Two point up-grades aren't necessarily big scores...

[MarkFeld]

NGC PR67 Star Cameo sold for $2185 ($1900 hammer)

 

 

1893 PCGS PR65 sold for $1840 ($1600 hammer)

 

A few observations...

 

The images don't make it perfectly clear, but I am virtually certain that they are of the same coin. That's because there was a group of gorgeous, conservatively graded, highly unusual/distinctive looking Proof Liberty Nickels in PCGS holders which sold in the Heritage Central States sale earlier this year.

 

I bid on several of them for myself and a client and I think I won a couple of them of them for him.

 

If the auction house was the winning bidder and didn't have to pay the buyer's premium on the buy side or the seller's premium on the sell side, they did quite well. Buy at $1600 and sell at $2185, for a profit of roughly 36%. But if someone else was the winning bidder at $1840 and sold it for $1900 hammer, they didn't fare nearly as well.

 

In most cases, I have found that it is extremely difficult to buy auction coins which are obviously under-graded. They attract far more attention than if if they are accurately graded. And it seems that some bidders go out of their way to make sure they win them, even if there is little (or in some cases no) upside, in the event of an upgrade. On occasions, even a two point up-grade.

 

[Schatzy]

Do you think the hammer price would be different if it were PCGS to PCGS?

[RareSov]

Mark, would you agree this coin has had treatment at NCS ?

 

It looks overly toned in the PCGS slab, a nice pick by the buyer.. ahem for grade anyway. Certainly had their eye in. Its the same coin without doubt, but look at the subtle changes..

 

Under the M of UNUM, a splotch which has been fixed, the overall gold around the rim is murky and has been fixed ? The rest is mostly the same but slightly sharper

 

Nick in the V on the reverse is a nice marker, as are the couple of obverse black spots and of course the general toning

[RareSov]

Nice cut across the S in CENTS too..

[TomB]

I don't know that I would call this a true two point upgrade since PCGS and NGC do not necessarily employ the same standards for gem proof coinage.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, would you agree this coin has had treatment at NCS ?

 

I seriously doubt it. Any differences you see could be due to imaging and/or something having being done without using NCS.

[EZ_E]

Neither image gave me warm, fuzzy feelings, especially for the price.

[MarkFeld]

Neither image gave me warm, fuzzy feelings, especially for the price.

Victor, I understand. But in-hand, the coin is wonderful looking, at least to me.

[Catbert]

But in-hand, the coin is wonderful looking, at least to me.

 

Mark - which set of pics are more accurate? It seems the PCGS holdered pics are too dark compared to the NGC holdered pics that may be too light. I know pics taken on tilt will be varied or present a light tone, but am interested in your description of the straight on view.

[MarkFeld]

But in-hand, the coin is wonderful looking, at least to me.

 

Mark - which set of pics are more accurate? It seems the PCGS holdered pics are too dark compared to the NGC holdered pics that may be too light. I know pics taken on tilt will be varied or present a light tone, but am interested in your description of the straight on view.

The appearance of the coin falls in between the two sets of images, but is quite a bit closer to the newer/lighter ones.

[physics-fan3.14]

I honestly believe they would have gotten more the second time around if it didn't have prongs.

[Mark T]

That is the same coin for sure. The coin looks fantastic to my eyes, the NGC pictures look better.

[RareSov]

I honestly believe they would have gotten more the second time around if it didn't have prongs.

 

Never doubt this !

 

I saw Anna Harrison First Spouse in old holder like all the rest, what you want for a long running set, well 8 coins anyway.. and.. $760

 

Next one, $760

 

Next one, PRONGS.. $730

 

Buynow one without prongs has since sold at $785

 

I rest our case

[RareSov]

Having looked again I agree.. looked at the SLAB pics not the closeups, looks much more like the PCGS coin now. As usual Mark is right

 

Look at the recently sold $3450 one.. no wonder it sold for so much more. Wow ? spotless surfaces..

[James_OldeTowne]

I agree these are the same coin. However, my severely biased slant on this would have been:

 

In a PCGS holder - it gets overpriced (overbid) for inclusion in someone's PCGS registry, while in an NGC holder, it meets a far more "realistic" market value.

[MarkFeld]

I agree these are the same coin. However, my severely biased slant on this would have been:

 

In a PCGS holder - it gets overpriced (overbid) for inclusion in someone's PCGS registry, while in an NGC holder, it meets a far more "realistic" market value.

It didn't get "overbid" in the PCGS holder for inclusion in the registry. It brought strong money because 1) it was gorgeous and 2) it was under-graded. It had absolutely nothing to so with the PCGS registry.

[TomB]

I agree these are the same coin. However, my severely biased slant on this would have been:

 

In a PCGS holder - it gets overpriced (overbid) for inclusion in someone's PCGS registry, while in an NGC holder, it meets a far more "realistic" market value.

James, with all due respect, I believe you give far too much credit to the PCGS marketing campaign when it comes to classic coinage if you truly believe the difference in price between a PCGS and an NGC certified coin is driven in any meaningful way to the registry. Truly, few folks participate in the registries and the numbers of coins they must chase, if they are a slave to the registry, will not often drive the prices skyward to any real extent.

[James_OldeTowne]

Now you guys know why I provided the "I'm severely biased disclaimer" right up front !!!!!!!

 

But on a more serious note, I have collected Liberty nickels and completed sets in just about every way, shape and form except super-high grades, and to my eye, which can only go by one poor image (in the PCGS holder) and one average image (in the NGC holder), that is a coin with dubious eye appeal, regardless of the grading company. I would not be surprised to see it perform rather erratically in any given auction, since it may appeal strongly to a narrow band of the population of Liberty nickel collectors.

[MarkFeld]

Now you guys know why I provided the "I'm severely biased disclaimer" right up front !!!!!!!

 

But on a more serious note, I have collected Liberty nickels and completed sets in just about every way, shape and form except super-high grades, and to my eye, which can only go by one poor image (in the PCGS holder) and one average image (in the NGC holder), that is a coin with dubious eye appeal, regardless of the grading company. I would not be surprised to see it perform rather erratically in any given auction, since it may appeal strongly to a narrow band of the population of Liberty nickel collectors.

James, you're selling the coin way short, without having seen it and apparently due to your bias. I have seen it in hand, twice now, and it is of exceptional quality and uncommon beauty. That is why it brought the equivalent of 67 money when it first sold in a 65 holder. And coins rarely bring huge premiums like that by selling to sight-unseen bidders.

 

It will appeal to collectors of Proof Liberty Nickels, type collectors and collectors of attractive/quality coins, in general. For the record, a client of mine might have bought it - I don't know for certain.

 

Edited to add: One need not go out on a limb to predict that a coin (whether a desirable one or not) might perform erratically at auction.

[Catbert]

I agree these are the same coin. However, my severely biased slant on this would have been:

 

In a PCGS holder - it gets overpriced (overbid) for inclusion in someone's PCGS registry, while in an NGC holder, it meets a far more "realistic" market value.

James, with all due respect, I believe you give far too much credit to the PCGS marketing campaign when it comes to classic coinage if you truly believe the difference in price between a PCGS and an NGC certified coin is driven in any meaningful way to the registry. Truly, few folks participate in the registries and the numbers of coins they must chase, if they are a slave to the registry, will not often drive the prices skyward to any real extent.

 

While the facts support what you say, Tom, it is the market perception that PCGS plastic will bring more $ than NGC plastic regardless of the registry explanation.

[TomB]

I agree these are the same coin. However, my severely biased slant on this would have been:

 

In a PCGS holder - it gets overpriced (overbid) for inclusion in someone's PCGS registry, while in an NGC holder, it meets a far more "realistic" market value.

James, with all due respect, I believe you give far too much credit to the PCGS marketing campaign when it comes to classic coinage if you truly believe the difference in price between a PCGS and an NGC certified coin is driven in any meaningful way to the registry. Truly, few folks participate in the registries and the numbers of coins they must chase, if they are a slave to the registry, will not often drive the prices skyward to any real extent.

 

While the facts support what you say, Tom, it is the market perception that PCGS plastic will bring more $ than NGC plastic regardless of the registry explanation.

I agree with you completely and limited my response to the proposed argument that the registry explained the price difference.

[James_OldeTowne]

Now you guys know why I provided the "I'm severely biased disclaimer" right up front !!!!!!!

 

But on a more serious note, I have collected Liberty nickels and completed sets in just about every way, shape and form except super-high grades, and to my eye, which can only go by one poor image (in the PCGS holder) and one average image (in the NGC holder), that is a coin with dubious eye appeal, regardless of the grading company. I would not be surprised to see it perform rather erratically in any given auction, since it may appeal strongly to a narrow band of the population of Liberty nickel collectors.

James, you're selling the coin way short, without having seen it and apparently due to your bias. I have seen it in hand, twice now, and it is of exceptional quality and uncommon beauty. That is why it brought the equivalent of 67 money when it first sold in a 65 holder. And coins rarely bring huge premiums like that by selling to sight-unseen bidders.

 

It will appeal to collectors of Proof Liberty Nickels, type collectors and collectors of attractive/quality coins, in general. For the record, a client of mine might have bought it - I don't know for certain.

Mark, needless to say, you are quite correct. Thus, my disclaimer about going by images only! As has been noted many times on the boards (appropriately), images can only go so far in describing a coin.

 

I am glad the coin found a happy client!