Tradedollarnut Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Thank you, Sarah, for spearheading the project of allowing me to add this coin to the Legend Rarities Collection registry set: New Type Set Addition At 597 points per coin, I'll never catch up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP_ Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 nice!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeh46544 Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 At only 597 points it's clearly a piece of junk, better give it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVillageProwler Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Dude, You seriously overpaid for the coin. After all, it only garnered you 597 registry points! And how are you a shrewd businessman? EVP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coinosaurus Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Clearly one of those Ebay fakes. You better give it to me so I can safely dispose of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithdagen Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 I got 973 for my Trade Dollar. Very nice, if you discount the fact that it's a proof, and it was minted under questionable circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmarguli Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Very nice, if you discount the fact that it's a proof, and it was minted under questionable circumstances. I haven't seen the coin in person, but it really looks like an MS. I know TDN has mentioned that only 2 of the 5 are confirmed as proofs. Still, while this is a rare coin and worth a hell of a lot of money, I'd still take TDN's Gobrecht over this coin any day. AND I can't wait until TDN starts to add some of the latter coins to his set. I wonder what SBA and Sacagawea he is going to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 You definitely need a better photo TDN! That said, "congratulations" is like a salutation to an elephant with healthy triplets. I feel a little wobbly here. Hoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigd5 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradedollarnut Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 AND I can't wait until TDN starts to add some of the latter coins to his set. I wonder what SBA and Sacagawea he is going to add. Uh, uh - ain't gonna happen! Two reasons I have no type set listed at CU: 1885 isn't allowed and no weighting in the type set. I have no interest in owning those coins, so I don't like "competing" heads up with no weighting. Of course, I'm not really competing - it's just an opportunity to share the coin(s) somewhat. I haven't seen the coin in person, but it really looks like an MS. I know TDN has mentioned that only 2 of the 5 are confirmed as proofs. As they like to say...proof is a method of manufacture, not a condition. It might be better for me to state that only two are reputed to have full proof surfaces. That does not preclude the others from being actual proofs although not looking flashy. It is encapsulated as a proof - draw what conclusion you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Android Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 That said, "congratulations" is like a salutation to an elephant with healthy triplets. I feel a little wobbly here. Ditto! When Legend (Laura Sperber) handed me a $78,000 buffalo nickel to admire at the FUN show, I felt wobbly too! I may have passed out cold had it been the 1913.... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVillageProwler Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 As they like to say...proof is a method of manufacture, not a condition. It might be better for me to state that only two are reputed to have full proof surfaces. That does not preclude the others from being actual proofs although not looking flashy. Many of the Seated Dollar proofs from the '54-'57 era were not very prooflike. The Harry Bass 1855 specimen, for example, looked very MS to me -- slightly PL fields, slightly satiny devices, rounded rims. In short, it looked much like every other high grade 1855 dollar I've seen, including my own specimen. Yet, the more experienced dealers in the room all said PF after a lengthy and careful consideration. EVP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
