either way, I don’t think of an attempted crossover as “gutsy”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Goldbully said:
I would consider it a gutsy move crossing a PCGS graded FH w/privy to CACG. Anyone have any thoughts about on this crossover?
I must be missing something, where's the risk? If it doesn't straight cross then they return it. You're out shipping and grading fees which are considerable, but nothing in comparison really to the purchase price.
I’m just considering that all 230 privies were graded by PCGS from the start. Isn’t there something to be said about originality? Maybe I’m just putting too much thought into this since both our hosts and CACG are both MLG….Major League Graders.
I don’t see any extra value in that type of “originality”. On the other hand, I can at least imagine the possibility of a premium for a CACG example of the same grade, due to either perceived or actual stricter grading on their part. Either way, I don’t think of an attempted crossover as “gutsy”.
I’m with you on your assessment. It’s just something I would not do. More power to the GC seller, will be interesting to see if others follow in his footsteps.
@Goldbully said:
I would consider it a gutsy move crossing a PCGS graded FH w/privy to CACG. Anyone have any thoughts about on this crossover?
I must be missing something, where's the risk? If it doesn't straight cross then they return it. You're out shipping and grading fees which are considerable, but nothing in comparison really to the purchase price.
I’m just considering that all 230 privies were graded by PCGS from the start. Isn’t there something to be said about originality? Maybe I’m just putting too much thought into this since both our hosts and CACG are both MLG….Major League Graders.
Are you worried about losing the two-month old vintage PCGS holder to numismatic history?
I don't see a problem with a cross between those two TPG's value wise. Nice gain for the SBG buyer.
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
I don't see a problem with a cross between those two TPG's value wise. Nice gain for the SBG buyer.
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
I don't see a problem with a cross between those two TPG's value wise. Nice gain for the SBG buyer.
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it.
Looks like CACG attempted to center the date. The date is supposed to be offset to the left.
@Rc5280 said:
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
I'm taking a guess that they aligned the "bottom" of the coin as "keep the date flat" instead of knowing the date should be slightly left
@Rc5280 said:
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
I'm taking a guess that they aligned the "bottom" of the coin as "keep the date flat" instead of knowing the date should be slightly left
Yup. Which only calls into question why people put them on a pedestal, revering them as the definitive word, and assigning a significant premium to their slabs and stickers. They are human, and fallible, just like any of the other major TPGs.
In this case, they either did not take the time to research what they were slabbing, or were careless in doing so. Particularly inexcusable in this case, given not only the value of the coin, but the cheat inherent in the coin by virtue of the unlevel privy mark, if not Lady Liberty staring into space in a way she does on no other coin.
This is a rare case where a CACG slab means the same as a sticker for a modern coin because you know you are getting 2 opinions of grade.
I don't fault CACG for how they slabbed it and I bet they would gladly reholder it if there was a complaint. You can either rotate the coin for a flat privy mark or you can align the date to the bottom. I'm not sure there's technically a wrong answer here.
@Rc5280 said:
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
Two things:
First, you can tap (or bang) the corner of a slab on a firm surface and that will rotate the coin in the slab. Works on most holders with prongs. Easy trick I've used countless times.
Second, many CACG holders I've handled use gaskets too large for the coin. Either the coin can easily wobble between the prongs, or the entire gasket itself is loose within the plastic and can rotate like a coin in a rattler. CACG needs to lower their tolerance levels on factory production. So, if one would send this coin back to CACG to be recentered, it may be loose and rotate again in the mail.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
@Goldbully said:
I would consider it a gutsy move crossing a PCGS graded FH w/privy to CACG. Anyone have any thoughts about on this crossover?
I must be missing something, where's the risk? If it doesn't straight cross then they return it. You're out shipping and grading fees which are considerable, but nothing in comparison really to the purchase price.
I’m just considering that all 230 privies were graded by PCGS from the start. Isn’t there something to be said about originality? Maybe I’m just putting too much thought into this since both our hosts and CACG are both MLG….Major League Graders.
I may be in the minority, but I actually think the cross to CACG was not a good idea at all. Based on specialty marketing campaigns of the past, at least some speculators are bound to believe that the original holder and label will retain the most value. SSCA gold labels, Saddle Ridge gold labels, you wouldn't want to crack or cross either of those because unless it upgrades, it will not carry the same value.
This is a niche market for deep pocketed speculators, and if just one of them was turned off by the CACG holder, that could have been the difference between 52k and 60k. The last 70 to sell on Ebay was for 60k at the end of January, and a 69 sold for 50k shortly before. This isn't a coin where people are concerned that their extremely low mintage PR70 DCAM is "Solid for the grade"....Does the coin have any marks you can see? No? Does it say 70? Yes? Then it's a 70, no need to get your loupe out. I don't think there was any upside whatsoever by crossing to CACG, and If I had to bet I'd say it absolutely made a difference.
As an aside, you can tap the corner of the holder on your desk or use the electric toothbrush trick to straighten these out, but it definitely wasn't the best presentation. All of the gaskets have a tiny bit too much tolerance, and I've had the issue with several CACG coins. I raised the concern sometime last year on that forum, and it was brushed off, but I think it the issue could very well come back to bite in the future as these slabs age.
@Goldbully said:
Most Mint modern issues fizzle and burn....it appears this re-creation of a classic design in gold is standing tall.
Some have, others maintained their premium to an extent even if it faded somewhat. The 2019-S ASE I believe has held the premium percentage....the 2009 UHR premium has faded but the overall price been dragged up by the rising spot gold price....the 2014 (?) JFK gold coin I think long ago faded.
Not big into the moderns so maybe some of you have other datapoints.
The PCGS price guide still shows this at $42,500 in PR70. CACG guide remains at $60,000. The CACG sale at GC was $52,000. One eBay sale was $60,000. Others are asking more but not seeing any new sales at those higher levels.
With so few on the market that show up available, it is difficult to confirm if this has long-term staying power above $50,000. There will probably be similar offerings of "rare" moderns over the next year or two.
@Goldminers said:
With so few on the market that show up available, it is difficult to confirm if this has long-term staying power above >$50,000. There will probably be similar offerings of "rare" moderns over the next year or two.
The Privy coins are holding up...are the non-privy coins, too ?
My eBay search is now only showing a little over 160 available. Just a couple months ago the supply was well over 300. Raw, ungraded sold prices are averaging around $4600.
Comments
I don’t see any extra value in that type of “originality”. On the other hand, I can at least imagine the possibility of a premium for a CACG example of the same grade, due to either perceived or actual stricter grading on their part. Either way, I don’t think of an attempted crossover as “gutsy”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m with you on your assessment. It’s just something I would not do. More power to the GC seller, will be interesting to see if others follow in his footsteps.
‘’Originality”’ of a US Mint created “overnight modern rarity sensation “. 🤣
Wondercoin.
Are you worried about losing the two-month old vintage PCGS holder to numismatic history?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
We got $47K.....do I hear $48k?
Hammer Time!!
$47,000
I don't see a problem with a cross between those two TPG's value wise. Nice gain for the SBG buyer.
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
.
Good eye!
Looks like CACG attempted to center the date. The date is supposed to be offset to the left.
"Originality" of the 3rd party slab, no less.
I'm taking a guess that they aligned the "bottom" of the coin as "keep the date flat" instead of knowing the date should be slightly left
Yup. Which only calls into question why people put them on a pedestal, revering them as the definitive word, and assigning a significant premium to their slabs and stickers. They are human, and fallible, just like any of the other major TPGs.
In this case, they either did not take the time to research what they were slabbing, or were careless in doing so. Particularly inexcusable in this case, given not only the value of the coin, but the cheat inherent in the coin by virtue of the unlevel privy mark, if not Lady Liberty staring into space in a way she does on no other coin.
This is a rare case where a CACG slab means the same as a sticker for a modern coin because you know you are getting 2 opinions of grade.
I don't fault CACG for how they slabbed it and I bet they would gladly reholder it if there was a complaint. You can either rotate the coin for a flat privy mark or you can align the date to the bottom. I'm not sure there's technically a wrong answer here.
http://ProofCollection.Net
The Liberty and Date are aligned, maybe it is just a crooked privy
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
FWIW Coin #Uno............properly aligned in the TrueView, slightly off on the S-B image..
Of note, when we speak of 'originality,' PCGS put the reverse on the front of the slab.😉
Or.........did they put the description label on the reverse? 🤔
Two things:
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Wonder when Pinehurst sold the last of their eight available FH's?
Looks like this modern issue could still be in strong hands.
edited to add: Changed HF's to FH's 😂
The supply on eBay has been dwindling,
And, this 70 at GC held up really well last night ⇊
.
I may be in the minority, but I actually think the cross to CACG was not a good idea at all. Based on specialty marketing campaigns of the past, at least some speculators are bound to believe that the original holder and label will retain the most value. SSCA gold labels, Saddle Ridge gold labels, you wouldn't want to crack or cross either of those because unless it upgrades, it will not carry the same value.
This is a niche market for deep pocketed speculators, and if just one of them was turned off by the CACG holder, that could have been the difference between 52k and 60k. The last 70 to sell on Ebay was for 60k at the end of January, and a 69 sold for 50k shortly before. This isn't a coin where people are concerned that their extremely low mintage PR70 DCAM is "Solid for the grade"....Does the coin have any marks you can see? No? Does it say 70? Yes? Then it's a 70, no need to get your loupe out. I don't think there was any upside whatsoever by crossing to CACG, and If I had to bet I'd say it absolutely made a difference.
As an aside, you can tap the corner of the holder on your desk or use the electric toothbrush trick to straighten these out, but it definitely wasn't the best presentation. All of the gaskets have a tiny bit too much tolerance, and I've had the issue with several CACG coins. I raised the concern sometime last year on that forum, and it was brushed off, but I think it the issue could very well come back to bite in the future as these slabs age.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
You want #149 of 230 FH Au Privies, David Lawrence Rare Coins will sell it to you for $78,750.
There are other listings for the FH w/privy asking for even more $$.
These FH Au's /w or w/o privy marks are doing exceptionally well from what I have seen lately.
Most Mint modern issues fizzle and burn....it appears this re-creation of a classic design in gold is standing tall.
DLRC Link
Some have, others maintained their premium to an extent even if it faded somewhat. The 2019-S ASE I believe has held the premium percentage....the 2009 UHR premium has faded but the overall price been dragged up by the rising spot gold price....the 2014 (?) JFK gold coin I think long ago faded.
Not big into the moderns so maybe some of you have other datapoints.
The PCGS price guide still shows this at $42,500 in PR70. CACG guide remains at $60,000. The CACG sale at GC was $52,000. One eBay sale was $60,000. Others are asking more but not seeing any new sales at those higher levels.
With so few on the market that show up available, it is difficult to confirm if this has long-term staying power above $50,000. There will probably be similar offerings of "rare" moderns over the next year or two.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
The Privy coins are holding up...are the non-privy coins, too ?
2021 and 2023 doing well, ended last night......
.
There are several new Registry set collectors interested in collecting the $100 modern high relief coin set that are driving price demand.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
My eBay search is now only showing a little over 160 available. Just a couple months ago the supply was well over 300. Raw, ungraded sold prices are averaging around $4600.
compare that to 4750 for 2023 AL-HR auctions