PocketArt

Keep in mind that if Heritage bids on a coin in their auction and wins it, they have to then sell for a profit or there is no point in doing so. Granted they don't pay BP on it, so they have an edge. If you look at their auction results, there are always post-auction buys. Those are coins that the consignors put too high a reserve on, even for Heritage to bid on. So it is not like they are bidding on every coin in their auctions, but only the ones they are interested in reselling and only at a profit. So HA is no different than any other dealer bidding in their auctions in this regard, should dealers not be allowed to bid as well, only open it to collectors? Would you then say it is fair?

 

Best, HT

Thanks HT. I didn't regard HA as a dealer but I thought just a medium for consignors to bring their offerings to market. I admittedly viewed HA as strictly an auction house that took no interest in actually buying what those consignors had to offer. My bad- wasn't aware of this practice but know now.

I personally wouldn't have a problem if the consignor was aloud to bid on his, or, her coins so long as they paid buyers premium if they won, and would have to eat that cost.

 

The auction house actually bids on coins too? Is this correct? If so; what is Heritage's cutoff point- 30% to 40% of retail? Is this done with all coins? I'm just curious so as a buyer I can keep this in mind when bidding...sour taste if this is truly a policy with major auction houses.

 

1. As far as I understand (and I've never done it, maybe MarkFeld can confirm), but a consignor may bid on his own coins. If he wins, he pays the buyers premium to compensate the auction house for their troubles.....

 

While in some, though not in all cases, Heritage allows consignors to place reserves, consignors are prohibited from actually bidding on their own

coins. And the reserves are disclosed.

Okay, thanks Mark for information.

Okay, thanks Jason for the clarification. Admittedly, I never took the time to fully read their terms of bidding that includes this practice- but good to know. I did bid on a Heritage offering of a 1973-D Kennedy DDO last month, and didn't win. I noticed that there was a Buy It Now after the auction for that same coin for about a $100 more than my top bid. I'm wondering now if that was Heritage relisting the coin for what they thought it should bring, and if I bid against them? IDK- would just like fair and balanced bidding with actual bidders but I suppose their right to set the terms. Thanks again.

I personally wouldn't have a problem if the consignor was aloud to bid on his, or, her coins so long as they paid buyers premium if they won, and would have to eat that cost.

The auction house actually bids on coins too? Is this correct? If so; what is Heritage's cutoff point- 30% to 40% of retail? Is this done with all coins? I'm just curious so as a buyer I can keep this in mind when bidding...sour taste if this is truly a policy with major auction houses.

Great coins! Here's 1851 N-20

This is a bit of a segway here from the legal discourse by forum members in regards to Dan Carr's pieces. About that article that HT posted...

I didn't read any condemnation of Dan Carr's pieces, I didn't read any call to arms with pursuing a legal rendering with what he produces, and I didn't get the impression that the buyer of the '22 D Walker was harmed financially.

What I did read was Mr. Fahey's willingness to share Mr. Carr's work with the buyer, and to educate the buyer about modern fantasy coins.

Also, the many accolades Mr. Fahey wrote concerning Mr. Carr, that of which the managing editor of Coin World obviously cleared, were done to convey the legitimacy of the Moonlight Mint. Not to condemn.

I see these previous arguments as behind the curve, and seven years too late.

Rich

The problem I have with your argument is that the laws are written to protect the average American who has no specialized knowledge of numismatics or authentication and is unlikely to be aware of the materials. Think lowest common denominator here - the average flea market buyer, the type that buys overpriced junk on eBay, the type that fall prey to the TV hucksters - to them, how would his pieces be different in deceptiveness to the Alibaba special? There is nothing to keep someone from removing his pieces from its original packaging and throwing it in a 2x2 and misrepresenting the item. Even if the purchaser does not know about the full story of some of his coins or the rarity that a real piece would have (like the 1964-D Peace Dollar), and mistakes them for trial or experimental pieces?

 

 

I see your point; but this is a very broad generalization of novice collectors who buy pieces through common avenues where deceit and fraud do unfortunately take place. Not just with coins; but any, and every imaginable marketed collectible, or, piece of junk marketed as collectible. I honestly can't see how a limited production run of a Carr fantasy piece could end up in this marketing mill- however great, or, small. Could it happen? Anything is possible; but the probability more than likely low.

 

It seems copies of originals are the problem as with any item that has value, or, perceived value. Ironically; the Chinese have made reproductions of Carr's pieces too.

 

Remember the 1970-s Washington Quarter overstruck on a Canadian Quarter and was slabbed by NGC? This received a lot of buzz some month's ago. There were quite a few fraudsters marketing 1970 Quarters on ebay for thousands of dollars when that piece gained publicity. Who's to say some people bought these quarters worth .25 cents but paid $1,000? It's a shame; but an unfortunate example of mass fraud.

 

There are learning curves with all hobby's. I've made mistakes as many others have, and that's par for the course. I don't personally see the comparison with Mr. Carr's pieces, and the fraud that is ongoing with Chinese counterfeits. This is my opinion and I respect yours as others.

 

 

quote: [i]The wheels of justice turn ever so slowly...[/i]

 

 

I hope they are moving towards the Far East!

 

 

By publications who acknowledge his business as authentic, an in house operation that the public may tour, a following of collectors who respect his function, a private mint production that is documented and made public. This all done in the open for the past seven years without government intervention to stop his efforts...

If the PTB thought his livelihood was a threat to our hobby, or, monetary system they would have shut him down by now. Wouldn't you think?

Also, ANACS and ICG graders slab his fantasy tokens and private mint productions in recognition of his efforts for collectors who submit his work.

The difference to me is black and white with all due respect.

Personally, I don't see a problem with PCGS, or, NGC slabbing Dan Carr pieces. I respect the arguments for, and, against Carr productions.

However; I've stated in the past, and firmly believe that it isn't Carr fantasy productions this hobby has to worry about; but rather Chinese counterfeits which are done in the shadows and are sold to collectors on a daily basis. These illicit operations are refining activities to fool the best TPG's, and unfortunately have distributors in the U.S. that will feed the production so long as there is profit to be made.

I don't collect the fantasy pieces because it doesn't appeal to my collecting needs, but I do respect those that do appreciate Dan's work and see no problem as he's on the numismatic map, and not a threat to collectors. Realistically; I can't imagine a scenario where someone would be a victim of fraud in this digital age, or, in the future.

I do like Mr. Carr's Clark Gruber & Co. productions, his latest 1916 1oz. centennial issues, and his concept dollar all of which I own.

For those that don't know; In the May 23rd, 2016 issue of Coin World Weekly, Daniel Carr is featured on page 5 with his concept dollar the subject. Coin World even gives a plug where readers may purchase one, and directs hobbyist to his website.

As always, the threat is China...

Mark, I commend you for your honesty, and I think Heritage has a great representative and counselor.

Rich

numisport, that's what I understand too; there appears to be a disconnect with the OP 64-D Roosevelt when compared to the 68 examples I posted in terms of surface quality. Even thought they are different dates; I didn't realize there could be partiality with the 64-D. Would of thought grading standards applied across the board with all Roosevelt's.

I don't doubt what your saying is true Mark. I thought Sheldon scale would be impartial; but not privy to how these grades are assigned with pristine examples on dates and mint marks that are scarce in high grade.

Seems more like a beauty pageant.

Here are a few more. These three examples appear to have nicer surfaces and these PCGS examples also have a decent color. Just a comparative analysis on grade which I do from time to time for my own study.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-D-Roosevelt-Dime-NGC-MS-68-FT-Great-Color-/381646586711?hash=item58dbe8c357:g:b9QAAOSw7ehXQ3EL

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1946-S-Roosevelt-Dime-10C-PCGS-MS68-FB-Full-Bands-Top-Pop-11-0-3-000-Value-/172216300512?hash=item2818e433e0:g:57wAAOSwFGNWQ8uc

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1949-D-PCGS-MS68-HIGH-GRADE-TONED-ROOSEVELT-DIME-10C-EXCELLENT-SPECIMEN-TOP-POP-/121825142720?hash=item1c5d5827c0:g:PBAAAOSwxN5WV4Yg

Rich

Maybe this one should be a 68+? Hard to tell if this is truly full torch designation. However; appears not to have as many nicks. Nice color.

http://www.collectorscorner.com/Products/Item.aspx?id=25220779

Beautiful Roosevelt but doesn't appear full torch- the vertical lines look a bit mushy about 3/4 up.

Nice though!

Beautiful pickups Elbesaar, an interesting and underrated series in dimes, quarters, and halves. Thanks for sharing!

The 1916-D that I posted I agree is a higher grade; at least a 65 perhaps.

.

e1cnr- it is raised, and the encrusted "gunk" looks like black tar when viewed in hand so it may very well be grease. It would be tempting to use a rose thorn on this but unlikely to lift the debris. Would need a dental pick to remove this as it's solidified- would not ever do this or suggest.

I imagine the surface of the coin is probably altered underneath the "gunk" that it's probably best to leave alone. Would be interesting to see an example like this with similar deposit that was removed, and what the coin looks like after process.

Just a follow up on the Liberty Head / acetone bath project.

I initially did a 2 hour soak with no changes to surface area of coin- so I went ahead and did a 12 hour soak with no results, and followed up with a 24 hour soak. No change with encrusted deposits; I would guess that it's rust, or, something else that may have oxidized on surface of coin. As true to previous posts from forum members- there was no change in the original patina of coin. I feel quite confident in this process for future organic related blemishes on coins so thanks for insight. I'll let alone any attempts to do more with this piece- any attempts to remove this deposit would probably cause more harm than good.

Below is a picture of the Liberty Head after acetone process, and a few other coins that where included in the 20th century type set. Usually I process these sets out into my collection but I'll probably leave this one together and upgrade the Barber coins along with the SLQ. Included is a picture of my first Lincoln woodie that was in set- along with my second Bugs, a nice 1888 Indian, and a solid MS64 Walker. Many other nice coins, 60 small date Lincoln, 50 D Jefferson Gem BU. Thought good deal for accepted offer on this set!

Well, so far the Liberty Head has soaked for 2 hours with no effect. I gently tamped one of the spots with a q-tip and the "gunk" appears encrusted. Will let this coin soak overnight and check in morning. I'm a bit suspicious now that it's rust...

Out of curiosity I did a search on removing rust from coins- not something I would do but was interested in what techniques are out there...

I stumbled across Rachel who explains how to "remove rust from silver coins" on this youtube. Must watch if you care about your coins!!!! Keep her away from your coins!!!

Too funny....sorry, I had to share.

Appreciate shared experiences, advice, and assurances concerning the use of acetone to remove organic matter.

I received the 20th century type set today and took a close up of the Liberty Head. I'm going forward with the cleaning process and I'll post my results. I read it's important to buy acetone from hardware store and not from a Walmart,or, DG due to quality of acetone. I know to rinse thoroughly after the bath in distilled water. Also health/safety precautions.

Just curious to know how long do you soak the coin? Is this a matter of a few days, hours, minutes? Do you have to use anything else to remove the "gunk" or will it dissolve on own?

Thanks,

Rich

I've read that acetone doesn't alter the surfaces on silver and gold. However; I've also read that it has adverse effects on copper- it turns copper orange?

Well, I've purchased this 20th century type set and it's on the way. I noticed the 1911 Liberty Head nickel has some "gunk" on it and I thought about giving this piece some TLC. Here is listing; go ahead and critique.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111969540886?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Question: will acetone alter the surfaces of this coin beyond removing the "gunk"? Will it appear as if its been dipped? Produce artificial patina? I ask because I never used acetone.

Thank you,

Rich

Beautiful toning on that Columbian Exposition Half!

I picked up this Barber Quarter last week: 1916-D MS-64 NGC.

Well, here is my "two cents." I would think an abrasive that would be used to polish an item would cause less of a footprint than an object used to gouge. Difference between "cut," and "carving" versus "polish." Cut and carve would leave a noticeable footprint, polish would leave substantially less. Then, consider the amount of coins that this displays on, which appears to be very minute; I would lean towards the "cut" and "gouge" lathe created die that didn't receive the necessary polishing because mint employee was hungover or was looking at the clock! This is a new phenomenon that I was never aware of until RWB brought it to my attention!

Thanks RWB and dcarr for your splendid discourse.