I thought I knew something about gold dollars but I have no idea why this went so high. Sure it is an OGH and is probably undergraded by 2 points but not $13,800.
wow. that is a really nice coin. 65 seems under graded to me. But for that kind of money you could have bought a 68, pcgs, cac'd. Seems like a risk when so many others are available. Heck 2 68s sold in the last few months.
Has several die characteristics of a proof. Is Bowers guide to Gold Dollars reliable? Obverse looks Proof-like, but reverse look like a proof to me. Pictures deceive. Only 87 Proofs, high bidders probably know what they are looking at and for.
<< <i>Has several die characteristics of a proof. Is Bowers guide to Gold Dollars reliable? Obverse looks Proof-like, but reverse look like a proof to me. Pictures deceive. Only 87 Proofs, high bidders probably know what they are looking at and for. >>
Paul Taglione in Volume I of Federal Gold mentions proof like fields are often encountered on the 1881 and NGC and ANACS have graded many PL and DPL business strike examples.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
I think this was a case of at least two bidders with more money than brains. Usually I don't care about copper stains, but that mark in the headdress would discourage me from paying a premium for that coin. After looking at the blow-uip photo of the piece I see nothing that would prompt me to pay almost 8 times the Gray Sheet bid for that coin. The has less than perfect surfaces and isn't even "PQ" IMO.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
1885 Two people must really like OGH gold dollars. There were a few really nice OGH's in this auction but Wow! I hope I can find these 2 bidders when I sell mine.
A very interesting piece and evidently some wild bidding. There must have been more than just a couple of Floor bidders throwing some tough money on this one. Perhaps there is something about this piece which is not evident in the photos , we see. Who knows if there is a justifiable reason for the hammer price, only the bidders can offer their reasons.
Unless for some reason they used more than one die for proofs, I say the dies don't match for a proof coin. The A's in American are only struck with doubling on one side. All the proofs I've looked at for 1881 have doubling on both side of the A's. So like others have said someone may know something we don't?
The obverse shows some obvious doubling in the lettering and on the lower right bust of Liberty. But looks more to be shelf-doubling. I defer to the double die experts out there.
Would probably have to have been considered to be a rare variety or from proof dies to have 2 people go that nuts over it. I don't think 2 knowledgeable crack out artists would have knocked heads looking for a 68+/69 grade. That might be possible from the rattler area, but this is just an ogh where at most you see maybe a 1 pt shift in grade. With several dozen of these graded in MS68 it essentially needs a 68+ or a 69 to be special for the date. And with the alloy spot, weak denticles, less than full strike in other areas, a few light field marks and scuffs, and some field haze, I don't see a 68 here.
<< <i>The obverse shows some obvious doubling in the lettering and on the lower right bust of Liberty. But looks more to be shelf-doubling. I defer to the double die experts out there. >>
Common for this date.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
<< <i>One nuclear bid and one near-nuclear bid? >>
Agree that this is the most logical explanation. I'm guessing someone is having buyer's remorse.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I do not know why it brought the price it did, but I would not be so quick to dismiss it as "two crazy guys", or conclude that someone is already having 'buyer's remorse' - particularly if I had never seen the coin in hand, don't know who bought it, and really had no other information to go on.
<< <i>I do not know why it brought the price it did, but I would not be so quick to dismiss it as "two crazy guys", or conclude that someone is already having 'buyer's remorse' - particularly if I had never seen the coin in hand, don't know who bought it, and really had no other information to go on. >>
For all I know, there were two series specialists with very deep pockets who saw something. I certainly don't have the expertise in this series to state, categorically, that there's no reason why this coin fetched this kind of moon money.
<< <i>For all I know, there were two series specialists with very deep pockets who saw something. I certainly don't have the expertise in this series to state, categorically, that there's no reason why this coin fetched this kind of moon money. >>
So it would have to upgrade 6 grade points (65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68) for the buyer to not be buried as a 67+ is about a $5K coin.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
<< <i>So it would have to upgrade 6 grade points (65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68) for the buyer to not be buried as a 67+ is about a $5K coin. >>
Hey, it sounds crazy to me as well. I'm just saying I don't know this series well enough to proclaim that this buyer is a fool. It looks like it from here, but I'm relatively ignorant about this series.
Those copper spots are a major distraction and a negative eye appeal factor IMO.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>For all I know, there were two series specialists with very deep pockets who saw something. I certainly don't have the expertise in this series to state, categorically, that there's no reason why this coin fetched this kind of moon money. >>
So it would have to upgrade 6 grade points (65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68) for the buyer to not be buried as a 67+ is about a $5K coin. >>
3 points. you're counting half points with the plusses.
<< <i>I do not know why it brought the price it did, but I would not be so quick to dismiss it as "two crazy guys", or conclude that someone is already having 'buyer's remorse' - particularly if I had never seen the coin in hand, don't know who bought it, and really had no other information to go on. >>
Fully agree. I would have to exhaust all other options before resigning to that conclusion which is such a popular landing area for jumpers here. --Jerry
<< <i>Those copper spots are a major distraction and a negative eye appeal factor IMO. >>
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer gold with copper spots, since I believe they attest to the originality of the surfaces >>
Not only that, why bother having a yellow gold coins that looks like all the rest? I like both the originality and the originality. >>
Gold coins can be free of spots and still be original. Also, I've seen dipped gold where the copper spots are still visible so copper spots aren't always proof of originality. Most collectors prefer their coins to be free of spots.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I think the price of this one is even more insane! 1885 Two plus people had to think that both were proofs. But even if they were the prices are very high. As others have mentioned the business strikes were mostly prooflike so tough to tell from the pics.
<< <i>Most investors prefer their coins to be free of spots. I agree! >>
But this doesn't stop the top collectors of proof gold and gem rare date saints from paying moon money for problem-free original specimens with some minor spotting. Far better to have a copper spot on a piece of gem proof gold than to have it removed via conservation. CAC has no issues with copper spots and it's essentially a non-factor in their assessments.
<< <i>But this doesn't stop the top collectors of proof gold and gem rare date saints from paying moon money for problem-free original specimens with some minor spotting. Far better to have a copper spot on a piece of gem proof gold than to have it removed via conservation. CAC has no issues with copper spots and it's essentially a non-factor in their assessments. >>
Sure. I don't think people are saying conserved or "messed with" coins are better than original coins with spots -- just that they'd prefer to find coins with "original" skin that don't have the spots.
<< <i>But this doesn't stop the top collectors of proof gold and gem rare date saints from paying moon money for problem-free original specimens with some minor spotting. Far better to have a copper spot on a piece of gem proof gold than to have it removed via conservation. CAC has no issues with copper spots and it's essentially a non-factor in their assessments. >>
Sure. I don't think people are saying conserved or "messed with" coins are better than original coins with spots -- just that they'd prefer to find coins with "original" skin that don't have the spots. >>
I own one 66/CAC Saint, and it is dripping with copper spots. I love it! Someday, I will get it photographed and post it on the forum.
<< <i>But this doesn't stop the top collectors of proof gold and gem rare date saints from paying moon money for problem-free original specimens with some minor spotting. Far better to have a copper spot on a piece of gem proof gold than to have it removed via conservation. CAC has no issues with copper spots and it's essentially a non-factor in their assessments. >>
Sure. I don't think people are saying conserved or "messed with" coins are better than original coins with spots -- just that they'd prefer to find coins with "original" skin that don't have the spots. >>
I don't mind a minor copper spot or two in an inconspicuous place. I really like the warm look of overall copper toning mixed with the gold. I don’t like dark, heavy copper spots in key areas of the design. And I really don’t like the NCS removal service, which might hide the spot for while only to have it resurface again in a year or two. This is especially aggravating for a subsequent owner who does not known the history of the piece.
I don’t care for the copper spot on the headdress of the 1881 gold dollar. If I’m going to pay a huge premium for a coin like that, I don’t want it with a mark like that regardless of the fact that the coin is totally original.
The 1885 in MS-62 may have been "processed," or perhaps it is natural. The trouble is the obverse and reverse don't look like they belong to the same coin. It might be the lighting on the reverse, but that would be something that would discourage me from bidding if I were using only the Internet photos.
Here is the piece I have for type. It is an 1889, which is a very common date, but the eye appeal for me is great. The coin is graded MS-64.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>Most investors prefer their coins to be free of spots.
I agree! >>
Most collectors of expensive gold coins are also investors in that they hope their coins will increase in value so I also agree.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
This I like a lot. It has areas that look more coppery, areas that clearly show the original toning in the incomplete mixture of the alloy, but these are not distracting, very dark spots or blemishes.
That 1883 is a very pretty piece. I have no problem what so ever with the tiny spots that are on that coin. It is original and beautiful.
I wish I had a picture of $2.50 Indian I once owned that had a dark blue-black copper stain that was one the Indian's neck. This was back in the days of raw coins. The coin was a very nice MS-63, 64 otherwise, but that mark made the piece impossible to sell, even at 20% under the then current Gray Sheet price.
Finally I sent it off to NCS. They got rid of the spot and the coin when to NGC where it got an MS-63. Under those circumstances I could sell it to a dealer for MS-63 bid, which was indicator of how nice it was.
Copper spots can make a coin impossible to sell. The worst examples I have seen have been 1857-S "SS Central American" $20 gold pieces that had been "curated." I handled several of those coins when I was dealer, and toward the end of a run that I sold, I started to suspect that some of these coins would give their owners trouble somewhere down the line because I started to see spots forming on some of them. I’m not talking about minor spots; I’m talking about major stuff all over the coin.
Sure enough a few years later I saw some SS Central America $20 gold coins at a Florida show that had gone really bad. They had unattractive copper toning all over them. It was not the type of stuff you see on that 1883 gold dollar. It was big, ugly brown spots that really impaired the esthetics of the piece.
As for pieces with coppery toning, I buy them all the time for myself. I just don't like ugly, dark spots. Here are two examples with coppery toning.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Comments
<< <i>Is it a proof? Looks proof like at least. Strong cameo. >>
Most of the low mintage gold strikings are common with proof like fields.
<< <i>It is a relatively common date. I guess 2 people thought it was a 68 instead of a 65? >>
Definitely a business strike but that hammer price was actually more then MS68 monies.
It's a very clean coin based on the pics, but WTF
But for that kind of money you could have bought a 68, pcgs, cac'd.
Seems like a risk when so many others are available. Heck 2 68s sold
in the last few months.
<< <i>Has several die characteristics of a proof. Is Bowers guide to Gold Dollars reliable? Obverse looks Proof-like, but reverse look like a proof to me. Pictures deceive. Only 87 Proofs, high bidders probably know what they are looking at and for. >>
Paul Taglione in Volume I of Federal Gold mentions proof like fields are often encountered on the 1881 and NGC and ANACS have graded many PL and DPL business strike examples.
The court jester does not play, but gently pulls the strings…
1885
Two people must really like OGH gold dollars. There were a few really nice OGH's in this auction but Wow! I hope I can find these 2 bidders when I sell mine.
Not really looking for much these days but if I were, it might be a toner.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
Would probably have to have been considered to be a rare variety or from proof dies to have 2 people go that nuts over it. I don't think 2 knowledgeable crack out artists
would have knocked heads looking for a 68+/69 grade. That might be possible from the rattler area, but this is just an ogh where at most you see maybe a 1 pt shift in grade.
With several dozen of these graded in MS68 it essentially needs a 68+ or a 69 to be special for the date. And with the alloy spot, weak denticles, less than full strike in other areas,
a few light field marks and scuffs, and some field haze, I don't see a 68 here.
roadrunner
<< <i>The obverse shows some obvious doubling in the lettering and on the lower right bust of Liberty. But looks more to be shelf-doubling. I defer to the double die experts out there. >>
Common for this date.
<< <i>One nuclear bid and one near-nuclear bid? >>
Agree that this is the most logical explanation. I'm guessing someone is having buyer's remorse.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Edit: It's definitely not ex-Eliasberg or Norweb. Nor is it one of the NINE (9!) MS examples from Bass II or Bass III. It's not ex-James Stack.
<< <i>I do not know why it brought the price it did, but I would not be so quick to dismiss it as "two crazy guys", or conclude that someone is already having 'buyer's remorse' - particularly if I had never seen the coin in hand, don't know who bought it, and really had no other information to go on. >>
For all I know, there were two series specialists with very deep pockets who saw something. I certainly don't have the expertise in this series to state, categorically, that there's no reason why this coin fetched this kind of moon money.
<< <i>For all I know, there were two series specialists with very deep pockets who saw something. I certainly don't have the expertise in this series to state, categorically, that there's no reason why this coin fetched this kind of moon money. >>
So it would have to upgrade 6 grade points (65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68) for the buyer to not be buried as a 67+ is about a $5K coin.
<< <i>So it would have to upgrade 6 grade points (65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68) for the buyer to not be buried as a 67+ is about a $5K coin. >>
Hey, it sounds crazy to me as well. I'm just saying I don't know this series well enough to proclaim that this buyer is a fool. It looks like it from here, but I'm relatively ignorant about this series.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Those copper spots are a major distraction and a negative eye appeal factor IMO. >>
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer gold with copper spots, since I believe they attest to the originality of the surfaces
<< <i>
<< <i>Those copper spots are a major distraction and a negative eye appeal factor IMO. >>
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer gold with copper spots, since I believe they attest to the originality of the surfaces >>
I think the "IMO" part covers the subjective nature of eye appeal.
<< <i>
<< <i>Those copper spots are a major distraction and a negative eye appeal factor IMO. >>
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer gold with copper spots, since I believe they attest to the originality of the surfaces >>
Not only that, why bother having a yellow gold coins that looks like all the rest? I like both the originality and the originality.
<< <i>
<< <i>For all I know, there were two series specialists with very deep pockets who saw something. I certainly don't have the expertise in this series to state, categorically, that there's no reason why this coin fetched this kind of moon money. >>
So it would have to upgrade 6 grade points (65+, 66, 66+, 67, 67+, 68) for the buyer to not be buried as a 67+ is about a $5K coin. >>
3 points. you're counting half points with the plusses.
<< <i>I do not know why it brought the price it did, but I would not be so quick to dismiss it as "two crazy guys", or conclude that someone is already having 'buyer's remorse' - particularly if I had never seen the coin in hand, don't know who bought it, and really had no other information to go on. >>
Fully agree. I would have to exhaust all other options before resigning to that conclusion which is such a popular landing area for jumpers here. --Jerry
<< <i>3 points. you're counting half points with the plusses. >>
Graders no longer look at it as a one point MS65 to MS66 or two point to MS67 jump as there's now additional increments to factor in.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Those copper spots are a major distraction and a negative eye appeal factor IMO. >>
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer gold with copper spots, since I believe they attest to the originality of the surfaces >>
Not only that, why bother having a yellow gold coins that looks like all the rest? I like both the originality and the originality.
Gold coins can be free of spots and still be original. Also, I've seen dipped gold where the copper spots are still visible so copper spots aren't always proof of originality. Most collectors prefer their coins to be free of spots.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I agree!
1885
Two plus people had to think that both were proofs. But even if they were the prices are very high.
As others have mentioned the business strikes were mostly prooflike so tough to tell from the pics.
<< <i>Most investors prefer their coins to be free of spots.
I agree! >>
But this doesn't stop the top collectors of proof gold and gem rare date saints from paying moon money for problem-free original specimens with some minor spotting.
Far better to have a copper spot on a piece of gem proof gold than to have it removed via conservation. CAC has no issues with copper spots and it's essentially a non-factor
in their assessments.
roadrunner
<< <i>But this doesn't stop the top collectors of proof gold and gem rare date saints from paying moon money for problem-free original specimens with some minor spotting.
Far better to have a copper spot on a piece of gem proof gold than to have it removed via conservation. CAC has no issues with copper spots and it's essentially a non-factor
in their assessments. >>
Sure. I don't think people are saying conserved or "messed with" coins are better than original coins with spots -- just that they'd prefer to find coins with "original" skin that don't have the spots.
<< <i>
<< <i>But this doesn't stop the top collectors of proof gold and gem rare date saints from paying moon money for problem-free original specimens with some minor spotting.
Far better to have a copper spot on a piece of gem proof gold than to have it removed via conservation. CAC has no issues with copper spots and it's essentially a non-factor
in their assessments. >>
Sure. I don't think people are saying conserved or "messed with" coins are better than original coins with spots -- just that they'd prefer to find coins with "original" skin that don't have the spots. >>
I own one 66/CAC Saint, and it is dripping with copper spots. I love it! Someday, I will get it photographed and post it on the forum.
<< <i>
<< <i>But this doesn't stop the top collectors of proof gold and gem rare date saints from paying moon money for problem-free original specimens with some minor spotting.
Far better to have a copper spot on a piece of gem proof gold than to have it removed via conservation. CAC has no issues with copper spots and it's essentially a non-factor
in their assessments. >>
Sure. I don't think people are saying conserved or "messed with" coins are better than original coins with spots -- just that they'd prefer to find coins with "original" skin that don't have the spots. >>
I don't mind a minor copper spot or two in an inconspicuous place. I really like the warm look of overall copper toning mixed with the gold. I don’t like dark, heavy copper spots in key areas of the design. And I really don’t like the NCS removal service, which might hide the spot for while only to have it resurface again in a year or two. This is especially aggravating for a subsequent owner who does not known the history of the piece.
I don’t care for the copper spot on the headdress of the 1881 gold dollar. If I’m going to pay a huge premium for a coin like that, I don’t want it with a mark like that regardless of the fact that the coin is totally original.
The 1885 in MS-62 may have been "processed," or perhaps it is natural. The trouble is the obverse and reverse don't look like they belong to the same coin. It might be the lighting on the reverse, but that would be something that would discourage me from bidding if I were using only the Internet photos.
Here is the piece I have for type. It is an 1889, which is a very common date, but the eye appeal for me is great. The coin is graded MS-64.
<< <i>Most investors prefer their coins to be free of spots.
I agree! >>
Most collectors of expensive gold coins are also investors in that they hope their coins will increase in value so I also agree.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
This I like a lot. It has areas that look more coppery, areas that clearly show the original toning in the incomplete mixture of the alloy, but these are not distracting, very dark spots or blemishes.
I wish I had a picture of $2.50 Indian I once owned that had a dark blue-black copper stain that was one the Indian's neck. This was back in the days of raw coins. The coin was a very nice MS-63, 64 otherwise, but that mark made the piece impossible to sell, even at 20% under the then current Gray Sheet price.
Finally I sent it off to NCS. They got rid of the spot and the coin when to NGC where it got an MS-63. Under those circumstances I could sell it to a dealer for MS-63 bid, which was indicator of how nice it was.
Copper spots can make a coin impossible to sell. The worst examples I have seen have been 1857-S "SS Central American" $20 gold pieces that had been "curated." I handled several of those coins when I was dealer, and toward the end of a run that I sold, I started to suspect that some of these coins would give their owners trouble somewhere down the line because I started to see spots forming on some of them. I’m not talking about minor spots; I’m talking about major stuff all over the coin.
Sure enough a few years later I saw some SS Central America $20 gold coins at a Florida show that had gone really bad. They had unattractive copper toning all over them. It was not the type of stuff you see on that 1883 gold dollar. It was big, ugly brown spots that really impaired the esthetics of the piece.
As for pieces with coppery toning, I buy them all the time for myself. I just don't like ugly, dark spots. Here are two examples with coppery toning.