<< <i>I saw that about a month ago in the coming soon auctions... the CAC sticker is too funny!
Cool A$$ Coin w/a Dumb A$$ Sticker! >>
A person with enough money to purchase that coin is a person that probably is smart enough to disagree with you.... ain't nothing wrong with a couple hundred bucks spent on a second opinion when you're shelling out nearly $1M.
It is almost embarrasing when a coin that is rare only because of its grade is priced as though it is a rarity. This is almost as bad as the moderns that get stuck into high graded slabs and go for moon money when there are millions of them minted. If not for the registry sets and the bragging rights to have "the finest" would we be seeing this type of inflation? There are beautiful and stunning gem high reliefs in MS-65 that are close equals to this coin. The grade is in the end a subjective opinion, not a measure of the coins actual rarity. All that said, this is a beautiful coin and would still be just as beautiful in an MS-65 holder, and in fact may well have been in one at some prior point in time which is the irony of it all.
<< <i>I saw that about a month ago in the coming soon auctions... the CAC sticker is too funny!
Cool A$$ Coin w/a Dumb A$$ Sticker! >>
A person with enough money to purchase that coin is a person that probably is smart enough to disagree with you.... ain't nothing wrong with a couple hundred bucks spent on a second opinion when you're shelling out nearly $1M. >>
A person shelling out $1M on that coin will probably do it through a Trusted Representative™ with whom they've matured as a coin buyer for much more than a couple hundred bucks. Also, this particular coin is unique at its grade with none graded 68. The CAC sticker seems a bit superfluous on top of being distracting. Had this coin been graded MS68, would CAC have put a gold sticker on it? Would that help the value? Since the coin is well-enough known that had it been a 68 with gold sticker then suddenly became a 69, would any serious buyer, knowing the coin's history, be compelled to pay more for it for any reason other than registry points?
Doesn't seem likely at all that this ever sat in a 65 holder. And I doubt there are any in 65 or 66 or 67 holders that look like this coin. It is possible that back in 1986-1988 this coin could have been called a 67.
Comments
One dang nice coin though.
-Paul
Cool A$$ Coin w/a Dumb A$$ Sticker!
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
It is an investment vehicle and no one is willing to collect it.
<< <i>I saw that about a month ago in the coming soon auctions... the CAC sticker is too funny!
Cool A$$ Coin w/a Dumb A$$ Sticker!
A person with enough money to purchase that coin is a person that probably is smart enough to disagree with you.... ain't nothing wrong with a couple hundred bucks spent on a second opinion when you're shelling out nearly $1M.
Camelot
<< <i>Maybe the CAC sticker shows it to be a Legend coin >>
Why would you think that? It's not.
<< <i>
<< <i>I saw that about a month ago in the coming soon auctions... the CAC sticker is too funny!
Cool A$$ Coin w/a Dumb A$$ Sticker!
A person with enough money to purchase that coin is a person that probably is smart enough to disagree with you.... ain't nothing wrong with a couple hundred bucks spent on a second opinion when you're shelling out nearly $1M. >>
A person shelling out $1M on that coin will probably do it through a Trusted Representative™ with whom they've matured as a coin buyer for much more than a couple hundred bucks. Also, this particular coin is unique at its grade with none graded 68. The CAC sticker seems a bit superfluous on top of being distracting. Had this coin been graded MS68, would CAC have put a gold sticker on it? Would that help the value? Since the coin is well-enough known that had it been a 68 with gold sticker then suddenly became a 69, would any serious buyer, knowing the coin's history, be compelled to pay more for it for any reason other than registry points?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
It is possible that back in 1986-1988 this coin could have been called a 67.
roadrunner
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>One thing I noticed is that Heritage's images have improved just a wee tad. >>
I would agree for the $1M coins - but for the rest of the coins I collect, they still blow.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
<< <i>I'm sorry, but for a 69, those carbon (or some kind of) spots on the reverse don't make it a 69. >>
Well as the auction catalog would say, those are just "identifying marks."