New Type Set Addition

[Tradedollarnut]

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!

[GP_]

nice!!!

[jeh46544]

At only 597 points it's clearly a piece of junk, better give it to me.

[EVillageProwler]

Dude,

 

You seriously overpaid for the coin. After all, it only garnered you 597 registry points! And how are you a shrewd businessman?

 

 

EVP

 

[Coinosaurus]

Clearly one of those Ebay fakes. You better give it to me so I can safely dispose of it

[keithdagen]

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.

[gmarguli]

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.

[Hoot]

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

[bigd5]

cool!

[Tradedollarnut]

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.

 

[Android]

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

[EVillageProwler]

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