1802 Proof Dollar in ANA Heritage Auction!

[AnkurJ]

HOLY CHRISTMAS!

 

1802 Dollar

 

Any guesses on what it will go for?

[Raisethis2]

A buck tree-fitty.

[BillJones]

This is a rare item, but it has never gotten me excited. These pieces (dated 1801, 1802 and 1803) were struck during the same era in which the 1804 "Original" dollars were made. They are fantasy coins. They are nice toys, but nothing like the original Bust dollars that really were issued in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

 

I have a great respect for an item like the King of Siam Proof set because of its links to our diplomatic history, and Anna Leonowens, a former owner of the set and the inspiration for the film "Anna and the King of Siam" and the Rogers and Hammerstein musical, "The King and I."

 

BUT these "other" dates are sort of like the 1913 Liberty Nickel. They are a step above the nickel, which was made illegally and stolen from the mint, but for the money, I'd rather have some "real" coins.

 

[jerseycat10]

This was struck on a Trade Dollar planchet in the 1870's according to the description. I would bid accordingly.

[MarkFeld]

This was struck on a Trade Dollar planchet in the 1870's according to the description. I would bid accordingly.

 

What does that mean?

[coinman_23885]

$1,275,000 with buyer's premium (and yes I realize that my estimate is higher than the price guide price for a generic PF 65).

[jerseycat10]

This was struck on a Trade Dollar planchet in the 1870's according to the description. I would bid accordingly.

 

What does that mean?

 

It means that, it is nothing more than a fantasy overstruck coin in my eyes, and that it is not worth nearly as much to me as it would be if it were a genuine proof issue from the early 1800's. Not that I could afford it in either case.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This was struck on a Trade Dollar planchet in the 1870's according to the description. I would bid accordingly.

 

What does that mean?

 

It means that, it is nothing more than a fantasy overstruck coin in my eyes, and that it is not worth nearly as much to me as it would be if it were a genuine proof issue from the early 1800's. Not that I could afford it in either case.

 

Please assist with my numismatic education.

Is it termed as "overstruck" if it is a planchet?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

[TheCoinGeezer]

I wish the bidders well.

I won't be bidding though unless I suddenly get a winning lottery ticket or an unknown deceased relative leaves me their fortune!

[RWB]

Novodel = Новодел = remake [ремейк], a replica [копия or pеплики].

 

 

[TheCoinGeezer]

This was struck on a Trade Dollar planchet in the 1870's according to the description. I would bid accordingly.

 

What does that mean?

 

It means that, it is nothing more than a fantasy overstruck coin in my eyes, and that it is not worth nearly as much to me as it would be if it were a genuine proof issue from the early 1800's. Not that I could afford it in either case.

 

Please assist with my numismatic education.

Is it termed as "overstruck" if it is a planchet?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

I would not use the term "overstruck" for this coin.

Tome that would indicate a coin that is struck upon a previously minted coin.

YMMV

[messydesk]

Novodel = Новодел = remake [ремейк], a replica [копия or pеплики].

 

Don't forget 近义词.

 

(Disclaimer: web-based translation)

[MJ]

Any time an auction description has so many words it make me nervous. MJ

[crypto79-migration]

I have known about these for years but never knew they where struck on Trade Dollar planchets

[wheat'swheats]

spot plus BP

wheat

[L1ncolnF4n]

The description is quite informative. I figure $1.2m hammer.

[mumu]

This was struck on a Trade Dollar planchet in the 1870's according to the description. I would bid accordingly.

 

What does that mean?

 

It means that, it is nothing more than a fantasy overstruck coin in my eyes, and that it is not worth nearly as much to me as it would be if it were a genuine proof issue from the early 1800's. Not that I could afford it in either case.

 

Please assist with my numismatic education.

Is it termed as "overstruck" if it is a planchet?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

I would use the term overstruck for a coin struck for use at that time on a preveiously struck coin, Such as if in 1802 this coin was struck on an 8 reales piece. I think this falls under fantasy just as Daniel Carr coins do.

 

I would not use the term "overstruck" for this coin.

Tome that would indicate a coin that is struck upon a previously minted coin.

YMMV

[FishyOne]

I think of it as a retro-pattern. : )

 

My guess is a hammer price of $800,000; $920,000 with buyer's premium.

[MarkFeld]

spot plus BP

wheat

 

You completely ignored the question asked by the OP:

 

"Any guesses on what it will go for?"

[jom]

spot plus BP

wheat

 

You completely ignored the question asked by the OP:

 

"Any guesses on what it will go for?"

 

Technically...so did you.

 

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

spot plus BP

wheat

 

You completely ignored the question asked by the OP:

 

"Any guesses on what it will go for?"

 

Technically...so did you.

 

 

jom

 

True, but I didn't make a guess that had nothing to do with reality, (apparently) just to make a point.

 

Edited to add: I will guess (only) $850,000 hammer.

[BillJones]

I have known about these for years but never knew they where struck on Trade Dollar planchets

 

I didn't know that either. It makes them even newer and even less desirable than I thought. My problem with them is I don't like manufactured rarities. I can see restrikes if the original coins or tokens and not available, but something that is just created out of thin air to sell to collectors does nothing for me.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

spot plus BP

wheat

 

You completely ignored the question asked by the OP:

 

"Any guesses on what it will go for?"

 

Technically...so did you.

 

 

jom

 

Technically,

I did not either.

But (blah,blah), since I presented a numismatic education question, I

should be exempt from the Feld Technical Response Rule.

 

Now, as a response to the question as to whether or not a technical response was proffered via an answer stating "...spot plus BP...",

we must evaluate the question that prompted the response:

 

"...Any GUESSES...".

 

A reply offered a guess:

 

"...spot plus BP...".

 

This constitutes a guess. This means that the original question received a valid response, in that a guess was offered.

 

One may not like the guess, but it technically is a valid response, and does not violate the Feld Technical Response Rule.

 

Respectfully, (if a little to technically),

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

spot plus BP

wheat

 

You completely ignored the question asked by the OP:

 

"Any guesses on what it will go for?"

 

Technically...so did you.

 

 

jom

 

Technically,

I did not either.

But (blah,blah), since I presented a numismatic education question, I

should be exempt from the Feld Technical Response Rule.

 

Now, as a response to the question as to whether or not a technical response was proffered via an answer stating "...spot plus BP...",

we must evaluate the question that prompted the response:

 

"...Any GUESSES...".

 

A reply offered a guess:

 

"...spot plus BP...".

 

This constitutes a guess. This means that the original question received a valid response, in that a guess was offered.

 

One may not like the guess, but it technically is a valid response, and does not violate the Feld Technical Response Rule.

 

Respectfully, (if a little to technically),

 

 

John Curlis

 

John, if you wish to call that a "guess", please, at least give it the "bad faith" or "facetious" label it deserves.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Actually,

on a purely personal level, the "guess" is stupid.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

Actually,

on a purely personal level, the "guess" is stupid.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Wow, you displayed exceptional flexibility in your assessment, there

 

But, (and there is sometimes a "but"), the poster's guess was not a serious one, so I, personally, wouldn't call it stupid.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Actually,

on a purely personal level, the "guess" is stupid.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Wow, you displayed exceptional flexibility in your assessment, there

 

But, (and there is sometimes a "but"), the poster's guess was not a serious one, so I, personally, wouldn't call it stupid.

 

Unfortunately, we do not know if there was or was not serious intent.

Since this has neither been confirmed or denied, 'stupid" is appropriate, until further presentation of Fact.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Actually,

on a purely personal level, the "guess" is stupid.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Wow, you displayed exceptional flexibility in your assessment, there

 

But, (and there is sometimes a "but"), the poster's guess was not a serious one, so I, personally, wouldn't call it stupid.

 

Unfortunately, we do not know if there was or was not serious intent.

Since this has neither been confirmed or denied, 'stupid" is appropriate, until further presentation of Fact.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

 

Based on previous posts of his, which displayed a good amount of numismatic knowledge, I feel that I have sufficient data to determine that the one in question was not serious.

[Raisethis2]

A coin not struck for circulation or as a proof of an actual circulation coin representing the time frame it's dated plus not created as a Presentation Piece puts it into a very interesting area. Since it's not like anyone will be able to collect sets or varieties I'm guessing it goes pretty cheap. Maybe $400,000 or so?

 

But again, I'm simply guessing.

[JIM F.]

My guess is $379,000.