Should I Crossover?

[Bill L]

I have a 1999 Delaware 25c AU58 Missing Clad Layer that was graded by ANACS.

My question is, is there any real reason to crossover to a NGC slab. There have only been three of these coins slabbed by ANACS in any grade.

Would the crossover make it more valuable? (Real value unknown to me)

[coinman_23885]

Any increase in value would be less than the total cost to cross the coin.

[James_OldeTowne]

If in an older ANACS slab (small capsule), then no. But I would cross the coin if it's in a new ANACS slab, not to increase value, but simply because I think the new holders are awful.

[cpm9ball]

I agree that if it's in an old ANACS (small & white) you should leave it alone.

 

Fred Weinberg lists just one SQ missing the clad layer for sale on his site, but it is in a PCGS MS64.

 

http://www.fredweinberg.com/inventory/item.php?ID=6353

 

I remember showing him my Kennedy missing the clad layer (sig line) at the FUN Show one year, and he said it was worth $125. Yeah! Right! It is one of only two known for that date/mm, and the other sold raw for $555.

 

Despite the fact that yours is graded AU58, it is probably worth $200 or so, but you never know. It is the first year of issue for the SQ's, so if you were to put it up at auction and two or more bidders were chasing it, there is no telling how high it might go.

 

Chris

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I have a 1999 Delaware 25c AU58 Missing Clad Layer that was graded by ANACS.

My question is, is there any real reason to crossover to a NGC slab. There have only been three of these coins slabbed by ANACS in any grade.

Would the crossover make it more valuable? (Real value unknown to me)

 

If the real value is unknown, what would be the purpose?

 

I do not understand how changing can determine the + or - of the unknown value, which seems to be the underlying reason for possible change.

 

The consideration seems to be that by doing so, the unknown value may increase, yet no foundation for this consideration exists.

 

Why not wait?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis