How stable is the color on Battlecreek Morgan Dollars?

[MikeInFL]

Interesting how rumor and innuendo intrigue people more than facts. For starters, let's address the OP's question. I know quite a few collectors who own highly colorful Battle Creek Morgan dollars, as well as a handful of dealers who have handled many of them. This list includes several highly respected dealers with 30+ years' experience in the specific area of toned Morgans, as well as several collectors, including myself, who are also specialists in this area. My own collection comprises over 200 toned Morgans, representing a complete set of over 100 distinct issues including several basic varieties.

 

Of all the dealers and collectors referred to above, not one has observed any changes in the color or appearance of the coins. Not one has noticed any fading, darkening or instability in the toning. My own Battle Creek Morgans are as vibrant and colorful as the day I first saw them in auction lot viewing.

 

I believe that the coins came out of nine original, sealed Federal Reserve Bank bags from the 1920's. That is the story offered by the owner, who submitted them to NGC. That story was also reported by NGC and by Superior. I believe that NGC would not have made a splash about the certification of these coins without first considering the rather obvious possible contention that the coins were AT. I have asked NGC to corroborate this, and to report what steps they took to verify the authenticity of the color on these coins. The statements made by the submitter, the press releases by NGC, the certification by NGC, and the photos of the lead seals are evidence that the coins are authentic in origin and color.

 

In light of the above, mere rumor and innuendo, most of which has come from folks who don't even collect toned Morgans and have no experience identifying AT vs NT coins (something which is very difficult, yet often possible), who don't even own any Battle Creek Morgans, and maybe have never even seen one, is simply inadequate to establish a contrary position.

 

If anyone has actual evidence that these coins are not NT, I would be most interested to hear or see it.

 

Best,

Sunnywood

 

Sunnywood,

 

First off, I recognize and respect your experience and knowledge of these coins. However, I must call into question, as a disinterested third party, a number of your comments.

 

First, that nobody is reporting these coins changing colors. RYK as well as other collectors have reported similar observations. A quick parusal of the thread ATS confirms this, although it could be partially explained by the passage of time and memory being anything but completely accurate.

 

Second, that NGC certifying them somehow puts them beyond reproach. Clearly both TPGs have slabbed AT coins in the past. One only has to look at the example of blue copper to see that NGC has looked the other way and deemed these coins market acceptable. So who is to say these coins weren't just another example of MA AT, or a batch of AT coins that slipped by NGC? It has happened in the past, it will happen in the future, and it would be naive to think it couldn't have happened with the BC coins.

 

Third, nothing you have put forth can refute the possibility that some coin doctor got his hands on a few original bags, put them in a warm area possibly with some extra sulfur and toned them, perhaps even over a long period of time. It is a possibility that must be considered, particularly considering the history of these coins is shrouded in mystery.

 

Fourth, the simple look and frequency of these coins in comparison to other bag-toned examples seems to call them into question. If this bag was part of the treasury hoard, why aren't there other examples, just as numerous, of bag-toned coins that look the same. In other words, what makes the BC coins so special, and doesn't this special look/frequency of spectacular toning call into question the coins themselves rather than reinforce the belief they are original?

 

Lastly, are you, someone who is heavily invested in these coins, completely objective. It seems human nature would lead you towards the conclusion that these coins are natural. I hesitate to even bring this point up because it may seem as a personal hit on you, but that is not my intent.

 

Again, please don't get the wrong idea about my post. I have no strong opinion one way or the other as to the originality of these coins -- I do not collect them and I haven't spent any time studying them. However, to dismiss arguments and observations to the contrary on the evidence presented seems questionable, at least to me -- someone who has never really studied these coins in detail, and who consideres himself a complete novice when it comes to toned morgans. Now your point as to those who are calling these coins into question (myself included) being inexperienced is a valid one, but that doesn't get past the issues raised above, and the fact that collectors of these coins believe they are NT can be explained by the fact that they are pre-selected by their purchase as believeing they are NT -- a bit of a self-fufiling prophecy.

 

Listen, I'm not saying these coins are AT, but to suggest these coins are absolutely NT is to dismiss both the observations of others as well as the points raised above. Short of having the first-hand experience of pulling these coins out of the mint's vaults, I'm not sure how anything can be proven one way or the other.

 

In closing, I will make a similar request as the one you raised, and I don't do so flippantly, but only to show the other side of the argument is just as valid -- if anyone has actual evidence that these coins are NT, I would be most interested to hear or see it.

 

Respectfully submitted...Mike

[MarkFeld]

Interesting how rumor and innuendo intrigue people more than facts. For starters, let's address the OP's question. I know quite a few collectors who own highly colorful Battle Creek Morgan dollars, as well as a handful of dealers who have handled many of them. This list includes several highly respected dealers with 30+ years' experience in the specific area of toned Morgans, as well as several collectors, including myself, who are also specialists in this area. My own collection comprises over 200 toned Morgans, representing a complete set of over 100 distinct issues including several basic varieties.

 

Of all the dealers and collectors referred to above, not one has observed any changes in the color or appearance of the coins. Not one has noticed any fading, darkening or instability in the toning. My own Battle Creek Morgans are as vibrant and colorful as the day I first saw them in auction lot viewing.

 

I believe that the coins came out of nine original, sealed Federal Reserve Bank bags from the 1920's. That is the story offered by the owner, who submitted them to NGC. That story was also reported by NGC and by Superior. I believe that NGC would not have made a splash about the certification of these coins without first considering the rather obvious possible contention that the coins were AT. I have asked NGC to corroborate this, and to report what steps they took to verify the authenticity of the color on these coins. The statements made by the submitter, the press releases by NGC, the certification by NGC, and the photos of the lead seals are evidence that the coins are authentic in origin and color.

 

In light of the above, mere rumor and innuendo, most of which has come from folks who don't even collect toned Morgans and have no experience identifying AT vs NT coins (something which is very difficult, yet often possible), who don't even own any Battle Creek Morgans, and maybe have never even seen one, is simply inadequate to establish a contrary position.

 

If anyone has actual evidence that these coins are not NT, I would be most interested to hear or see it.

 

Best,

Sunnywood

 

Sunnywood,

 

First off, I recognize and respect your experience and knowledge of these coins. However, I must call into question, as a disinterested third party, a number of your comments.

 

First, that nobody is reporting these coins changing colors. RYK as well as other collectors have reported similar observations. A quick parusal of the thread ATS confirms this.

 

Second, that NGC certifying them somehow puts them beyond reproach. Clearly both TPGs have slabbed AT coins in the past. One only has to look at the example of blue copper to see that NGC has looked the other way and deemed these coins market acceptable. So who is to say these coins weren't just another example of MA AT, or a batch of AT coins that slipped by NGC.

 

Thirdly, nothing you put forth can refute the possibility that some coin doctor got his hands on a few original bags, put them in a warm area possibly with some extra sulfur and toned them, perhaps even over a long period of time. It is a possibility that must be considered.

 

Fourth, the simple look and frequency of these coins in comparison to other bag-toned examples seems to call them into question. If this bag was part of the treasury hoard, why aren't there other examples, just as numerous, of bag-toned coins that look the same. In other words, what makes the BC coins so special, and doesn't this special look/frequency of spectacular toning call into question the coins themselves rather than reinforce the belief they are original?

 

Lastly, are you, someone who is heavily invested in these coins, completely objective. It seems human nature would lead you towards the conclusion that these coins are natural. I hesitate to even bring this point up because it may seem as a personal hit on you, but that is not my intent.

 

Again, please don't get the wrong idea about my post. I have no strong opinion one way or the other as to the originality of these coins -- I do not collect them and I haven't spent any time studying them. However, to dismiss arguments and observations to the contrary on the evidence presented seems questionable, at least to me.

 

Respectfully submitted...Mike

Mike, a few comments in reply to your post....

 

However many (or more accurately, few) people are reporting what they believe to be changes in the appearance of the coins, the number is probably no greater statistically, than if, over time, people reexamined coins in their collections which came from other sources.

 

I don't think Sunnywood claimed that NGC is "above reproach", but rather, that they are expert , that their reputation is on the line and more so than if they let a small number of unpublicized AT coins get through. I am also under the impression that PCGS has holdered a fair number of them - so it is their reputation which is at stake, as well.

 

If the coins came out of 9 bags (9000 pieces total), the number with color doesn't seem particularly suspicious to me. About 20 years ago I was fortunate to be able to open and search through a number of original bags and saw plenty of toners.

 

Admittedly, as an owner of some of the coins, Sunnywood is not completely unbiased. However, I have known him for several years, have seen a good number of the coins he owns or has owned, think that he has a great eye for beauty and originality and know that he has extensive knowledge in chemistry. In my opinion, at least, the fact that he is biased doesn't take away from his extensive knowledge or the excellent points he has made.

 

I haven't handled any of the coins in question, other than submitting one for crossover for a client (and it crossed), so I believe it's fair to say that I am an unbiased party. For what it's worth, I have examined many of them, found them to be spectacular in appearance and do not doubt that they are "original" bag toned examples.

[MikeInFL]

Thank you Mark. Good points, all of them, and thank you for sharing your perspective.

 

Your point on time changing one's recollection of color is something I have experienced. I went to the bank to view my coins and thought I noticed some changes. Going back to photographs made at the time I received the coins confirmed that it was my mind that was playing tricks on me, and the coins were in the same state as they were when purchased. So, I can relate.

 

The point about NGC certifying them, unfortunately, doesn't hold much weight to me, given the blue-copper fiasco and other AT coins making their ways into TPG slabs. The TPGs have shown themselves to take a position contrary to common sense and direct evidence, and it calls into question their integrity (at least to me).

 

Your experience and observations in opening other bags of Morgans is invaluable, and does seem to dispute the concerns I raise, so thank you for that....Mike

 

p.s. please don't quote me before I'm done editing my post.

[MarkFeld]

Thank you Mark. Good points, all of them, and thank you for sharing your perspective...Mike

 

p.s. please don't quote me before I'm done editing my post.

My pleasure Mike.

 

PS - And please don't edit your posts until I'm done quoting you.

[MikeInFL]

You (I) did it again, dammit!

[WinstonWare]

The thread here and ATS would be more compelling if someone could demonstrate some toning changes with before and after images of BC Morgans. The coins are expensive enough, even on the low end, to warrant taking a quick picture of them. I would think that if any of the coins were actually changing someone would be able to show those changes via images…

[MarkFeld]

The thread here and ATS would be more compelling if someone could demonstrate some toning changes with before and after images of BC Morgans. The coins are expensive enough, even on the low end, to warrant taking a quick picture of them. I would think that if any of the coins were actually changing someone would be able to show those changes via images…

That might be fun/interesting, but it wouldn't do anything to prove or disprove whether the coins were naturally toned or not.

[gmarguli]

If the coins came out of 9 bags (9000 pieces total), the number with color doesn't seem particularly suspicious to me. About 20 years ago I was fortunate to be able to open and search through a number of original bags and saw plenty of toners.

 

This statement blew me away.

 

I've spoken with several people who opened original bags years ago including one person who worked at one of the major firms who handled an unbelievable number of original bags. I always ask how many monster toners they found. You wouldn't believe their bad luck as they don't recall finding very many at all and one of the frequent comments I hear is "and they don't look like the monsters of today". Must be their faulty memories.

 

To say that 1,400 our of 9,000 isn't suspicious to you is hard to believe. I guess all the monsters ended up in the bags you looked thru and the other people practically got squat. You should buy a lottery ticket. 15.6% of toners in one of these bags is not what I would expect.

[Sunnywood]

Mike, nothing in life can be proven, except mathematical and logical theorems. Neither NGC, nor my own beliefs, nor those of other respected specialists are beyond question. And certainly, just about anything is theoretically possible. The question is where the presumption lies. I think there is a credible presumption that these coins are NT based on the positions of NGC, as well as several very experienced dealers and collectors who vouched for them and committed financial resources to buying them. Those presumptions outweigh the random theories to the contrary put forth by those with less knowledge of toned Morgans, with no evidence other than that the coins are spectacularly toned.

 

I currently own precisely three Battle Creek Morgans, although I have owned others, and have seen ALL of them. I collect by date, and there were only four dates in the BC group. I didn't find an 1885 or 1904-O that met my criteria, so I only have an 1886 and an 1887 from BC, plus a duplicate 1887. The three coins together make up less than 2% of the total value of my Morgan set, so I do not have any overwhelming financial bias.

 

I do, however, have an interest in protecting toned coins generally, and toned Morgans specifically, from baseless accusations of artificial toning, particularly from people who themselves profess little or no experience with studying toned coins, Morgans, metallurgy, inorganic chemistry, or toning.

 

What many people do not understand is that there ARE plenty of spectacularly colorful Morgans out there, with perfectly legitimate origins. I have many coins that rival most of the BC coins in appearance. Morgans have a unique history. What other coin was stored in such massive quantities that the Federal Reserve had to build a dedicated storage facility just to house them? What other coin was stored for so many decades? The result is that there are many toned Morgans out there. The more you look at them, the more you com to recognize what looks right and what does not.

 

When people who have not looked at many toned Morgans denounce the BC coins as AT merely based on the fact that they are vibrant and colorful, that needs to be answered. I can't prove that they are NT, as I did not personally own or open the bags. But I can draw conclusion based on my experience, which I believe have more validity than the conclusions of those with very little experience in this area.

 

Also, there's a big difference between these coins and the AT Indian cents. Those are EASY to reproduce. I have yet to see a banded rainbow Morgan come out of the lab ... and don't think I haven't tried myself. I used to have access to an extensive research lab before I sold my business.

 

Finally, I personally prefer naturally toned coins to the massive quantities of chemically altered artificially white coins on the market. As far as I am concerned, dipped and stripped coins are as bad as AT coins. And I have no love whatsoever for AT coins, which degrade and call into question the value of NT coins. How many of your coins are "naturally white" and how many are "artificially white"? I prefer natural coins, whether toned or not - and of those, I prefer beautifully and colorfully toned specimens.

 

We do already have some evidence that these coins are NT. Some of us heard the claim directly from the person who submitted the coins to NGC. We also have the opinion of NGC. We have the photos of the tags and seals from the bags. Conversely, we have NO evidence that they are AT, other than that they are colorful.

 

Everyone who has doubts is welcome to simply refrain from buying toned coins. This fear is precisely what has led two generations of Morgan collectors to dump most of them in bathtubs full of Jeweluster. So all the collectors who fear NT coins can instead buy stone white coins. Some of those are naturally white, yet many are chemically altered, artificially whitened coins. How ironic, to run away from beautifully and naturally toned coins, and instead find refuge in chemically altered "white" coins !!!

 

P.S. Greg - fewer than 100 of those 1400 were "monsters." Most were quite generic indeed. That is why I was highly critical of NGC for awarding the star to most of those coins. The great majoity of the 1400 had minor crescents. Such coins are most often dipped, which is why you don't see that proportion in the marketplace historically. The other 7600 coins were completely untoned.

[MarkFeld]

If the coins came out of 9 bags (9000 pieces total), the number with color doesn't seem particularly suspicious to me. About 20 years ago I was fortunate to be able to open and search through a number of original bags and saw plenty of toners.

 

This statement blew me away.

 

I've spoken with several people who opened original bags years ago including one person who worked at one of the major firms who handled an unbelievable number of original bags. I always ask how many monster toners they found. You wouldn't believe their bad luck as they don't recall finding very many at all and one of the frequent comments I hear is "and they don't look like the monsters of today". Must be their faulty memories.

 

To say that 1,400 our of 9,000 isn't suspicious to you is hard to believe. I guess all the monsters ended up in the bags you looked thru and the other people practically got squat. You should buy a lottery ticket. 15.6% of toners in one of these bags is not what I would expect.

Greg, I'm blown away by your comment that my statement blew you away.

I didn't say that 1400 out of 9000 wasn't unusual, but rather, that "the number with color doesn't seem particularly suspicious to me." And let's not forget that not all of the 1400 are "monster toners" or even close to that - have you missed or forgotten discussions/opinions about a number of the coins not deserving stars?

 

Edited to add: I do apologize for not having noted in my previous post that the 1400 number which "doesn't seem particularly suspicious to me" included many pieces with other than "monster" color and that my view was influenced by that.

[MikeInFL]

What evidence? Evidence from the person who hit the lottery in submitting them and selling them, and who has remained mysteriously anonymous? A picture which could have been faked? An opinion of a TPG who has both been fooled before as well as chosen to look the other way on other AT coins? Your inability to duplicate the effect?

 

The only true evidence we have is the coins themselves. While the experience/opinions of you and others who have chose to specialize in them means a lot, it is not enough for me, personally, to presume with great confidence they are NT, but I respect your opinion on the topic even more than my own.

 

However, you are right, we can prove very little and with incomplete evidence we must make presumptions. While there is some evidence (questionable to me as per the above) to suggest they are NT, it is just not enough for me to say it with any real confidence, and I remain skeptical. If you forced me to guess NT or AT, I would guess NT, but that's all that it is -- a guess/opinion and fundamentally the same as your opinion, albeit a less educated one.

 

That said, I look to you and other specialists to help me form my opinion on the topic, and I truly appreciate you sharing your perspective with me and the forum. Please also understand that to a certain extent I am playing devil's advocate here, and my gut says NT.....Mike

 

p.s. like you, I view dipped and stripped coins in a similar light as AT coins, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them for what they are, or their owners are somehow wrong or incorrect for enjoying them. However, when someone states with certainty of a particular group of coins is NT, and the evidence to support this argument has some holes, that I start to become incredulous as evidenced by my response heretofore.

 

[Sunnywood]

Mark, thanks for your vote of confidence. I haven't been on this side of the street in several years, and you haven't been ATS for a while ... so I have missed our exchanges, particularly your inimitable dry wit, and of course your knowledge and experience.

 

Mike, yes, I can state some things with certainty. And yes, they are based on best guesses and beliefs. For example, I believe that I exist. With your particularly healthy dose of skepticism, however, I imagine you would be hard pressed to accept much at all when it comes to coins. For example, can you "prove" that any of your slabbed coins aren't expertly produced counterfeits? Not unless you were standing there when they came off the presses, or perhaps purchased them directly from the Mint.

 

Can you prove that your untoned coins haven't been dipped? Can you prove that all of yours coins have never had expert surface alterations performed on them? Can you prove that any of them are graded correctly? Can you prove that any toned coin has never been the object of someone's intent to produce or accelerate toning? Toning, in particular, seems to arouse the most suspicion. In fact, there are many toned Morgans that are very much more unquestionably genuine (because of unique toning that is characteristic of Morgans, such as banded rainbows and textile toners) than most early type coins, the vast majority of which have been dipped and retoned.

 

There is virtually no early gold on the market that is completely original. Perhaps 10% at most are candidates for that distinction. Healthy skepticism makes early type collecting almost impossible. But it does not make toned Morgan collecting impossible ... there are enough gorgeous NT Morgans out there to satisfy a hoard of color-starved collectors. I can't prove it, but if you collect them for years, and see what's out there, you will come to agree with this assertion.

 

My point is that it is actually more likely that the BC coins are NT than it is that early type coins are original, or white coins, or any early coppers.

 

Anyway, don't be incredulous that an experienced specialist is willing to take a stand based on educated guesses and beliefs. It would be virtually impossible to justify collecting anything if you required an airtight proof of origin, condition, grade, and authenticity of surfaces for every coin.

 

Based on your remarks, I suspect you quite often take a stand on matters of opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

[MikeInFL]

To paraphrase, given the lack of true evidence for virtually all coins, at some point one has to set aside skepticism and look at the preponderance of the evidence.

 

That's a fair response and criticism of my arguments. Thank you.

 

However, just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean I can't enjoy a coin for what it is -- regardless of origin -- nor does it make my taste any better or worse than your anyone else's; just different...Mike

 

p.s. please don't confuse my taking the devil's advocate position here as taking a stand on opinoin, or even my opinion on the topic of the coins at hand. My comments are simply pointing out the alternative viewpoint and challenging you on it as to help form/substantiate my own opinon and furthering the discussion on the topic.

[Sunnywood]

No problem, Mike. Healthy discussion and a civilized exchange of ideas is the whole point of the chat rooms. I am curious though, whether you have legal training, or perhaps scientific training ... either would be consistent with your analytical approach. (I happen to have both types of training, so I'm guilty on all counts.)

[braddick]

Why is it some of these pedigreed coins are being re-submitted to NGC and placed in (STAR) non-BattleCreek holders?

 

 

[kryptonitecomics]

Pat.....I would speculate with absolutely no proof of course......that some folks don't like the bad press the coins are getting now......meaning they like the coins but potentially don't want to take a chance on losing value becuase of bad press or misinformation. To me it makes good sense but I could be completely off base. More likely there are dozens of reasons why someone would....... I just don't know

[gmarguli]

I didn't say that 1400 out of 9000 wasn't unusual, but rather, that "the number with color doesn't seem particularly suspicious to me." And let's not forget that not all of the 1400 are "monster toners" or even close to that - have you missed or forgotten discussions/opinions about a number of the coins not deserving stars?

 

As I understand it (and I may be wrong), 1,400 got Stars and 7,600 did not get Stars or the Battle Creek provenance. It would not surprise me that a large percentage did not get a Star or show exceptional toning. After all, you'd have to be brain dead to make a submission this size with a vast majority of toners. It'd be wisest to include a significant amount of average coins when you are salting a "hoard" and trying to make it look like an original, yet exceptional submission.

[chinook]

If the guy who "found" this hoard would just come public, then faith and hence, value, would be restored. Why all the secrecy? Is he afraid of the taxman?

[MarkFeld]

If the guy who "found" this hoard would just come public, then faith and hence, value, would be restored. Why all the secrecy? Is he afraid of the taxman?

Perhaps the taxman and perhaps the seller.

[dragon]

Hmmm.....gotta love these threads that seem to revolve around the "I know a guy" theory.

[MikeInFL]

I am curious though, whether you have legal training, or perhaps scientific training ... either would be consistent with your analytical approach. (I happen to have both types of training, so I'm guilty on all counts.)

 

I'm an engineer/scientist by secondary education. Since leaving the world of academia and entering the world of business I have spent more time than I'd like to admit with lawyers, but have no formal training on that topic. It must be rubbing off on me.

[Zoins]

Why is it some of these pedigreed coins are being re-submitted to NGC and placed in (STAR) non-BattleCreek holders?

That's interesting. I didn't realize that was happening. Seems sad to lose the pedigree/history.

[MarkFeld]

Why is it some of these pedigreed coins are being re-submitted to NGC and placed in (STAR) non-BattleCreek holders?

That's interesting. I didn't realize that was happening. Seems sad to lose the pedigree/history.

What's sad about it? There isn't really any history to speak of, other than that the coins supposedly came out of bank bags.

[Zoins]

Why is it some of these pedigreed coins are being re-submitted to NGC and placed in (STAR) non-BattleCreek holders?

That's interesting. I didn't realize that was happening. Seems sad to lose the pedigree/history.

What's sad about it? There isn't really any history to speak of, other than that the coins supposedly came out of bank bags.

It seems that bag toning is a big part of the allure of Morgan toners, so losing the BC pedigree means that story is no longer as strong and/or direct. Coin collectors often like to imagine the history of the coin, whether it was in circulation or sitting in bags. There will be less data and more imagining now. In addition to losing the allure, losing any pedigree information in general is a loss for numismatics and will make the study of the coins more difficult for future generations.

[gmarguli]

Why is it some of these pedigreed coins are being re-submitted to NGC and placed in (STAR) non-BattleCreek holders?

That's interesting. I didn't realize that was happening. Seems sad to lose the pedigree/history.

What's sad about it? There isn't really any history to speak of, other than that the coins supposedly came out of bank bags.

 

Supposedly? Is there some doubt in your mind about these coins now?

[michael]

oh my

 

my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my

[IGWT]

What's sad about it? There isn't really any history to speak of, other than that the coins supposedly came out of bank bags.

 

Supposedly? Is there some doubt in your mind about these coins now?

 

[MarkFeld]

Why is it some of these pedigreed coins are being re-submitted to NGC and placed in (STAR) non-BattleCreek holders?

That's interesting. I didn't realize that was happening. Seems sad to lose the pedigree/history.

What's sad about it? There isn't really any history to speak of, other than that the coins supposedly came out of bank bags.

 

Supposedly? Is there some doubt in your mind about these coins now?

Not at all. I was merely acknowledging the fact that some people question the source/originality of the coins.

[MarkFeld]

Why is it some of these pedigreed coins are being re-submitted to NGC and placed in (STAR) non-BattleCreek holders?

That's interesting. I didn't realize that was happening. Seems sad to lose the pedigree/history.

What's sad about it? There isn't really any history to speak of, other than that the coins supposedly came out of bank bags.

It seems that bag toning is a big part of the allure of Morgan toners, so losing the BC pedigree means that story is no longer as strong and/or direct. Coin collectors often like to imagine the history of the coin, whether it was in circulation or sitting in bags. There will be less data and more imagining now. In addition to losing the allure, losing any pedigree information in general is a loss for numismatics and will make the study of the coins more difficult for future generations.

Don't get me wrong - I value the pedigrees of certain collections. I just don't place nearly the same emphasis on a group of dollar bags that were purchased and submitted for grading by an unnamed person.

[WinstonWare]

I love coins with a story. Just saying...