Help locating the 3rd of 3 NGC MS65 1837 Small 5c Capped Bust Half Dimes

[realone]

Looking for help locating the third of 3 NGC MS65 1837 Small 5c Capped Bust Half Dimes ?

There are 3 ms65 1837 H10c LM-4's ( small 5c) @ NGC under their census.

Does anyone here own one or know anyone that own's one or has seen one over the past 20 years? A little help please with a personal research project that i am conducting on the subject .Please note, I am only speaking of the capped bust half dime not the seated half dime.

 

By the way, Mark Feld just won one on Heritage last week, and I own one that I purchased a little over a year ago from David Lawrence, so that leaves one other missing ms65 in NGC plastic that is unaccounted for.

 

 

Edited to clear up my confusing request:), thanks Mark for the proof reading help!

[RI AL]

realone...do we get to SEE it??

[physics-fan3.14]

Keep in mind that it might not actually exist.

[MikeInFL]

realone...do we get to SEE it??

 

Here is the 1837 LM-4 Mark purchased (and offered to Realone, IIRC):

 

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1117&Lot_No=488

 

Here is the 1837 LM-4 Realone purchased off DLRC:

 

http://www.davidlawrence.com/auctions/viewitem.cfm?Inventory=214449&auc=164&lotid=279840&imagebase=

 

 

 

 

[realone]

Wow thanks Mike, that was fast!

Mike knows I am an insufficiently_thoughtful_person when it comes to posting photos, I still can't figure out how to do it, thanks again Mike.

Now if you can find the 3rd ms65 NGC LM-4 I will really owe yah!

[coinman1794]

Also, keep in mind that there could be a quantity of them graded by NGC but not attributed on the slab.

[realone]

Keep in mind that it might not actually exist.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, due to dupes and those cracking out and resubmitting and not sending in the NGC labels but in this situation there appears that there is a good chance there is a third ngc ms65 out there amongst us.

[MikeInFL]

but in this situation there appears that there is a good chance there is a third ngc ms65 out there amongst us.

 

On what do you base that assumption? I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is the case, and can think of several reasons why it might not be.

[MikeInFL]

Now if you can find the 3rd ms65 NGC LM-4 I will really owe yah!

 

I looked for it the last time we discussed this coin, and I couldn't find it.

 

Good luck with the search....Mike

[MikeInFL]

Come to think of it, now that we've found 2 of the 3 coins NGC LM-4s, couldn't you approach NGC to find out when the third coin was graded -- that may help in your search.

[realone]

Also, keep in mind that there could be a quantity of them graded by NGC but not attributed on the slab.

 

 

Another good point, however with the LM-4, since it is the only small 5c and thus it sticks out and is easy to spot as opposed to the other 4 varieties which are impossible to differentiate unless you have the Logan book and the fact that the LM-5 & the LM-1 are both R-1's and the Lm-2 is an R-5 , the Lm-3 is an R-6 and the Lm-4 is an R-3 the likelihood that there are any LM-2,3,4's in the unattributed ms65 column are very very slim. Also due to the large increase in value in these, collectors are motivated to get the attribution on the label for profit motives. I have been studying the LM-4 for a couple of years now and NGC only showed 2 since at least 1998, when they started attributing them, that is a long time for the LM-4's to come out of the woodwork and one just did after 10 years of NGC only showing 2 ms65's for the LM-4.

[MikeInFL]

Alan,

 

I think you are falling into the same trap you fell into the last time we discussed these coins.....

 

First, I think there are maybe 5 people that collect these by variety and everyone else collects them by type. Second, nobody needs a label to tell them which variety it is (by your own admission it "sticks out") thus your argument about crossing the coin into an attributed holder is not logically sound.

 

Therefore, if you're headed the way I think you are with this line of questions (trying to show finest known), you need to take into account all of the unattributed NGC coins (along with the PCGS popluaitons of both the small 5 and large 5, as I believe the small 5 population includes all the coins that were graded before PCGS started to make the distinction), as coinman1794 suggests and as we have previously discussed.

 

Respectfully...Mike

[MikeInFL]

and one just did after 10 years of NGC only showing 2 ms65's for the LM-4.

 

Hmmm..... Missed this comment when I responded a few minutes ago. Did the pops just go up by one? Is the "new" coin the unknown one or the one that Mark just won on Heritage???

[MarkFeld]

and one just did after 10 years of NGC only showing 2 ms65's for the LM-4.

 

Hmmm..... Missed this comment when I responded a few minutes ago. Did the pops just go up by one? Is the "new" coin the unknown one or the one that Mark just won on Heritage???

Mike, in the Heritage listing of the lot I bought, it indicated a population of 2, as follows: "The present Gem, one of just two certified by NGC with none finer (9/08)...."

 

Thus, it appears that a 3'd one has been certified, very recently. Personally, I think it is a conspiracy aimed at making Alan crazy. On second thought, make that crazier.

[realone]

Mike,

The are now 3 at NGC:

 

Mine from David Lawrence from '07.

The missing second one that I am trying to find.

Mark's from 2 weeks ago from Heritage (and that is the newest one or the third one).

 

[realone]

Mike,

I wanted to correct a statement that I made regarding one of your excellent points. It is not that the small 5c is all that obvious, the reason that most collectors/dealers want to get that one attributed is because that is a Redbook variety and given a substantial valuation increase due to the book event hough the lm-2 and lm-3 are even rarer. For some reason a size change in the 5c is more distinguishable than true rariety to the Redbook authors.

[realone]

Mike,

I wanted to correct a statement that I made regarding one of your excellent points. It is not that the small 5c is all that obvious, the reason that most collectors/dealers want to get that one attributed is because that is a Redbook variety and given a substantial valuation increase due to the book event hough the lm-2 and lm-3 are even rarer. For some reason a size change in the 5c is more distinguishable than true rarity to the Redbook authors.

[MikeInFL]

and one just did after 10 years of NGC only showing 2 ms65's for the LM-4.

 

Hmmm..... Missed this comment when I responded a few minutes ago. Did the pops just go up by one? Is the "new" coin the unknown one or the one that Mark just won on Heritage???

Mike, in the Heritage listing of the lot I bought, it indicated a population of 2, as follows: "The present Gem, one of just two certified by NGC with none finer (9/08)...."

 

Thus, it appears that a 3'd one has been certified, very recently. Personally, I think it is a conspiracy aimed at making Alan crazy. On second thought, make that crazier.

 

Mark,

 

That assumes that NGC updated the populations prior to Heritage basing their description on it, which in this case I suspect to be a mistaken assumption, as the Heritage coin looks like a freshly graded example (Conder, anyone?), and therefore it must be the 3rd (i.e. newest) coin -- unless, of course, it was an upgrade attempt of the one we're looking for (just watch Alan's head spin with that comment ).

 

Curiously yours...Mike

 

[RI AL]

Looking at the pix, ..."a thing of beauty...."

 

Good luck in the quest!!!

[MikeInFL]

Mike,

I wanted to correct a statement that I made regarding one of your excellent points. It is not that the small 5c is all that obvious, the reason that most collectors/dealers want to get that one attributed is because that is a Redbook variety and given a substantial valuation increase due to the book event hough the lm-2 and lm-3 are even rarer. For some reason a size change in the 5c is more distinguishable than true rariety to the Redbook authors.

 

Thanks for the clarification, however, that doesn't change the underlying point -- that there may be a number of these coins in unattributed holders, and if you're going to make any arguments as to the "finest known" you MUST take these coins into account, otherwise all you can say is the "finest graded and attributed".

[MarkFeld]

Mike,

I wanted to correct a statement that I made regarding one of your excellent points. It is not that the small 5c is all that obvious, the reason that most collectors/dealers want to get that one attributed is because that is a Redbook variety and given a substantial valuation increase due to the book event hough the lm-2 and lm-3 are even rarer. For some reason a size change in the 5c is more distinguishable than true rariety to the Redbook authors.

 

Thanks for the clarification, however, that doesn't change the underlying point -- that there may be a number of these coins in unattributed holders, and if you're going to make any arguments as to the "finest known" you MUST take these coins into account, otherwise all you can say is the "finest graded and attributed".

I concur. And ditto regarding your point in another post that the one I bought might have been the 3'd one and just not updated in the census report at the time it was cataloged.

[coinman1794]

Also, keep in mind that there could be a quantity of them graded by NGC but not attributed on the slab.

 

 

Another good point, however with the LM-4, since it is the only small 5c and thus it sticks out and is easy to spot as opposed to the other 4 varieties which are impossible to differentiate unless you have the Logan book and the fact that the LM-5 & the LM-1 are both R-1's and the Lm-2 is an R-5 , the Lm-3 is an R-6 and the Lm-4 is an R-3 the likelihood that there are any LM-2,3,4's in the unattributed ms65 column are very very slim. Also due to the large increase in value in these, collectors are motivated to get the attribution on the label for profit motives. I have been studying the LM-4 for a couple of years now and NGC only showed 2 since at least 1998, when they started attributing them, that is a long time for the LM-4's to come out of the woodwork and one just did after 10 years of NGC only showing 2 ms65's for the LM-4.

 

I agree that I would personally want the variety attributed, but you have to pay for that service on the invoice, and any coin not designated for Variety Plus will come back with no variety. There are currently 11 unattributed MS65s with 6 finer. Those could be any variety, whatsoever. Another factor is that, if the variety is very easy to spot, many dealers and expecially collectors will see no reason to pay NGC to tell them what they already know. You have been following this variety for some time and probably have a better idea of where the coins are than most others, but there is at least a possibility that more exist in the generic column.

 

[realone]

Mike,

I wanted to correct a statement that I made regarding one of your excellent points. It is not that the small 5c is all that obvious, the reason that most collectors/dealers want to get that one attributed is because that is a Redbook variety and given a substantial valuation increase due to the book event hough the lm-2 and lm-3 are even rarer. For some reason a size change in the 5c is more distinguishable than true rariety to the Redbook authors.

 

Thanks for the clarification, however, that doesn't change the underlying point -- that there may be a number of these coins in unattributed holders, and if you're going to make any arguments as to the "finest known" you MUST take these coins into account, otherwise all you can say is the "finest graded and attributed".

I concur. And ditto regarding your point in another post that the one I bought might have been the 3'd one and just not updated in the census report at the time it was cataloged.

 

Mark,

that is exactly what happened, the auction description was written sooner than NGC updating its census.

[realone]

Also, keep in mind that there could be a quantity of them graded by NGC but not attributed on the slab.

 

 

Another good point, however with the LM-4, since it is the only small 5c and thus it sticks out and is easy to spot as opposed to the other 4 varieties which are impossible to differentiate unless you have the Logan book and the fact that the LM-5 & the LM-1 are both R-1's and the Lm-2 is an R-5 , the Lm-3 is an R-6 and the Lm-4 is an R-3 the likelihood that there are any LM-2,3,4's in the unattributed ms65 column are very very slim. Also due to the large increase in value in these, collectors are motivated to get the attribution on the label for profit motives. I have been studying the LM-4 for a couple of years now and NGC only showed 2 since at least 1998, when they started attributing them, that is a long time for the LM-4's to come out of the woodwork and one just did after 10 years of NGC only showing 2 ms65's for the LM-4.

 

I agree that I would personally want the variety attributed, but you have to pay for that service on the invoice, and any coin not designated for Variety Plus will come back with no variety. There are currently 11 unattributed MS65s with 6 finer. Those could be any variety, whatsoever. Another factor is that, if the variety is very easy to spot, many dealers and expecially collectors will see no reason to pay NGC to tell them what they already know. You have been following this variety for some time and probably have a better idea of where the coins are than most others, but there is at least a possibility that more exist in the generic column.

 

Mike while there could be another ms65 lm-4 unattributed, afterall this time with the census numbers staying the same and the Redbook making the LM-4 the golden 1837 and not any of the others I highly doubt it. The greed factor and/or the coolness factor of following the Redbook's hold on collectors/dealers it seems to just take over supplying great motivation to get it attributed. could there be an LM-1 LM-2, LM-3, or Lm-5 in there, a better chance imho because of the lack of any motivation unless you are a serious cbhd enthusiast. Any way it looks like we are just going to agree to disagree again. I have followed this year and have come to know the LM-4 very well, they are just not out there .

[MikeInFL]

Alan,

 

I think you are overestimating the hold that the Redbook has on collectors/dealers, and underestimating the ability of sellers to ask a premium for non-attributed examples. This is even more true when we're talking about high-end examples that sell for more than $5k each -- how many of those folks would trust (or even need) the TPG to tell them what variety the coin is?

 

Respectfully....Mike (who is not sure if that last post was for me or coinman1794)

[realone]

Each of these cbhd's were in old ngc holders originally and resubmitted for attribution! So that speaks volumes to me, whether it is Redbook or money left on the table, it is what it is.

[MikeInFL]

Resubmitted for attribution, or resubmitted for upgrade?

 

Alan, I don't think you are being objective here....Mike

[realone]

Yes, I can't say anymore unfortunately.

 

As for objectiveness, it may look like I am not being objective but let me state this as an example,

my Lm-4 in my research has been found in the following places over the years:

 

In 1931 it was used as DW Valentine's plate coin but the photographs are earlier than 1931.

It was in Auction82 by Rarcoa as lot 565.

It was in Stack's 1991 Alto II as lot 575.

In 2006 it was sold by Richard Nachbar.

In 2007 it was sold by David Lawrence.

 

I have followed the above coin for 100 years.

The #2 missing Lm-4 is missing.

The latest Lm-4 is Mark's and I know where its history, unfortunately it is private.

 

Mike, I haven't been able to find another ms65, what can I say, I am truly trying to be objective and attempting to put the work in on it. I keep coming up empty with this one.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

Understood.

[MikeInFL]

Alan,

 

When I made the objective comment, it wasn't relative to the amonut of research you've done on the coin (which I take at face value), but rather it was in response to our discussion about the motivation of a person to submit a coin for attribution, and the likelihood that an unattributed example lives in PCGS or NGC plastic waiting to be "discovered". To wit, it is my opinion that your logic is flawed and your not being objective about the likelihood of these alternatives.

 

As always, respectfully submitted...Mike (who believes that conjecture has no place in determining the finest known)