Am I out of touch !!! Lot goes for double what I bid.

[BillJones]

I have a small collection of Massachusetts silver coins (mostly known as "Pine Tree Shillings"), and was looking to add another piece that would not break the bank. I spotted this Oak Tree six pence in the current Heritage auction and placed a reserve bid of $2,750. I figured that I should have been in the running because NGC gave it a details grade because it had been "repaired." To my surprise the piece brought a hammer price of $5,500, which was exactly double my bid. Here is the link.

 

Mass Oak Tree Six Pence.

 

It makes me wonder what some of my other coins, which have grades are worth. This seems kind of high to me for a problem piece.

[Nutmeg Coin]

And then there was the R7 Colonial that went to $30K this week, flabbergasting the seller on ebay: http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=916403

 

Colonials seem to excite the imagination as being some of the oldest American coins. 20 years or so this was not the case. It would be interesting to see a historical overview decade by decade of what these have been worth over the last 50 years. "A drugge in time" in the words of Bradford?

[wheat'swheats]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

[Nutmeg Coin]

That is more reason to not get carried away with bidding to realize when the party is over you may not be a happy camper at those price levels. It is impossible to know in many cases if auctions are 100% legit. Look at some comments on the Lyn Knight currency auction: http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=23&threadid=912940&highlight_key=y&keyword1=Lyn

 

Shilling is a well known tactic on ebay: other methods that *may* be employed at auctions are probably covered in the legal gobbledygook.

[e1cnr]

If things are going for twice of what you feel they are worth, it may be a good time to sell your holdings in that area.

[MarkFeld]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

 

You said that you lost out on the 1955 DDO "by a mere $300". But unless you somehow know the winning bidder's maximum bid amount, you can't know by how much you lost out. Instead, you only know that the winning bid was $300 more than your maximum bid.

 

You also mentioned possible bid manipulation and/or deep pocket bidders. But you failed to mention what is probably, by far, the most likely explanation for such variances in bidding - different quality and/or eye appeal for the coins in question.

[wheat'swheats]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

 

You said that you lost out on the 1955 DDO "by a mere $300". But unless you somehow know the winning bidder's maximum bid amount, you can't know by how much you lost out. Instead, you only know that the winning bid was $300 more than your maximum bid.

 

You also mentioned possible bid manipulation and/or deep pocket bidders. But you failed to mention what is probably, by far, the most likely explanation for such variances in bidding - different quality and/or eye appeal for the coins in question.

You have a different opinion. that's fine

[coinman1794]

I have a small collection of Massachusetts silver coins (mostly known as "Pine Tree Shillings"), and was looking to add another piece that would not break the bank. I spotted this Oak Tree six pence in the current Heritage auction and placed a reserve bid of $2,750. I figured that I should have been in the running because NGC gave it a details grade because it had been "repaired." To my surprise the piece brought a hammer price of $5,500, which was exactly double my bid. Here is the link.

 

Mass Oak Tree Six Pence.

 

It makes me wonder what some of my other coins, which have grades are worth. This seems kind of high to me for a problem piece.

 

The first impulse would be to think a problem coin would sell at a lower price. However, this is a very attractively patinated, well struck and centered, and minimally damaged (according to Heritage) example of this six pence. Many problem free pieces don't look this nice.

[jom]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

 

You said that you lost out on the 1955 DDO "by a mere $300". But unless you somehow know the winning bidder's maximum bid amount, you can't know by how much you lost out. Instead, you only know that the winning bid was $300 more than your maximum bid.

 

You also mentioned possible bid manipulation and/or deep pocket bidders. But you failed to mention what is probably, by far, the most likely explanation for such variances in bidding - different quality and/or eye appeal for the coins in question.

You have a different opinion. that's fine

 

Bid manipulation is hard to prove. Wait and see if the coins in question come up again at auction soon. How else will a "bid manipulation" accomplish anything?

 

As to the $300 losing bid...Mark's right. These typical auctions online you really have no idea how high the other would have bid to. I did once lose a $3000 coin by $20 once but it was an mail bid situation where you kind of new (after the fact) what the winner's max bid was...typical auctions online though you have no such info.

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

 

You said that you lost out on the 1955 DDO "by a mere $300". But unless you somehow know the winning bidder's maximum bid amount, you can't know by how much you lost out. Instead, you only know that the winning bid was $300 more than your maximum bid.

 

You also mentioned possible bid manipulation and/or deep pocket bidders. But you failed to mention what is probably, by far, the most likely explanation for such variances in bidding - different quality and/or eye appeal for the coins in question.

You have a different opinion. that's fine

 

Bid manipulation is hard to prove. Wait and see if the coins in question come up again at auction soon. How else will a "bid manipulation" accomplish anything?

 

As to the $300 losing bid...Mark's right. These typical auctions online you really have no idea how high the other would have bid to. I did once lose a $3000 coin by $20 once but it was an mail bid situation where you kind of new (after the fact) what the winner's max bid was...typical auctions online though you have no such info.

 

jom

 

"You have a different opinion. that's fine"

[BillJones]

I have a small collection of Massachusetts silver coins (mostly known as "Pine Tree Shillings"), and was looking to add another piece that would not break the bank. I spotted this Oak Tree six pence in the current Heritage auction and placed a reserve bid of $2,750. I figured that I should have been in the running because NGC gave it a details grade because it had been "repaired." To my surprise the piece brought a hammer price of $5,500, which was exactly double my bid. Here is the link.

 

Mass Oak Tree Six Pence.

 

It makes me wonder what some of my other coins, which have grades are worth. This seems kind of high to me for a problem piece.

 

The first impulse would be to think a problem coin would sell at a lower price. However, this is a very attractively patinated, well struck and centered, and minimally damaged (according to Heritage) example of this six pence. Many problem free pieces don't look this nice.

 

I did not view it as all that nice. It had been cleaned and the surfaces were porous. The centering on the obverse was not as good at that on the Bowers book plate coin. In short the piece had a lot of detail, which was its best feature, but it had more wrong with it than just the repair noted by NGC. For those reasons I thought that Fine money was a fair bid.

[coinman1794]

I have a small collection of Massachusetts silver coins (mostly known as "Pine Tree Shillings"), and was looking to add another piece that would not break the bank. I spotted this Oak Tree six pence in the current Heritage auction and placed a reserve bid of $2,750. I figured that I should have been in the running because NGC gave it a details grade because it had been "repaired." To my surprise the piece brought a hammer price of $5,500, which was exactly double my bid. Here is the link.

 

Mass Oak Tree Six Pence.

 

It makes me wonder what some of my other coins, which have grades are worth. This seems kind of high to me for a problem piece.

 

The first impulse would be to think a problem coin would sell at a lower price. However, this is a very attractively patinated, well struck and centered, and minimally damaged (according to Heritage) example of this six pence. Many problem free pieces don't look this nice.

 

I did not view it as all that nice. It had been cleaned and the surfaces were porous. The centering on the obverse was not as good at that on the Bowers book plate coin. In short the piece had a lot of detail, which was its best feature, but it had more wrong with it than just the repair noted by NGC. For those reasons I thought that Fine money was a fair bid.

 

Detail and meatiness are everything on these coins. Most are wavy, bent, and lacking in detail such that you can barley tell they are coins. This piece has considerably more detail than many, if not most well-circulated examples. I don't see any cleaning damage in the photographs, and it is not mentioned by Heritage. I did not see this coin in person, so there is no way for me to tell about cleaning damage. I also don't see much out of ordinary on the surface texture for these crudely made, heavily circulated coins; though clearly, some smoothing was done to cover up something.

 

 

[wheat'swheats]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

 

You said that you lost out on the 1955 DDO "by a mere $300". But unless you somehow know the winning bidder's maximum bid amount, you can't know by how much you lost out. Instead, you only know that the winning bid was $300 more than your maximum bid.

 

You also mentioned possible bid manipulation and/or deep pocket bidders. But you failed to mention what is probably, by far, the most likely explanation for such variances in bidding - different quality and/or eye appeal for the coins in question.

You have a different opinion. that's fine

 

Bid manipulation is hard to prove. Wait and see if the coins in question come up again at auction soon. How else will a "bid manipulation" accomplish anything?

 

As to the $300 losing bid...Mark's right. These typical auctions online you really have no idea how high the other would have bid to. I did once lose a $3000 coin by $20 once but it was an mail bid situation where you kind of new (after the fact) what the winner's max bid was...typical auctions online though you have no such info.

 

jom

You are also right It might have continued to go up to infinity who knows.. However in this case I lost by a mere $300 regardless of what Mr. Feld thinks. I may be taking this entirely wrong, but I am a little tired of Mr. Felds demeaning tone every time he responds to one of my post. I know that he is God's gift to coin collecting , and no one could possibly know half as much as he does. However, I have been collecting lincolns for over 50 years and I think that I might know just a little about Lincoln cents. I do have enough since to take into account the eye appeal and nuances of each coin and do not need to be tutored. If I am wrong about Mr. Feld's intentions then I apologize , but this is not the only time that I have seen Mr Feld respond to a poster in this manner, and in every case another reader or two defends his position when there is nothing to be defended.

[MarkFeld]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

 

You said that you lost out on the 1955 DDO "by a mere $300". But unless you somehow know the winning bidder's maximum bid amount, you can't know by how much you lost out. Instead, you only know that the winning bid was $300 more than your maximum bid.

 

You also mentioned possible bid manipulation and/or deep pocket bidders. But you failed to mention what is probably, by far, the most likely explanation for such variances in bidding - different quality and/or eye appeal for the coins in question.

You have a different opinion. that's fine

 

Bid manipulation is hard to prove. Wait and see if the coins in question come up again at auction soon. How else will a "bid manipulation" accomplish anything?

 

As to the $300 losing bid...Mark's right. These typical auctions online you really have no idea how high the other would have bid to. I did once lose a $3000 coin by $20 once but it was an mail bid situation where you kind of new (after the fact) what the winner's max bid was...typical auctions online though you have no such info.

 

jom

You are also right It might have continued to go up to infinity who knows.. However in this case I lost by a mere $300 regardless of what Mr. Feld thinks. I may be taking this entirely wrong, but I am a little tired of Mr. Felds demeaning tone every time he responds to one of my post. I know that he is God's gift to coin collecting , and no one could possibly know half as much as he does. However, I have been collecting lincolns for over 50 years and I think that I might know just a little about Lincoln cents. I do have enough since to take into account the eye appeal and nuances of each coin and do not need to be tutored. If I am wrong about Mr. Feld's intentions then I apologize , but this is not the only time that I have seen Mr Feld respond to a poster in this manner, and in every case another reader or two defends his position when there is nothing to be defended.

 

You are taking it wrong.

 

I was hoping it would make you feel better to know that you might not have missed out on the coin by only $300. I know that I would rather have my bid blown out of the water than barely be topped. Perhaps it's different for you.

 

And I have never claimed to be god's gift to coin collecting or anything even remotely close to that. You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder in that regard - if so, I didn't put it there. Have you seen me post about how much I know about coins and/or compared to what others know? I bet not, because I don't do that.

 

I have no idea about your knowledge level pertaining to Lincoln cents and that doesn't really matter. Because my comments would have been the same, even if you were universally acknowledged as THE expert in the series. The prices were far more likely to have been influenced by the coins, themselves, than by bidding manipulation. If you didn't see the coins in hand, then you couldn't "take into account the eye appeal and nuances of each coin". And if you did, then other bidders apparently had different opinions, whether sight-seen or not.

[EVillageProwler]

"You have a different opinion. that's fine"

 

[wheat'swheats]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

 

You said that you lost out on the 1955 DDO "by a mere $300". But unless you somehow know the winning bidder's maximum bid amount, you can't know by how much you lost out. Instead, you only know that the winning bid was $300 more than your maximum bid.

 

You also mentioned possible bid manipulation and/or deep pocket bidders. But you failed to mention what is probably, by far, the most likely explanation for such variances in bidding - different quality and/or eye appeal for the coins in question.

You have a different opinion. that's fine

 

Bid manipulation is hard to prove. Wait and see if the coins in question come up again at auction soon. How else will a "bid manipulation" accomplish anything?

 

As to the $300 losing bid...Mark's right. These typical auctions online you really have no idea how high the other would have bid to. I did once lose a $3000 coin by $20 once but it was an mail bid situation where you kind of new (after the fact) what the winner's max bid was...typical auctions online though you have no such info.

 

jom

You are also right It might have continued to go up to infinity who knows.. However in this case I lost by a mere $300 regardless of what Mr. Feld thinks. I may be taking this entirely wrong, but I am a little tired of Mr. Felds demeaning tone every time he responds to one of my post. I know that he is God's gift to coin collecting , and no one could possibly know half as much as he does. However, I have been collecting lincolns for over 50 years and I think that I might know just a little about Lincoln cents. I do have enough since to take into account the eye appeal and nuances of each coin and do not need to be tutored. If I am wrong about Mr. Feld's intentions then I apologize , but this is not the only time that I have seen Mr Feld respond to a poster in this manner, and in every case another reader or two defends his position when there is nothing to be defended.

 

You are taking it wrong.

 

I was hoping it would make you feel better to know that you might not have missed out on the coin by only $300. I know that I would rather have my bid blown out of the water than barely be topped. Perhaps it's different for you.

 

And I have never claimed to be god's gift to coin collecting or anything even remotely close to that. You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder in that regard - if so, I didn't put it there. Have you seen me post about how much I know about coins and/or compared to what others know? I bet not, because I don't do that.

 

I have no idea about your knowledge level pertaining to Lincoln cents and that doesn't really matter. Because my comments would have been the same, even if you were universally acknowledged as THE expert in the series. The prices were far more likely to have been influenced by the coins, themselves, than by bidding manipulation. If you didn't see the coins in hand, then you couldn't "take into account the eye appeal and nuances of each coin". And if you did, then other bidders apparently had different opinions, whether sight-seen or not.

If I was wrong in my response to you then I sincerely apologize and hope that we can agree to disagree and start anew.

[MarkFeld]

You are seeing exactly what I observed in January of this year. Having bid $9500 0n a 1955 doubled die and losing by a mere $300 I felt sure that in February my bid of $10,000 would secure me a desired piece only to watch the first of two go to over $22,000 and the second over $25000. I then this month secured a slightly lesser grade for the sum of just over $7000, only to see a higher graded example go for only $8500 this week. Is there a manipulation of the market occurring here by illegal means or is it just a case of two deep pocket bidders driving up the price? I think that a little of both is occurring and the collector is going to suffer the consequences . Of course there is no way to prove my theory because the person running up the bid only has to say ( "I really wanted the coin, I just reached My Limit. I was not just running up the price so Mr. X, or company X could get more for their coin." ) Although, in a lot of cases it appears to be just that.

 

You said that you lost out on the 1955 DDO "by a mere $300". But unless you somehow know the winning bidder's maximum bid amount, you can't know by how much you lost out. Instead, you only know that the winning bid was $300 more than your maximum bid.

 

You also mentioned possible bid manipulation and/or deep pocket bidders. But you failed to mention what is probably, by far, the most likely explanation for such variances in bidding - different quality and/or eye appeal for the coins in question.

You have a different opinion. that's fine

 

Bid manipulation is hard to prove. Wait and see if the coins in question come up again at auction soon. How else will a "bid manipulation" accomplish anything?

 

As to the $300 losing bid...Mark's right. These typical auctions online you really have no idea how high the other would have bid to. I did once lose a $3000 coin by $20 once but it was an mail bid situation where you kind of new (after the fact) what the winner's max bid was...typical auctions online though you have no such info.

 

jom

You are also right It might have continued to go up to infinity who knows.. However in this case I lost by a mere $300 regardless of what Mr. Feld thinks. I may be taking this entirely wrong, but I am a little tired of Mr. Felds demeaning tone every time he responds to one of my post. I know that he is God's gift to coin collecting , and no one could possibly know half as much as he does. However, I have been collecting lincolns for over 50 years and I think that I might know just a little about Lincoln cents. I do have enough since to take into account the eye appeal and nuances of each coin and do not need to be tutored. If I am wrong about Mr. Feld's intentions then I apologize , but this is not the only time that I have seen Mr Feld respond to a poster in this manner, and in every case another reader or two defends his position when there is nothing to be defended.

 

You are taking it wrong.

 

I was hoping it would make you feel better to know that you might not have missed out on the coin by only $300. I know that I would rather have my bid blown out of the water than barely be topped. Perhaps it's different for you.

 

And I have never claimed to be god's gift to coin collecting or anything even remotely close to that. You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder in that regard - if so, I didn't put it there. Have you seen me post about how much I know about coins and/or compared to what others know? I bet not, because I don't do that.

 

I have no idea about your knowledge level pertaining to Lincoln cents and that doesn't really matter. Because my comments would have been the same, even if you were universally acknowledged as THE expert in the series. The prices were far more likely to have been influenced by the coins, themselves, than by bidding manipulation. If you didn't see the coins in hand, then you couldn't "take into account the eye appeal and nuances of each coin". And if you did, then other bidders apparently had different opinions, whether sight-seen or not.

If I was wrong in my response to you then I sincerely apologize and hope that we can agree to disagree and start anew.

 

We can certainly agree to disagree - there is nothing wrong with that. And I'm good starting anew. Thanks.

[BillJones]

I have a small collection of Massachusetts silver coins (mostly known as "Pine Tree Shillings"), and was looking to add another piece that would not break the bank. I spotted this Oak Tree six pence in the current Heritage auction and placed a reserve bid of $2,750. I figured that I should have been in the running because NGC gave it a details grade because it had been "repaired." To my surprise the piece brought a hammer price of $5,500, which was exactly double my bid. Here is the link.

 

Mass Oak Tree Six Pence.

 

It makes me wonder what some of my other coins, which have grades are worth. This seems kind of high to me for a problem piece.

 

The first impulse would be to think a problem coin would sell at a lower price. However, this is a very attractively patinated, well struck and centered, and minimally damaged (according to Heritage) example of this six pence. Many problem free pieces don't look this nice.

 

I did not view it as all that nice. It had been cleaned and the surfaces were porous. The centering on the obverse was not as good at that on the Bowers book plate coin. In short the piece had a lot of detail, which was its best feature, but it had more wrong with it than just the repair noted by NGC. For those reasons I thought that Fine money was a fair bid.

 

Detail and meatiness are everything on these coins. Most are wavy, bent, and lacking in detail such that you can barley tell they are coins. This piece has considerably more detail than many, if not most well-circulated examples. I don't see any cleaning damage in the photographs, and it is not mentioned by Heritage. I did not see this coin in person, so there is no way for me to tell about cleaning damage. I also don't see much out of ordinary on the surface texture for these crudely made, heavily circulated coins; though clearly, some smoothing was done to cover up something.

 

 

Take a close look at the surfaces, and you will see fine, grainy porosity. I noted it when I was looking for the repair. That bright silvery color is not original.

 

Here is an Oak Tree shilling that PCGS graded EF-45. Although this too is not exactly original, the surfaces are smooth. And yes, this is in my collection.

 

[e1cnr]

No one really knows how high the winner of an auction would have gone if they needed to.

 

I can fell better being the underbidder of a coin that closed at $200. But maybe if I kept bidding a could have been underbidder at $300 close. I would never know if the buyer was willing to go to $3000 if they needed to.

[JIM F.]

I like those 1652 Mass silvers. Thanks for posting.

[MarkFeld]

I like those 1652 Mass silvers. Thanks for posting.

 

I know next to nothing about them, but I like them too - very cool looking coins.

[jom]

"You have a different opinion. that's fine"

 

You have a fine opinion that's different!

 

jom

[BillJones]

Here is a bit of information about these coins.

 

• The Oak Tree and Pine Tree coins were struck on a device called a rocker press. Think of an old fashioned printer that rocked back and forth to impart the letters, numbers or whatever. That's how these coins were struck. The advantage was it took less pressure to transfer the design on the planchet because you were striking only a part of the coin in an instant as opposed to whole coin at once as with a screw or drop press. The downside is that the coins were struck bent , which caused them to wear unevenly. The obverse and reverse were also seldom properly aligned so that one side (usually the tree side) was almost always off-center.

 

• There is no fine detail on this coins, like the "LIBERTY" on a Indian cent to use for grading. Therefore everything is basically on one plane. Therefore, there is a lot of surface grading which is subject to interpretation. If the coin was struck fairly flat, a VF can look just about as good as an AU. Here are couple of grading examples.

 

PCGS graded this Pine Tree three pence AU-55 and CAC liked it. I don't think that the coin is that good. It appears to have been lightly cleaned and the color does not look natural. I bought it because the opportunity to get one of these pieces that has not been messed with too much does not come along often. I missed out on one graded VF that looked just about as good for couple thousand less.

 

 

PCGS graded this Pine Tree six pence as an AU-55. This coin is simply wonderful. It has a lot of original mint surface and is flawless for the grade. Like most examples of this variety, the obverse is off-center.

 

 

This is a Noe 1 Pine Tree shilling. This is the marquee variety for the Massachusetts Pine Tree coinage because the piece is usually well centered and the dies were well made. PCGS graded this coin EF-45. It is okay, but the color is not original. The thing of it is, if this coin were only a little better and a bit more original, the price would go up two or three times what I paid for it.

 

 

Finally here is a Small Planchet Pine Tree shilling. This piece was struck on a screw press which resulted in a nice flat coin. The Small Planchet pieces are the most common of all the Pine Tree shillings. The die variety is Noe 16, which is the most common die variety in the series. PCGS graded it VF-35. I was hoping that it would make EF-40. I bought this coin raw many years ago before there were grading services.

 

These coins were made at the end of the Massachusetts silver period, which extended from 1652 to 1682. At this time the Massachusetts General Court, which was the governing body for the Bay Colony was concerned that the king was going to put the hammer down and close their mint. Therefore they concentrated on making only shillings; none of the lower denominations were minted.

 

 

Overall the Massachusetts silver coins was the most successful series of coins produced in what would be The United States until the U.S. mint opened in 1793. This was in a way the first shot in the Revolutionary War because it was an act of defiance to the king to open a mint. The fact that the mint opened in 1652 was significant because there was no King of England at that time. Oliver Cromwell was the Lord Protector.

 

So there you have a little primer about Massachusetts silver.

[Raisethis2]

Bill, next time pick out a pine tree that has more ornaments. That one has but 2. Pfffffft.

[thebeav]

Here is a bit of information about these coins.

 

• The Oak Tree and Pine Tree coins were struck on a device called a rocker press. Think of an old fashioned printer that rocked back and forth to impart the letters, numbers or whatever. That's how these coins were struck. The advantage was it took less pressure to transfer the design on the planchet because you were striking only a part of the coin in an instant as opposed to whole coin at once as with a screw or drop press. The downside is that the coins were struck bent , which caused them to wear unevenly. The obverse and reverse were also seldom properly aligned so that one side (usually the tree side) was almost always off-center.

 

This is a new one on me. Very interesting.

Kind of like those desk top ink blotters from the fountain pen days....

Very cool coins.

 

Paul

 

[BillJones]

Kind of like those desk top ink blotters from the fountain pen days....

 

Yep, that's it. (thumbs u

 

Those were the words I was looking for.

[bochiman]

I love those and still need 1 for my collection...that's my birth state and so I want to find a nice "type" one. Shows details well, isn't a problem coin, and isn't too expensive (hey, I can hope, right? )

 

Also, I love the "I only lost by $xxx" vs "no, you could have possibly lost by more if you don't know the top bid for sure" debates......I always want to say "what if you were allowed to up your bid, after the fact, 1 time and 1 time only, and any other (max) bid had to remain where it was....and you lost by "only" $5......would that make you feel any better since you were so sure you had only lost by $xxx the first time?

[physics-fan3.14]

A lot of stuff I've been bidding on lately has been going for a lot more than I expected.

 

It seems to me like the coin market is getting pretty hot right now. That's a good thing, of course, but it also means it may be time to back off the aggressive buying for a bit until things cool off some.

[JIM F.]

I've posted this one before, but for those who may not have seen it, it is PCGS AU-55 with a CAC.

 

 

Thanks for looking.

[Walkerfan]

That's a SHARP one, Jim-----I like it! Thanks for sharing it!