I knew the 1848 CAL Quarter Eagle was rare, but never knew how excessively rare the No CAL version w
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
I was taking a look at the website of a very prominent dealer, and looking through the quarter eagles, as I customarily do. Personally, I have never owned an 1848 CAL quarter eagle, but I knew of its rarity and its desirability. However, I never realized how excessively rare the 1848 No CAL version of the quarter eagle is, and how dirt, dirt cheap it sells for in relation to its more famous cousin. Here is the description of the coin.
I have no financial interest in this coin, I am not a coin dealer, and I am simply posting this to get commentary as to whether anyone else knew how rare this coin is. And the picture isn't half bad either.
Here is the description:
"1848 $2.5
PCGS AU50 - CAC
Inquire Price on Request
One of the top sleeper coins in any series. The TOTAL population from both NGC and PCGS of 1848 quarter eagles are as follows. 112 -No Cal, 104- Cal. Yet the trends price for a Cal in AU-50 is $50,000.00 (And they sell for that) while trends on the No Cal are $1750.00. Does something appear to be a mistake here? You bet.
Now check auction prices realized on the two varieties of this date. Cals readily sell for these numbers Ladies and Gentlemen. The present specimen is not only a moose it’s a mistake in the holder. Graded only AU-50 in what is commonly referred to as an OGH (Old Green Holder), this canary yellow rarity really is an AU-55 coin.
The nicest about uncirculated specimen we’re seen in a couple of years in fact. We are undecided as to whether we are going to crack it out and resubmit it or bestow some genuine good deed on a lucky collector somewhere and sell it in the holder it’s in. Get ready though, just because everyone else was asleep at the wheel at the Heritage Auction doesn’t mean we were. Heck, we bought it and will offer it for what it’s worth and give someone a great deal to boot. Call for price. "
I have no financial interest in this coin, I am not a coin dealer, and I am simply posting this to get commentary as to whether anyone else knew how rare this coin is. And the picture isn't half bad either.
Here is the description:
"1848 $2.5
PCGS AU50 - CAC
Inquire Price on Request
One of the top sleeper coins in any series. The TOTAL population from both NGC and PCGS of 1848 quarter eagles are as follows. 112 -No Cal, 104- Cal. Yet the trends price for a Cal in AU-50 is $50,000.00 (And they sell for that) while trends on the No Cal are $1750.00. Does something appear to be a mistake here? You bet.
Now check auction prices realized on the two varieties of this date. Cals readily sell for these numbers Ladies and Gentlemen. The present specimen is not only a moose it’s a mistake in the holder. Graded only AU-50 in what is commonly referred to as an OGH (Old Green Holder), this canary yellow rarity really is an AU-55 coin.
The nicest about uncirculated specimen we’re seen in a couple of years in fact. We are undecided as to whether we are going to crack it out and resubmit it or bestow some genuine good deed on a lucky collector somewhere and sell it in the holder it’s in. Get ready though, just because everyone else was asleep at the wheel at the Heritage Auction doesn’t mean we were. Heck, we bought it and will offer it for what it’s worth and give someone a great deal to boot. Call for price. "
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)
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)
0
Comments
Thanks for posting this thread.
quarter eagle category... and a rather boring date at that which gets
minimal interest. The low mintage of ~7500 is nothing extra ordinary
either.
just another date in the series is how i describe it.
<< <i>My guess is that the no-Cal 1848 QE is less likely to get slabbed, reslabbed, cracked, reslabbed, etc. than the CAL, which probably is explanation for the difference in pops. Plus, the CAL is of far greater numismatic significance and would be of greater appeal to a broader audience than the no-CAL. It's a mistake to assume that rarity (or even pops) drive valuation, and this is a good example of why. >>
Good answer.
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>I don't own a car I would trade for a no Cal. >>
<< <i>since few collect the whole series it falls into the semi tough
quarter eagle category... and a rather boring date at that which gets
minimal interest. The low mintage of ~7500 is nothing extra ordinary
either.
just another date in the series is how i describe it. >>
I collect Liberty $2.50's and I view the 1848 as just another tougher date with a PCGS pop under 60. The 1848 no-CAL's mintage of 6,500 is not especially low for the series. Clearly the 1848 CAL is in a class by itself. The $2.50 series is loaded with underappreciated tough dates. Last weekend I picked up the 1867 $2.50 NGC XF40 from Heritage at a modest cost. PCGS has slabbed 22 in all grades and NGC just 29 more.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
I too have always desired a 'Cal'......
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't own a car I would trade for a no Cal. >>
It's a secret code.
> It's a mistake to assume that rarity (or even pops) drive valuation
Good point. It sounds like this coin dealer has bought into his own hype.
<< <i>I don't own a car I would trade for a no Cal. >>
I have not owned a $1700 car since I was in high school. Is that with a full tank of gas or new tires?