False rarity realizes $132K in Heritage auction, while true rarity goes unnoticed

Sunnywood · January 31, 2004 12:07AM

In the Heritage Long Beach Signature Sale, Lot 5373, an 1867 Rays proof nickel NGC PF66 CAM realized $132,500. This was probably the finest known example of this issue. However, let's set the record straight. Lately, a lot of 1867 Rays proofs have been on the market, probably because a hoarder let them all go. This coin is very rare and desirable, but it is not as rare as people believe. And further, I do not believe it was a regular issue at all. The Heritage cataloguers cited John Dannreuther's research in attributed the coin as an "original" striking, but they were not aware of the most recent developments. In Coin World, February 2nd 2004, pp. 2 and 76, I reported my findings, confirmed by Dannreuther, that support Bob Julian's assertion that the 25 proofs delivered in early February 1867 were NOT With Rays proofs. Rather, they were a special group of No Rays proofs struck with the prototype reverse die that was previously known only on the J-507 and J-573 patterns. (All other subsequently struck 1867 No Rays proofs have the regular reverse.)

An example of this rare original No Rays proof was in the VERY NEXT LOT in the Heritage Sale ... Lot 5374. A comparison between Lots 5373 and 5374 would undoubtedly confirm what Dannreuther and I have already seen on other specimens ... that the OBVERSE die state of the No Rays example is an earlier die state. Thus, the rare No Rays proofs with the transitional reverse were probably struck first. This, taken together with Bob Julian's archival research, suggests that the 25 proofs delivered in early February were No Rays coins, and therefore that ALL 1867 With Rays proofs, whether "original" or "restrike," were Mint-made delicacies for special clients, and NOT regular issue coins. That is why I used the provocative words "false rarity." Of course, there are many other similarly "false rarities" such as 1804 dollars, 1885 trade dollars, and 1913 Liberty nickels. They bring millions nonetheless !!!

In my view, a propoer valuation for the 1867 Rays proof could be determined by comparing it with the 1865-dated With Rays pattern J-416, which is known to have been a backdated fantasy piece, made in 1870 or beyond. The 1867 Rays proof is no more "legitimate" an issue than the J-416 pattern, and it is not nearly as rare as the J-416 either. A superb example of J-416 recently brought about $20,000 at auction.

So, Lot 5374, the rare true original No Rays proof with the prototype reverse die brought only $9775 the other day, because nobody understands what the coin is. It is amazing to me how the 1867 Rays proof is a $132,000 coin, while the rarer J-416 brings $20,000, and the perhaps equally rare 1867 "original" No Rays proof brings only $9775.

Sunnywood

coppercoins · January 31, 2004 12:21AM

Very interesting information, and I'm not a nickel collector...but I do appreciate you sharing it. Thanks!

coinguy1 · January 31, 2004 12:27AM

Sunnywood, a most interesting post and good to hear from you, as always.

For the sake of fun and discussion purposes (and, heck, maybe a bit of argument and entertainment, too

), I have a few questions for you:

Whether people agree with you on this subject or not, do you have similar thoughts about other "contrived" rarities, such as 1804 dollars?

What do you think they should be "worth"?

Do you have a (big) problem with the "value" of a given coin (whether it be a "contrived" rarity or not") owing much of that "value" to widespread publicity and/or inclusion in coin guides/books, such as the "red book"?

roadrunner · January 31, 2004 12:28AM

I guess the 1867 rays proof is in the same class so to speak as 1804 dollars and the like. History is hard to rewrite on this coin.

But what you have witnessed is only the effect of the REGISTRY monster coming to roost. This is the stopper is in the "listed" set of proofs. If it were removed by PCGS, the value would plummet.

$132,000 brought to you by PCGS Registry.

roadrunner

CarlWohlforth · January 31, 2004 12:31AM

I wish I knew this before the auction

Thanks for the neat info!

Sunnywood · January 31, 2004 12:41AM

Hi Mark,

Nice to see you

Funny, just as you were writing your post, I was editing mine to add the reference to 1804 dollars, 1885 trade dollars, and 1913 Liberty nicekls. Yes, I have personally always believed that these illegitimate celebrity coins should take a back seat to legitimately issued rarities such as the 1841-O half eagle, or 1853-O no arrows half. But obviously I am in a very small minority, as market values indicate.

I also agree that the Redbook has always had way too much influence on values. Why do 1856 flyers get a lot of press, while similar pre-dated issues such as the 1858 Indian cent, 1863 two cent piece, 1865 Rays shield nickel, and 1882 Liberty nickel get none? (I am referring to the patterns with the identical designs to the regular issues dated one year later.) Because of the Redbook. Inclusion in the Redbook can bring a pattern, transitional issue, or backdated fantasy piece, into the realm of mainstream collectible rarities. Of course some of those that I just mentioned were backdated fantasies. (The J-416 nickel and the J-316 two cent piece are known to be backdated based on dies/hubs used.)

Funny how the PRE-dated coins mentioned above aren't worth so much, but the POST-dated coins (1913 nickel, 1804 dollar, 1885 trade dollar) issued illegitimately at the END of the series are worth millions !!!

Also, some transitionals get a lot of hype, like the 1866 No Motto dollar, even though it is known to be a backdated fantasy piece, and not a true transitional. But there are many such "transitionals" in the Judd series, and they get ignored because they are not in the Redbook. The 1865 With Motto dollar is no less interesting and no less legitimate than the 1866 No Motto, so why is it excluded from the Redbook while the 1866 piece is included?

So, yes, as always, coinguy1 raises great points !!!!!!!!!

Sunnywood

kranky · January 31, 2004 12:43AM

I had previously read the article and it was quite interesting. Excellent research.

To me, one of the most fascinating things about the hobby is that there are new discoveries made all the time, even with respect to coins well over a hundred years old.

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2004 12:43AM

NGC PF66 CAM realized $132,500

$132,000 brought to you by PCGS Registry.

If it could cross, it most likely already would have - therefor those two statements don't seem to mesh. It's a rare and popular coin - regardless of date of manufacture. In fact, there used to be even more mystique surrounding that variety. Many of the 19th century petite rarities have slipped in stature as time has marched on.

wondercoin · January 31, 2004 12:45AM

Douglas (Sunnywood) - I pointed out that 1867 Rays nickel in the sale to the ultimate winning buyer. As you suggest, the coin is spectacular in every way - closer to PR67 grade IMHO with a likely UC or DCAM obverse and strong cameo reverse. On balance, I am very surprised the coin did not grade higher at NGC.

In any event, essentially your complaint that great rarity pattern nickels routinely sell for a fraction of the "regular issue" proof prices, is a reality which personally led me into collecting pattern nickels a couple years ago. Indeed, this same 1867 Rays nickel struck in copper (off-metal) and roughly 2x as rare (J572) sells for 1/10 of the price these days!! I bought both copper specimens of this 1867 Rays nickel in high grade PCGS holders (PR63BN and PR66RB) and agree they are "true rarity that goes unnoticed". And, it is not just pattern nickels - it is "pattern everything". Again, I agree with your portion of the discussion that "true rarity" is going "unnoticed" - in the form of certain pattern coins selling at what would appear to be relatively depressed levels compared to regular issue counterparts. I would like to think this Rays nickel in struck in copper is a $50,000 coin or even a $100,000 coin as well. Maybe one day

Wondercoin

Sunnywood · January 31, 2004 12:53AM

It's a rare and popular coin - regardless of date of manufacture.

Mind you, I am not saying this "original" 1867 Rays proof is a backdated fantasy piece. It was indeed struck early in 1867, as confirmed by the obverse die state. However, some of us no longer believe it to have been struck as part of the authorized mintage of 1867 proofs. The With Rays proofs seem to have been struck "on the side" at various times during 1867 and beyond.

Previously, the early die state "originals" (so identified by Dannreuther) were assumed to be the 25 proofs delivered in early February 1867. But the new research shows that the No Rays proofs with the prototype reverse have an EARLIER obverse die state. Together with Mint records and letters studied by Bob Julian, the correct conclusion seems to be that the 25 proofs were indeed NO RAYS proofs. However, the subject coin (Heritage Lot 5373) was also struck at approximately the same time, perhaps a few days or weeks later. This conclusion brings Dannreuther's and Julian's research in line with one another, whereas previously they were in direct contradiction.

Sunnywood

roadrunner · January 31, 2004 12:56AM

TDN, as we both know, at auction, under the heat to keep making scores, "could cross" becomes "should cross" becomes "will cross."
Even as an NGC66CAM, this was the finest listed at either service and would still retain bragging rights for the owner. Personally, I'd rather own an 1842 small date quarter in gem proof as that is a legit rarity, with only half a dozen or so known. Costs less than the 1867 rays proof 5c of which 35 were minted....and now 41 graded/resubmitted altogether.

It's only after grading resubmission that the party lights get extinguished. But until then, it's party time.

roadrunner

Sunnywood · January 31, 2004 1:02AM

Mitch,

Yeah, let's talk about 1867 nickels here. The rarest ones are some of the patterns, to be sure !! Of the regular issue copper-nickel coins, the "original" 1867 No Rays proof of February, 1867 with the prototype reverse is now thought to be the rarest flavor. The With Rays proof comes next, although the coin is neither a regular issue, nor as rare as the original No Rays proofs. Then the "regular" No Rays proofs with Reverse Hub IIa follow. Next come the 1867 Rays business strikes. Then the 1867 No Rays business strikes. A lot of different shield nickels to collect !! I didn't even mention the various DDO nad RPD varieties.

But the point of this post was mainly to correct Heritage's outdated catalog description. Dannreuther no longer believes the "original" Rays proofs to be the 25 coins delivered in February 1867. Therefore, Heritage's argument that the coin has value because it is part of that original issue is moot. Whatever value the coin has, it should be because of its beauty & desirability, but not the incorrect numismatic reasons stated by Heritage !!!!

Sunnywood

Sunnywood · January 31, 2004 1:04AM

Roadrunner,

Throw that mintage figure of 35 out the window. Nobody knows for sure. It was previously believed that there were 25 minted in February, plus some restrikes. Now they are known to have been minted at various times throughout 1867 and later. And the 25 pieces delivered in February are no longer considered part of the total. I don't think anyone knows the correct total.

Sunnywood

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2004 1:06AM

Brian: my point was more along the lines that forces other than the Registry are driving this particular coin. Finest known has always carried a strong premium - even before the Registries. Inclusion in the 100 Greatest US Coins book surely helped. In addition, the petite rarieties of the 19th century are nearing a resurgence because they have not kept up with the ultra rarities of the same time period.

If you go back and track all the classic rarities of the US series, you will find that they tend to move in concert with each other. However, IMO, the petite rarities have slumbered a bit in the past decade. Now I believe they are starting to make their move. Recent prices for 1838-O halves, 1876-CC twenty centers, 1864-L cents and 1867 rays nickels would seem to support my opinion.

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2004 1:10AM

**sigh**

I've missed threads like these!!!!!!!!

coinguy1 · January 31, 2004 1:11AM

Wondercoin, does Sunnywood's

<< <i>This was probably the finest known example of this issue. >>

necessarily equate with your

<< <i>As you suggest, the coin is spectacular in every way - closer to PR67 grade IMHO with a likely UC or DCAM obverse and strong cameo reverse. On balance, I am very surprised the coin did not grade higher at NGC. >>

?

Many coins can be "probably the finest known" and NOT be "spectacular in every way...". I think perhaps, you are confusing YOUR impressions/words with those of Sunnywood.

Edited to add - still a great coin, either way!

wondercoin · January 31, 2004 1:15AM

Mark: Could be. I have now amplified the description of the coin. Perhaps someone could pull the scan of the coin from the auction site to place here on the thread?

Wondercoin

coinguy1 · January 31, 2004 1:20AM

Sunnywood, though it's not nearly as much fun (as if I disagreed), I generally agree with your thinking about "true", as opposed to "false" rarities.

Sunnywood · January 31, 2004 1:23AM

TDN,

I'm glad to provide a thread that makes you sigh !!! I don't post here much anymore, but when I saw a glaring situation where numismatic misinformation needed to be updated based on legitimate new research, I just couldn't ignore it !!!!

By the way, just for the record, I had no financial interest in Lot 5374 (the original No Rays proof). I neither owned nor bought the coin. This thread was motivated purely by academic interest !!!

Sunnywood

wondercoin · January 31, 2004 1:27AM

RYK · January 31, 2004 1:30AM

I also agree that the Redbook has always had way too much influence on values. Why do 1856 flyers get a lot of press, while similar pre-dated issues such as the 1858 Indian cent, 1863 two cent piece, 1865 Rays shield nickel, and 1882 Liberty nickel get none?

This is a fascinating area, and I am glad that it is being discussed here. It would be an interesting, but impossible, experiment to omit the 56 FE cent from the Redbook and include the 58 Indian cent or 82 Liberty nickel and check 30 years from now and see what happens to relative value, demand, interest, etc. I suspect that by now the 56 FE cent is so much a part of the coin collecting culture as a classic rarity that it would take several generations of collectors for that to change under my experimental conditions. It may, in fact, be impossible to change. Furthermore, I would offer that there are fewer collectors influenced by the Redbook than there were twenty-five and fifty years ago. Today, there are far more specialty books and websites that I and others rely on for information.

This is a terrific thread. I wish that there were more like it. Thank you, Sunnywood, for starting it.

coinguy1 · January 31, 2004 1:40AM

Sunnywood and others - what status/recognition do you guys think Gobrecht dollars should receive? I admire them and personally, don't care if some or all of them are patterns, false rarities, etc., or not. But, I'm curious as to how others view them.

And, what about "Stella's"?

Off to the show momentarily, but, I look forward to your comments. Thanks in advance.

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2004 1:51AM

** super sigh ** Gobrechts and classic rarities in the same thread? My heart!!!!!

I once had a bet with a certain partner who will remain nameless. I asserted that the 1856 flying eagles were patterns and the Gobrechts were regular issues! [Or at least that's how I view them.]

Sunnywood · January 31, 2004 2:08AM

Mark,

I consider the J-60 and J-104 Gobrechts to be regular issue coinage. They are the only coins manufactured in proof format but released as business strikes. All other Gobrechts are patterns or Mint-produced "delicacies." I consider the Stellas to be patterns.

As far as Gobrechts, that is a subject for another day, and I could write tomes about die alignments, originals vs. restrikes, etc ** In any case I still consider all the J-60 to be regular issue coins. I believe they were actually released to the public through banks. The 1839-dated J-104 may also be considered a regular authorized issue.

Best,
Sunnywood

** - The research on Gobrechts by specialsts James Gray & Mike Carbonneau is truly awesome, and they have new theories about the die alignments, etc. The traditional thinking about die alignments was completely off base. PCGS is completely wrong about their usage of the terms "Original" and "Restrike" on these coins. Their definition is that anything in Die Alignment I is an "original" and anything else is a "restrike." I believe that the J-60 struck in 1836 were in Die Alignment I, and those of 1837 in Die Alignment IV. In that case, PCGS is correct. However, many of the other Gobrecht patterns may NEVER have been struck in Die Alignment I. I especially believe this to be true about the mythical (18) original J-58's ... I don't think they were ever made in Die Alignment I. But I just DON'T want to get into that now LOLOL ....

grip · January 31, 2004 2:13AM

Sunnywood
Thanks for the educational post,best I read in some time.
Al

Draco · January 31, 2004 5:33AM

Definately the best post around here in a very long time. Thanks for the education

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2004 7:13AM

BTW - PCGS does agree that the 1836 and 1839 originals are regular issue. They are included in the Seated Liberty dollar proof set.

But...... if that's the case, why are the restrikes classified as patterns? They would be later year restrikes from circulation issue dies properly created in the year of issue. Seems that's just as legitimate [or more legitimate] than the 1851, 52 and 53 restrike proof dollars. Perhaps all J-60's and J-104's are more properly treated as a circulation issue than as patterns - even the restrikes?

MrEureka · January 31, 2004 7:35AM

I once had a bet with a certain partner who will remain nameless. I asserted that the 1856 flying eagles were patterns

If the first 56 fleagles were struck as patterns, and if many of that batch were then officially released into circulation, aren't the coins patterns AND regular issues?

oreville · January 31, 2004 8:29AM

MrEureka: That is why Mr. Whitman himself put in a plug for the 1856 FE cent.

ohbaby · January 31, 2004 8:46AM

Great thread!

Sunnywood and others - what status/recognition do you guys think Gobrecht dollars should receive? I admire them and personally, don't care if some or all of them are patterns, false rarities, etc., or not. But, I'm curious as to how others view them.

I love the Gob$ as well BUT they too are patterns IMO. As are the rolled $10. False rarities, created rarities, fantasy raritites, etc. should not be included in the registries as regular strikes. They should have a pattern registry.

Call me a purist but I can only get excited about coins that were made for circulation and at least some of their brethren did circulate. A 1933 is a false rarity as well.

Not saying these coins are not interesting but......

Super super thread!

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2004 8:53AM

I love the Gob$ as well BUT they too are patterns IMO. As are the rolled $10. False rarities, created rarities, fantasy raritites, etc. should not be included in the registries as regular strikes. They should have a pattern registry.

Call me a purist but I can only get excited about coins that were made for circulation and at least some of their brethren did circulate. A 1933 is a false rarity as well. Not saying these coins are not interesting but......

Two deliveries of 1836 Gobrechts were released to circulation - one in late 1836 and another in 1837. An additional release of 1839 Gobrechts was made in that calendar year.

If not intended as a circulation coinage, why create 1838 and 1839 dies at the time? Why strike coinage in 1839 and release it to circulation? Why strike 1600 coins in 1836/37 and release them to the banks?

Gobrechts did circulate. Worn specimens abound. Please elaborate on your objection.....

Higashiyama · January 31, 2004 9:01AM

Yes, circulated 1836 Gobrecht dollars must be more available than non-circulated ones. Until recently, at least, Gobrecht dollars seemed one of the most undervalued type coins.

Sunnywood · January 31, 2004 4:48PM

TDN,

It's really funny that PCGS put the 1839 "original" in the seated dollar proof series, when the only coins they consider to be "original" are those in Die Alignment I. Well, there AREN'T any. IMHO no 1839 (J-104) was EVER struck in Die Alignment I. So the ones PCGS calls "restrikes" are actually the originals.

As far as 1838's, I believe they are all backdated fantasy pieces. I believe the reverse die states on these 1838 (J-84) are all later states with die cracks.

Best,
Sunnywood

coinguy1 · February 1, 2004 1:17AM

Sunnywood, PLEASE visit and post here more often!

kranky · February 1, 2004 10:17AM

I have to echo Mark's comments - let's hear more from you, Sunnywood.

tradedollarnut · February 1, 2004 10:31AM

BTW - PCGS now does recognize Die Alignment IV [with perfect die state] as an original 1839.

Sunnywood · February 1, 2004 10:48AM

kranky & coinguy1, thanks for the kind words !!

TDN,

It's great to hear that PCGS has finally acknowledged the recent research on Gobrechts and is now using the terms "Original" and "Restrike" correctly !!!! I lobbied unsuccessfully for this change two or three years ago.

In my view, all (1000) 1836 J-60 DA I are originals from 1836. The (600) DA IV's are restrikes from 1837 (although many would still call these coins part of the original issue). The DA II and DA III are probably mistakes due to unintended die rotation on the coining press.

In my view all 1836 Name Below Base (J-58) and 1838's (J-84) are Restrikes. There were never originals. The restrikes may have been produced at various times. Both DA III and DA IV are found.

In my view there were (300) original 1839 (J-104), but none was produced in DA I. So those coins should be called "originals" that come from this striking. Others may have been restruck later, and they can be distinguished by a late reverse die state.

Best,
Sunnywood

shirohniichan · February 1, 2004 10:59AM

Great discussion!

I, too, am much more interested in "original" rarities than clandestinely struck fantasy pieces. Inclusion in the Red Book and Whitman folders does seem to elevate some patterns into false rarity status.

Those that interest me more are like the 1876-CC double dime and 1933 double eagle, which were struck for circulation but not released into regular channels of commerce. Some Canadian 1921 coins fall into this category, also.

Thanks for the interesting reading!

IGWT · July 29, 2006 9:09AM

Was nobody listening to Sunnywood?

seateddime · July 29, 2006 9:18AM

very interesting post.

MrEureka · July 29, 2006 9:34AM

IGWT - Nice coin!

lloydmincy · July 29, 2006 11:07AM

Where do I start. First off, it's hard to ever disagree with TDN, Sunnywood or Mark!!! But here's what I believe regarding:

Patterns and Circulation issues:

Pattern: "A coin made to test new designs for possible use on coins made for circulation". The 1856 Flying Eagle cent is considered a "pattern" but many were minted due to immediate success of the design-testing, so they were released into circulation. Why can't the 1909 Lincoln cents and all other first year circ coins be defined as a pattern? Most first-year issues HAD patterns/design trials and when successful, the circs were minted and the patterns/die trials were then destroyed. (The various patterns of 1909 were struck in small numbers, and most are unique. Most are housed at the Smithsonian). Then circulation strikes were minted and released to the public.

I believe a coin can be called a pattern AND a circulation issue. Like the 1836 J-60 Gobrecht's and 1856 Flying Eagle cents.

Let's look at another set of coins. Are they patterns, circulation strikes, OR BOTH?

The 1916 Mercury dime. There were plenty of DIFFERENT looks tested (patterns) to see which would be made for circulation. Finally, one was chosen. But the final chosen circulation strike does not have a pattern in existence. J-1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 are all patterns (and match the definition) and are all DIFFERENT than the final look that was used for circulation. A Mint official reported ALL pattern dimes were melted, but you could have found J-1981-1984 in circulation. Can they in fact be named circulation strikes because they were somehow released? Or just patterns that got to the public??? (The same can be said for the 1916 quarter and half).

The 1858 Indian cents are PATTERNS, because they were NOT released to circulation. IMO, it does not MATTER HOW MANY PATTERNS WERE PRODUCED.

Legitiamate Rarities:
I have to disagree with the Einstien on these boards - Sunnywood.

The 1853-O No Arrows half and the 1841-O, are NOT legitimate rarities:

1853-O NA half dollar: The New Orleans Mint struck 1853-O No Arrow halves, but THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED because of the Mint Act of Feb 21, 1853. There are none recorded in Mint records. Isn't it safe to say they are in the same catagory as the 1913 Liberty Nickel (no mint recording), and the 1933 $20 (if there was no chaos, and every man was of honorable character, and everyone was following procedure perfectly, they all should have been melted)???

The 1841-O Half Eagle is NOT a legitimate rarity. They were recorded by the Mint, but NONE HAVE EVER SURFACED.

Why is not the 1804 Silver Dollar a legitimate rarity? The U.S. Mint produced them, and there aren't very many!!! Just because they have a different year stamped on them than the year they were minted. Gee, how many times has THAT happened??

What about the 1851-O silver dollar?? I think that is a legitimate rarity also.

tradedollarnut · July 29, 2006 11:16AM

What about the 1851-O silver dollar?? I think that is a legitimate rarity also.

I don't. All it really is is an overstrike .... kind of like a flaw that was on the planchet before the restrike coin was struck.

MrEureka · July 29, 2006 11:25AM

Why can't the 1909 Lincoln cents and all other first year circ coins be defined as a pattern? Most first-year issues HAD patterns/design trials and when successful, the circs were minted and the patterns/die trials were then destroyed. (No 1909 patterns and die trials are known to exist - probably melted).

I love it! Another chance to make a wager with the Dark Lloyd!

BTW, I bought this thing out of Doyle's Lauder sale for something like a grand. It's unique. Guess I should have kept it, eh?

IGWT · July 29, 2006 11:26AM

<< <i>IGWT - Nice coin! >>

Thanks, Andy, for more than the compliment. Here's the 507 -- which the 1867 rev. IIo helps establish as a true transitional -- to go with it:

MrEureka · July 29, 2006 11:30AM

1853-O NA half dollar: The New Orleans Mint struck 1853-O No Arrow halves, but THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED because of the Mint Act of Feb 21, 1853. There are none recorded in Mint records. Isn't it safe to say they are in the same catagory as the 1913 Liberty Nickel (no mint recording), and the 1933 $20 (if there was no chaos, and every man was of honorable character, and everyone was following procedure perfectly, they all should have been melted)???

Tough to say how the coins survived but we can be pretty sure it wasn't because somebody at the Mint was trying to pull a fast one. If that had been the case, the three coins would have been sold to collectors and kept in MS condition. However, all three remaining examples are well circulated. The coin will remain on my want list, thank you.

coindeuce · July 29, 2006 11:32AM

Sunnywood, thanks for the concise and informative lesson. My initial thought here was more on a practical level though. What is your position on the issue should you be subpoenaed for a deposition by the attorney(s) for the new owner of this false rarity should they decide to litigate with Heritage?

DaveG · July 29, 2006 11:37AM

lloydmincy,

Regarding the 1841-O half eagle, Doug Winter believes that none were ever minted.

In the new edition of his New Orleans Gold Coins book, he says that 8,300 of the half eagles minted in 1841 were shown by delivery records to have been dated '1840'. He agrees that this leaves 50 coins unaccounted for, but he does not believe that they were dated '1841'. (He doesn't say why he believes this, nor does he discuss whether any records of the delivery of these coins exist.)

He also reprints the Akers debunking of the coin (from the 1977 Pittman I catalog) reported to have been in the Col. Green collection by Walter Breen (he says Breen confused an 1841-C with an 1841-O) and also says the other speciment reported by Breen (the Speice coin) was a fake.

IGWT · July 29, 2006 11:39AM

-- "My initial thought here was more on a practical level though. What is your position on the issue should you be subpoenaed for a deposition by the attorney(s) for the new owner of this false rarity should they decide to litigate with Heritage?" --

The point is that the 1867 PR w/o rays prototype reverse is almost certainly rarer than the '67 w/ rays that garners all the attention and big bucks. Vested interests have no desire to disclose this reality. BTW, check the date of Sunnywood's opening post; if he hasn't been served yet . . .

lloydmincy · July 29, 2006 12:53PM

<<(No 1909 patterns and die trials are known to exist - probably melted).>>
I corrected this Andy. I know better. I was reading/thinking of something else.

My opinion on the 1851-O Dollar and why it is legitimate: It WAS struck, but accidently came into existence as unique. Maybe they "goofed" on using the wrong reverse die, and tried to cover it up. I still don't know why it just wasn't melted, and then tried again. We've talked about THAT coin in length before.

If you want to wager with me on something Andy, I know I must be... wrong!!!

LALASD4 · July 29, 2006 1:11PM

Rarity is just part of the equation, without damand there will not be a high price anything.

False rarity realizes $132K in Heritage auction, while true rarity goes unnoticed

Comments

Leave a Comment