1900-S SP66+ Barber dime - asking $183,750? 2 2

[kbbpll]

https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-dimes/dimes/1900-s-10c-pcgs-4823-/i/800094580.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

What's up with this dime? I have never seen or read about any Barber "specimen" strikes, and the $183,750 price is in 1894-S range. It's not shoot-for-the-moon marketing hype since Heritage doesn't identify sellers, so what gives?

[numisport]

Definitely looks like a proof judging by the rims. Have never heard of this coins' existence but looking at the coin number I see it was graded in the last few years.

[RWB]

1 hour ago, kbbpll said:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-dimes/dimes/1900-s-10c-pcgs-4823-/i/800094580.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

What's up with this dime? I have never seen or read about any Barber "specimen" strikes, and the $183,750 price is in 1894-S range. It's not shoot-for-the-moon marketing hype since Heritage doesn't identify sellers, so what gives?

Bologna. Might be a nice coin off a new, or newly polished (i.e. repaired) die. No "specimens" were made and there is no documentation to support that contention. The coin is "worth" what someone will pay.

Reverse seems mushy especially at center although the photo is through plastic so we can't see what the coin really looks like.

Edited May 16, 2020 by RWB

[kbbpll]

I also noted the rims, and extensive die polish lines across the obverse. There are a handful of "proof-like" designations for these dimes; I've just never seen any Barber designated "specimen". Further searching reveals this 1892-O 50c SP66* sold for $108k https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-barber-half-dollars/1892-o-50c-sp66-and-9733-ngc/a/1184-4291.s?hdnJumpToLot=1&x=0&y=0 and this 1892-O 50c SP61 asking $63k https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-half-dollars/half-dollars/1892-o-50c-pcgs-6462-/i/800094627.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515 so I guess it's a "thing". I realize the branch mints couldn't technically produce proofs. My new tidbit of knowledge for today I guess.

[Just Bob]

Reading the description of the 1892-O that is graded SP66, there seems to be a lot of conjecture, with words like "possibility" and "there is ample evidence to suggest" being used. I have not done the research that Mr. Burdette, Mr. Lange, Mr.Bowers, and others have done, and am not qualified to pass judgement on the validity/accuracy of the designation. I will say, however, that it is one seriously gorgeous coin, and certainly not typical for the series, from what I have seen.

A question for Mr. Lange: Who makes the decision to designate a coin as a "specimen," and what documentation or criteria is used to determine whether a coin receives such a designation?

Edited May 16, 2020 by Just Bob

[Nouzillet]

In a letter dated August 7th, 1873 James Pollock Superintendent of the P Mint wrote to OH LaGrange Superintendent of the SF Mint stating that he had forwarded to him by Express three pairs of dies for the Trade Dollar. He went on to state: These dies are more highly finished and of less radius than those heretofore furnished, and I would suggest that they be used in place of the old ones, exclusively, if the pressure upon you will permit. 
 

I always wondered if one could tell the difference between coins struck with these new dies and old dies. Who were they trying to impress.

In April of 1876 LaGrange had sent a note to the Director of the Mint in Washington DC stating that they were now making silver coins of the best finish.

I don’t recall any note about a proof or specimen striking of the 1894 S Barber dimes Just showed a regular albeit small  mintage and delivery

Don’t know about 1900

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

RE: "I always wondered if one could tell the difference between coins struck with these new dies and old dies. Who were they trying to impress.

The purpose was to see if these, and other changes would produce better die life and nicer looking coins. No two batches of die steel were identical, so consistency was difficult to attain.

From only the photos I see $183,500 in label and the rest in plastic, grading, postage....oh, and the coin.

Edited May 16, 2020 by RWB

[kbbpll]

I wonder if A.W. Downing had anything to do with the dime. Both New Orleans and SF were complaining about dime die life in January 1900 and Downing was sent to see what the problems were. His report from New Orleans was that improperly prepared planchets were the problem. Perhaps it was a "here's how to really do it right" kind of thing.

[RWB]

Things we amateurs consider "minor changes" were extremely important to professional coin engravers and diesinkers. Available notebooks from the mid-1930s and correspondence about Jefferson nickel die tests show that the Engraving Department made many tiny adjustments before and during production - almost none of which have ever been detected by us collectors. Charles Barber mentioned improvement to the McKinley souvenir gold dollars for 1917 compared to 1916, but no one has ever detected the differences.

Normal die and coin manufacturing accepts a range of satisfactory results. "Specimen" implies something of different and extraordinary exception to normal.

Edited May 17, 2020 by RWB

[physics-fan3.14]

This coin looks like a very nice prooflike coin. Many times throughout the years, prooflike coins have been advertised as proofs or specimen strikes. This happens for two reasons: people don't understand that prooflike strikes are a natural part of the life of a die, and aren't an intentional special strike. They look great, and I think they are desirable, but there is nothing inherently special in their manufacture. And also, if you hype it up as a proof or specimen (no evidence required!) then you can sell it for much, much more. 

Without some evidence that this is a specimen (some contemporary documentation describing its status, the reason for making it, who it was given to, what ceremony it was part of, etc. - and no, a letter from Breen doesn't count!), then we as numismatists just cannot accept it as a specimen. Without documentation, its a very nice prooflike example and worth a fraction of that asking price. 

[RWB]

"... a very nice prooflike example and worth a fraction of that asking price."

And a very small fraction, at that !

[kbbpll]

Thanks for the interesting responses. I am not adverse to thinking some of these got some kind of "special attention" (see my comment about A.W.Downing), but as physics-fan says, needs evidence. I'll point out that the reverse design changed for 1900, so working dies came from a fresh reverse master - whether that matters or not I can't say.

I happened to browse around Heritage and the exact same coin sold for $5875 in an NGC MS66+ holder in 2013. So, the value is somewhere between $5,875 and $183,750. https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-dimes/dimes/1900-s-10c-ms66-ngc-pcgs-4823-/a/1187-3106.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

Edit: Jeez, the same coin also sold for $9775 in MS66 in 2012. Somebody has really been playing the crack-out game. https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-dimes/dimes/1900-s-10c-ms66-ngc-pcgs-4823-/a/1167-3393.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

Edited May 17, 2020 by kbbpll

[RWB]

From what kbbpll dug up --- Got to be embarrassing.

[kbbpll]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

From what kbbpll dug up --- Got to be embarrassing.

Not as bad as some other examples, particularly ATS. If they're going to hand out PL and SP, I guess it probably qualifies.

[DWLange]

On 5/16/2020 at 4:36 PM, Just Bob said:

A question for Mr. Lange: Who makes the decision to designate a coin as a "specimen," and what documentation or criteria is used to determine whether a coin receives such a designation?

There's no fixed criteria, though certainly displaying the sharpness and surfaces of a proof coin go a long way toward assigning a Specimen designation. As with determining branch mint proofs, the graders often have to interpret the coiner's intentions and whether extra steps were performed to achieve a unique appearance.

[GoldFinger1969]

Not familiar with this coin, what have comparables sold for earlier this year ?

[gmarguli]

On 5/16/2020 at 10:49 AM, RWB said:

No "specimens" were made and there is no documentation to support that contention.

Since when does there need to be documentation? There is a long history of mints keeping "special looking" examples of coins.The term Specimen does not indicate a proof striking. It's used today to denote a coin that has a special appearance and likely special handling. If this coin looks nothing like a regular 1900-S, then the SP designation may very well be warranted. 

And I own quite a few undeniable proof coins from various countries. Only problem is that according to the mints, they didn't make any proofs. Are they suddenly not proofs? I've also owned mint state examples of proof only issues. 

[RWB]

Numismatic terms MUST have clear, discrete meanings. Absent that clarity the word are merely a jumble of opinion, wishful thinking and lies.

Calling a coin a "specimen" indicates some sort of special treatment - something beyond the ordinary range of routine production. This definition has been in numismatics for centuries along with the non-specific "specimen" to indicate a sample piece. The U.S. Bureau and the individual mints never used the term after 1840 except in the non-specific such as "send State Department specimens of master coins for 1841 for diplomatic use," or "State Department wants 100 specimens of each of the following proof coins for 1888 for special purposes."

In numismatics "specimen" has never been a synonym for "proof" or "master" coins since about 1840. Before then it sometimes meant a specially struck coin or not - the language is nearly always ambiguous.

Nothing about the illustrated coin suggests anything except it being part of the normal range of production. If one looks at the few remaining old collections and their acquisition documentation, it will be noticed that some coins documented as coming directly from a production press under normal conditions are outstanding, and others are quite ordinary or even inferior.

To satisfy a clear, discrete meaning for "specimen" there MUST be documentation to support that contention. Hearsay, and "looks specimeny" are no good. This particular coin is even less likely to be anything "special" since it has been authenticated/graded before and evidently was not a "specimen" back then. Have we descended into ignorance so quickly - or is it simply greed - a desire to inflate, pump-up, distort, pander, influence by deceit, trick, or artifice. Pick your poison. Much as now we cannot trust any newer-assigned "grade" thanks to rampant grade inflation,  so some would extend that to making casual opinions into data-based facts.

Numismatics as a hobby is already sick. Would some now have it drink bleach as a cure?

Edited December 30, 2020 by RWB

[RWB]

PS: As kbbpll pointed out, above, this coin has appears twice in two different graded holders - both as MS66. A nice, high grade San Francisco dime. A label can no more change that than it can make an EF 1804 dollar uncirculated, or a MCMVII double edge a proof.

"Specimen" is not a grade or description of wear: it is, like 'proof,' a description of process and documented intent or purpose.

[MarkFeld]

15 hours ago, gmarguli said:

Since when does there need to be documentation? There is a long history of mints keeping "special looking" examples of coins.The term Specimen does not indicate a proof striking. It's used today to denote a coin that has a special appearance and likely special handling. If this coin looks nothing like a regular 1900-S, then the SP designation may very well be warranted. 

And I own quite a few undeniable proof coins from various countries. Only problem is that according to the mints, they didn't make any proofs. Are they suddenly not proofs? I've also owned mint state examples of proof only issues. 

Greg, if such a coin (without documentation) has a special enough looking appearance, shouldn’t it have received the “Specimen” designation, when graded previously? I understand that grading is partly subjective and can be inconsistent, but I feel that companies should err on the side of extreme caution in awarding such designations.

[numisport]

Now that we know past auction history, who I wonder set this asking price ?

[kbbpll]

1 hour ago, numisport said:

Now that we know past auction history, who I wonder set this asking price ?

It does seem to be moon money, but it's the only one. There is 1892-O SP64, pop one, sold in 2009 for $28750 (https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-barber-dimes/1892-o-10c-sp64-ngc/a/1121-3691.s?type=NGC1121), and one 1906-D SP64. The 50c posted above sold over $100k. It's easy to speculate that there may have been some "special attention" for the first coinage of new designs, or the first coins at Denver mint, so maybe the new century 1900 was special enough for somebody. The only evidence it seems we'll ever have is the coins themselves. That other TPG made a big splash in July 2019 about expanding their PL designations. I can see where this is a pet peeve for RWB and others.

[MarkFeld]

2 hours ago, numisport said:

Now that we know past auction history, who I wonder set this asking price ?

The owner would have set the asking price. And since the coin wasn’t labeled as a “Specimen” when it was auctioned previously, the auction history isn’t particularly relevant.

[numisport]

9 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

The owner would have set the asking price. And since the coin wasn’t labeled as a “Specimen” when it was auctioned previously, the auction history isn’t particularly relevant.

It's still the same coin and I'll bet the next time it changes hands it doesn't bring half

[Walkerfan]

I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. 

I'd rather have an 1894-S, which is an acclaimed, unquestionable rarity, not debatable or dubious.    

Also, I like keydate rarities not otherwise common coins that are only rare due to a designation.  

Even if it turns out to be an actual proof with a pop of one; I'd still prefer the keydate.  

Keydates have history attached, whereas proofs like that are only known to specialists.  

Edited May 23, 2020 by Walkerfan

[gmarguli]

On 5/21/2020 at 2:00 PM, RWB said:

To satisfy a clear, discrete meaning for "specimen" there MUST be documentation to support that contention. Hearsay, and "looks specimeny" are no good.

In most instances it is called “specimen” because the coins looks like something unusual or special was done, but there is no reliable documentation. It’s a way of saying the coin is “different but we don’t know what it was supposed to be.”

[GoldFinger1969]

On 5/17/2020 at 4:45 PM, RWB said:

From what kbbpll dug up --- Got to be embarrassing.

Can Heritage maybe speak up as to why a coin that has appeared twice on their system in less than 8 years is suddently worth 20-30x as much ?  It does nobody any good -- including HA -- if some sucker with lots of $$$$ buys this at the asking price.

BTW...it IS an asking price.  It hasn't been sold for that amount.  And for any coin costing over $10,000 -- let alone $100,000 -- you better have a few paragraphs below indicating something special about the coin.  There's nothing there except "Learn More At The Newman Numismatic Portal."

Edited May 23, 2020 by GoldFinger1969

[gmarguli]

On 5/22/2020 at 4:28 AM, MarkFeld said:

Greg, if such a coin (without documentation) has a special enough looking appearance, shouldn’t it have received the “Specimen” designation, when graded previously? I understand that grading is partly subjective and can be inconsistent, but I feel that companies should err on the side of extreme caution in awarding such designations.

In a perfect world, sure, but we don't know anything about the submission history of this coin. Maybe it was a standard submission listed as MS the first time. Maybe the second submission listed is as SP and included numerous outside opinions from experts in the field that the coin is not a regular business strike? I own two coins that were graded a minimum of twice at both NGC & PCGS and they came back MS every time. No proofs were ever minted. Today they both reside in SP holders after I got an expert to state they they were not normal business strikes. And I dare anyone to say they are not special.

Maybe the first time the dime was graded every grader except one said SP and NGC erred on the side of caution? Maybe the second time they decided to go with the majority of graders?

Maybe this dime was first graded when NGC stuck to the MS or PF designations? I don't know this for a fact, but I sure saw a lot of PCGS SP coins before NGC, so maybe NGC was slow to use SP designations? 

FYI, I'm not defending the SP status of this coin in particular. 

[kbbpll]

"In 1989, this coin was certified Specimen MS 64 by NGC, an event that was announced in the July 12, 1989 edition of Coin World.", referring to the 1906-D.

From the HA blurb in a previous 2000 sale ($9775) of the same 1906-D as above: https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-dimes/dimes/1906-d-10c-specimen-ms-64-ngc-the-denver-mint-the-producer-of-more-than-half-of-our-country-s-circulating-coinage-today-/a/242-6847.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

So, NGC has been designating "specimen" for a long time (31 years!), but I note that this coin is "specimen MS64" and not "SP64", a bit of a hedge. The 1906-D then sold for $28750 in 2009, at the same auction as the 1892-O SP64 and at the same price. I agree with gmarguli that perhaps someone made a strong case for the SP designation. The change in designation doesn't bother me that much. With the big money in the market since 2009, this one might get mid 5 figures I suppose. My observation with all the HA "make offer" coins so far has been "they don't really want to sell it", because the prices are outrageous.

[MarkFeld]

3 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Can Heritage maybe speak up as to why a coin that has appeared twice on their system in less than 8 years is suddently worth 20-30x as much ?  It does nobody any good -- including HA -- if some sucker with lots of $$$$ buys this at the asking price.

BTW...it IS an asking price.  It hasn't been sold for that amount.  And for any coin costing over $10,000 -- let alone $100,000 -- you better have a few paragraphs below indicating something special about the coin.  There's nothing there except "Learn More At The Newman Numismatic Portal."

This is my personal opinion, only...coins are listed by their owners at prices of their choosing. Heritage is not making any representation regarding the “worth” of the coin. That said, the “suddenly” part and the much higher price are no secret. Obviously, both are strongly influenced by NGC’s change in theair designation of the coin.

Something similar has occurred on multiple occasions, with respect to percentage asking price increases, when coins have received significant (numerical grade) upgrades upon one or more resubmissions.