A failed upgrade attempt?

[MarkFeld]

Lot # 516 in next week's Heritage Palm Beach sale:

 

"1877 10C MS67 PCGS. The more commonly seen Type Two reverse, attributed by the E in ONE being distant from the wreath. Highly lustrous surfaces display, on the obverse, waves of medium intensity golden-brown, cobalt-blue, and lavender, and pastel violet, sky-blue, and gold-yellow on the reverse. An attentive strike yields well defined and uniform definition on the design features. Impeccably preserved throughout. Population: 4 in 67, 0 finer (6/07).(Registry values: N1) (#4682"

 

Lot # 2591 from their January FUN sale at $6900, with a different ID# on the grading label:

 

"1877 10C MS67 PCGS. Type Two Reverse. Lovely golden-brown, ocean-blue, and coral-pink shades alternate across this exactingly struck and shimmering Superb Gem. Essentially void of contact, and surprisingly rare in such exemplary condition. Population: 4 in 67, 0 finer (10/06).(Registry values: N1)"

 

 

I liked it in January and I like it now (and bid on it both times). But I suspect it will sell for considerably less this time, unless the consignor reserves it at a level close to what he paid for it.

[James_OldeTowne]

It sure sounds like it!

 

On a side note, the images to not present a very attractive coin for my tastes, but I like the second image better than the first. Based on your in-hand experience, which is the more accurate image?

 

One last thing - seems they ought to have mentioned that neat die-crack on the reverse.

[Cladiator]

Next time through it'll probably get dipped in an attempt to get that 68.

[gmarguli]

I liked it in January and I like it now (and bid on it both times). But I suspect it will sell for considerably less this time, unless the consignor reserves it at a level close to what he paid for it.

 

Why do you believe it will sell for "considerably" less? The coin is probably very PQ and should sell for PQ money. There might even be more crackout dealers willing to take a shot at it. Who knows, once the funky toning id dipped off it, it may upgrade to MS68?

 

Do you feel that failed upgrades frequently sell for less their second time thru an auction?

[MarkFeld]

.....On a side note, the images to not present a very attractive coin for my tastes, but I like the second image better than the first. Based on your in-hand experience, which is the more accurate image?....

In hand, the coin is gorgeous, to my eyes, at least. If memory serves me correctly, the first set of images is less inaccurate than the first, color and appearance-wise, and the coin is at least a bit flashier than in either set of photos.

 

I liked it in January and I like it now (and bid on it both times). But I suspect it will sell for considerably less this time, unless the consignor reserves it at a level close to what he paid for it.

 

Why do you believe it will sell for "considerably" less? The coin is probably very PQ and should sell for PQ money. There might even be more crackout dealers willing to take a shot at it. Who knows, once the funky toning id dipped off it, it may upgrade to MS68?

 

Do you feel that failed upgrades frequently sell for less their second time thru an auction?

My guess (and I have no statistics with which to back it up) is that failed upgrade attempts are more likely to sell for less, rather than more, in subsequent appearances.

 

The coins are apt to be recognized by enough sharp bidders who are aware of the previous sale(s). And, while the fact that an upgrade failed the first or second time doesn't mean the coin won't upgrade later, I think it has a negative effect on bidders.

 

It would be interesting to see a study to see how the coins do the second, third or whatever time around.

[lkenefic]

Is it just the lighting? Or did someone already try a really quick dip and fast rinse in an effort to remove the less than equal toning on this piece? I could see why someone might be tempted to dip it ...I can also see why that certain someone would be shy about not leaving it in the dip too long.

 

My question to the would-be dippers: For arguments' sake, let's assume that the coin gets dipped and ultimately upgrades to 68. Will this prevent someone else from cracking it out and dipping it again in the future in an effort to get an MS69 designation? Will the coin never retone?

 

How about this: the coin gets a 68 this time around and a subsequent owner cracks it out to resubmit in an attempt at 69...the coin gets bb'd for alterred surfaces...what then??

 

I should purchase stock in NGC and PCGS instead of more coins!!!

 

Leo

[MarkFeld]

Is it just the lighting? Or did someone already try a really quick dip and fast rinse in an effort to remove the less than equal toning on this piece? I could see why someone might be tempted to dip it ...I can also see why that certain someone would be shy about not leaving it in the dip too long.

 

My question to the would-be dippers: For arguments' sake, let's assume that the coin gets dipped and ultimately upgrades to 68. Will this prevent someone else from cracking it out and dipping it again in the future in an effort to get an MS69 designation? Will the coin never retone?

 

How about this: the coin gets a 68 this time around and a subsequent owner cracks it out to resubmit in an attempt at 69...the coin gets bb'd for alterred surfaces...what then??

 

I should purchase stock in NGC and PCGS instead of more coins!!!

 

Leo

Leo, I believe it's just the imaging/lighting - I don't recall the coin looking different in person the second time.

 

I'm not a would-be dipper, but....a dip and an upgrade would not automatically preclude someone from trying for another upgrade. However, unless the coin were to re-tone after the dipping (which could occur), there would be no reason to dip it again, and doing so could strip the luster further.

[Cladiator]

I've seen many extremely nice toned coins in my area of specialty mystically reappear at auction in a slab of one grade higher and with no more toning. Sad.

[MikeInFL]

Very interesting thread...

 

I liked it in January and I like it now (and bid on it both times). But I suspect it will sell for considerably less this time, unless the consignor reserves it at a level close to what he paid for it.

 

My question to you, Mark, is this. Did you revise your bid downward?

[MarkFeld]

Very interesting thread...

 

I liked it in January and I like it now (and bid on it both times). But I suspect it will sell for considerably less this time, unless the consignor reserves it at a level close to what he paid for it.

 

My question to you, Mark, is this. Did you revise your bid downward?

No, Mike, primarily because I was blown out of the water so badly the first time, even if it sells for considerably less this time, I won't be buying it. Also, I wasn't bidding on it as a potential upgrade.

 

[GAB]

I would have expected the population count to increase by 1 if it was a resubmission for

upgrade. Does NGC give a new serial number to a "still slabbed" coin that is submitted

for upgrade? I would expect not. If the coin was cracked before being re-submitted, then

it would indeed get a new number, but it should have indexed the pop count?

[MarkFeld]

I would have expected the population count to increase by 1 if it was a resubmission for

upgrade. Does NGC give a new serial number to a "still slabbed" coin that is submitted

for upgrade? I would expect not. If the coin was cracked before being re-submitted, then

it would indeed get a new number, but it should have indexed the pop count?

There are two possibilities which quickly come to mind with respect to the (unchanged) population figure: 1) Heritage did not update it; 2) The re-submitter turned in the original grading tag to PCGS - that would leave the population unchanged.

 

It is my understanding that NGC and PCGS both assign new ID numbers to coins which are re-submitted in their holders.

[GAB]

It is my understanding that NGC and PCGS both assign new ID numbers to coins which are re-submitted in their holders.

 

Interesting ...

I guess I can understand if the coin upgrades.

Hopefully they(both) know how to adjust the population count whether or not the coin upgrades. I guess they can adjust the pop down when they crack it, then increment

the appropriate pop count when they are all done - regardless of the outcome.

Do you automatically get a 50 cent "rebate" for the tag if you resubmit for upgrade

to PCGS ? (assuming it was PCGS in the first place of course)

[MarkFeld]

Reserves for the sale have been posted and this coin has a reserve of $5000 hammer (against the previous price realized of $6900).That means if the person who bought it in January is the consignor to this sale, he is willing to take a $1000 plus loss on it.

[Shortgapbob-migration]

I would have expected the population count to increase by 1 if it was a resubmission for

upgrade. Does NGC give a new serial number to a "still slabbed" coin that is submitted

for upgrade? I would expect not. If the coin was cracked before being re-submitted, then

it would indeed get a new number, but it should have indexed the pop count?

There are two possibilities which quickly come to mind with respect to the (unchanged) population figure: 1) Heritage did not update it; 2) The re-submitter turned in the original grading tag to PCGS - that would leave the population unchanged.

 

It is my understanding that NGC and PCGS both assign new ID numbers to coins which are re-submitted in their holders.

 

I would say that for a coin like this, it would be in the submitter's best interest to return the tag to NGC and keep the population at 4. If the pop went up to 5, that could have an adverse effect on the value of the coin.

[MikeKing]

I like the coin, but can you explain it's toning pattern? Do you think it's been dipped already (before this toning set in way prior to the 'first' sale)?