I'm sorry, but I still see it my way. That coin is being marketed for ms money when it is not ms. Most collectors will pass on the coin, but what about a novice investor or collector. Dealers and expert collectors will agree on the grade. au {I think} TPG grades are supposed to be a KIND of failsafe. This one is way off base for a LOT of money. And you can't just pass on it. Someone will end up buying it and get stung. NGC should buy it back. Steve
<< <i>Most collectors will pass on the coin, but what about a novice investor or collector.? >>
Well, according to some on this board, all novice collectors are nothing but uneducated chumps and should not try to collect anything but modern widgets. I do not subscribe to that point of view.
Today, I would expect a nice 1795 FH 3 leaves in PCGS 58 to trade for between 45,000 and 60,000.
NGC has graded only 4 coins in MS61, and I could find no recent auction records for this coin in an NGC slab.
But I would surmise a similar trading range, if the coin were Unc.
Edit: Somewhat of a surprise, but there is presently a 1795 ED (B-5) in NGC 61 on the Anaconda web site, priced at $75,000. It is quite lusterous, but with some light wear, and not the same toned coin that started this discussion.
This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored.
Jerry, if you read Anaconda's previous reply, he at least suggests that something happened to the coin after it was cracked before finding itself in its new MS holder. He wrote:
Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder?
"luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out"---This would seem to be more than just a case of a better photograph.
<< <i>Can someone share what may have happened to this coin after being cracked out of its PCGS holder.....to shine it up, as it were? >>
I can think of two or three dipping solutions to get that result. >>
This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored. That I strongly disagree with. The main thing that changed the color and shine was a different, much superior, photographer. And BTW, Brandon's better photographs are not all flattering. They show the hits better as well as the color.
For those of you who want to look at the photos again before replying they're on page 4, side by side.
This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored.
Jerry, if you read Anaconda's previous reply, he at least suggests that something happened to the coin after it was cracked before finding itself in its new MS holder. He wrote:
Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder?
"luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out"---This would seem to be more than just a case of a better photograph.
I have not seen this exact coin recently, so I cannot say how it looks now. However, from my experience, for the most part, the typical NGC-MS61 early dollar will look about the same as a typical PCGS-AU58 coin. I would perceive them to be the same value as well, and I would not consider it a score to cross a PCGS-AU58 early dollar into an NGC-MS61 holder.
I have actually found the opposite to be true on occasion, and I have purchased NGC-MS61 coins only to cross them to PCGS-AU58 holders and find them suddenly appearing more desirable (and more saleable) to those who viewed them.
Some of the posters have commented on the price increase from $33K to $91K, nearly three times, but the Heritage sale was a year and a half ago. I remember viewing the coin in its PCGS-AU50 holder back in 1996 when it was in the Set Shahbabian Collection sale by Bowers and Merena, and thinking it was really PQ. If I recall correctly, Julian Leidman acquired it at the auction, and you know he reaches his own conclusions as to grades, regardless of the holder. The coin hammered at $6,250 (my bid had been $5,200), and at that time, that WAS PQ money for the grade.
So, the $33K price in January 2006 was already nearly 5 times its January 1996 price, in recognition of the quality of the coin. This particular die variety always shows weakness/luster breaks/cabinet friction at the center of the obverse and reverse, even on the PCGS-graded MS64 specimens. So...was the AU50 grade back then the proper grade in terms of the market value of the coin with its positive eye appeal? I'll just say this, back in 1996 I had a certain early dollar which I purchased raw at a top PQ price based on my own judgement. PCGS graded it AU50. This was its most recent appearance at auction.
By 2007, the PCGS-AU50 holder was already 11-12 years old and probably very scuffy, and so perhaps simply freeing it from the scuffy holder allowed the luster to be seen. As I recall from 1996, it was a very attractive, lustrous coin. I would be curious to see how it actually looks in person now.
What I find interesting, now that the coin has been "pedigreed", so to speak, is the consignment fact.
Yes, that can be the bread and butter to people in the business but to consign a coin, and have strong feelings about it, and not say them because the seller may see them, is not "honest" imho.
Mark Feld had consignments recently. Included were "blue"/"purple" IHCs that may be due to a questionable treatment. He was outspoken about this when he was on the boards. Rather than compromise his principles, he stated, outright, in his descriptions of those coins, that they may be questionable. He may even have stated why. I can't recall.
Russ gets consignments and I have seen him call the coins "ugly", etc (he sells his own coins too, so I may not be sure of which description is which).
The point is that, if you like the coin, cool. If you don't, or you have reservations about it, then SAY SO or your selling integrity gets affected (in the eyes of some people at the least). At the least, don't include any of your own words in the descriptions but say "coin is consigned and, as the seller has stated, he views the coin to be sharply struck, and a greatly toned coin", etc etc etc.
Such great timing as the Consortium comes to town. As the most experienced or the most novice collector would advise, buy the coin and not the plastic. If a dealer wanted to be responsible to the collector or the investor, they would only buy accurately graded coins. No one would expect to purchase a stock for 3 times the price it was trading on Wall Street!
If a dealer has any professionalism, they will stand behind the coin! All professions have mistakes. As a result, there are policies in place to rectify these errors. As a responsible dealer, and certainly one that is suggesting that one purchase a coin regardless of the TPG grade, the dealer should be held professionally and personally liable for any disparity between the TPG and the actual grade as assigned by the Consortium! This will allow the confidence to return to the market.
I routinely purchase coins in MS-62 holders that 10 years ago were AU-58, but I know what I am buying and I am keenly aware of the market price. Since all of my coins are raw, I mean all, I don’t care what the TPG think of the grade. I care what you think! I would not sell an AU-50 as a MS-61! Anyone that has attended an ANA grading class or has read Scott Traver’s “Coin Collector’s Survival Manual” would not make this mistake!
The market grading from most of the services of AU-58s to AU-62 is a demonstration of the complete incompetence of the 30 years olds grading coins! I would posit that if a dealer was held responsible for the mis-grading, they would be far less open to purchasing a coin regardless of the TPG grade.
So, I ask this, “Anaconda, are you willing to pay the buyer 150% of the difference of the actual value of the coin if the Consortium found the coin mis-graded?”
If you say yes, you have integrity and are a professional! If you say no, or you fail to respond, you have shown your true colors and a complete abject failure of any professionalism! You are little more than a user car salesman selling salvaged cars from Katrina! Certainly, you were well aware of the provenance of this piece. Gee, it took Russ, what a few minutes of research. So, who is the professional, Russ or Anaconda? I will look forward to this tread being discussed in Coin World. It is this behavior that invites the Federal oversight of the government.
One has to truly respect the dealers and collectors that have contributed to this tread!
<< <i>Can someone share what may have happened to this coin after being cracked out of its PCGS holder.....to shine it up, as it were? >>
I can think of two or three dipping solutions to get that result. >>
This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored. That I strongly disagree with. The main thing that changed the color and shine was a different, much superior, photographer. And BTW, Brandon's better photographs are not all flattering. They show the hits better as well as the color. For those of you who want to look at the photos again before replying they're on page 4, side by side. --Jerry >>
I assume this is just your opinion Jerry? >>
Not sure what you're getting at. Sure, all I have in an opinion. If you're asking if I have any personal knowledge about what's going on or went on with this coin the answer is no. Reading my replies you can see that I have been studying it as it develops just like everyone else. --Jerry
<< <i>This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored. Jerry, if you read Anaconda's previous reply, he at least suggests that something happened to the coin after it was cracked before finding itself in its new MS holder. He wrote: Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder? "luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out"---This would seem to be more than just a case of a better photograph. >>
Yes, I saw that and didn't know how to interpret it. but to say that it has been totally stripped and then recolored doesn't work for me. There is too much similarity between the two photos. I've taken thousands of photos in different light and seen how different things show up in different light and I think that best explains the difference....
One last thought; how much money did Noe lose for Ohio? Was it more than 63.3% Noe is in jail for fraud! If Ohio purchased this coin, it would have an exposure to lose 63.3%
Let Anaconda clear their name and expose their source for this piece. Come on; let us know the low life that molested this classic piece! It WAS a beautiful original AU coin.
Anaconda, you pulled the coin from your site! Why, you know it was a treasure and now it is a black eye on modern numismatics! Are you inviting continual confirmations at your tables at shows? Can we ask the shows to remove you from the bourse? Are you in the same camp with RH?
<< <i>One last thought; how much money did Noe lose for Ohio? Was it more than 63.3% Noe is in jail for fraud! If Ohio purchased this coin, it would have an exposure to lose 63.3%
Let Anaconda clear their name and expose their source for this piece. Come on; let us know the low life that molested this classic piece! It WAS a beautiful original AU coin.
Anaconda, you pulled the coin from your site! Why, you know it was a treasure and now it is a black eye on modern numismatics! Are you inviting continual confirmations at your tables at shows? Can we ask the shows to remove you from the bourse? Are you in the same camp with RH? >>
While I admire your passion, both of your recent posts seem pretty harsh. Doubtfully does ARC live on these boards; adequate time should be given for them to respond to appropriate questions - and your questions/ accusations are quicky exceeding tastefulness.
You may want to re-review the post by Cardinal - it is both informative and gives some historical perspective on market grading of this series. Railing against ARC with ad hominem attacks for their participation in the open market under rules beyond their control seems unproductive and rude.
I'm not 100% convinced that the coin was played with in between holders. It could just be a case of a bad, flat Heritage image vs. a saturated, better lit Anaconda photo. Yes, the spots look much lighter in the ACR photo, but that could be from lighting OR possibly just retouched in photo shop to make them look a little lighter.
I finally read the whole thread! Let me see if I can summarize it. Anaconda had a nice looking coin for sale, probably on consignment. The coin used to be in a PCGS AU-50 holder but now sits in a MS NGC holder.
Why are some people trying to villainies Anaconda? If there is a villain here, it would NGC for putting the coin in a MS slab.
The lynch mob mentality that has been displayed in some of the post here towards Anaconda is unwarranted. Anaconda only had a responsibility to sell the coin for his client by fairly advertising it to the “best of his ability”. If Anaconda had known that the coin was under graded and formally sitting in an AU PCGS holder, he probably would have had that in the sales ad.
Maybe the owner of the coin needs to see how good the NGC grade guarantee is?
The most amazing thing about this thread to me is that some of you are such outstanding numismatists that you can compare a typically crappy Heritage with one of Brandon's and conclude that the coin had to be conserved at NGC. I readily admit that it is a skill that eludes me. Could it be a case of group think or herd mentality, probably not.
<< <i>This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored. Jerry, if you read Anaconda's previous reply, he at least suggests that something happened to the coin after it was cracked before finding itself in its new MS holder. He wrote: Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder? "luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out"---This would seem to be more than just a case of a better photograph. >>
Yes, I saw that and didn't know how to interpret it. but to say that it has been totally stripped and then recolored doesn't work for me. There is too much similarity between the two photos. I've taken thousands of photos in different light and seen how different things show up in different light and I think that best explains the difference.... >>
Slow down Jerry. I don't recall it being said that this was "totally stripped and then recolored", at least I know that I haven't said that. That is A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT than the discussion we were having, in fact-that has nothing to do with the discussion we were having.
<< <i>The problem is with the one who sets company policy, the owner, that would be Adrian. You cannot out of one side of your mouth talk about how collectors should buy from you because your coins are so fabulous and PQ and that everything you do is for their benefit while at the same time, out of the other side of your mouth, claim "Hey, no foul! We were just selling a coin that we took on memo. We don't really like it, but who cares?"
Again, if you want to play coin dealer, take responsibility for what you do and say. If you don't want this responsibilty, then don't take the money. >>
One of my pet peeves is glowing auction descriptions for obvious problem coins ... such as 1963 PR70DCAM Lincoln cents...
The problem is with the one who sets company policy, the owner, that would be Adrian. You cannot out of one side of your mouth talk about how collectors should buy from you because your coins are so fabulous and PQ and that everything you do is for their benefit while at the same time, out of the other side of your mouth, claim "Hey, no foul! We were just selling a coin that we took on memo. We don't really like it, but who cares?"
Again, if you want to play coin dealer, take responsibility for what you do and say. If you don't want this responsibilty, then don't take the money.
That's actually a very good point. Another issue with consignment coins is that occasionally, a buyer might want to sell them or trade them back to the dealer from whom he bought them. If you did not like the coin in the first place (be it one for $900, $9000, or $90,000), how enthusiastic are you going to be to buy it back? At what price? And what's the collector going to say about you to others when you fail to make a buyback offer or lowball the buyback offer because you do not like the coin?
IMO, dealers selling coins on consignment should treat the consignment coins as if they are their own inventory, with all of the requisite due diligence and scrutiny. I think it is a lot trickier than just taking the coin, photographing it, and listing it in your inventory.
<< <i>As for the coin, from Brandon's images, I really don't have a problem with the coin - still a pleasing AU 1795 $1. I don't agree with NGC's grade, but that doesn't mean that the coin is undesireable, only that it's now probably overpriced. >>
Well, sure -- but someone who doesn't know their coins will likely put too much trust in a slab and, if they have a very deep wallet, might buck up for the coin without knowing it's almost certainly not a mint state coin.
In short, the slab doesn't change whether or not it's a very nice coin (I for one would love to have it)...it simply changes the price one would likely have to pay to buy the same coin. If the grade on the slab is going to largely determine the price on the coin, it better be an accurate grade.
<< <i>I have not seen this exact coin recently, so I cannot say how it looks now. However, from my experience, for the most part, the typical NGC-MS61 early dollar will look about the same as a typical PCGS-AU58 coin. I would perceive them to be the same value as well, and I would not consider it a score to cross a PCGS-AU58 early dollar into an NGC-MS61 holder.
I have actually found the opposite to be true on occasion, and I have purchased NGC-MS61 coins only to cross them to PCGS-AU58 holders and find them suddenly appearing more desirable (and more saleable) to those who viewed them.
>>
I think Cardinal's post was to me one of the most important posts I have read on this forum and especially these first two paragraphs. Read what he says about a NGC MS61 vs a PCGS AU58. If that is true and I absolutely believe Cardinal would be in the best position to know this, then the real problem with this coin is the PRICE.
The PCGS Price Guide is 37,500 in AU55; 45,000 in AU58; 55,000 in MS60; 67,500 in MS61; and 95,000 in MS62 and these are for prices for coins in PCGS slabs so if this would indicate a true price for this coin should be in the 45,000 range.
a true price for this coin should be in the 45,000 range.
not unless you can find a big fat sucker, what we call the last fool in line to buy the coin before the market crashes due to way to much of this crap going on.
Geez. I take a few days off and a 300 post thread gets started!
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
RYK, just a few posts back said this: IMO, dealers selling coins on consignment should treat the consignment coins as if they are their own inventory, with all of the requisite due diligence and scrutiny. I think it is a lot trickier than just taking the coin, photographing it, and listing it in your inventory.
This is the golden rule as far as I'm concerned and is the rule I know Joe O'Connor was iterating as well. Over the years I've had many wonderful clients, friends and people I have a great deal of respect for ask me to take coins on consignment that I either did not like (for a variety of reasons), or that I thought were too much money and I've had to decline that business. Often, their initial response might be: "But, it's consigned so if it sells great, but if not then you've lost nothing." This is NOT TRUE and is a dangerous game to play especially if you really are interested in protecting all parties, and that includes the seller as well as your own butt. Hopefully, with a little diplomacy and the desire to provide true education, the consignor understands and walks away with a newfound respect and understanding for the consignment process AND the relationship between dealer and consignor can flourish.
While Cardinal's point about the difference between 58 and 61 is valid, this coin was a PQ 50 and a PQ 50 to me means 53 or maybe 55, but not 61. If this coin had bumped up to 53 or 55 at NGC you wouldn't have all of these replies.
RYK, just a few posts back said this: IMO, dealers selling coins on consignment should treat the consignment coins as if they are their own inventory, with all of the requisite due diligence and scrutiny. I think it is a lot trickier than just taking the coin, photographing it, and listing it in your inventory.
This is the golden rule as far as I'm concerned and is the rule I know Joe O'Connor was iterating as well. Over the years I've had many wonderful clients, friends and people I have a great deal of respect for ask me to take coins on consignment that I either did not like (for a variety of reasons), or that I thought were too much money and I've had to decline that business. Often, their initial response might be: "But, it's consigned so if it sells great, but if not then you've lost nothing." This is NOT TRUE and is a dangerous game to play especially if you really are interested in protecting all parties, and that includes the seller as well as your own butt. Hopefully, with a little diplomacy and the desire to provide true education, the consignor understands and walks away with a newfound respect and understanding for the consignment process AND the relationship between dealer and consignor can flourish. >>
<< <i>"But, it's consigned so if it sells great, but if not then you've lost nothing." This is NOT TRUE and is a dangerous game to play especially if you really are interested in protecting all parties, >>
The consignor isn't selling the coin you the dealer are.
Just look at the trouble this consignment has stirred up for Anaconda. It's a perfect example.
You've taken a very nice coin but an overgraded and waaaayyy overpriced coin, put it on your web-site to sell and it makes you look like a (fill in the blank).
On the matter of consigned coins, I tend to agree with some of the recent posters when it concerns commoner coins.
However, rare coins are not the same.
I have had the opportunity to handle coins for clients that I would not have purchased for 10 or 20% less than the consignor wanted, but I am not the end all or be all of numismatic values, and have been able to find some appreciative new owners that were delighted to purchase the coins at a price that satisfied both the buyer and seller and gave me a chance to earn a commission.
None of my colleagues are perfect either, so the rarer a numismatic item becomes the less current market information is available, and most dealers will take a rare coin at a minimum valuation because of that.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
Wow. Over 200 posts. I go out of the country for a few days and bam!
I´ll check back later and see if anyone can say anything new about this issue. I´m pretty sure though that the thread will go on and on like the other threads that find mistakes we´ve made.
We offer cool coins, try to describe them right and give good images. We make a mistake though and we get attacked ad nauseum. We stopped offering the coin. The coin will go back to the consignor. We´ll be even more picky about offering consigned coins.
Incidentally, we have turned down coins for various reasons before that consignors want us to list. We should have turned this one down and now we´re paying the price. It´s an over graded coin and we´ll be more cafeful in the future. Note however that we stand behind our coins and would have bought the coin back should we have sold it, even though it was a consigned coin.
I´m sure though we will make mistakes ín the future. I´m sure you´ll hear all about them right here in the epicenter of coin information.
For now though, enjoy the lions eating their supper.
One last thing. This is a very cool picture. It´s a very large Reticulated python (not an anaconda) that fortunately for the spraug seems well fed. Getting a scrub on the head. Too cool.
<< <i>Wow. Over 200 posts. I go out of the country for a few days and bam!
I´ll check back later and see if anyone can say anything new about this issue. I´m pretty sure though that the thread will go on and on like the other threads that find mistakes we´ve made.
We offer cool coins, try to describe them right and give good images. We make a mistake though and we get attacked ad nauseum. We stopped offering the coin. The coin will go back to the consignor. We´ll be even more picky about offering consigned coins.
Incidentally, we have turned down coins for various reasons before that consignors want us to list. We should have turned this one down and now we´re paying the price. It´s an over graded coin and we´ll be more cafeful in the future. Note however that we stand behind our coins and would have bought the coin back should we have sold it, even though it was a consigned coin.
I´m sure though we will make mistakes ín the future. I´m sure you´ll hear all about them right here in the epicenter of coin information.
For now though, enjoy the lions eating their supper. >>
This forum has a tendancy to beat a horse long after passing.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly."
Adrian is getting toasted for selling the coin as what NGC graded it. I disagree with the grade (based on the images), hate the coin was messed with (based on the images), hate PCGS undergraded it the first time (based on the images), and hate the system broke down, but the system broke down. None of the parties involved would make the unskilled buyer/seller safe. Three layers of failure.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The source of the problem is a clearly overgraded coin that should be within the AU ranks, not MS. As experts said, it is (or was) a very nice AU50, possibly AU55.
Will NGC purchase this coin back under their grade guarantee, and regrade it appropriately? Or will the coin remain in the MS61 holder, shuffled off to another dealer, waiting for an unknowledgable collector or investor to come along?
NGC states that MS60-70 grades are uncirculated. If NGC continues to market grade AU's into MS 60-62, they should state this in their policy, rather than deceiving collectors into believing they are purchasing an uncirculated coin. As the "Official" grader of the ANA and PNG, NGC should hold themselves to a higher standard that is not deceptive to collectors.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Wow! I think this is the longest-running thread ever about an early dollar!!
While Cardinal's point about the difference between 58 and 61 is valid, this coin was a PQ 50 and a PQ 50 to me means 53 or maybe 55, but not 61. If this coin had bumped up to 53 or 55 at NGC you wouldn't have all of these replies.
I think this point gets to the fact that early dollars don't get discussed here in great detail with any frequency at all. So, one of the key things we need to understand is the evolution of the TPG of early type coins in general and early dollars specifically (and I DON'T mean gradeflation). Forum members might recall David Hall commenting that in the early days of PCGS, they did not use all 11 grades for mint state coins -- a gem was a gem, and that meant '65' no higher. Now you will find coins graded in all 11 grades from '60' to '70.' Accordingly, astute buyers will see a gem '65' in an older holder, pay strong for it (or even 'moon money') and resubmit, possibly even getting grades of '67' and '68.' No one figures those new grades are "overgraded," but they recognize the coin's previous grade was essentially irrelevant because it was based on 65-point grading system rather than a 70-point grading system. If numismatics eventually evolves to a 100-point system (such as used currently for stamps), we will likely see coins seemingly "upgraded" from a "65" to a "93" or something like that. That would represent a 28-point upgrade, if all you look at are the numbers and not the numbering system. (Remember, it's not hotter outside when the temperature is 86 degrees Fahrenheit than when it is 30 degrees Celsius.)
Now, all that mumbo-jumbo about the evolution of the assignment of mint-state grades is well and good, but the important fact I think everyone should be aware of, is that the same thing was going on with AU grades. Back when the subject coin was originally graded, the services didn't generally award all of the AU grades. If a coin was clearly mint state, it was graded MS and that meant 63-65. If it didn't merit a mint state grade, then it was called AU, and almost exclusively that meant AU50 -- not 53, or 55, or 58. The very few coins back then that were assigned the grade of 58 were only held out of MS by high-point luster breaks only seen with magnification. By and large, those coins were regraded to MS long ago.
Therefore, to truly understand the subject coin in this thread, one needs to recognize that it was graded on the 50-point scale that was commonly used at the time for early coins displaying any kind of luster breaks or cabinet friction. So, just on the basis of the evolution of grade assignments, I would not be surprised at all that an early dollar graded 10+ years ago as AU50 would fully merit a grade today of AU58 at PCGS.
No. That is someone desperately trying to cover their ass to maintain credibility for a potential $50K mistake to their clientèle. If this thread never existed, some sucker might have been burned.
Their guarantee only holds so long as Anaconda remains in business. A purchaser of that coin might hold it 20 years only to find out he is out $30-50K for buying an overhyped coin. I appreciate their pulling of the coin and their guarantee, but such careless overhyping and overpricing undermines their credibility and the hobby as a whole.
Certainly there are several other groups perhaps more at fault here. The poor and inconsistent grading by the TPGs being the most obvious.
My guess is that dealers that deal in large quanities of expensive coins sometimes make mistakes, too. Anaconda apologized. Honestly, I don't even think he needs to do so to maintain credibility. Credibility is based on years of buying and selling primo stuff with a positive rep!
<< <i>I appreciate their pulling of the coin and their guarantee, but such careless overhyping and overpricing undermines their credibility and the hobby as a whole. >>
Did you even read their description? There wasn't any "overhyping" of the coin. The writeup was very neutral.
Comments
<< <i>Most collectors will pass on the coin, but what about a novice investor or collector.? >>
Well, according to some on this board, all novice collectors are nothing but uneducated chumps and should not try to collect anything but modern widgets. I do not subscribe to that point of view.
Today, I would expect a nice 1795 FH 3 leaves in PCGS 58 to trade for between 45,000 and 60,000.
NGC has graded only 4 coins in MS61, and I could find no recent auction records for this coin in an NGC slab.
But I would surmise a similar trading range, if the coin were Unc.
Edit: Somewhat of a surprise, but there is presently a 1795 ED (B-5) in NGC 61 on the Anaconda web site, priced at $75,000. It is quite lusterous, but with some light wear, and not the same toned coin that started this discussion.
Jerry, if you read Anaconda's previous reply, he at least suggests that something happened to the coin after it was cracked before finding itself in its new MS holder. He wrote:
Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder?
"luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out"---This would seem to be more than just a case of a better photograph.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Can someone share what may have happened to this coin after being cracked out of its PCGS holder.....to shine it up, as it were? >>
I can think of two or three dipping solutions to get that result. >>
This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored. That I strongly disagree with. The main thing that changed the color and shine was a different, much superior, photographer. And BTW, Brandon's better photographs are not all flattering. They show the hits better as well as the color.
For those of you who want to look at the photos again before replying they're on page 4, side by side.
--Jerry >>
I assume this is just your opinion Jerry?
Jerry, if you read Anaconda's previous reply, he at least suggests that something happened to the coin after it was cracked before finding itself in its new MS holder. He wrote:
Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder?
"luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out"---This would seem to be more than just a case of a better photograph.
I have actually found the opposite to be true on occasion, and I have purchased NGC-MS61 coins only to cross them to PCGS-AU58 holders and find them suddenly appearing more desirable (and more saleable) to those who viewed them.
Some of the posters have commented on the price increase from $33K to $91K, nearly three times, but the Heritage sale was a year and a half ago. I remember viewing the coin in its PCGS-AU50 holder back in 1996 when it was in the Set Shahbabian Collection sale by Bowers and Merena, and thinking it was really PQ. If I recall correctly, Julian Leidman acquired it at the auction, and you know he reaches his own conclusions as to grades, regardless of the holder. The coin hammered at $6,250 (my bid had been $5,200), and at that time, that WAS PQ money for the grade.
So, the $33K price in January 2006 was already nearly 5 times its January 1996 price, in recognition of the quality of the coin. This particular die variety always shows weakness/luster breaks/cabinet friction at the center of the obverse and reverse, even on the PCGS-graded MS64 specimens. So...was the AU50 grade back then the proper grade in terms of the market value of the coin with its positive eye appeal? I'll just say this, back in 1996 I had a certain early dollar which I purchased raw at a top PQ price based on my own judgement. PCGS graded it AU50. This was its most recent appearance at auction.
By 2007, the PCGS-AU50 holder was already 11-12 years old and probably very scuffy, and so perhaps simply freeing it from the scuffy holder allowed the luster to be seen. As I recall from 1996, it was a very attractive, lustrous coin. I would be curious to see how it actually looks in person now.
Yes, that can be the bread and butter to people in the business but to consign a coin, and have strong feelings about it, and not say them because the seller may see them, is not "honest" imho.
Mark Feld had consignments recently. Included were "blue"/"purple" IHCs that may be due to a questionable treatment. He was outspoken about this when he was on the boards. Rather than compromise his principles, he stated, outright, in his descriptions of those coins, that they may be questionable. He may even have stated why. I can't recall.
Russ gets consignments and I have seen him call the coins "ugly", etc (he sells his own coins too, so I may not be sure of which description is which).
The point is that, if you like the coin, cool. If you don't, or you have reservations about it, then SAY SO or your selling integrity gets affected (in the eyes of some people at the least). At the least, don't include any of your own words in the descriptions but say "coin is consigned and, as the seller has stated, he views the coin to be sharply struck, and a greatly toned coin", etc etc etc.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Such great timing as the Consortium comes to town. As the most experienced or the most novice collector would advise, buy the coin and not the plastic. If a dealer wanted to be responsible to the collector or the investor, they would only buy accurately graded coins. No one would expect to purchase a stock for 3 times the price it was trading on Wall Street!
If a dealer has any professionalism, they will stand behind the coin! All professions have mistakes. As a result, there are policies in place to rectify these errors. As a responsible dealer, and certainly one that is suggesting that one purchase a coin regardless of the TPG grade, the dealer should be held professionally and personally liable for any disparity between the TPG and the actual grade as assigned by the Consortium! This will allow the confidence to return to the market.
I routinely purchase coins in MS-62 holders that 10 years ago were AU-58, but I know what I am buying and I am keenly aware of the market price. Since all of my coins are raw, I mean all, I don’t care what the TPG think of the grade. I care what you think! I would not sell an AU-50 as a MS-61! Anyone that has attended an ANA grading class or has read Scott Traver’s “Coin Collector’s Survival Manual” would not make this mistake!
The market grading from most of the services of AU-58s to AU-62 is a demonstration of the complete incompetence of the 30 years olds grading coins! I would posit that if a dealer was held responsible for the mis-grading, they would be far less open to purchasing a coin regardless of the TPG grade.
So, I ask this, “Anaconda, are you willing to pay the buyer 150% of the difference of the actual value of the coin if the Consortium found the coin mis-graded?”
If you say yes, you have integrity and are a professional! If you say no, or you fail to respond, you have shown your true colors and a complete abject failure of any professionalism! You are little more than a user car salesman selling salvaged cars from Katrina! Certainly, you were well aware of the provenance of this piece. Gee, it took Russ, what a few minutes of research. So, who is the professional, Russ or Anaconda? I will look forward to this tread being discussed in Coin World. It is this behavior that invites the Federal oversight of the government.
One has to truly respect the dealers and collectors that have contributed to this tread!
122/123
John Reich Collectors Society
Capped Bust Dimes
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Can someone share what may have happened to this coin after being cracked out of its PCGS holder.....to shine it up, as it were? >>
I can think of two or three dipping solutions to get that result. >>
This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored. That I strongly disagree with. The main thing that changed the color and shine was a different, much superior, photographer. And BTW, Brandon's better photographs are not all flattering. They show the hits better as well as the color. For those of you who want to look at the photos again before replying they're on page 4, side by side. --Jerry >>
I assume this is just your opinion Jerry? >>
Not sure what you're getting at. Sure, all I have in an opinion. If you're asking if I have any personal knowledge about what's going on or went on with this coin the answer is no. Reading my replies you can see that I have been studying it as it develops just like everyone else. --Jerry
<< <i>This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored. Jerry, if you read Anaconda's previous reply, he at least suggests that something happened to the coin after it was cracked before finding itself in its new MS holder. He wrote: Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder? "luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out"---This would seem to be more than just a case of a better photograph. >>
Yes, I saw that and didn't know how to interpret it. but to say that it has been totally stripped and then recolored doesn't work for me. There is too much similarity between the two photos. I've taken thousands of photos in different light and seen how different things show up in different light and I think that best explains the difference....
Let Anaconda clear their name and expose their source for this piece. Come on; let us know the low life that molested this classic piece! It WAS a beautiful original AU coin.
Anaconda, you pulled the coin from your site! Why, you know it was a treasure and now it is a black eye on modern numismatics! Are you inviting continual confirmations at your tables at shows? Can we ask the shows to remove you from the bourse? Are you in the same camp with RH?
122/123
John Reich Collectors Society
Capped Bust Dimes
<< <i>Man, I was wondering what happened to Doug. Glad to see he's still posting over there. >>
Doug is now the official sheriff.
<< <i>Regarding PCGS dipping coins, I just read this on another forum. Is this untrue? I was surprised to read it.
link >>
You should start a new thread for this.
<< <i>One last thought; how much money did Noe lose for Ohio? Was it more than 63.3% Noe is in jail for fraud! If Ohio purchased this coin, it would have an exposure to lose 63.3%
Let Anaconda clear their name and expose their source for this piece. Come on; let us know the low life that molested this classic piece! It WAS a beautiful original AU coin.
Anaconda, you pulled the coin from your site! Why, you know it was a treasure and now it is a black eye on modern numismatics! Are you inviting continual confirmations at your tables at shows? Can we ask the shows to remove you from the bourse? Are you in the same camp with RH? >>
While I admire your passion, both of your recent posts seem pretty harsh. Doubtfully does ARC live on these boards; adequate time should be given for them to respond to appropriate questions - and your questions/ accusations are quicky exceeding tastefulness.
You may want to re-review the post by Cardinal - it is both informative and gives some historical perspective on market grading of this series. Railing against ARC with ad hominem attacks for their participation in the open market under rules beyond their control seems unproductive and rude.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Why are some people trying to villainies Anaconda? If there is a villain here, it would NGC for putting the coin in a MS slab.
The lynch mob mentality that has been displayed in some of the post here towards Anaconda is unwarranted. Anaconda only had a responsibility to sell the coin for his client by fairly advertising it to the “best of his ability”. If Anaconda had known that the coin was under graded and formally sitting in an AU PCGS holder, he probably would have had that in the sales ad.
Maybe the owner of the coin needs to see how good the NGC grade guarantee is?
JMHO,
Tim
<< <i>
<< <i>This seems to be a late-in-the-argument developement to say that it was dipped and recolored. Jerry, if you read Anaconda's previous reply, he at least suggests that something happened to the coin after it was cracked before finding itself in its new MS holder. He wrote: Is it market graded as an MS61 because of the available luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out of the AU holder? "luster remaining that was most likely uncovered after it was cracked out"---This would seem to be more than just a case of a better photograph. >>
Yes, I saw that and didn't know how to interpret it. but to say that it has been totally stripped and then recolored doesn't work for me. There is too much similarity between the two photos. I've taken thousands of photos in different light and seen how different things show up in different light and I think that best explains the difference.... >>
Slow down Jerry. I don't recall it being said that this was "totally stripped and then recolored", at least I know that I haven't said that. That is A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT than the discussion we were having, in fact-that has nothing to do with the discussion we were having.
<< <i>The problem is with the one who sets company policy, the owner, that would be Adrian. You cannot out of one side of your mouth talk about how collectors should buy from you because your coins are so fabulous and PQ and that everything you do is for their benefit while at the same time, out of the other side of your mouth, claim "Hey, no foul! We were just selling a coin that we took on memo. We don't really like it, but who cares?"
Again, if you want to play coin dealer, take responsibility for what you do and say. If you don't want this responsibilty, then don't take the money. >>
One of my pet peeves is glowing auction descriptions for obvious problem coins ... such as 1963 PR70DCAM Lincoln cents...
Again, if you want to play coin dealer, take responsibility for what you do and say. If you don't want this responsibilty, then don't take the money.
That's actually a very good point. Another issue with consignment coins is that occasionally, a buyer might want to sell them or trade them back to the dealer from whom he bought them. If you did not like the coin in the first place (be it one for $900, $9000, or $90,000), how enthusiastic are you going to be to buy it back? At what price? And what's the collector going to say about you to others when you fail to make a buyback offer or lowball the buyback offer because you do not like the coin?
IMO, dealers selling coins on consignment should treat the consignment coins as if they are their own inventory, with all of the requisite due diligence and scrutiny. I think it is a lot trickier than just taking the coin, photographing it, and listing it in your inventory.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>As for the coin, from Brandon's images, I really don't have a problem with the coin - still a pleasing AU 1795 $1. I don't agree with NGC's grade, but that doesn't mean that the coin is undesireable, only that it's now probably overpriced. >>
Well, sure -- but someone who doesn't know their coins will likely put too much trust in a slab and, if they have a very deep wallet, might buck up for the coin without knowing it's almost certainly not a mint state coin.
In short, the slab doesn't change whether or not it's a very nice coin (I for one would love to have it)...it simply changes the price one would likely have to pay to buy the same coin. If the grade on the slab is going to largely determine the price on the coin, it better be an accurate grade.
<< <i>I have not seen this exact coin recently, so I cannot say how it looks now. However, from my experience, for the most part, the typical NGC-MS61 early dollar will look about the same as a typical PCGS-AU58 coin. I would perceive them to be the same value as well, and I would not consider it a score to cross a PCGS-AU58 early dollar into an NGC-MS61 holder.
I have actually found the opposite to be true on occasion, and I have purchased NGC-MS61 coins only to cross them to PCGS-AU58 holders and find them suddenly appearing more desirable (and more saleable) to those who viewed them.
>>
I think Cardinal's post was to me one of the most important posts I have read on this forum and especially these first two paragraphs. Read what he says about a NGC MS61 vs a PCGS AU58. If that is true and I absolutely believe Cardinal would be in the best position to know this, then the real problem with this coin is the PRICE.
The PCGS Price Guide is 37,500 in AU55; 45,000 in AU58; 55,000 in MS60; 67,500 in MS61; and 95,000 in MS62 and these are for prices for coins in PCGS slabs so if this would indicate a true price for this coin should be in the 45,000 range.
not unless you can find a big fat sucker, what we call the last
fool in line to buy the coin before the market crashes due to
way to much of this crap going on.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
RYK, just a few posts back said this: IMO, dealers selling coins on consignment should treat the consignment coins as if they are their own inventory, with all of the requisite due diligence and scrutiny. I think it is a lot trickier than just taking the coin, photographing it, and listing it in your inventory.
This is the golden rule as far as I'm concerned and is the rule I know Joe O'Connor was iterating as well. Over the years I've had many wonderful clients, friends and people I have a great deal of respect for ask me to take coins on consignment that I either did not like (for a variety of reasons), or that I thought were too much money and I've had to decline that business. Often, their initial response might be: "But, it's consigned so if it sells great, but if not then you've lost nothing." This is NOT TRUE and is a dangerous game to play especially if you really are interested in protecting all parties, and that includes the seller as well as your own butt. Hopefully, with a little diplomacy and the desire to provide true education, the consignor understands and walks away with a newfound respect and understanding for the consignment process AND the relationship between dealer and consignor can flourish.
Harlan J. Berk, Ltd.
https://hjbltd.com/#!/department/us-coins
<< <i>Many, many excellent comments here!
RYK, just a few posts back said this: IMO, dealers selling coins on consignment should treat the consignment coins as if they are their own inventory, with all of the requisite due diligence and scrutiny. I think it is a lot trickier than just taking the coin, photographing it, and listing it in your inventory.
This is the golden rule as far as I'm concerned and is the rule I know Joe O'Connor was iterating as well. Over the years I've had many wonderful clients, friends and people I have a great deal of respect for ask me to take coins on consignment that I either did not like (for a variety of reasons), or that I thought were too much money and I've had to decline that business. Often, their initial response might be: "But, it's consigned so if it sells great, but if not then you've lost nothing." This is NOT TRUE and is a dangerous game to play especially if you really are interested in protecting all parties, and that includes the seller as well as your own butt. Hopefully, with a little diplomacy and the desire to provide true education, the consignor understands and walks away with a newfound respect and understanding for the consignment process AND the relationship between dealer and consignor can flourish. >>
Mike - Well stated and could not be more correct.
<< <i>"But, it's consigned so if it sells great, but if not then you've lost nothing." This is NOT TRUE and is a dangerous game to play especially if you really are interested in protecting all parties, >>
The consignor isn't selling the coin you the dealer are.
Just look at the trouble this consignment has stirred up for Anaconda. It's a perfect example.
You've taken a very nice coin but an overgraded and waaaayyy overpriced coin, put it on your web-site to sell and it makes you look like a (fill in the blank).
However, rare coins are not the same.
I have had the opportunity to handle coins for clients that I would not have purchased for 10 or 20% less than the consignor wanted, but I am not the end all or be all of numismatic values, and have been able to find some appreciative new owners that were delighted to purchase the coins at a price that satisfied both the buyer and seller and gave me a chance to earn a commission.
None of my colleagues are perfect either, so the rarer a numismatic item becomes the less current market information is available, and most dealers will take a rare coin at a minimum valuation because of that.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
I´ll check back later and see if anyone can say anything new about this issue. I´m pretty sure though that the thread will go on and on like the other threads that find mistakes we´ve made.
We offer cool coins, try to describe them right and give good images. We make a mistake though and we get attacked ad nauseum. We stopped offering the coin. The coin will go back to the consignor. We´ll be even more picky about offering consigned coins.
Incidentally, we have turned down coins for various reasons before that consignors want us to list. We should have turned this one down and now we´re paying the price. It´s an over graded coin and we´ll be more cafeful in the future. Note however that we stand behind our coins and would have bought the coin back should we have sold it, even though it was a consigned coin.
I´m sure though we will make mistakes ín the future. I´m sure you´ll hear all about them right here in the epicenter of coin information.
For now though, enjoy the lions eating their supper.
One last thing. This is a very cool picture. It´s a very large Reticulated python (not an anaconda) that fortunately for the spraug seems well fed. Getting a scrub on the head. Too cool.
<< <i>Wow. Over 200 posts. I go out of the country for a few days and bam!
I´ll check back later and see if anyone can say anything new about this issue. I´m pretty sure though that the thread will go on and on like the other threads that find mistakes we´ve made.
We offer cool coins, try to describe them right and give good images. We make a mistake though and we get attacked ad nauseum. We stopped offering the coin. The coin will go back to the consignor. We´ll be even more picky about offering consigned coins.
Incidentally, we have turned down coins for various reasons before that consignors want us to list. We should have turned this one down and now we´re paying the price. It´s an over graded coin and we´ll be more cafeful in the future. Note however that we stand behind our coins and would have bought the coin back should we have sold it, even though it was a consigned coin.
I´m sure though we will make mistakes ín the future. I´m sure you´ll hear all about them right here in the epicenter of coin information.
For now though, enjoy the lions eating their supper. >>
That's class, plain and simple...
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
<< <i>This forum has a tendancy to beat a horse long after passing.
So true.
PCGS's original AU-50 was probably a bit too conservative.......
Whereas I can't imagine anyway that this coin has never seen circulation, as it certainly has some wear upon it, from whatever source.......
That being said, it is STILL a LOVELY coin.....
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Will NGC purchase this coin back under their grade guarantee, and regrade it appropriately? Or will the coin remain in the MS61 holder, shuffled off to another dealer, waiting for an unknowledgable collector or investor to come along?
NGC states that MS60-70 grades are uncirculated. If NGC continues to market grade AU's into MS 60-62, they should state this in their policy, rather than deceiving collectors into believing they are purchasing an uncirculated coin. As the "Official" grader of the ANA and PNG, NGC should hold themselves to a higher standard that is not deceptive to collectors.
While Cardinal's point about the difference between 58 and 61 is valid, this coin was a PQ 50 and a PQ 50 to me means 53 or maybe 55, but not 61. If this coin had bumped up to 53 or 55 at NGC you wouldn't have all of these replies.
I think this point gets to the fact that early dollars don't get discussed here in great detail with any frequency at all. So, one of the key things we need to understand is the evolution of the TPG of early type coins in general and early dollars specifically (and I DON'T mean gradeflation). Forum members might recall David Hall commenting that in the early days of PCGS, they did not use all 11 grades for mint state coins -- a gem was a gem, and that meant '65' no higher. Now you will find coins graded in all 11 grades from '60' to '70.' Accordingly, astute buyers will see a gem '65' in an older holder, pay strong for it (or even 'moon money') and resubmit, possibly even getting grades of '67' and '68.' No one figures those new grades are "overgraded," but they recognize the coin's previous grade was essentially irrelevant because it was based on 65-point grading system rather than a 70-point grading system. If numismatics eventually evolves to a 100-point system (such as used currently for stamps), we will likely see coins seemingly "upgraded" from a "65" to a "93" or something like that. That would represent a 28-point upgrade, if all you look at are the numbers and not the numbering system. (Remember, it's not hotter outside when the temperature is 86 degrees Fahrenheit than when it is 30 degrees Celsius.)
Now, all that mumbo-jumbo about the evolution of the assignment of mint-state grades is well and good, but the important fact I think everyone should be aware of, is that the same thing was going on with AU grades. Back when the subject coin was originally graded, the services didn't generally award all of the AU grades. If a coin was clearly mint state, it was graded MS and that meant 63-65. If it didn't merit a mint state grade, then it was called AU, and almost exclusively that meant AU50 -- not 53, or 55, or 58. The very few coins back then that were assigned the grade of 58 were only held out of MS by high-point luster breaks only seen with magnification. By and large, those coins were regraded to MS long ago.
Therefore, to truly understand the subject coin in this thread, one needs to recognize that it was graded on the 50-point scale that was commonly used at the time for early coins displaying any kind of luster breaks or cabinet friction. So, just on the basis of the evolution of grade assignments, I would not be surprised at all that an early dollar graded 10+ years ago as AU50 would fully merit a grade today of AU58 at PCGS.
I agree 100%.
<< <i>That's class, plain and simple...
No. That is someone desperately trying to cover their ass to maintain credibility for a potential $50K mistake to their clientèle. If this thread never existed, some sucker might have been burned.
Their guarantee only holds so long as Anaconda remains in business. A purchaser of that coin might hold it 20 years only to find out he is out $30-50K for buying an overhyped coin. I appreciate their pulling of the coin and their guarantee, but such careless overhyping and overpricing undermines their credibility and the hobby as a whole.
Certainly there are several other groups perhaps more at fault here. The poor and inconsistent grading by the TPGs being the most obvious.
Thanks for the history, and I hope you come here more often.
See you in Milwaukee.
My guess is that dealers that deal in large quanities of expensive coins sometimes make mistakes, too. Anaconda apologized. Honestly, I don't even think he needs to do so to maintain credibility. Credibility is based on years of buying and selling primo stuff with a positive rep!
<< <i>I appreciate their pulling of the coin and their guarantee, but such careless overhyping and overpricing undermines their credibility and the hobby as a whole. >>
Did you even read their description? There wasn't any "overhyping" of the coin. The writeup was very neutral.
Russ, NCNE