MarkFeld

If the poster had known that the face had been ground off, he or she probably wouldn’t have referred to the coin as “rare”.

I wouldn’t want to have the bidding process automated. There might be a very good reason that a given coin is priced below the average wholesale price.

A dealer wouldn't want published prices for coins of the type he carries, to be too low. Though he very might want prices to be too low if he's trying to acquire such coins. Regardless, I think you're being overly cynical.

I agree about the price guides being only a very small part of NGC's and PCGS' businesses. I will say, however, that there are many instances in which the guide prices are considerably too low, as well. The key is figuring out which are too high, and which are too low. It can be done, but it usually takes quite a bit of time and effort..

That's why it's very important to view auction results and not just price guides, even though neither should be relied upon, blindly.

Without knowing the assigned grades, overall, that looks like a very nice group! The only one I don't really like is the 1924, due to the grease(?)/spot(?) above and to the right of the date.

The price that the current owner chooses to ask doesn't necessarily say anything about whether he obtained the coin at a favorable price. For all we know, he could list it at $100,000, but still might not be able to get his cost out of it.

Welcome to the forum. Your comment about the wide price spreads on 1917’s, depending upon the coin, applies to all dates (as well as for a great many coins in other series, as well). I recommend that you be very patient and selective in your search and that you enjoy yourself. Are you able and interested in posting a few pictures of some of your coins?

You’ve been given good information. If you’re going to buy coins, it’s best to do so for the enjoyment of collecting, not in order to try to make money. Sure, you might make a profit, but the odds are against it. Sadly, over a period of forty years, I’ve dealt with a lot of disappointed buyers. On the plus side, I’ve also worked with a good number of passionate collectors, who truly love their hobby.

If you’re new to collecting, it would be better not to buy either. At least until you have a clear understanding of the market for them (as well as for examples without special labels) AND the resale market for such items.

I’d suggest this forum for U.S and world currency questions: https://www.pmgnotes.com/boards/forum/38-us-and-world-notes/

While I don’t have one with me at this time, I’m confident that the CDN lists values for Saints at least as often as it does for Liberty $20’s.

Grading is an opinion. And if a coin has been recolored, cleaned, etc., a numerical details grade is largely irrelevant.

Can a coin with a population of more than five (still) accurately be described as rare? Of course. A coin which is one of two hundred forty thousand? Of course not.

The coin is not being auctioned and the typical buyer and seller commissions don’t apply. It’s listed on a “Virtual Bourse” for which the commission rate would be a flat 5%. I’m not going to spam this site with a link to the Virtual Bourse commission rates and other specifics, but you can find it via a web search.

The fact that Switt said he didn’t have any records doesn’t mean the coins were stolen, as opposed to obtained legally through an exchange. I have yet to see any evidence or proof that the coins were stolen. And supposedly-meticulous Mint records failed to show that any coins were missing. That seems to support the theory that they were (legally) exchanged.

Sure thing. I’m not saying he didn’t collect - I don’t know if he did. But either way, he wasn’t known as a collector, but rather, as a dealer.

B. Max Mehl, who was my grandmother’s uncle, was a dealer, not a collector. To my knowledge, Heritage, formed by Steve Ivy and Jim Halperin, has no ties to “older gold” (or other) dealers.

If the coin were to sell, Heritage would not make anywhere near the amount you stated. And any commissions made when the coin was auctioned previously for another consignor have nothing to do with the current offering.

This is my personal opinion, only...coins are listed by their owners at prices of their choosing. Heritage is not making any representation regarding the “worth” of the coin. That said, the “suddenly” part and the much higher price are no secret. Obviously, both are strongly influenced by NGC’s change in theair designation of the coin. Something similar has occurred on multiple occasions, with respect to percentage asking price increases, when coins have received significant (numerical grade) upgrades upon one or more resubmissions.

The owner would have set the asking price. And since the coin wasn’t labeled as a “Specimen” when it was auctioned previously, the auction history isn’t particularly relevant.

Greg, if such a coin (without documentation) has a special enough looking appearance, shouldn’t it have received the “Specimen” designation, when graded previously? I understand that grading is partly subjective and can be inconsistent, but I feel that companies should err on the side of extreme caution in awarding such designations.