• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Your Grading Opinion--1805 Draped Bust Half Dollar
1 1

34 posts in this topic

   Here is another early U.S. coin that I've owned for some years now.  I purchased it at a public auction sale of some note in 1998, where it was conservatively graded even by the standards of that time.  I kept it in an old Whitman bookshelf type set album until I had it graded by NGC last year.  What is your opinion of its grade, and what grade do you think NGC awarded it? You can also try to guess the grade at which it was catalogued. I intend to reveal the "answers" on the evening of February 26.

1519428081_1805halfdollarobv..thumb.jpg.24e822d5994c2487f5b154daaf21f4f1.jpg

1993137656_1805halfdollarrev..thumb.jpg.5ab9aa93f9ebbce69813a3218e099bc4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice coin, since I'm not familiar with this series I won't venture a guess.(thumbsu

Ah, screw it....WTF....I'm gonna say it's definitely circulated....question is does it go down to the EF category (I'm not even sure I know the difference between EF vs. AU like I do with AU vs. MS xD....let's call it EF-45.  I don't think this is an AU coin even in the low-50's.

If I'm wrong, I probably graded it too high and it's even lower than EF like those G or VG or F ratings I see every now and then which I never deal with with commemoratives, moderns, Morgans, or Saints. :)

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a really nice one for the type.  I'm going to say low AU now (maybe AU-50 or AU-53), though there appears to be noticeable wear on the portrait hair.  Late 90s, something like XF-40.

It's also an example of what's out there previously not in a TPG holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice coin, I will say there is enough wear on the hair and ribbon to keep it from being AU but it is close. It still could have been graded that as gift .. LoL.....I will say in my opinion it is a XF- 45 

Edited by J P M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I compared this coin to other coins in the coin explorer. In doing so, I have to disqualify myself from guessing. Your Half is displayed in the gallery. But thanks for posting it. Really nice coin. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2023 at 10:37 PM, Sandon said:

THE "ANSWERS"

    In 2022, NGC graded this coin VF 35.  This coin was sold to me in May 1998 as Lot 1446 of Part Two of the auction of the famous John Jay Pittman Collection. The late David Akers, who catalogued and sold the Pittman Collection, described it as follows:"1805, O-106. Rarity-3. Fine. Cleaned, now with multicolored toning. Numerous light marks and hairlines consistent with the rather low grade. Purchased from Barney Bluestone's 97th sale, 6/27-28/47, Lot 1437, for $5."

Wow, so Pittman had this coin for over 50 years.  Wow....:o

I didn't know that Akers did the analysis on coins like this.  I thought he was a gold specialist.  Interesting....and $5 ????  Good Grief !! xD

On 2/26/2023 at 10:37 PM, Sandon said:

 The coins in the Pittman collection were all sold uncertified, and many were undergraded by market standards.

So true of so many of the auctions from the 1980's onward.  Not at all unusual to see coins being sold 2-3 grades low, even for well-known coins like Busts, Saints, etc.

On 2/26/2023 at 10:37 PM, Sandon said:

For those who may be too young to remember, the Pittman collection, sold in three auctions between 1997 and 1999, was one of the greatest collections sold in the 1990s, probably second only to the Eliasberg collection.  Pittman, a collector of moderate means who was also prominent in the ANA and other numismatic organizations, built an outstanding collection especially noted for its early U.S. proof coins and rare date gold, as well as rare world coins, including all three known 1936 Canadian "dot" cents. T

Pittman was in the right place at the exact right time.  His collection was worth MILLIONS and I think someone once figured out that he made like 20% per year on all the $$$ he spent on coins.  He just happened to buy stuff before the post-WW II Baby Boomers and other demographic tailwinds propelled the value of the coins up....then all his gold and silver not only benefitted from those as well, but also the end of controlled gold and silver prices.

Like a kid in NYC collecting baseball cards as investments in the 1950's vs. one in the 1980's, timing is EVERYTHING !! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Thank you, @GoldFinger1969. When I have time, I may post a topic about John Jay Pittman (1913-1996) and his magnificent collection.  While Pittman bought coins from approximately 1943 to 1984, his best coins were largely purchased before 1970. The price increase on my 1805 half dollar from $5 in 1947 to the $660 I paid in 1998 isn't particularly great when you consider that Pittman purchased an uncirculated but common 1853 Arrows & Rays Seated quarter for $1 in 1946 that sold for $2,200 at the 1997 sale or a unique but then unappreciated proof 1839 Seated quarter for $30 in 1947 that sold for $132,000 at the 1997 sale. I assume that the auction catalogs, which should be considered numismatic reference works, are on the Newman Numismatic Portal. You might want to check them out.

  Although he may be best remembered today for his books on U.S. gold coins and gold patterns, David W. Akers (1941-2012) handled a variety of numismatic rarities over his years as a professional numismatist and auctioneer.  Having been recommended by Pittman to his family, Akers lived in the Pittman home for months at a time while he catalogued the collection after Pittman's death. I found an obituary for Akers from Numismatic News at https://www.numismaticnews.net/archive/david-akers-dies-at-70 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2023 at 1:08 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Pittman was in the right place at the exact right time.  His collection was worth MILLIONS and I think someone once figured out that he made like 20% per year on all the $$$ he spent on coins.  He just happened to buy stuff before the post-WW II Baby Boomers and other demographic tailwinds propelled the value of the coins up....then all his gold and silver not only benefitted from those as well, but also the end of controlled gold and silver prices.

My recollection is that he spent about $100,000 on his collection which later sold for $30MM.  I also read that he worked at Eastman Kodak.  I don't know his positions, but don't assume he was just some average white-collar employee.  Depending upon the allocation of his outlay over this period, he would have had to be quite well-off (relatively) to spend that kind of money.  Remember, we're talking about median household incomes of a few thousand or slightly more over much of this period.  I read that he mortgaged his house to attend the 1954 Farouk auction, but it would have taken a lot more than that to spend $100K for a run-of-the-mill upper middle-class collector.

No, it didn't hurt that he bought most of it before the beginning of financialization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandon, the 1853 Arrow & Rays made 16% a year.  That beats even the 12.5% a year I computed for Harry Bass' 1860 Proof Liberty Double Eagle (MS-65+/Cameo/CAC) which he bought in 1970 just before gold and gold coins both took off.

Most trophy coins I have worked out IRRs for were mid-single digits over the years.  Unless one got lucky, I don't recall more than 1 maybe 2 coins that beat a 16% compounded return for any period of years.

But Pittman's collection in the aggregate does it.  If you assume an average weighted-period of 30 years in putting together that $100K that WC cited (plus the final value)...then his CAGR was just under 21% a year.  Assume more $$$ spent earlier....holding period of 40 years.....and his return is still just over 15% a year. (thumbsu

I believe the fact that he WAS just an average middle-age worker who spent his discretionary income (and inheritances, I believe) on coins instead of the racetrack and bookies and whatever....led to his being the poster boy for unrealistic investing gains from coins.  His fantastic returns probably stoke so many people into thinking they too can make 15-20% a year on coin investing. :|

He was a smart guy...and he bought quality....but he was also fortunate that the demographic tailwind helped him along with a 10-20 fold increase in the prices of silver and gold.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

    Pittman himself wouldn't have been impressed by the "gains" realized after his death, much of which, I assume, went to pay estate and other taxes. Akers wrote that during his lifetime he only sold or traded coins to obtain other coins that he wanted more. I've also read that he would sometimes carry a coin as a conversation piece and answer questions about the coin, except that if the viewer asked what the coin was worth, Pittman would immediately put the coin back in his pocket and sternly walk away.

   I've always regarded coins as assets but not as investments.  More importantly, they have enriched my life, as I'm sure they did Pittman's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2023 at 7:54 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I believe the fact that he WAS just an average middle-age worker who spent his discretionary income (and inheritances,

I think this is mostly myth.  Are you familiar with the economics of the time? 

According to Lundberg's "The Rich and the Super Rich" published in 1964, median household income was something like $3,000 or $4,000.  He included different dates (like 1958 to maybe 1962) so it's not exactly consistent but you get the idea.

He also specifically states that the top 1.6% of all US households had a net worth of $60,000+.  This also somewhere around 1960.

Sandon's post states that he bought most of his coins prior to 1970, which makes sense considering that this preceded the financialization of "collecting". Additionally, unless he received a noticeable inheritance for the time, there is no conceivable way he could have spent anywhere near $100K (even pro-rated) with a typical middle-class job.

The accounts I have read stated he mortgaged his house to attend and buy from the Farouk auction in Egypt, but there was no housing bubble equity for him to access in 1954, even if it appreciated noticeably.  Besides, airfares and international travel was presumably "stupidly" expensive by current standards, especially adjusted for inflation.

This means that he must have been relatively high-income for the time and that this "regular guy" perception has to mostly be myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Eastman Kodak employed Pittman as an engineer. During his lifetime there were rumors that he owned a lot of Kodak stock, but according to Akers, that was simply untrue. Pittman's daughter Polly wrote an introduction in the catalog, in which she noted that he was very frugal, coin collecting aside. 

  Pittman never sought to own already legendary rarities such as the "1804" dollar or the 1913 Liberty nickel because of their already high cost, which would have precluded him from buying other coins. Instead, he bought coins such as the early proofs that he knew were rare but went largely unnoticed before the 1970s. That is most of the reason for the appreciation of his collection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 10:48 AM, World Colonial said:

This means that he must have been relatively high-income for the time and that this "regular guy" perception has to mostly be myth.

I assumed he was high-ranking but not at the top ranks of Eastman Kodak.  I assumed he made at least~$20,000-$30,000 a year in the late-1950's/early-1960's as he was a chemical engineer and my uncle was one also and he made a pretty good living -- not rich but very comfortable.

Working for a Fortune 100 company, I'll assume JJP made a few more $$$ than my uncle. I wouldn't be surprised if he made $50,000 a year -- probably Top 1% of all earners back then, but not rich-rich. xD

You're right, WC...he definitely wasn't a blue-collar guy...but he wasn't a super-wealthy guy like many collectors in Philly, NYC, and Boston.  Eliasberg was definitely wealthy and I don't believe he had to work to live the lifestyle he chose.  Pittman would have probably had to keep working as I doubt his accumulated wealth ex-coins was probably not enough to quit his day job.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From CoinWeek:

"....Perhaps no numismatist was better at identifying sleepers than the late John Jay Pittman (1913-1996). His daughter Polly told me her father used to stay up until two or three in the morning studying auction catalogs and other numismatic reference works. As a result, the story goes, over his lifetime Pittman invested no more than $100,000 in his collection, which sold for over $30 million after his death!

Pittman was a shrewd negotiator, but more importantly, a shrewd researcher. While the benefit of time greatly helped enhance the value of his collection, he made many carefully thought-out purchases of sleepers. A few well-known examples that sold in 1997 during the first installment of the sale of his collection include his purchase at the 1948 ANA convention in Boston of a 1792 Half Disme for $100 that realized $308,000; his 1956 purchase of a Proof 1854 Type 2 Gold Dollar, one of four known, for $525 that realized $176,000; and his purchase of one of two known Proof 1833 $5 Half Eagles for $635 from the 1954 King Farouk sale in Egypt, which realized $467,500. He purchased the 1854 Proof Gold Dollar at the Central States Numismatic Society Convention auction in Indianapolis where, when the lot came up for sale, he walked to the front of the room, faced the crowd, held his arm high in the air to bid, and stared down anyone who dared to bid against him until he won the coin. After that move, he earned the nickname 'The Statue of Liberty.'"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 12:11 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I assumed he was high-ranking but not at the top ranks of Eastman Kodak.  I assumed he made at least~$20,000-$30,000 a year in the late-1950's/early-1960's as he was a chemical engineer and my uncle was one also and he made a pretty good living -- not rich but very comfortable.

Those amounts were one heck of a lot of money at the time, more than appears inflation adjusted because of the exponential rise in asset prices since then.

You may remember my prior post where I wrote that the home my mother grew up in sold for $60K in 1962 or 1963.  4BR 3000 SQFT on six acres then I think (nine prior to eminent domain to build I-75) in zip code 30327, still one of the most expensive zip codes in the southeast.

I assume he made a "middle management" income by today's standards.  Maybe somewhat less due to his lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 1:40 PM, World Colonial said:

I assume he made a "middle management" income by today's standards.  Maybe somewhat less due to his lifestyle.

CW says he took out a 2nd mortgage to bid on the Farouk coins in 1956.

It appears he spent about $3,000 a year for 30+ years buying coins.  So he had leeway to buy a coin that he thought was worth $300 if it went to $500 or so...but if a coin he wanted for $500 went for $2,000 he'd be screwed.  This is where his famous bidding strategy came into play, I guess. xD

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 3:56 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

CW says he took out a 2nd mortgage to bid on the Farouk coins in 1956.

It appears he spent about $3,000 a year for 30+ years buying coins.  So he had leeway to buy a coin that he thought was worth $300 if it went to $500 or so...but if a coin he wanted for $500 went for $2,000 he'd be screwed.  This is where his famous bidding strategy came into play, I guess. xD

1956 must be right.  I think Farouk was deposed in 1954.

Fortunately, few coins sold for more than $500 or so at the time.  By 1965, to my recollection, the 1916-D Mercury dime already listed for $1000 in UNC in the Red Book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   According to the accounts of both Polly Pittman and David Akers in the catalogs, the sale of the "palace collection" that had belonged to King Farouk did, in fact, take place in Cairo, Egypt during the earlier part of 1954. According to Wikipedia, Farouk was deposed in 1952. 

  I previously referred to Pittman as a man of "moderate", not "modest" means. Obviously, he earned enough money to pursue his collecting interests while also supporting a wife and three children, all of whom attended college. However, his means can't be compared to those of Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr., the legendary "King of Coins", who is said to have spent $100,000 in a single transaction in 1942, when he acquired the numismatic estate of John H. Clapp. While, as @GoldFinger1969 has noted, Pittman was, especially during the 1940s and 1950s, in the right place at the right time, much of the quality and rarity of his collection was attributable to his own careful study and effort.

  If you have an opportunity to read the catalogs, review Ms. Pittman's and Mr. Akers' introductory accounts of "JJP" at pp. xi-xvi (1997 catalog).  Essentially, he was born into relative poverty, the eldest of 7 children, and grew up in North Carolina, working from an early age on his grandfather's farm and at various odd jobs. He worked his way through college waiting tables, originally hoping to become a doctor but settling on chemical engineering because medical school would take too long, and he had agreed to help educate younger siblings.  

  I'd like to say more about Pittman and his collection, preferably as a separate topic. I'll be too busy for the next month or so but hope to get to it.

   

   

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 1:40 PM, World Colonial said:

I assume he made a "middle management" income by today's standards.  Maybe somewhat less due to his lifestyle.

I think more, WC.  He may have worked for the Eastman side of Eastman Kodak, no idea.  But he had to have had a good salary.  I'll ask my aunt next time I see her what my uncle's friends made who worked at Kodak and Xerox in Upstate New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 6:00 PM, World Colonial said:

Fortunately, few coins sold for more than $500 or so at the time.  By 1965, to my recollection, the 1916-D Mercury dime already listed for $1000 in UNC in the Red Book.

Had to be the same trophy coins of today.  The MCMVII UHR and a few Saints like the 1927-D were selling for over $2,000 by the early-1960's in what would today be MS-65 condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   "Just" for @GoldFinger1969, there were 46 different St. Gaudens double eagles in the 1997 Pittman sale.  Here's an accounting of the better ones:

Date                   Akers' Grade                Year Purchased, Cost                 Price Realized 10/97

MCMVII, HR      Unc.                                1947, $100                                 $8,800

1908-S              XF-AU                             1950, $105                                 $2,860

1909-D              Ch. AU                            1950, $95                                   $2,200

1913                  Gem Proof                      1950, $127.50                            $74,250

1913-S              Ch. AU                            1955, $55                                   $1,760

1920-S              Ch. AU                            1958, $255                                 $30,800

1922-S              Ch. AU                            1962, $250                                 $770

1924-D              Ch. AU                            1956, $65                                   $1,870

1924-S              AU                                   1956, $325                                 $3,300

1925-D             Unc.                                 1958, $150                                 $12,100

1925-S             Ch. AU                             1955, $100                                 $10,725

1926-D             AU                                   1956, $500                                  $4,400

1926-S             Unc.                                 1956, $500                                 $3,575

1927-S             AU                                   1956, $300                                  $8,800

1929                XF-AU                              1956, $250                                  $5,950

 Note that in the 1950s, the 1926-D and S and the 1927-S were regarded as rarer and more desirable than the Gem Matte Proof 1913 or the 1920-S!                                                                                                                                                

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2023 at 1:21 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think more, WC.  He may have worked for the Eastman side of Eastman Kodak, no idea.  But he had to have had a good salary.  I'll ask my aunt next time I see her what my uncle's friends made who worked at Kodak and Xerox in Upstate New York.

"Middle management" to me in a company of that size is probably $500K.

Edited by World Colonial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2023 at 1:25 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Had to be the same trophy coins of today.  The MCMVII UHR and a few Saints like the 1927-D were selling for over $2,000 by the early-1960's in what would today be MS-65 condition.

I don't have my 1963 or 1965 Red Books with me now.  To my knowledge, the primary difference between now and then is the price inflation from TPG and specialization.  There has been no preference change between US series, contrary to what I've read inferred numerous times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2023 at 9:20 AM, World Colonial said:

"Middle management" to me in a company of that size is probably $500K.

Huh ?  You think a middle-level manager at a big Fortune 100 company like EK made $500,000 a year ?  I'm thinking less than 1/10th that amount in the early-1960's.  You said the median income was no more than $5,000 in the late-1950's/early-1960's.  Triple it and you are in the $15,000 - $20,000 range would have been a nice income for that time.

I think only 1 or 2 CEOs made over $1,000,000 at the time, including Bethlehem Steel.  Most CEOs probably made $250,000 - $500,000 a year.  Athletes made a bit less.  Only Hollywood stars made more besides self-employed people who owned their own business.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2023 at 10:24 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Huh ?  You think a middle-level manager at a big Fortune 100 company like EK made $500,000 a year ?  I'm thinking less than 1/10th that amount in the early-1960's.  You said the median income was no more than $5,000 in the late-1950's/early-1960's.  Triple it and you are in the $15,000 - $20,000 range would have been a nice income for that time.

No, now.

$15K, $20K, $30K was a lot of money at the time.  It's a lot more than indicated by the change in the CPI or cost of living because of asset inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1