<< <i>For the most part I can see my enthusiasm regarding Battle Creeks falls on deaf ears (or at least uninterested ears) here on the forum. >>
That might be because you keep linking common uninspiring coins like that which is the subject of this thread, and raving about how wonderful they are. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and demonstrates to anybody who didn't just bounce off the turnip truck that you really have no clue as to what constitutes a top end toner.
<< <i>For the most part I can see my enthusiasm regarding Battle Creeks falls on deaf ears (or at least uninterested ears) here on the forum. >>
That might be because you keep linking common uninspiring coins like that which is the subject of this thread, and raving about how wonderful they are. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and demonstrates to anybody who didn't just bounce off the turnip truck that you really have no clue as to what constitutes a top end toner.
Russ, NCNE >>
Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course.
Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
The coin of this thread is barely DMPL and boringly toned and an average rim toned Morgan is anything but rare. I thought this thread was a joke until I realized it was about your beloved BC Morgans. Why do you keep saying the BC coins have a great backstory when the backstory is that some unnamed guy found nine or so bags of Morgans? That is no story at all. A lady in Chicago found a couple of bags of 1884-O's a few years back, had NGC slab them, and slowly sold them on eBay, some toned, some not. A few were monsters. Is that a great story? No. Not really. But, the coins were nice and accurately graded.
The subject coin of the thread hasn't gotten any bids yet (minimum bid is $725) so it isn't anywhere near the top-notch Battle Creek toners that have sold over $10,000.
As for the Battle Creek Morgan on Teletrade the other night, $210 plus 12% juice is $235, which IMO is only about 10 times what the coin is worth. On the other hand, maybe someone has a nicer coin and they want to substitute it for the yukky one in the holder.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The coin of this thread is barely DMPL and boringly toned and an average rim toned Morgan is anything but rare. I thought this thread was a joke until I realized it was about your beloved BC Morgans. Why do you keep saying the BC coins have a great backstory when the backstory is that some unnamed guy found nine or so bags of Morgans? That is no story at all. A lady in Chicago found a couple of bags of 1884-O's a few years back, had NGC slab them, and slowly sold them on eBay, some toned, some not. A few were monsters. Is that a great story? No. Not really. But, the coins were nice and accurately graded. >>
A reasonable and constructively worded post. I can do nothing but respect it. I still love the Battle Creeks and everything about them. One of these days their detailed provenance may come to light, and perhaps more will learn to appreciate them. For now however.................
<< <i>For the most part I can see my enthusiasm regarding Battle Creeks falls on deaf ears (or at least uninterested ears) here on the forum. >>
That might be because you keep linking common uninspiring coins like that which is the subject of this thread, and raving about how wonderful they are. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and demonstrates to anybody who didn't just bounce off the turnip truck that you really have no clue as to what constitutes a top end toner.
Russ, NCNE >>
Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion. The common uninspiring examples are just that--common and uninspiring. They most certainly shouldn't be worth more because their holder says Battle Creek. Similarly, the most impressive pieces will always be that--extremely impressive. To know that the coin is impressive, though, doesn't require Battle Creek to be plastered on the slab. Those who know color buy color, that's simply what they do.
I do have some unsolicited advice: buy the coin, not the holder. I don't own any BC coins because the ones I can afford are uninspiring and overpriced. I prefer to find nice coins wherever they lie, such as this piece:
Or this one:
These pieces stand on their own merit, and don't need to be named anything special to gain my and others' appreciation. Are there nice BC coins? Sure. Spectacular? You bet. But there are nice and spectacular coins at most every show if you look. Similarly, there are plenty of ho-hum, unimpressive coins. Unfortunately, that made up a large amount of the BC collection. NGC did themselves a huge disservice by baselessly awarding the star designation to so many pieces in that collection.
I have one nearly fully prooflike. I suppose NGC didn't like all the die polishing lines, too fine to show in the photo. I don't know why so many coins that appear fully PL and even DMPL are designated NOTHING if they show die polish lines....
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>For the most part I can see my enthusiasm regarding Battle Creeks falls on deaf ears (or at least uninterested ears) here on the forum. >>
That might be because you keep linking common uninspiring coins like that which is the subject of this thread, and raving about how wonderful they are. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and demonstrates to anybody who didn't just bounce off the turnip truck that you really have no clue as to what constitutes a top end toner.
Russ, NCNE >>
Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion. The common uninspiring examples are just that--common and uninspiring. They most certainly shouldn't be worth more because their holder says Battle Creek. Similarly, the most impressive pieces will always be that--extremely impressive. To know that the coin is impressive, though, doesn't require Battle Creek to be plastered on the slab. Those who know color buy color, that's simply what they do. >>
Jeremy, I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The uninspiring BC coins are definitely still more attractive than the commoner non-BC Morgans out there. The plain un-lustrous white Morgans and the splotchy toned Morgans etc. etc. There are many Morgans out there that are just plain unattractive or even ugly. I don't think there is a single unattractive or ugly Battle Creek coin. Sure some may be uninspiring, but that's because they are directly compared with the nice BC's , the beautiful BC's , and the down right jaw-dropping monster BC's. And because the bar is set so high for the Battle Creek pedigree. Some are uninspiring, but they are still appealing, especially when compared to many non BC coins.
<< <i>IMO, this coin got the star not for the color but for the lovely frost on Liberty's cheek. Premium for a 64 [Not that I know Jack Schitt about Morgans.]
>>
psssttttt......
All BC coins with color got a star (even if they barely had any color).
<< <i>Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion. The common uninspiring examples are just that--common and uninspiring. They most certainly shouldn't be worth more because their holder says Battle Creek. Similarly, the most impressive pieces will always be that--extremely impressive. To know that the coin is impressive, though, doesn't require Battle Creek to be plastered on the slab. Those who know color buy color, that's simply what they do. >>
Jeremy, I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The uninspiring BC coins are definitely still more attractive than the commoner non-BC Morgans out there. The plain un-lustrous white Morgans and the splotchy toned Morgans etc. etc. There are many Morgans out there that are just plain unattractive or even ugly. I don't think there is a single unattractive or ugly Battle Creek coin. Sure some may be uninspiring, but that's because they are directly compared with the nice BC's , the beautiful BC's , and the down right jaw-dropping monster BC's. And because the bar is set so high for the Battle Creek pedigree. Some are uninspiring, but they are still appealing, especially when compared to many non BC coins. >>
I agree with Jeremy on this one. The two non-Battle Creek coins he just posted blow away any of the Battle Creek coins shown in this thread.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>Battle Creek = First Strike hype in my eyes.
Paying more for a few extra words on an insert. >>
While there was unquestionably an element of this in the first auction, and to a certain extent in the 2nd auction, by the later auctions the premium was negligible at best. Most of the coins got the prices they got because of what they looked like. Remember, all you need is 2 people who like the same thing at an auction to send it's price skyward. Also, there were quite a few quite nice pieces that ended up being rips for the people who bought them. I bought 3 in the rip category and am VERY happy with them at the prices I paid. Please remember here, we are talking about a grouping of 1,400+ coins, so it is not really useful or helpful to categorize them as one single type.
[Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion. The common uninspiring examples are just that--common and uninspiring. They most certainly shouldn't be worth more because their holder says Battle Creek. Similarly, the most impressive pieces will always be that--extremely impressive. To know that the coin is impressive, though, doesn't require Battle Creek to be plastered on the slab. Those who know color buy color, that's simply what they do. >>
Jeremy, I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The uninspiring BC coins are definitely still more attractive than the commoner non-BC Morgans out there. The plain un-lustrous white Morgans and the splotchy toned Morgans etc. etc. There are many Morgans out there that are just plain unattractive or even ugly. I don't think there is a single unattractive or ugly Battle Creek coin. Sure some may be uninspiring, but that's because they are directly compared with the nice BC's , the beautiful BC's , and the down right jaw-dropping monster BC's. And because the bar is set so high for the Battle Creek pedigree. Some are uninspiring, but they are still appealing, especially when compared to many non BC coins. >>
I agree with Jeremy on this one. The two non-Battle Creek coins he just posted blow away any of the Battle Creek coins shown in this thread.
Again, not the point. The two coins Jeremy posted are decent looking toners and of course look nicer than many BC coins, but my point simply made was that the BC coins compared against 'most' of the non-BC typical Morgans floating around, have more eye-appeal. The bottom line is, all BC coins have at least a degree of eye-appeal, where many many Morgans in the hobby have zero eye-appeal.
<< <i>Again, not the point. The two coins Jeremy posted are decent looking toners and of course look nicer than many BC coins, but my point simply made was that the BC coins compared against 'most' of the non-BC typical Morgans floating around, have more eye-appeal. The bottom line is, all BC coins have at least a degree of eye-appeal, where many many Morgans in the hobby have zero eye-appeal. >>
You're serious?
"All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?
Buy the coin, not the holder?
-D
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
<< <i>Again, not the point. The two coins Jeremy posted are decent looking toners and of course look nicer than many BC coins, but my point simply made was that the BC coins compared against 'most' of the non-BC typical Morgans floating around, have more eye-appeal. The bottom line is, all BC coins have at least a degree of eye-appeal, where many many Morgans in the hobby have zero eye-appeal. >>
You're serious?
"All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?
Buy the coin, not the holder?
-D >>
Yes, I'm serious.
<The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects>
<< <i>Again, not the point. The two coins Jeremy posted are decent looking toners and of course look nicer than many BC coins, but my point simply made was that the BC coins compared against 'most' of the non-BC typical Morgans floating around, have more eye-appeal. The bottom line is, all BC coins have at least a degree of eye-appeal, where many many Morgans in the hobby have zero eye-appeal. >>
You're serious?
"All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?
Buy the coin, not the holder?
-D >>
Yes, I'm serious.
<The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects>
Absolutely not true. >>
You deal too much in absolutes, if someone didn't find the coins they were collecting to be appealing they wouldn't collect them. Simple as that. Unfortunately there's a collector for each type of coin so your absolutely not true statement is absolutely false.
-D
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
While some of them are undeniably beautiful I haven't seen one yet that isn't overpriced. I've seen $150 Morgans with more appetizing color than that one.
<< <i>It all boils down to the fact that Dizzy is impressed by labels, which makes him a coin dealer's favorite snack.
Russ, NCNE >>
There are some that post here on the forum that I make a point to always read for their knowledge in numismatics and informative posts. There are others that I read simply for the amusement factor. What category do you think you fall under?
Seriously, I do like labels which include PCGS, NGC, and certain pedigrees. So if I'm a dealer's favorite snack, then bon appetit.
..."All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?...
-D >>
The % of coins that received the * can be thought of in two ways. There were 9,000 coins in the hoard. Of those nine thousand 1,400 received the BC designation and a star. The other coins did not receive either the BC designation or the star. So in one sense you could say roughly 15.6% received the star. On the other hand only the coins that received the star received the BC designation (and my understanding is that NGC had some sort of financial incentive to give the coins stars, although I am not positive on this point, so consider this aspect only hearsay). In that sense you could say that 100% of the BC coins received the star.
IMO only about 750-850 coins deserved the star, so roughly 40 - 45% of the BC's got the star when there is NO WAY they should have.
..."All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?...
-D >>
The % of coins that received the * can be thought of in two ways. There were 9,000 coins in the hoard. Of those nine thousand 1,400 received the BC designation and a star. The other coins did not receive either the BC designation or the star. So in one sense you could say roughly 15.6% received the star. On the other hand only the coins that received the star received the BC designation (and my understanding is that NGC had some sort of financial incentive to give the coins stars, although I am not positive on this point, so consider this aspect only hearsay). In that sense you could say that 100% of the BC coins received the star.
IMO only about 750-850 coins deserved the star, so roughly 40 - 45% of the BC's got the star when there is NO WAY they should have. >>
Thanks Sy, for another informative post on the highly sought after Battle Creek Collection. I'm actually now looking to add the second BC treasure to my collection soon and I'll share it when I pick out that 'special' one.
<< <i>Bout time too, I was wondering when money and mouth were gonna meet >>
touche' >>
HEY DIZZ! My offer still stands on you and I going in together on a BC "pedigreed" Morgan! Let's do it.
>>
How about this, buy a Battle Creek, hold on to it for a while and view it often, if you still aren't convinced regarding their unique numismatic allure........ I'll be shocked.
Comments
<< <i> Was is a famous collection or what? -Jerry >>
It was mystical.........
<< <i>
<< <i> Was is a famous collection or what? -Jerry >>
It was mystical......... >>
Outstanding, eye-appealing, top notch pedigree, examples ranging from "nothing really special" to "the nicest in the hobby". Oh, and mystical also.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think NGC hands out that dumbass star designation on many coins that don't deserve it.
Now bite your tongue, mister! Check out this (non-BC) NGC star toned beauty. I guess it must really be stunning in hand.
I have seen this one before.....wasn't this brought up about a yr ago regarding the fingerprint on the obv?????
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
<< <i>For the most part I can see my enthusiasm regarding Battle Creeks falls on deaf ears (or at least uninterested ears) here on the forum. >>
That might be because you keep linking common uninspiring coins like that which is the subject of this thread, and raving about how wonderful they are. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and demonstrates to anybody who didn't just bounce off the turnip truck that you really have no clue as to what constitutes a top end toner.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>For the most part I can see my enthusiasm regarding Battle Creeks falls on deaf ears (or at least uninterested ears) here on the forum. >>
That might be because you keep linking common uninspiring coins like that which is the subject of this thread, and raving about how wonderful they are. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and demonstrates to anybody who didn't just bounce off the turnip truck that you really have no clue as to what constitutes a top end toner.
Russ, NCNE >>
Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course.
<< <i>
Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
Either you get high too much, or you're just not very well informed. And they're not mystical either.....
<< <i>Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish
Either you get high too much, or you're just not very well informed. And they're not mystical either.....
It's posts like this that really reduce the validity and substance of this forum.
But they do add an amusement factor, so it's not all bad.
The coin of this thread is barely DMPL and boringly toned and an average rim toned Morgan is anything but rare. I thought this thread was a joke until I realized it was about your beloved BC Morgans. Why do you keep saying the BC coins have a great backstory when the backstory is that some unnamed guy found nine or so bags of Morgans? That is no story at all. A lady in Chicago found a couple of bags of 1884-O's a few years back, had NGC slab them, and slowly sold them on eBay, some toned, some not. A few were monsters. Is that a great story? No. Not really. But, the coins were nice and accurately graded.
As for the Battle Creek Morgan on Teletrade the other night, $210 plus 12% juice is $235, which IMO is only about 10 times what the coin is worth. On the other hand, maybe someone has a nicer coin and they want to substitute it for the yukky one in the holder.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>I have to agree with the group, Dizzy.
The coin of this thread is barely DMPL and boringly toned and an average rim toned Morgan is anything but rare. I thought this thread was a joke until I realized it was about your beloved BC Morgans. Why do you keep saying the BC coins have a great backstory when the backstory is that some unnamed guy found nine or so bags of Morgans? That is no story at all. A lady in Chicago found a couple of bags of 1884-O's a few years back, had NGC slab them, and slowly sold them on eBay, some toned, some not. A few were monsters. Is that a great story? No. Not really. But, the coins were nice and accurately graded. >>
A reasonable and constructively worded post. I can do nothing but respect it. I still love the Battle Creeks and everything about them. One of these days their detailed provenance may come to light, and perhaps more will learn to appreciate them. For now however.................
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>For the most part I can see my enthusiasm regarding Battle Creeks falls on deaf ears (or at least uninterested ears) here on the forum. >>
That might be because you keep linking common uninspiring coins like that which is the subject of this thread, and raving about how wonderful they are. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and demonstrates to anybody who didn't just bounce off the turnip truck that you really have no clue as to what constitutes a top end toner.
Russ, NCNE >>
Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion. The common uninspiring examples are just that--common and uninspiring. They most certainly shouldn't be worth more because their holder says Battle Creek. Similarly, the most impressive pieces will always be that--extremely impressive. To know that the coin is impressive, though, doesn't require Battle Creek to be plastered on the slab. Those who know color buy color, that's simply what they do.
I do have some unsolicited advice: buy the coin, not the holder. I don't own any BC coins because the ones I can afford are uninspiring and overpriced. I prefer to find nice coins wherever they lie, such as this piece:
Or this one:
These pieces stand on their own merit, and don't need to be named anything special to gain my and others' appreciation. Are there nice BC coins? Sure. Spectacular? You bet. But there are nice and spectacular coins at most every show if you look. Similarly, there are plenty of ho-hum, unimpressive coins. Unfortunately, that made up a large amount of the BC collection. NGC did themselves a huge disservice by baselessly awarding the star designation to so many pieces in that collection.
photo. I don't know why so many coins that appear fully PL and even DMPL are designated NOTHING if they
show die polish lines....
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>For the most part I can see my enthusiasm regarding Battle Creeks falls on deaf ears (or at least uninterested ears) here on the forum. >>
That might be because you keep linking common uninspiring coins like that which is the subject of this thread, and raving about how wonderful they are. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and demonstrates to anybody who didn't just bounce off the turnip truck that you really have no clue as to what constitutes a top end toner.
Russ, NCNE >>
Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion. The common uninspiring examples are just that--common and uninspiring. They most certainly shouldn't be worth more because their holder says Battle Creek. Similarly, the most impressive pieces will always be that--extremely impressive. To know that the coin is impressive, though, doesn't require Battle Creek to be plastered on the slab. Those who know color buy color, that's simply what they do. >>
Jeremy, I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The uninspiring BC coins are definitely still more attractive than the commoner non-BC Morgans out there. The plain un-lustrous white Morgans and the splotchy toned Morgans etc. etc. There are many Morgans out there that are just plain unattractive or even ugly. I don't think there is a single unattractive or ugly Battle Creek coin. Sure some may be uninspiring, but that's because they are directly compared with the nice BC's , the beautiful BC's , and the down right jaw-dropping monster BC's. And because the bar is set so high for the Battle Creek pedigree. Some are uninspiring, but they are still appealing, especially when compared to many non BC coins.
<< <i>IMO, this coin got the star not for the color but for the lovely frost on Liberty's cheek. Premium for a 64 [Not that I know Jack Schitt about Morgans.]
psssttttt......
All BC coins with color got a star (even if they barely had any color).
<< <i>Even the common uninspiring examples are nicer than most other commoners out there. To say otherwise, IMO, is being foolish. This not to mention the examples that "blow away" the competition in terms of the good old fashion eye-appeal factor. The Battle Creek coins are awsome for the most part and to own one or many should be looked upon as a collecting coup, depending on the actual coin(s) of course. >>
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion. The common uninspiring examples are just that--common and uninspiring. They most certainly shouldn't be worth more because their holder says Battle Creek. Similarly, the most impressive pieces will always be that--extremely impressive. To know that the coin is impressive, though, doesn't require Battle Creek to be plastered on the slab. Those who know color buy color, that's simply what they do. >>
Jeremy, I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The uninspiring BC coins are definitely still more attractive than the commoner non-BC Morgans out there. The plain un-lustrous white Morgans and the splotchy toned Morgans etc. etc. There are many Morgans out there that are just plain unattractive or even ugly. I don't think there is a single unattractive or ugly Battle Creek coin. Sure some may be uninspiring, but that's because they are directly compared with the nice BC's , the beautiful BC's , and the down right jaw-dropping monster BC's. And because the bar is set so high for the Battle Creek pedigree. Some are uninspiring, but they are still appealing, especially when compared to many non BC coins. >>
I agree with Jeremy on this one. The two non-Battle Creek coins he just posted blow away any of the Battle Creek coins shown in this thread.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Paying more for a few extra words on an insert.
Positive BST: WhiteThunder (x2), Ajaan, onefasttalon, mirabela, Wizard1, cucamongacoin, mccardguy1
Negative BST: NONE!
<< <i>Battle Creek = First Strike hype in my eyes.
Paying more for a few extra words on an insert. >>
$$
*Battle Creek Hoard*
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
<< <i>Battle Creek = First Strike hype in my eyes.
Paying more for a few extra words on an insert. >>
While there was unquestionably an element of this in the first auction, and to a certain extent in the 2nd auction, by the later auctions the premium was negligible at best. Most of the coins got the prices they got because of what they looked like. Remember, all you need is 2 people who like the same thing at an auction to send it's price skyward. Also, there were quite a few quite nice pieces that ended up being rips for the people who bought them. I bought 3 in the rip category and am VERY happy with them at the prices I paid. Please remember here, we are talking about a grouping of 1,400+ coins, so it is not really useful or helpful to categorize them as one single type.
U.S. Type Set
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion. The common uninspiring examples are just that--common and uninspiring. They most certainly shouldn't be worth more because their holder says Battle Creek. Similarly, the most impressive pieces will always be that--extremely impressive. To know that the coin is impressive, though, doesn't require Battle Creek to be plastered on the slab. Those who know color buy color, that's simply what they do. >>
Jeremy, I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The uninspiring BC coins are definitely still more attractive than the commoner non-BC Morgans out there. The plain un-lustrous white Morgans and the splotchy toned Morgans etc. etc. There are many Morgans out there that are just plain unattractive or even ugly. I don't think there is a single unattractive or ugly Battle Creek coin. Sure some may be uninspiring, but that's because they are directly compared with the nice BC's , the beautiful BC's , and the down right jaw-dropping monster BC's. And because the bar is set so high for the Battle Creek pedigree. Some are uninspiring, but they are still appealing, especially when compared to many non BC coins. >>
I agree with Jeremy on this one. The two non-Battle Creek coins he just posted blow away any of the Battle Creek coins shown in this thread.
Again, not the point. The two coins Jeremy posted are decent looking toners and of course look nicer than many BC coins, but my point simply made was that the BC coins compared against 'most' of the non-BC typical Morgans floating around, have more eye-appeal. The bottom line is, all BC coins have at least a degree of eye-appeal, where many many Morgans in the hobby have zero eye-appeal.
<< <i>Again, not the point. The two coins Jeremy posted are decent looking toners and of course look nicer than many BC coins, but my point simply made was that the BC coins compared against 'most' of the non-BC typical Morgans floating around, have more eye-appeal. The bottom line is, all BC coins have at least a degree of eye-appeal, where many many Morgans in the hobby have zero eye-appeal. >>
You're serious?
"All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?
Buy the coin, not the holder?
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
<< <i>
<< <i>Again, not the point. The two coins Jeremy posted are decent looking toners and of course look nicer than many BC coins, but my point simply made was that the BC coins compared against 'most' of the non-BC typical Morgans floating around, have more eye-appeal. The bottom line is, all BC coins have at least a degree of eye-appeal, where many many Morgans in the hobby have zero eye-appeal. >>
You're serious?
"All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?
Buy the coin, not the holder?
-D >>
Yes, I'm serious.
<The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects>
Absolutely not true.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Again, not the point. The two coins Jeremy posted are decent looking toners and of course look nicer than many BC coins, but my point simply made was that the BC coins compared against 'most' of the non-BC typical Morgans floating around, have more eye-appeal. The bottom line is, all BC coins have at least a degree of eye-appeal, where many many Morgans in the hobby have zero eye-appeal. >>
You're serious?
"All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?
Buy the coin, not the holder?
-D >>
Yes, I'm serious.
<The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects>
Absolutely not true. >>
You deal too much in absolutes, if someone didn't find the coins they were collecting to be appealing they wouldn't collect them. Simple as that. Unfortunately there's a collector for each type of coin so your absolutely not true statement is absolutely false.
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I'm impressed with labels too, I save them all in an old Q-Tip box
Those labels are worth 50c each!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>It all boils down to the fact that Dizzy is impressed by labels, which makes him a coin dealer's favorite snack.
Russ, NCNE >>
There are some that post here on the forum that I make a point to always read for their knowledge in numismatics and informative posts. There are others that I read simply for the amusement factor. What category do you think you fall under?
Seriously, I do like labels which include PCGS, NGC, and certain pedigrees. So if I'm a dealer's favorite snack, then bon appetit.
<< <i>
..."All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?...
-D >>
The % of coins that received the * can be thought of in two ways. There were 9,000 coins in the hoard. Of those nine thousand 1,400 received the BC designation and a star. The other coins did not receive either the BC designation or the star. So in one sense you could say roughly 15.6% received the star. On the other hand only the coins that received the star received the BC designation (and my understanding is that NGC had some sort of financial incentive to give the coins stars, although I am not positive on this point, so consider this aspect only hearsay). In that sense you could say that 100% of the BC coins received the star.
IMO only about 750-850 coins deserved the star, so roughly 40 - 45% of the BC's got the star when there is NO WAY they should have.
U.S. Type Set
JMHO.
Prefer the rim toning over here.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>
<< <i>
..."All BC coins have at least a degree of eye appeal"
The same could be said about any coin that any person ever collects. The Battle Creek name/title is no more important than my name or anyone elses name being on a slab. What's the % of BC coins that recieved stars anyways?...
-D >>
The % of coins that received the * can be thought of in two ways. There were 9,000 coins in the hoard. Of those nine thousand 1,400 received the BC designation and a star. The other coins did not receive either the BC designation or the star. So in one sense you could say roughly 15.6% received the star. On the other hand only the coins that received the star received the BC designation (and my understanding is that NGC had some sort of financial incentive to give the coins stars, although I am not positive on this point, so consider this aspect only hearsay). In that sense you could say that 100% of the BC coins received the star.
IMO only about 750-850 coins deserved the star, so roughly 40 - 45% of the BC's got the star when there is NO WAY they should have. >>
Thanks Sy, for another informative post on the highly sought after Battle Creek Collection. I'm actually now looking to add the second BC treasure to my collection soon and I'll share it when I pick out that 'special' one.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Bout time too, I was wondering when money and mouth were gonna meet
touche'
<< <i>
<< <i>Bout time too, I was wondering when money and mouth were gonna meet
touche'
HEY DIZZ! My offer still stands on you and I going in together on a BC "pedigreed" Morgan! Let's do it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bout time too, I was wondering when money and mouth were gonna meet
touche'
HEY DIZZ! My offer still stands on you and I going in together on a BC "pedigreed" Morgan! Let's do it.
How about this, buy a Battle Creek, hold on to it for a while and view it often, if you still aren't convinced regarding their unique numismatic allure........ I'll be shocked.