Is anybody interested in the recent history of your slabbed coins?

[realone]

I always wanted to know what was the history of my slabbed coins, co I called NGC and PCGS and ANACS to find out when they slabbed my coins (what year), was it raw when they received it, was it slabbed and if so what TPG slabbed prior to the current slab company, what was the grade on that slab that they originally received, and was there any interesting comments about the coin when they graded it.

What I found was that PCGS and NGC were both tight lipped about it, would not reveal anything, however ANACS discussed everything they had in the records about the coin. Now I know I will get flack by some who will say why do you need to know any of that prior stuff about the coin. Whether it is because I am ignorant at this point about grading or I am insecure with the grading companies decision making abilities to grade accurately bottomline is I just like to know everything I can about a coin that I am about to buy or own. After all collectors are interested in pedigree, I am interested in knowing what is in a coins history or file if there is one, what say you all.

[MikeInFL]

I see nothing wrong, in and of itself, with trying to get more info on your slabs...just don't rely too much on this information in forming your own conclusions regarding the coin itself.

 

To wit, I understand one of the contributors to this forum, Conder101, authored a book on slabs that will let you narrow down when the coin was graded by the type of slab it is (the TPGs change their slabs from time to time). I also understand this book is under revision and a new version should be out in the future, but you might consider finding an old copy or getting on the list for the new book, when released.

 

Here's a good post ATS on PCGS slabs by Conder101 that you might consider bookmarking that will provide some valuable info on PCGS slabs.

 

Hope this helps...Mike

[TomB]

This is information that I find interesting, but that I do not require.

[realone]

Thanks, I went to the Conder101 website for slabs or I should say went to the thread and found out the info that I wanted, in this example the date of the slab and consequently when the TPG received the coin to grade. The reason that it is important to me in this case was the discussion on toned coins, it was graded between 1992 and 1997 by NGC, so that hopefully means the beautiful toning is probably natural/original. So thanks to Conder for the site (a complete site of all the slabs, super cool), to Mike for turning me on to his site on toning (unbelievably educational) and to Tom for the facts and history on and of toning from his post and website. Man is this good info in such a short amount of time, thank you yah all.

[MikeInFL]

The reason That it is important to me in this case was the discussion on toned coins, it was graded between 1992 and 1997 by NGC, so that hopefully means the beautiful toning is probably natural/original.

 

Realone,

 

You are welcome.

 

Please be VERY careful. The above quote could potentially be quite a bad (and potentially expensive) assumption. I wouldn't read too much into the dates of slabbing as insight into original versus artifical toning.

 

I am anything but an expert, but my sense is the doctors have been and continue to be one step ahead of the TPGs, and as evidenced by recent discussions on blue IHCs and other copper, it seems as if TPGs, quite frankly, don't care if toning is original versus artificial -- if they consider it "market acceptable" it gets slabbed.

 

This concern is part of the reason I said "just don't rely too much on this information in forming your own conclusions regarding the coin itself."

 

Hope this helps...Mike

[realone]

the coin that I have been discussing:

Sold on Heritage 7/19/04 and is 1837 H10C Large 5C MS64 NGC. V-1, LM-5, R.1. I don't know how to post the image but it is beautifully toned to me. If someone knows how to post maybe they can help me out. If it was slabbed between 1992 and 1997 I thought maybe it could mean that there is no question that the toning is natural. Now after reading Tom's IVY LEAGUE toning site it apears that the toning looks to be the very definition of natural toning but I don't trust myself in the least and hate to now rely on the TPG's.

[MikeInFL]

Here's the coin in question:

 

 

Here's a link to the auction itself.

 

My thoughts on the coin (all IMHO):

 

It is extremely unlikely this is originally toned. The look of the coin, particularly the white center and toned edges, lead me to believe the coin was dipped or otherwise made "white" and retoned in an album of some type. That's not to say it is not naturally toned nor desireable (I think it is both!), but just that the coin was dipped or otherwise cleaned then retoned.

 

Again, I strongly warn you from drawing any conclusions relative to originality of toning by figuring out when a coin was holdered. Coin doctoring is far, far older than TPGs, and simply because a coin is in a TPG holder does not in any way guarantee the originality of the toning but rather only the subjective opinion of the TPG as to the market acceptability of such toning.

 

Take care...Mike

[realone]

Just to give you as much ifo as possible this coin sold this year in the OLD WEST FRANKLINTON COLLECTION at ANR/STACKS and it is now residing in a PCGS holder. Mike if you can please post that picture, it is a little more current since it what photographed this summer and the photo and color are much more accurate. I am interested in hearing all comments on the toning of this coin. Thanks again.

[MikeInFL]

Here are the pics from ANR:

 

 

Here's a link to the ANR auction

 

My opinion on the coin and its toning has not changed, but would very much like to hear from others...Mike

 

p.s. It is interesting to note the coin (graded MS 64) went for $2,587.50 at Heritage in 2004 in NGC plastic, and $4,082.50 at ANR this past August in PCGS platic.

[MunkyMan95]

Looks questionable.

[123cents]

NT or AT I personally don't like it. I'm sure, however, there are others that will.

[Denver Dave]

The coin looks Album/Holder Toned to me and Original...

 

It could of been cleaned 50/100 years ago but who cares as long as it shows no physical signs...

 

A lot of educated eye's have looked at the coin, you can put this one to bed as Original as it gets...

 

Knowledge is Power but your a little over the top sometimes..."-)

 

What was the grade in the NGC Plastic...?

[TJ'S Coins]

Back to the original question, yes it would be nice to know the history of the slabbed coins that I have. Nice, but not essential, unless there was some great story behind a particular coin. Who owned it, where it has spent the majority of its history, where it circulated would be nice to know. For instance I read in the latest Numismatist magazine from the ANA that early half dollars were often used as payments to the Indians and may have seen more circulation in the west (now Midwest) than previously thought. It would be fascinating to know where my VF-EF Capped Bust Halves circulated. It wouldn't necessarily increase their monetary value but it would sure enhance my appreciation of them.

[AegisIII]

Here are the pics from ANR:

 

 

Here's a link to the ANR auction

 

That's a type of toning which seems to often be seen in classic collections, and frankly is often the most attractive type of toning. I most definitely like it, and so no reason to think it other than original.

 

I would also be much more interested in its distant history, rather than its recent history.

[realone]

Two things to mention, it was MS64 with NGC, and after discovering from the conders101 thread it was graded anywhere between 1992 through 1997, sold in 2004 on Heritage, then crossed over to PCGS anywhere between then and now.

 

The reason that I like to know a coins recent history is not for profit enhancement purposes, it is to know what I just mentioned especially when the coin has some interesting characteristcs that foster all kinds of opinions of originity (if that is a word). You see many will say it is AT or NT, but isn't it beneficial to know from a standpoint of grading accuracy that the the top two TPG's had a looksy at it and came up with the same grades and didn't bodybag it under the auspices of questionable color.

 

Please remember I am a newbe and don't have what all you other guys have, and that is experience in grading, confidence with understanding the coin, and the knowledge of what the heck it is that I am looking at in my hand. At this point I am a dumby what can I say, knowledge is king here, and I need all the help that I can get.

[TomB]

The image technique chosen by each seller leaves me without really knowing how to interpret the look of the coin. However, my knee-jerk reaction is to believe that the coin has original secondary toning on it that would have been accumulated over a long period of time after a dip many years ago.

[realone]

Just for edification purposes, the center of the reverse is darker than pictured, it appears that maybe ( and don't know anything when it comes to the art of photography) a light source during the photographing progress lite the reverse up so that the center got lighter and brighter, if that makes sense. As to the obverse, same conclusion, the center face is lighter than pictured, in hand under a loupe 23x that it has toning on it of similar colors just much much lighter. I hope this might help, either way for me this is a keeper and spent a bundle of hard earned moolah on it. I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to obtain imo. And again thanks for the advice and keep the comments coming.

[MarkFeld]

The image technique chosen by each seller leaves me without really knowing how to interpret the look of the coin. However, my knee-jerk reaction is to believe that the coin has original secondary toning on it that would have been accumulated over a long period of time after a dip many years ago.

I saw the coin in one if not two of the auctions it appeared in. Based upon my recollection of it and the images that have been shown, I would concur with that assessment. I would add that I still found (and find) it to be very appealing in its appearance.

[realone]

So knowing that since you were there Mr MarkFeld you would then be the best person to ask( in addition to the fact that you are from my understanding one of the experts on these boards) the following question, if it is true that it isn't original how does this opinion hurt the coins authenticity and value. I paid something like 5x its value as an ordinary one, is this now not justified? Again I love the coin so it isn't question of that, I just would like to know the honest to goodness truth. Thanks again for your opinion and experience.

[Conder101]

After all collectors are interested in pedigree, I am interested in knowing what is in a coins history or file if there is one, what say you all.

You would be surprised how few collectors care about the history or pedigree of their coins. As a general rule numismatists do care, but most collectors do not.

[TomB]

Mark and I seem to be interpreting the coin in a similar, if not identical, manner so I will also answer your question of authenticity and value.

 

As far as authenticity of the coin is concerned, there is no effect. Additionally, since we both interpret the coin as having original, secondary toning then the authenticity of the toning should not be in question to those who agree with this assessment. In other words, I do not know of anyone who would state that the coin is AT if they believe the toning is from original, secondary toning. Quite a few coins of this era were dipped at one point in their lives, but if they were allowed to slowly retone they then sometimes acquire attractive secondary toning as displayed on your coin.

 

Coins of this era similar to yours are typically viewed as worthy of a premium in the market. The question of value is up to you and the seller and should always be defined as what a knowledgeable seller and knowledgeable buyer agree is a fair price for a transaction. In my opinion, if you paid five times Greysheet for this coin in an MS64 holder, which would be about $5,625, then you paid far in excess of where I value the coin. Please note that this is only where I value the coin and may not be reflective of the overall market or of any other individual.

[realone]

Thanks Tom, I am sorry if my quick math was off a little at the time I wrote my last post, I did not pay $5,625 that being said however this is an excerpt from your informative website IVY lEAGUE COIN in which you say " It is an entirely different thing when you do not know when or where you will find the next monster coin for sale and, even if you are fortunate enough to find one or more, what the cost level will be to acquire them. Five times Greysheet bid is not unheard of and even fifty times bid is a bargain at times. The lack of certainty in replacement and cost makes this niche market less predictable."

So if you do not mind me asking the following three questions. Does this partial excerpt relate to my coin, is my coin in particular classified as monster toned, and is 5X grey sheet bid then realistic for this coin?

[MarkFeld]

So knowing that since you were there Mr MarkFeld you would then be the best person to ask( in addition to the fact that you are from my understanding one of the experts on these boards) the following question, if it is true that it isn't original how does this opinion hurt the coins authenticity and value. I paid something like 5x its value as an ordinary 1837 MS64 H10C Large 5C, is this now not justified? Again I love the coin so it isn't question of that, I just would like to know the honest to goodness truth. Thanks again for your opinion and experience.

Realone, please take the following as just one man's subjective opinion..... When I first viewed the coin, I felt that is was a very attractive, high end MS64 that very might get into a 65 holder one day. Accordingly, I expected it to bring a nice premium over the price of a typical MS64 and perhaps close to MS65 money. However, its auction prices realized of $2500 plus in 2004 and, in particular, $4000 plus in 2006, indicate that other bidders liked it/valued it considerably more than I did. In 2004, it brought approximately MS65 $, but last time it realized a price more commensurate with what an MS66 might sell for. Please note, that in the very large majority of cases, I value the collective opinions (as indicated by bids) of auction bidders over that of any one individual, myself included.

 

If the coin has been dipped and has since re-toned, it appears that, at least to some bidders, its appeal and value have not been diminished, and might have even been enhanced. That said, the price seems steep to me and I'm more comfortable not paying that type of a premium. I believe that when you go to sell it, a large % of the potential buyers will see the grade on the holder and be unwilling to consider paying near the price you did. I hope I am wrong, and I would not have commented as I just did, had you not asked.

[realone]

Thanks Mark and Tom for your honesty, I am sorry if my quick math was off a little at the time I wrote my last post, I did not pay $5,625 however I see how you came to that figure, I just wanted to correct a number that was out in print, that being said I obviously paid over $4000+ and thus have a lot invested in it and would like a little clarification from Tom if you don't mind.

 

The following is an excerpt from your informative website IVY lEAGUE COIN in which you say " It is an entirely different thing when you do not know when or where you will find the next monster coin for sale and, even if you are fortunate enough to find one or more, what the cost level will be to acquire them. Five times Greysheet bid is not unheard of and even fifty times bid is a bargain at times. The lack of certainty in replacement and cost makes this niche market less predictable."

So if you do not mind me asking the following three questions. Does this partial excerpt relate to my coin in entirety, is my coin in particular classified as monster toned (ie: is it in the caliber of what you are describing as monster), and is 5X grey sheet bid then realistic for this particular coin?

 

 

Edited to say sorry my pc is not working well this AM and when I edited the prior post, I didn't realize it was posted so here it is again slight altered.

[TomB]

The quote from my website is based upon my cumulative experience in this niche market. However, not all coins in this niche market respond in an identical manner even if they all can be considered attractively toned or might be a monster.

 

In general, it has been my experience that as the basal value of a coin increases, the fold over Greysheet that one might be expected to pay decreases. This is particularly true when it comes to classic Federal coinage as opposed to later-date coinage. In other words, if you have a gorgeously toned MS65 Roosevelt dime, which is otherwise worth $1 if untoned, then many folks would not hesitate to purchase the coin for $5 (a five-fold increase over Greysheet ) and toned coin specialists might be willing to purchase the piece for $50 (a fifty-fold increase over Greysheet ). However, it is another thing entirely to have a very nicely toned coin that has a basal value of $1,000. In this case I would doubt that many folks would pay a fifty-fold premium, but I think a two-to-five-fold premium might not be out of the question. Since your coin has been auctioned twice, and since it has resulted in strong premiums being paid for it each time, I would think that there are folks in the market who value the appearance of your coin highly.

[MikeInFL]

Although you didn't ask, I would not have paid 4-5x bid for this particular coin. My thoughts are very much in-line with Mark's above. In a bit more detail....

 

Capped bust half dimes are not that difficult to find toned nicely as this example is, and paying 4-5x bid approaching 66 money for a 64 coin (assuming it is accurately graded) is quite a bit more than I would be willing to bid/spend. Personally, I would not feel comfortable with a bid higher than 65 money for this coin -- it is clearly worth more than the run-of-the-mill 64 -- it is just not rare enough to warrant such a high bid.

 

However, if you love the coin as much as you seem to, who is anybody to say if the price is right?

 

Respectfully submitted...Mike

 

p.s. it seems as if some in this thread define "original" a bit differently than I do. Although we agree on the coin and its toning being natural and secondary, I don't classify this as "original" because the surfaces were cleaned/dipped then retoned. Just a difference in semantics, and wanted to be clear...

[TomB]

If your concern, Mike, is with my using "original, secondary toning" then I will define it for you as toning that has occurred without intent after a dip.

[MikeInFL]

If your concern, Mike, is with my using "original, secondary toning" then I will define it for you as toning that has occurred without intent after a dip.

 

Tom, Thanks for the explanation. I think we agreed about the nature of the toning all-along, but just wanted to be clear as we used the term quite differently. Take care...Mike