Walkerfan

On 10/23/2021 at 2:37 PM, 124Spider said:

Thanks; this is VERY helpful.

At this stage I'm only buying expensive, but not rare, coins (think, e.g., Morgan dollars not minted in Philadelphia or San Francisco in 1895).  Someday, I'll be looking for a 1916 Standing Liberty quarter, and I'll be more ready to overspend to get the coin I want (as I was when I bought a 1918/7-D buffalo nickel in VF35 condition--CAC approved, even--after a long search).  And, yes, I've done enough research, and recorded it, to know what each coin I'm interested in costs at various coin shops, in what condition.  So I know what I'm willing to pay.

Sounds great!  Glad that I was able to help.  I’m also glad that you have a good plan and have done your research.    I like Standing liberty quarters, too.  The 1916 is a great issue and I suggest that you look for one with the full head, as the price difference is only a little bit more.  Don’t worry—that coin is not on my radar, right now, so I won’t be competing with you.  😉

GC, HA and other major sites are VERY safe.

Hammer price is dependent on MANY factors. 

I only collect quality coins and have gotten great bargains but have, likewise, been buried, as the result of a bidding war. 

If it's a coin that you won't likely see again, then stretching for it is advisable.  

If it is EXPENSIVE but not RARE (i.e. 1909-S VDB Cent, 1938-D WLH, etc.), then I'd back off and try another example, in the future, if you feel you might be overpaying.  Do your research!!

Dealers get coins from MANY sources, not just auction sites.  

Just use your own discretion.  

Coins from the NOLA mint can be VERY soft.  I had an MS 1885 O that was just like that. 

My guess is that the color is MUCH better in hand.  I'm guessing that it's a 64.  

Keep it going and, someday, you'll have a nice box of 20.  

@VKurtBThose are nice.  I have some, too, only smaller. 

But, I prefer the sturdiness and durability of the plastic ones.  

I have what I need, now, so I won't be getting any more.  

I found the answer, on my own.  Modern Coin Mart (MCM) is also selling them.  They are obviously a new design by NGC (possibly an attempt to cut costs).  I don't like this version, as much as the older ones, but they still serve their purpose.

Edit to add: Old PCGS holders don't fit, either.  Only thing that fits are brand new NGC slabs.  I wish I'd have known about this---I wouldn't have purchased it.  I would have found an older one instead.   

I bought an NGC storage box on the secondary market.  It was listed as new and came with the white box and plastic wrap/bag.  The prongs/slats on the inside are different than on my older NGC storage boxes, so my fatties won’t fit in there…not even on the ends.  Did NGC change its design or is this a counterfeit box?  

I thoroughly enjoy them!!  

Flippers and counterfeiters bother me the most.  

Also, money and numismatics have always been related.  This is good, if you're a long term investor.  

I never cared for sky-high, 'ga-ga' grades but won't begrudge those who do.  I simply avoid them.  

I never purchased much from the mint, so the quality of offerings and fairness (or lack thereof) of purchasing doesn't really affect me.  

Being tougher to impress is good, IMHO.  It simply means that you have evolved into a better, more knowledgeable and discerning collector.  

On 8/13/2021 at 2:02 PM, RWB said:

"The provenance is COOL, also."

My term is also correct.  

https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/pedigrees/

On 8/12/2021 at 6:57 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Solid Five (5) Roosters 🐓! None graded higher. 

Theoretically, I could do better but WHEN?  And at what cost?  And would the eye appeal be as nice? 

So, my mindset was: "A bird in the hand is much better than two (or another) in the bush".  

I also love that it is PROOFLIKE.........That makes it SPECIAL. 

The pedigree is COOL, also. 

Thanks again, for the kind words.      

On 8/12/2021 at 7:12 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

That's okay.  The coin speaks majestically for itself. Great find!

Thanks, coin brother.  I'm really happy with it.    

On 8/12/2021 at 4:04 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

RETRACTION:  What appeared, at first blush, to be a typo to me is in effect an optical illusion. For lack of a better term, "compression" of the last two letters in Osburn on the label suggests an "m," which under enhanced magnification proved to be otherwise. My error.  The OP is to be commended for presenting the little-known back-story of this curious coin and its significance in the annals of numismatic history.

The NGC software would not allow me to post the full name of my coin's pedigree, as the diminutive of 'Richard' has been deemed obscene by the powers that be.    

On 8/12/2021 at 9:20 AM, Just Bob said:

When you first posted this, I though you were just showing us a nice coin that was going to be in an upcoming auction, and giving us some background information. I did not realize that you had bought it.  Very nice score!

Thanks, buddy.  I appreciate that.    

Thanks, guy for all the positive (I think  ) remarks and encouragement.  I am becoming somewhat of a Seated Dollar geek! LOL!!  I have been reading up on them and searching for them, all over the internet.  I am captivated by their beauty, history and scarcity, which are pretty much the same attributes that drew me into Early Walkers.  I wasn’t really looking for this date, in particular, but just happened to come across it.  When I researched it; I found out how truly scarce it was.  I figured that it was a good buying opportunity, as the price was $400 below NGC retail.  I guess that it was just in the cards for me.  Work hard, do your due diligence, and luck will find you.        

What a sweet story.

Thank you for sharing.

I took out many books like that, when I was a child.... that could have been any one of us.

Very sad news indeed. 

RIP to your coin comrade. 

I've enjoyed his many segments over the years.   

On 8/1/2021 at 9:01 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I had to come back and take another look at this fine example of classic silver coinage.  One day I can only hope a 99-year old life-long numismatist will sit down with me and reveal the most closely guarded secrets of the profession.

Take this treasure, for example.  I would like to know exactly what it was the grader saw that disqualified it for consideration as, say, an MS-67, MS-66, MS-65, MS-64, and MS-63.  

I see minor brushes and bruises but no chatter.  There is a suggestion of light toning that appears to have shaded what vestiges of original mint luster may have remained. The stars are well-defined. The denticular structure is intact.  If anyone were to suggest this coin merited consideration as a MS-63, would anyone have a violent objection?  Generally, in all respects, this is a very lovely, well-preserved gem any collector would be proud to own. Thank you, Walkerfan, for taking the time to share your possession with us.  🐓

You're very welcome.  I appreciate the compliments.  Graders, sometimes, get it wrong or, if nothing else, can be very conservative, at times.  This is a perfect example of 'buy the coin and not the holder'.  I think that one can do well, as a numismatist, if you learn to recognize and act upon the 'cherrypicks'.  That's the way that I like to collect and have been doing it for a long time.  I have a lot of coins that I feel are under-graded.  Finding them can be fun and profitable.  Thanks again for the kind words.    

I don't think that the coin has been switched out.  I think that the old NGC holder just has a small crack in it.  It all comes down to whether you like the coin or not.  If the cracked slab and the small white oxidation spot bother you, then I would definitely send it back.  Otherwise, I would keep it.  All things considered it's not really a bad coin.

4 hours ago, Woods020 said:

1917 type 2 design. They changed the type 1 during the year over public uproar over bare breasted Liberty. Type 2 added chain mail, and changed the stars on the reverse. Type 1 tended to be sharp and well defined, type 2 have consistent strike issues notably the rivets in the shield and and liberties head. 

I concur with this.    May I add softness of date, as well, for the weaker struck pieces.  Attempts were made in 1925 with a 'recessed date' design but it was only marginally effective.  Also, I find that branch mints (D & S) tend to be weaker among type 2 and 3 varieties.