"This auction is for coin #2587 of 5000 total issued (tags included)."
"There are only 2,500 of the original 5,000 being offered to the collecting public, with the balance being retained by the Goodacre family."
Anyway, for Sac collectors, I would imagine that one of the "Presentation" pieces would be the center of the collection.
Hmmmmmm, half of the original 5,000 are being sold with the remainder being dept by the family. It appears, considering the one for sale is numbered 2587, that the family is auctioning off the lower graded specimens (is "specimens" the right term?).
I believe they ALL have been put up for sale (all 5000)........mine is in the original ICG holder #2347. I wouldn't mind taking 1200+ for it though.........
Yes, that is a little steep. But often times when two bidders get bent on having a particular piece, the results on ebay seem incredibly stupid to those of us who think we know the real value of such a piece. This is a case where two bidders are fighting for it. It is not reflective of the true market value once it went over about 1200, IMO.
But , as was previously stated ... only a limited amount of those pieces are available and those building registry sets or speculating on the future collectiblity of the Sacagawea in numismatic history hardly blink at this price as they know the Goodacre is a staple of the set.
<< <i>Yup I tend to agree, pretty amazinf if not insane. >>
It is a PCGS slab and this is a fluke, the one bidder must want it very bad and is bidding wildly. It looks like after his next to last bid he went in there and upped his max bid. This($) is not the norm but the exception.
"Well here's another nice mess you have gotten me into" Oliver Hardy 1930
The term Stupid Money™ comes to mind. I'm kicking myself for not having the coins that she signed for me slabbed when she signed them at the Philly ANA show. Mike Faraone, then of ANACS, was in line with me, and I asked him if ANACS would slab them as signed coins, since he was there to verify them. He said they would, and yet I did nothing, for which the term Dumbass™ comes to mind.
I want one to complete my cheap Y2K registry set. Only it won't come cheap. Sometimes the ICG holdered ungraded go for under $400. Someday I'll do it when the right price comes along.
The only reason this one is going for so much is that it's PCGS MS68. As for the 66 at $900, I'm a surprised. Maybe they are shooting past what I would ever pay already.
-Bob collections: Maryland related coins & exonumia, 7070 Type set, and Video Arcade Tokens. The Low Budget Y2K Registry Set
<< <i>'m kicking myself for not having the coins that she signed for me slabbed when she signed them at the Philly ANA show. Mike Faraone, then of ANACS, was in line with me, and I asked him if ANACS would slab them as signed coins, since he was there to verify them. He said they would, and yet I did nothing, >>
I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS.
I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS. >>
I would not care to have a ICG slab. IMHO they do not grade modern stuff very well, especially SHQ's but hey, thats just my opinion and researching the prices ..me thinks I might be correct
<< <i>I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS. >>
I would not care to have a ICG slab. IMHO they do not grade modern stuff very well, especially SHQ's but hey, thats just my opinion and researching the prices ..me thinks I might be correct >>
the sacs in ICG holders are NOT graded.........just designated "Presented to obverse sculptor Glenna Goodacre by the US mint."
<< <i>I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS. >>
I would not care to have a ICG slab. IMHO they do not grade modern stuff very well, especially SHQ's but hey, thats just my opinion and researching the prices ..me thinks I might be correct >>
ICG didn't grade these, only authenticate the type and holder them. Here's mine- and it's signed. I honestly think it would go MS68 with PCGS.
Perhaps a wiser move would have been to do so first but I like the Intercept shield holder along with the original signature. Goodacre LINK
I have recently noticed two 2000 S PCGS PR70DCAM's (PCGS price guide 2225) go for right at $4000! Pop went up to 31 from 26 and the price is going up. I was hoping to see some movement down. I just got a 2001 for much less (PCGS price guide 900) with a pop of 41. Some people just love to throw money around.
<< <i>'m kicking myself for not having the coins that she signed for me slabbed when she signed them at the Philly ANA show. Mike Faraone, then of ANACS, was in line with me, and I asked him if ANACS would slab them as signed coins, since he was there to verify them. He said they would, and yet I did nothing, >>
I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS. >>
These weren't presentation coins. They were two raw dollars or mine that I had her sign (initial, actually), in black Sharpie on the obverse field when she was at the Philadelphia ANA show. She was signing posters and pamphlets at the time, but I didn't want those, so I had her sign my coins.
I have HATED these Goodacre coins from the get-go.
You take ordinary Sakies, shine them up like an amateur coin doctor would, stick them in a slab labeled “Goodacre,” and sell them to collector – lemmings for huge prices. The profoundly mentally challenged have purchased these coins RAW for several hundred dollars as “bargains.” 99% of those offerings are nothing but shined up Sackie dollars that are worth $1 each.
ICG did not put grades on this “caca” because you can’t grade it. The original mint surfaces are altered. So all you can grade is how nicely the coin was whizzed. We could have a new scale with grades like WHIZZED STATE – 70.
This is one example of something that makes me very glad I am a “modern coin lemming.” If I were big modern coin collector, I’d HAVE to own one of these.
BUT since I’m not, I don’t need to waste any money on them.
And no, neither PCGS nor NGC could be or should be crossing any of this crap.
But sadly I see from the Ebay offering that at least PCGS HAS graded it.
Too bad ...
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>I have HATED these Goodacre coins from the get-go.
You take ordinary Sakies, shine them up like an amateur coin doctor would, stick them in a slab labeled “Goodacre,” and sell them to collector – lemmings for huge prices. The profoundly mentally challenged have purchased these coins RAW for several hundred dollars as “bargains.” 99% of those offerings are nothing but shined up Sackie dollars that are worth $1 each.
ICG did not put grades on this “caca” because you can’t grade it. The original mint surfaces are altered. So all you can grade is how nicely the coin was whizzed. We could have a new scale with grades like WHIZZED STATE – 70.
This is one example of something that makes me very glad I am a “modern coin lemming.” If I were big modern coin collector, I’d HAVE to own one of these.
BUT since I’m not, I don’t need to waste any money on them.
And no, neither PCGS nor NGC could be or should be crossing any of this crap. >>
..........................Don't forget to throw in the corn cobs to give them color too...................
BillJones you are definitely the man on these boards. I totally agree with your assessment of those Goodacre Sacagaweas. Just goes to show you - if you hype it - they will buy it.
In my opinion the Goodacres belong in the same class as those Jessica Lynch Silver Eagles that some like to buy.
I am never going to own one of those coins so it looks like I'll never complete the 1968-date mint set registry. That's a shame that pcgs has to put that, and the stuff like 1994,97 sms nickels in there. They are not circulation strikes as they were never meant to circulate. That is blatent marketing, putting them in the registry just so dealers will submit them more...
<< <i>I am never going to own one of those coins so it looks like I'll never complete the 1968-date mint set registry. That's a shame that pcgs has to put that, and the stuff like 1994,97 sms nickels in there. They are not circulation strikes as they were never meant to circulate. That is blatent marketing, putting them in the registry just so dealers will submit them more...
This was an extraordinary move with the Goodacre presentation pieces. They are burnished and washed and really only a basic 2000P first struck example from my understanding. This coin has no special collectible value except for Glenna being the recipient of good negotiation skills prior to their minting. I do not believe these will ever rival anything near Colonel E.H.R. Green's negotiating skills of 1913 (only 5 nickels), however they prove to be a tough find under 400 dollars whether in the original ICG holder or a PCGS slab.... and that says quite a lot for only being five years old.
<< <i>These weren't presentation coins. They were two raw dollars or mine that I had her sign (initial, actually), in black Sharpie on the obverse field when she was at the Philadelphia ANA show. She was signing posters and pamphlets at the time, but I didn't want those, so I had her sign my coins. >>
Thank you MessyDesk for the answer to my question. You understood my question when others clearly didn't.
Whenever discussion on this board comes up about these dollars, it seems to always turn toward "modern junk", "slabbed junk", "altered surfaces", "whizzed", or other such descriptions. Sadly, those that think this way are missing the point. These coins are historical simply for the fact that they were THE ONES used to pay Ms. Goodacre for her winning design. BTW, this is the first time in history this was done. Most collectors that see fit to have one in their collection would do so whether these pieces were specially prepared by burnishing or were just a run-of-the-mill uncirculated Sac$.
Thank you MessyDesk for the answer to my question. You understood my question when others clearly didn't.
Whenever discussion on this board comes up about these dollars, it seems to always turn toward "modern junk", "slabbed junk", "altered surfaces", "whizzed", or other such descriptions. Sadly, those that think this way are missing the point. These coins are historical simply for the fact that they were THE ONES used to pay Ms. Goodacre for her winning design. BTW, this is the first time in history this was done. Most collectors that see fit to have one in their collection would do so whether these pieces were specially prepared by burnishing or were just a run-of-the-mill uncirculated Sac$. >>
Everyone should check out MWallace's website (above).
While I have little interest in these coins they are as legitimate a collectible as the "circulated" 1804 dollars. There are several of the 2000 sacs of great int- erest to collectors and these include the gold versions, prototypes, mules, Good- acres, and the various finishes. Some of these coins come extremely nice.
<< <i>Compared to this PCGS MS68, it seems someone got a good deal. >>
ah, dabigkahun
This is a forum member with a great eye for Sacagaweas if anyone is building a set. I don't normally toot other's horns, but Larry has some great stuff.
Now this is more reflective of true market value, too ... and obviously the Goodacre is one for the world series ..... or is it ?
I would pay that for a MS68! I still think they're undervalued.. they're a recognized different variety-- a lot of people are going to feel they're collections aren't complete without one.
"I'll split the atom! I am the fifth dimension! I am the eighth wonder of the world!" -Gef the talking mongoose.
<< <i>I am never going to own one of those coins so it looks like I'll never complete the 1968-date mint set registry. That's a shame that pcgs has to put that, and the stuff like 1994,97 sms nickels in there. They are not circulation strikes as they were never meant to circulate. That is blatent marketing, putting them in the registry just so dealers will submit them more...
"Across the street" at the NGC registry my 1792 half disme is not worth a single point in the registry competition. It’s a non-competitive display item because it’s a “pattern.” Yet all but about 20 of the 300 surviving specimens are circulated coins, most of them WELL CIRCULATED coins.
Yet here is this piece of tripe, that was NEVER intended to circulate and would in fact drop to its face value if it were broken out of its slab, and that’s an item that gets included in a recognized set.
We are reduced to becoming lemmings if we let the marketing people who run the registries tell us what is “collectable” and worth points in a hyped up competition and what is not.
And BTW the man who designed the reverse of the Florida State Quarter signed undisclosed number NGC slabbed quarters at the 2005 FUN convention. If the Goodacre stuff is a legitimate item that “must be” in a complete collection of Sacagawea Dollars, why isn’t that piece included? Given what some of you are paying for the Goodacre things, this ought to be worth $300 or $400.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those quarters were not whizzed before they went into the holders.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
If this is the case then the same arguement can be made for the Sacagawea Millenium coin. I have no opinion about it either way I have a SAC registry set and I have both coins in 68.
"Well here's another nice mess you have gotten me into" Oliver Hardy 1930
Bill , this is a great example you make, but the only difference is you have a piece that is MUSEUM quality and not part of a registry race, but part of history(1792 Half Disme). That is a little different.
Now the Sacagaweas cannot compare to statehood quarters as they were removed from circulation after their first year of issuance, making a different sort of market and a "niche" market in numismatics, unlike a classic or modern clad issue, the Sacagaweas have seen very small mintage numbers since Glenna Goodacre rec'd her "stipend".
In any event, I am not one that controls prices in the market, I only wished I had purchased early on like I did the 1999 Silver Proof Set and the 1996 Prestige Proof Set. Who'd have thought they would jump so far so fast ? Inspite of how we might feel about certain coins, the market dictates the price, not our opinion of it.
Lets be honest about this...... Glenna Goodacre did one heck of a job negotiating her rewards for a job well done. Now the market will take care of the rest. I highly doubt these pieces will go down in value. Maybe a few coin doctors could learn to burnish and wash the other umpteen trillion pieces they stamped out that year and call them Glenna Goodacre presentation pieces, flood the market and drop the prices, but for now there are less than 3000 available to the numismatic world, and if she let the other couple of grand out there, they'd still be less than the Cheerios Sacagawea that doesn't even get honorable mention on these boards.
<< <i>Bill , this is a great example you make, but the only difference is you have a piece that is MUSEUM quality and not part of a registry race, but part of history(1792 Half Disme). That is a little different. >>
That is a fallacious argument. With a surviving population of 300 pieces, and probably 100 of those in good enough condition to get into a slab, the coin hardly qualifies as a museum piece. A reasonable well off Joe Blow can own one if he has some patience. And as for market values, there are many registry coins that sell for more than $35,000 to $40,000, which is the current value of a VF half disme.
But you are entitled to collect whatever you want, and pay and price you are willing pay because that’s the nature of the free market …
But there is one thing gets me about those who collect modern stuff exclusively. One of their arguments for doing it is that they claim they can’t afford to collect older stuff. They would if they could, but they just don’t have deep pockets. Then you see people paying more than a grand for something that would be worth $1 outside of its holder. They pay this for a coin that has been polished, which one of the biggest sins a coin can have.
But they are collecting this stuff because they can’t afford anything older.
Sure, the market is high now, but there are still some really interesting items you can buy for twelve or fourteen hundred bucks.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>One of their arguments for doing it is that they claim they can’t afford to collect older stuff. They would if they could, but they just don’t have deep pockets. >>
Yes this is true, take the SAC Millenium and the Goodacre about $2,000+ total for both of them in a 68 more than all other SAC's in a 68 combined except for the 2003-D. This is using PCGS prices.
"Well here's another nice mess you have gotten me into" Oliver Hardy 1930
<< <i> But there is one thing gets me about those who collect modern stuff exclusively. One of their arguments for doing it is that they claim they can’t afford to collect older stuff. They would if they could, but they just don’t have deep pockets. Then you see people paying more than a grand for something that would be worth $1 outside of its holder. They pay this for a coin that has been polished, which one of the biggest sins a coin can have. >>
Bill Jones.....Are you saying these coins are polished....??....By what means.......????
Comments
"There are only 2,500 of the original 5,000 being offered to the collecting public, with the balance being retained by the Goodacre family."
Anyway, for Sac collectors, I would imagine that one of the "Presentation" pieces would be the center of the collection.
Hmmmmmm, half of the original 5,000 are being sold with the remainder being dept by the family. It appears, considering the one for sale is numbered 2587, that the family is auctioning off the lower graded specimens (is "specimens" the right term?).
Jim
I wonder if it would cross over to a PCGS slab or not?
But , as was previously stated ... only a limited amount of those pieces are available and those building registry sets or speculating on the future collectiblity of the Sacagawea in numismatic history hardly blink at this price as they know the Goodacre is a staple of the set.
<< <i>Yup I tend to agree, pretty amazinf if not insane. >>
It is a PCGS slab and this is a fluke, the one bidder must want it very bad and is bidding wildly. It looks like after his next to last bid he went in there and upped his max bid. This($) is not the norm but the exception.
BST successful dealings with:MsMorrisine, goldman86
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
They're goin wild I tell ya ......wild........................
The only reason this one is going for so much is that it's PCGS MS68. As for the 66 at $900, I'm a surprised. Maybe they are shooting past what I would ever pay already.
collections: Maryland related coins & exonumia, 7070 Type set, and Video Arcade Tokens.
The Low Budget Y2K Registry Set
<< <i>'m kicking myself for not having the coins that she signed for me slabbed when she signed them at the Philly ANA show. Mike Faraone, then of ANACS, was in line with me, and I asked him if ANACS would slab them as signed coins, since he was there to verify them. He said they would, and yet I did nothing, >>
I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS.
I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS. >>
I would not care to have a ICG slab. IMHO they do not grade modern stuff very well, especially SHQ's
but hey, thats just my opinion and researching the prices ..me thinks I might be correct
<< <i>I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS. >>
I would not care to have a ICG slab. IMHO they do not grade modern stuff very well, especially SHQ's
but hey, thats just my opinion and researching the prices ..me thinks I might be correct >>
the sacs in ICG holders are NOT graded.........just designated "Presented to obverse sculptor Glenna Goodacre by the US mint."
<< <i>I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS. >>
I would not care to have a ICG slab. IMHO they do not grade modern stuff very well, especially SHQ's but hey, thats just my opinion and researching the prices ..me thinks I might be correct >>
ICG didn't grade these, only authenticate the type and holder them.
Here's mine- and it's signed. I honestly think it would go MS68 with PCGS.
Perhaps a wiser move would have been to do so first but I like the Intercept shield holder along with the original signature.
Goodacre LINK
peacockcoins
Sac Presentation Dollars
<< <i>Icg did not grade them .........they just encapsulated them for integrity...........
Sac Presentation Dollars >>
I stand corrected. My Apologies.
Kip
If you really have some big bucks then buy this oneautographed presentation piece
<< <i>the ICG are probably worth more in the long run then the pcgs since the ICG slab was part of the history....
If you really have some big bucks then buy this oneautographed presentation piece >>
.....
<< <i>here is her autograph from a painting of hers my wife has.
okey dokey
<< <i>
<< <i>'m kicking myself for not having the coins that she signed for me slabbed when she signed them at the Philly ANA show. Mike Faraone, then of ANACS, was in line with me, and I asked him if ANACS would slab them as signed coins, since he was there to verify them. He said they would, and yet I did nothing, >>
I am curious about this. Please explain further. All of the Goodacre Presentation Dollars have always been slabbed. ICG did all 5,000 originally and some have been crossed over to PCGS. >>
These weren't presentation coins. They were two raw dollars or mine that I had her sign (initial, actually), in black Sharpie on the obverse field when she was at the Philadelphia ANA show. She was signing posters and pamphlets at the time, but I didn't want those, so I had her sign my coins.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
You take ordinary Sakies, shine them up like an amateur coin doctor would, stick them in a slab labeled “Goodacre,” and sell them to collector – lemmings for huge prices. The profoundly mentally challenged have purchased these coins RAW for several hundred dollars as “bargains.” 99% of those offerings are nothing but shined up Sackie dollars that are worth $1 each.
ICG did not put grades on this “caca” because you can’t grade it. The original mint surfaces are altered. So all you can grade is how nicely the coin was whizzed. We could have a new scale with grades like WHIZZED STATE – 70.
This is one example of something that makes me very glad I am a “modern coin lemming.” If I were big modern coin collector, I’d HAVE to own one of these.
BUT since I’m not, I don’t need to waste any money on them.
And no, neither PCGS nor NGC could be or should be crossing any of this crap.
But sadly I see from the Ebay offering that at least PCGS HAS graded it.
Too bad ...
<< <i>I have HATED these Goodacre coins from the get-go.
You take ordinary Sakies, shine them up like an amateur coin doctor would, stick them in a slab labeled “Goodacre,” and sell them to collector – lemmings for huge prices. The profoundly mentally challenged have purchased these coins RAW for several hundred dollars as “bargains.” 99% of those offerings are nothing but shined up Sackie dollars that are worth $1 each.
ICG did not put grades on this “caca” because you can’t grade it. The original mint surfaces are altered. So all you can grade is how nicely the coin was whizzed. We could have a new scale with grades like WHIZZED STATE – 70.
This is one example of something that makes me very glad I am a “modern coin lemming.” If I were big modern coin collector, I’d HAVE to own one of these.
BUT since I’m not, I don’t need to waste any money on them.
And no, neither PCGS nor NGC could be or should be crossing any of this crap. >>
.........................
In my opinion the Goodacres belong in the same class as those Jessica Lynch Silver Eagles that some like to buy.
My lovely set that will never be complete.
<< <i>I am never going to own one of those coins so it looks like I'll never complete the 1968-date mint set registry. That's a shame that pcgs has to put that, and the stuff like 1994,97 sms nickels in there. They are not circulation strikes as they were never meant to circulate. That is blatent marketing, putting them in the registry just so dealers will submit them more...
My lovely set that will never be complete. >>
That is a very valid point made.
This was an extraordinary move with the Goodacre presentation pieces. They are burnished and washed and really only a basic 2000P first struck example from my understanding. This coin has no special collectible value except for Glenna being the recipient of good negotiation skills prior to their minting. I do not believe these will ever rival anything near Colonel E.H.R. Green's negotiating skills of 1913 (only 5 nickels), however they prove to be a tough find under 400 dollars whether in the original ICG holder or a PCGS slab....
and that says quite a lot for only being five years old.
<< <i>braddick did you witness Glenna signing yours? I am curious because honestly that does not look like her signature.... >>
Purchased mine off of Teletrade Goodacre Sacagawea awhile back. It sure looks like her signature I've seen on others.
peacockcoins
<< <i>These weren't presentation coins. They were two raw dollars or mine that I had her sign (initial, actually), in black Sharpie on the obverse field when she was at the Philadelphia ANA show. She was signing posters and pamphlets at the time, but I didn't want those, so I had her sign my coins. >>
Thank you MessyDesk for the answer to my question. You understood my question when others clearly didn't.
Whenever discussion on this board comes up about these dollars, it seems to always turn toward "modern junk", "slabbed junk", "altered surfaces", "whizzed", or other such descriptions. Sadly, those that think this way are missing the point. These coins are historical simply for the fact that they were THE ONES used to pay Ms. Goodacre for her winning design. BTW, this is the first time in history this was done. Most collectors that see fit to have one in their collection would do so whether these pieces were specially prepared by burnishing or were just a run-of-the-mill uncirculated Sac$.
<< <i>
Thank you MessyDesk for the answer to my question. You understood my question when others clearly didn't.
Whenever discussion on this board comes up about these dollars, it seems to always turn toward "modern junk", "slabbed junk", "altered surfaces", "whizzed", or other such descriptions. Sadly, those that think this way are missing the point. These coins are historical simply for the fact that they were THE ONES used to pay Ms. Goodacre for her winning design. BTW, this is the first time in history this was done. Most collectors that see fit to have one in their collection would do so whether these pieces were specially prepared by burnishing or were just a run-of-the-mill uncirculated Sac$. >>
Everyone should check out MWallace's website (above).
While I have little interest in these coins they are as legitimate a collectible as
the "circulated" 1804 dollars. There are several of the 2000 sacs of great int-
erest to collectors and these include the gold versions, prototypes, mules, Good-
acres, and the various finishes. Some of these coins come extremely nice.
<< <i>Compared to this PCGS MS68, it seems someone got a good deal. >>
ah, dabigkahun
This is a forum member with a great eye for Sacagaweas if anyone is building a set. I don't normally toot other's horns, but Larry has some great stuff.
Now this is more reflective of true market value, too ... and obviously the Goodacre is one for the world series .....
Well.... if folks consider type one and type two Goodacre coins, then type two price will shoot to the moon.
<< <i>I am never going to own one of those coins so it looks like I'll never complete the 1968-date mint set registry. That's a shame that pcgs has to put that, and the stuff like 1994,97 sms nickels in there. They are not circulation strikes as they were never meant to circulate. That is blatent marketing, putting them in the registry just so dealers will submit them more...
My lovely set that will never be complete. >>
"Across the street" at the NGC registry my 1792 half disme is not worth a single point in the registry competition. It’s a non-competitive display item because it’s a “pattern.” Yet all but about 20 of the 300 surviving specimens are circulated coins, most of them WELL CIRCULATED coins.
Yet here is this piece of tripe, that was NEVER intended to circulate and would in fact drop to its face value if it were broken out of its slab, and that’s an item that gets included in a recognized set.
We are reduced to becoming lemmings if we let the marketing people who run the registries tell us what is “collectable” and worth points in a hyped up competition and what is not.
And BTW the man who designed the reverse of the Florida State Quarter signed undisclosed number NGC slabbed quarters at the 2005 FUN convention. If the Goodacre stuff is a legitimate item that “must be” in a complete collection of Sacagawea Dollars, why isn’t that piece included? Given what some of you are paying for the Goodacre things, this ought to be worth $300 or $400.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those quarters were not whizzed before they went into the holders.
BST successful dealings with:MsMorrisine, goldman86
Now the Sacagaweas cannot compare to statehood quarters as they were removed from circulation after their first year of issuance, making a different sort of market and a "niche" market in numismatics, unlike a classic or modern clad issue, the Sacagaweas have seen very small mintage numbers since Glenna Goodacre rec'd her "stipend".
In any event, I am not one that controls prices in the market, I only wished I had purchased early on like I did the 1999 Silver Proof Set and the 1996 Prestige Proof Set. Who'd have thought they would jump so far so fast ? Inspite of how we might feel about certain coins, the market dictates the price, not our opinion of it.
Lets be honest about this...... Glenna Goodacre did one heck of a job negotiating her rewards for a job well done. Now the market will take care of the rest. I highly doubt these pieces will go down in value. Maybe a few coin doctors could learn to burnish and wash the other umpteen trillion pieces they stamped out that year
Kinda brings the nuts outta the woodwork, eh ?
Look at this goofball ... sad thing is some other goofball will buy it thinking it's the real thing.
"Goodacre Gold Dollar" (sic)
Ingnorance is not bliss ... it's just STUPID
<< <i>Kinda brings the nuts outta the woodwork, eh ?
Look at this goofball ... sad thing is some other goofball will buy it thinking it's the real thing.
"Goodacre Gold Dollar" (sic)
Ingnorance is not bliss ... it's just STUPID >>
now that is the funniest thing I have seen in a while
and yes Bengals.... total crossed to PCGS is 639 but I won't break it down cuz of the world series thingy.
<< <i>Bill , this is a great example you make, but the only difference is you have a piece that is MUSEUM quality and not part of a registry race, but part of history(1792 Half Disme). That is a little different. >>
That is a fallacious argument. With a surviving population of 300 pieces, and probably 100 of those in good enough condition to get into a slab, the coin hardly qualifies as a museum piece. A reasonable well off Joe Blow can own one if he has some patience. And as for market values, there are many registry coins that sell for more than $35,000 to $40,000, which is the current value of a VF half disme.
But you are entitled to collect whatever you want, and pay and price you are willing pay because that’s the nature of the free market …
But there is one thing gets me about those who collect modern stuff exclusively. One of their arguments for doing it is that they claim they can’t afford to collect older stuff. They would if they could, but they just don’t have deep pockets. Then you see people paying more than a grand for something that would be worth $1 outside of its holder. They pay this for a coin that has been polished, which one of the biggest sins a coin can have.
But they are collecting this stuff because they can’t afford anything older.
Sure, the market is high now, but there are still some really interesting items you can buy for twelve or fourteen hundred bucks.
<< <i>One of their arguments for doing it is that they claim they can’t afford to collect older stuff. They would if they could, but they just don’t have deep pockets. >>
Yes this is true, take the SAC Millenium and the Goodacre about $2,000+ total for both of them in a 68 more than all other SAC's in a 68 combined except for the 2003-D. This is using PCGS prices.
BST successful dealings with:MsMorrisine, goldman86
<< <i>
But there is one thing gets me about those who collect modern stuff exclusively. One of their arguments for doing it is that they claim they can’t afford to collect older stuff. They would if they could, but they just don’t have deep pockets. Then you see people paying more than a grand for something that would be worth $1 outside of its holder. They pay this for a coin that has been polished, which one of the biggest sins a coin can have.
>>
Bill Jones.....Are you saying these coins are polished....??....By what means.......????