Sad tale of the demise of an 1877 GOLD proof set

[Sunnywood]

I spent four years assembling an 1877 proof set, from 1c to $20. I ended up doing one silver and minor set (Indian cent through trade dollar) in white cameo coins, and one in beautifully toned original coins.

 

I also completed the gold set, six coins each of which had an original mintage of TWENTY pieces. I favored original pedigreed coins that had never been messed with. In some cases, it is likely that fewer than ten pieces survive in unimpaired condition. One complete gold proof set resides in the Smithsonian, while another resides in the ANS collection ex Brock, J.P. Morgan. The gold set looked like this:

 

$1.00 NGC PF65 CAM pedigree could not be confirmed, but had to be either ex Garrett or Eliasberg (due to certain die diagnostics, and the condition).

 

$2.50 NGC PF67 CAM the only coin that HAD probably been "remade" ... I could not trace it to any of the great collections, but given its condition, it had to have been in a landmark collection.

 

$3.00 PCGS PR64 DCAM ex Dallas Bank Collection - extremely fresh & original

 

$5.00 PCGS PR64 ex Bass - same comment as $3.00 (PCGS had not yet begun putting CAM designations on their coins)

 

$10.00 NGC PF64 CAM ex Garrett, Trompeter - so rare, it was the ONLY 1877 proof $10 on the NGC Census. Totally original.

 

$20.00 NGC PF64 UCAM ex Garrett, Trompeter. Oddly, the NGC pop in PR64 was 10, and the PCGS pop was also 10 in PR64. But only 7 or 8 of these exist, so there were MANY resubmissions. No coins ever graded 65 or higher at either service. ORIGINAL and FABULOUS.

 

I sold the set this past spring, to a major dealer. Not surprisingly, as I was walking around the bourse floor at ANA, I saw my set on display at another major gold dealer. There aren't too many 1877 proof gold sets around, so the coins most likely had to be mine. But something AWFUL had occurred ... all the coins had been "CONSERVED" ... they all looked like widgets. The originality was GONE. The pedigrees were GONE off the holders. The history was GONE. In cases like this, "conservation" is more like "dehistoricization" or even "lobotomization." I looked at the coins carefully, and confirmed without any question that they were my coins, but that they had been dipped & "conserved."

 

Why would anyone do this? Answer: to score upgrades. The $3.00 was now NGC PF65 UCAM, the $5.00 was now NGC PF65 CAM, and the $20 was now NGC PF65 UCAM finsest known. I didn't need to dip and resubmit the coins to know their worth. Needless to say, the coins are now asking far more than I sold the set for. The sad reality is, the market DOES value the conserved "widget" coins in 65 holders HIGHER than the beautiful original & historically pedigreed 64's that I owned.

 

I would NEVER EVER have considered sending them to NCS for conservation. I am really appalled that this was done. I am not sour graping about the value of the coins & the upgrades. I sold them, and that was my decision. But I ask you this: how can the SAME coins be worth MORE after they are dipped & stripped, and robbed of their pedigree & history? This makes the coins worth MORE ?? And why were the grading services more likely to grade the coins PR64 in their beautiful original state, but PR65 after dipping???

 

I put so much time & work into researching these issues, tracing the known specimens, and compiling census data. Now it is all irrelevant. Nobody values history. They just want bright shiny widgets. I thought this was AWFUL. What do you think

 

Sunnywood

 

[Tradedollarnut]

I prefer an original coin with a "story" over a blah, stripped and maxed out coin any day. Sad.

 

 

[kranky]

While I've never had anything like that set, I can understand how you feel.

 

Originality can never be restored. The "chain of custody" that you lovingly traced is gone forever. The coins are orphans in a way.

 

The part I do not understand is how a dipped & stripped proof gold coin can possibly get an upgrade. Apparently the "widget look" counts for increased eye appeal that justifies the bump, and the wonderful original look was a negative in the grader's opinion. And I guess that must be true, since no one in their right mind would fool with coins like that unless they were pretty sure it wasn't going to backfire on them.

 

You not only loved the coins, you loved their history, their provenance, their originality. The new owner loved only the upgrade and the rest be damned. Show me the money! Were it not for the crazy premiums for one-point bumps that would never have happened.

 

Of course, proof gold with tiny mintages should not rocket in price due to a one-point upgrade. The sheet may list prices in all grades, but it's doubtful that a interested buyer is saying he will pass on a PR64DCAM because he's waiting for a PR65DCAM to come along.

 

I do feel bad for you, Sunnywood. Something great has been taken away forever.

[TomB]

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your coins, it truly makes me feel ill.

 

I can empathize with you in that I sold a fabulously wonderful, original coin for a significant sum of money recently and I also saw the coin on the bourse at the ANA. Immediately, I could tell it was mine, however, it had also been "conserved" and had scored a one point upgrade. In this case the market did not value the coin at significantly more than when I owned it in its original state. I would think that about 30% of its eye appeal was removed by the "conservation" and I felt guilty that my sale of the coin put it in harm's way.

 

There is only so much we can do to preserve the coins that we are temporarily fortunate enough to be responsible for.

[reid1836]

As an avid colector for some 30+ years I can only say that somewhere along the line there has been a horrific mistake. Maybe the dealer dropped the coins in acid by accident or used them pithing coins against a wall with the neighborhood kids by mistake. Perhaps they were left out in the elements and oxidized beyond recognition. Because surely anyone with just an iota of respect for the hobby would never submit such true rarities in such pristine original condition to be conserved. WHAT A TRAVISTY!

[truthteller]

Oh my! This story is so sad, that I actually got angry reading it. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$. Unfortunately, coin dealers want money, money and nothing else. Yesterday's dealer could appreciate the history, the originality. Today's dealer wants the cash, new American values. I have discussed this topic with many dealers. Most feel a coins value is the history and most dealers despise those who essentially destroy a coin in order to upgrade. The hobby is no longer a hobby, merely another money making venture. Yet, those collectors who buy the conserved coins only add to the lust for dealers to make money. A very sad commentary to the coin industry.

 

TRUTH

[Oldtrader3]

I am missing a link in my brain or something (a few bricks short of.....). How can a bonafide collector (or dealer who should know better), put a higher price tag on a conserved coin than on attribution and originality. The fact that they were able to afford this set indicates collecting interest, maybe coupled with some knowledge(?).

 

Garrett, Eliasberg, Trompeter and Bass are coin pedigrees that represent the very best efforts of very picky collector's lifelong pursuits. The original toning and luster of these coins is part and parcel of their history and represents what they are. They are in a word, irreplaceable.

 

The fact that this set is worth more "Conserved" is a symptom of the greed before reasoning element in the hobby that puts money ahead of history. They now are not what they were and never shall be again. This desecration is shameful!

[Hoot]

Very sad story Sunnywood. In a time of significant heartbreak in life, this only added to the sadness here for me. It is a true remark on the spirit of the trade in the hobby. Initially, the hobby appears to attract a vast majority that like shiny widgets; simply look at the relative popularity of the modern coin market vs. the classic coin market. There is no valuation of history or provenance. as the objects themselves are most often what are collected, not their intrinsic worth. Thus, the higher the grade and the greater the superlative, the more monetary value that is placed on them. And kranky said it well in that these rare coins take leaps between grades that do not reflect their overall rarity (in a much broader sense than grade).

 

Alas, what I find to be an equal or greater disgrace than their conservation (which can be an important process for some coins, just not these) is the loss of the pedegree and the loss of the originality (as I think has been made clear). The pedegree speaks volumes of history and an inheritance of interest and appeal, although it may add little to the overall value, especially of such rare pieces.

 

I wonder, how would these coins have graded had they simply been resubmitted? We'll never know, I suppose, but it may be that we are fooled by the idea that the conservation improved grading matters in the least.

 

Hoot

[291fifth]

Sunnywood,

 

You are obviously a very advanced, very dedicated COLLECTOR. Unfortunately, no matter what front they may put up, dealers are BUSINESSMEN. Profit maximization is their goal. Dealers have learned to maximize their financial gain by playing the slab game. Since they do a large number of submissions they get a good feel for what they can get from the various services. Once they have achieved "their" grade the coin goes back on the market.

 

Original coins are wonderful. They are what serious, advanced collectors love. Unfortunately, they are not what the majority of the buyers want. The majority apparently want bright, shiny coins.

The buyers pay big money for these bright, shiny coins and the dealers, with profit maximization in mind, provide them.

 

 

 

 

[BillJones]

Unfortunately I saw the same thing happen to this 1796 No Stars quarter eagle:

 

When I first saw this coin, it was an NGC AU-50. I loved it. It was absolutely original with none of the copper spots that can sometimes plague these early gold pieces.

 

 

I wish that I had had the $90,000 that it would have taken so that I could have saved it from its ultimate fate. Now it's a PCGS AU-58. Now it's shined up like a brass button ready to be sold to a crass, ignorant, very wealthy psudo collector who thinks that shiny is better.

 

[dragon]

Oh my!!........that story really makes me cringe. I too have seen some proof gold pieces after they've been conserved by NCS, and IMO, NCS did those coins no favor. I think 19th century gold coins definately look best in their original state with a bit of haze and those lovely orange peel surfaces in some cases. I cannot understand why someone would try to conserve coins like this, they are not supposed to look like fresh 2003 gold proof eagles!

 

I guess this story really doesn't surprise me though, as I am an avid Morgan dolar collector and I too have seen coins that I once owned, now dipped out and bumped by one of the services. It's especially depressing for me to see DMPL dollars with that dipped out look, and original unmessed with ones are getting scarcer by the week it seems. The rate that coins are being 'conserved' these days is really alarming IMO, and the fact that someone chose to do this to very rare original gold proof coins is really awful, and all for a damned arbitrary number on a plastic holder.

 

dragon

[berylcoin-migration]

Ugh. That story is just sickening on so many levels.

 

BC

[gmarguli]

Who says NCS had anything to do with the look of this coin? Dipping coins was around before NCS.

[Sunnywood]

Thanks to all for your replies. I am happy to know that most of you share my opinion ... and I forcefully agree with what everyone has written here.

 

To learn more about this, also check out the similar thread across the street.

 

Hoot, funny thing is, the pops showed many many resubmissions of the $20 before I owned it. I know that the Garrett-Trompeter $20 had been to PCGS and NGC as many as a DOZEN times, and always graded PR64. So, it got dipped, and SHAZZAM !! it gets a Proof 65 grade. There was also a small patch of hairlines at the lower right that was grade-limiting ... maybe they got played with a little ... hard to say. And so a $45,000 coin became $85,000 coin just like that. How on earth could it be worth $40,000 MORE just by getting dipped and by having the Garrett pedigree stripped off ?

 

Sunnywood

 

[Oldtrader3]

Bill: Except for the diagnostics (scratch behind the cap, ding in front of chin) on your quarter eagle, they don't even look like the same coin. The original AU50 coin is really original and nice. It is a shame that someone thought that they had to "improve" it.

[braddick]

Thanks to all for your replies. I am happy to know that most of you share my opinion ... and I forcefully agree with what everyone has written here.

 

To learn more about this, also check out the similar thread across the street.

 

Hoot, funny thing is, the pops showed many many resubmissions of the $20 before I owned it. I know that the Garrett-Trompeter $20 had been to PCGS and NGC as many as a DOZEN times, and always graded PR64. So, it got dipped, and SHAZZAM !! it gets a Proof 65 grade. There was also a small patch of hairlines at the lower right that was grade-limiting ... maybe they got played with a little ... hard to say. And so a $45,000 coin became $85,000 coin just like that. How on earth could it be worth $40,000 MORE just by getting dipped and by having the Garrett pedigree stripped off ?

 

Sunnywood

Sunnywood, I guess my question in all of this is why you believe NCS only "dipped" these coins? Is it possible their process is a bit more complicated and skillfull than that? I don't have the answers but it's difficult to believe a simple dip/dip/dip would add $40,000.00 to the value of a coin.

[MarkFeld]

As I posted on the "other" forum:

 

Sunnywood, this is an excellent thread/discussion, with a number of very important points/lessons. As a concerned hobbyist and dealer, please accept my appreciation and thanks for bringing this up.

 

I can only hope that representatives of the major grading services, as well as buyers of over-dipped, stripped, over-graded, unoriginal coins, will read it and learn from it.

 

Edited to add:

 

I am not necessarily or automatically opposed to all dipped coins. Many of them, however, appear to be over-dipped, completely unoriginal looking and/or over-graded. Those are the ones that I was speaking of and they disturb me greatly, for a number of reasons

[gmarguli]

I can only hope that representatives of the major grading services, as well as buyers of over-dipped, stripped, over-graded, unoriginal coins, will read it and learn from it.

 

The problem is that a large majority of the coin buyers like stripped coins. "I want my coin to look like it did when it came out of the mint" mentality is far too common among the buyers.

[MarkFeld]

Greg, sadly, I agree with you.

 

A major part of the problem, in my opinion, though, is that the major grading services are overgrading these dipped-out, un-original coins, thereby encouraging "conservation".

 

If the grading penalized, rather than rewarded, such coins, the financial incentive wouldn't be there. And, let's face it, it's almost entirely about the $$$$$$

[TomB]

Agreed.

 

It's also sad to realize that so many of the things that are "in fashion" in numismatics are only temporarily so. However, once the original patina is stripped off of a coin there is no going back, no matter what the present "fashion sense" might want.

[jtryka]

What a bunch of [!@#%^&^]! You know I always thought the insanity of the huge price jumps for one grading point was limited to the modern registry mania, and somehow the great rarities of earlier days with a solid provenance would be immune. The folks would regocnize the real value of an Eliasburg, or Trompeter piece even if it was only a PR-64. I guess I was wrong. I am very sorry for your loss, and the loss to the rest of us too.

[lclugza]

A couple of things I wonder about:

 

I wonder how many 19th century coins are really "original?" Many of the "white" coins are probably dipped, and some of the toned coins are AT. I wonder if many of the toned coins might have been dipped in the past and then retoned? (and some more than once?) After all, a silver coin will tone in a year or two if it is just exposed to the air.

 

Also, in the population reports for gold proofs, how many represent different coins, and how many represent resubmissions of the same coin? If one had a POP 6 gold proof, how many different coins would you estimate the six to include?

[Oldtrader3]

In the case of Sunnywood's set, it appears a pop. of 12 is really one coin.

 

I appologize but I still do not understand a process that rewards false conversion (or conservation if you wish) over preservation of an original coin with important historical attribution, color and patina.

 

I was raised with the Old New England spirit of stewardship and respect for history. This being an obligation of every learned person to assure passing on historic and traditional relics as being equally important to the present culture as to the past. That obligation carried with it a responsibilty to preserve this past just as it was/is for the enlightenment, treasuring, understanding and enjoyment of present and (most importantly) future generations. The only wiggle room was to restore that with was in danger of deterioration leading to damage (i.e. The Sistine Chapel).

 

You can not improve on something that is already an unimpeachable, patined, pedigreed treasure. All you can do through alteration is diminish it forever.

 

 

[Sunnywood]

If the grading penalized, rather than rewarded, such coins, the financial incentive wouldn't be there. And, let's face it, it's almost entirely about the $$$$$$

 

Mark, that's hitting the nail right on the head !! There would have been no financial reason for anyone to do this if the coins had not been likely to score upgrades. After all, as noted earlier, the $20 had already been resubmitted many many times by its prior owner(s) without upgrading. (I know this as a FACT.) The grading services should NOT be biased toward grading conserved coins higher than their original counterparts. And the dealers should educate the public to understand that pedigreed coins from important collections have as much or MORE value than widgets. Of course, in the end, if the public wants to pay more for 19th century bright & shiny headlights with no provenance, this will continue.

 

I can see an upgrade resulting from conservation where heavy ugly toning or contaminants are successfully removed and the quality of the coin first becomes apparent; but I cannot see it in a case like this where the quality of the coins was already apparent and the appearance was quite acceptable.

 

Braddick, I am not disparaging NCS's process. I have submitted many shield nickel variety coins to them (coins that were typically AU with heavy patination and/or PVC or dirt, which made the variety features harder to see and study). I use the word "dip" as a shorthand for what is undoubtedly a multi-step process. For example, I'm sure they perform ultrasonic cleaning, and various rinsing and drying steps as well, just as I do to precision parts in some of my own manufacturing businesses. But in a way, the more "processing" they do, the less "natural" the result. Therefore saying that NCS's process is complex and intelligently designed does not make it any more acceptable to perform on pedigreed proof gold or other beautiful original pieces of history, in my view.

 

Greg, you are right, I cannot say that it was NCS that dipped these coins ... it might have been one of the dealers themselves, or someone else. There are plenty of people experienced at dipping coins. I blame the dealers that decided to do this, and I also think NGC needs to look at why they graded the $20 higher only after it was conserved.

 

I am not slamming NCS. I do believe there is a place for NCS, and I like their services. Obviously there is also a financial incentive for NGC/NCS to encourage conservation and regrading submissions, and handing out upgrades really helps this agenda. But I'm sure NGC realizes that in the long run, it will give conservation (and grading) a BAD name if it is used to ruin, erase, strip, generify, lobotomize, dehistoricize and widgetize important coins. (How do you like those made-up words !!) NGC should not be encouraging that.

 

Sunnywood

 

 

[jom]

I looked at the coins carefully, and confirmed without any question that they were my coins, but that they had been dipped & "conserved."

 

Lock and load, baby....

 

About NCS: Maybe NCS did the work here but why blame them? Aren't they just doing their job? Blame the money hungry insufficiently_thoughtful_persons who sent the coins in.

 

Rare coins are getting rarer by the minute.

 

jom

[Hoot]

Hoot, funny thing is, the pops showed many many resubmissions of the $20 before I owned it. I know that the Garrett-Trompeter $20 had been to PCGS and NGC as many as a DOZEN times, and always graded PR64. So, it got dipped, and SHAZZAM !! it gets a Proof 65 grade. There was also a small patch of hairlines at the lower right that was grade-limiting ... maybe they got played with a little ... hard to say. And so a $45,000 coin became $85,000 coin just like that. How on earth could it be worth $40,000 MORE just by getting dipped and by having the Garrett pedigree stripped off ?

 

What is REALLY frustrating about this is that the grading services claim the expertise of being able to "see through" such original patination and ascertain the grade based on the coins technical and other merits. Your statement, Sunnywood, makes such a claim questionable. Perhaps the patination was heavy enough to make questionable how hairlined the original coins may have been, but that's probably giving too much "benefit of the doubt" to the graders. Especially with gold, unless the coins were very spotty, the original patination should have only added to the grade.

 

But I'm sure NGC realizes that in the long run, it will give conservation (and grading) a BAD name if it is used to ruin, erase, strip, generify, lobotomize, dehistoricize and widgetize important coins.

 

They probably know this already but may have had no choice in their reexamination of the coins or the relabeling. Those choices may have been made entirely by the greedy dealer who chose to have this done. If NCS did the job, they likely did it as expertly as they could, knowing that if it was not them, it might have been someone even less expert. I reckon I simply have a fair bit of confidence in the personnel at NCS and NGC for such intergrity. Still, I believe strongly, Sunnywood, in your basic premise.

 

(How do you like those made-up words !!)

 

Superbalicious! A lexiconical delight!

 

Hoot

[Newmismatist]

I was collecting proof gold when Trompter was putting together his Proof Gold (he wanted one of every date - I was happy to do a type set - never did get the

Ty1 $20, Ty1 $10 or the Ty2 $1 - but Proof Gold is neat stuff) - Anyway one of the very knowledgeable dealers told me that ALL of Trompter's Proof gold was dipped after he bought it - whether by him or someone else he didn't know - but he had sold a number of very nice coins that he said he saw them later slabbed and they were definately different (appearance-wise).

 

With regard to dipping, conserving, cleaning or whatever euphamism is currently being used - here's my thoughts:

 

10 years ago the conservators began cleaning a priceless work of art - after it started there was a great outcry by the purests that this magnificant work of art was being ruined. It didn't look like they were used to seeing it - the colors were formerly muted, now they were garish - the restoration made it look ugly, they purests claimed. The restoration continued admist great contraversy, articles were written - national magazines fueled the contraversy.

The work of art was the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - I''ve seen it both before & after - the cleaning removed 400 years of dirt and accumulated grim - and now the colors are indeed bright and vibrent (maybe even a bit garish) but that's how Michelangelo painted it - the soot from 300 years of candle illumination didn't really do anything of the paintings

 

I believe the same is true regarding coins - cleaning/conserving - the removal of dirt and grime for a coin's surface does not harm a coin - in most instances it enhances the coins appearance - the instances where the appearnace is harmed usually occurs when removing the contaminants from the coin's surface reveals serious hairlines, scratches or other defects - sometimes the "contaminents" were deliberately put there purposely to hide the distracing marks (a few years ago AT coins were not AT to get a premium for the toning - they were AT to hide something - its difficult to see defects thru heavy "toning".

 

The contraversy with coins occurs when the actual "toning" is removed. Prior to 1965, US coins are made from 4 primary metals: Gold, Silver, Copper and Copper-Nickel: Each of these metals reacts differently to oxidation -

 

Gold itself is almost completely inert - it realy doesn't tone at all - its the small amount of copper & silver in the gold alloy that causes what little toning you see on gold coins.

 

Silver is very reactive to oxygen and particularly sulpher - if left in a high sulpher atmosphere silver will eventually turn black - I've never seen anyone line up to buy a naturally toned "black" silver coin - when they reach that state of toning they are virtually undesirable and unsaleable.

 

Copper quickly reacts to oxygen & begins to turn brown almost immediately - ultimately all copper exposed to the atmosphere will turn brown (unless in a humid environment, then it will turn green - even worse - unless its an ancient coin, then a green patina adds a lot of value to the coin)

 

So here's the delimma - Does the conservation (cleaning) process merely remove what got there after the minting process (dirt) or does it harm the coin when it also removes what is the natural state of all coins after they are minted, which is the skin of oxidation that forms on the coin in different levels of intensity - I guess the answer is it depends which of the two natural states the collector prefers - the untoned, just off the press look or the naturally occuring toning that inveraibly will occur if the coin is exposed to the atmosphere.

 

Both are the natural conditions of the coin - it just depends whether you want the look of a coin that was NOT allowed to be exposed to the air, or one that was.

 

I like both - I've seen some wonderous coins that after cleaning have luster & depth that are astounding ( BUT I've seen many more ruined by cleaning) and I've seen beautifully toned coins that are similarly astounding with natural color and pristine surfaces (BUT I've seen some very ugly toned coins - coins that completely lack any redeaming eye appeal because they've residing in an atmosphere that has ruined the original surfaces of the coins)

 

I prefer to collect the coins with eye-appeal - whether with toning or without toning -Naturally toned ugly coins and over-dipped ugly coins are all on my "I wouldn't own that coin if you gave it to me" list

 

So w/o seeing the before and after - I can't comment on the 1877 Proof set - it may look better - it may look worse - ultimately the marketplace will determine whether its more valuble or less valuable - It doesn't matter if the grading services call an ugly coin 67, 68 or 69 (UNLESS the prospective purchaser is ONLY interested in the number on the plastic) - An ugly Proof 67 UCam is harder to sell for than a gorgeous Pr66Cam - In fact sometimes getting the "upgrade" makes a difficult to sell coin unsaleable.

 

One last comment - Putting together a complete set of 1877 coins is a MONUMENTAL achievement - Sunnywood should be proud of having put together that set - Was it ruined after he sold it? Maybe / Maybe Not - but Sunnywood had the rare pleasure of owning a very beautiful piece of American history - I wish I had seen the entire set intact - he'd have to have had a roll of paper towels to wipe up the drool!

 

So to Sunnywood - Congratulations! (& don't sell the next one! )

[EZ_E]

Post deleted by EZ_E

[Chippewa]

Re Clyde's watch

 

Is there a statute of limitations on "receiving stolen property"? If your friend's story is true, the watch still belongs to the museum, sorry to say, even if the robbery was 30 years ago.

[EZ_E]

Post deleted by EZ_E