Exciting Coin Sets Yet To Be Assembled

In the twenty-five years that I’ve been a professional numismatist, I’ve had the opportunity to build some pretty interesting coin collections. I’ve put together two of the finest sets of New Orleans gold ever assembled, the unquestioned finest set of Carson City gold and numerous high grade Charlotte and Dahlonega sets, to name just a few. At this point in my professional career, what sets would really excite me to have the chance to assemble? First and foremost, I’d love to have a wealthy, patient connoisseur call me and decide that he wanted to put together a complete set of high grade United States gold. How much fun would it be to be able to buy all the really high grade and really rare issues that I’ve passed on in the last few years because I just didn’t have a home for them at the time?

(And how cool would it be to walk around a coin show with a checklist of all United States gold issues and have to look at it when I saw, say, a nice About Uncirculated 1858-S eagle and remind myself if the collection already had an example of this date or not…)

My dream collection would, in some ways, use the Eliasberg collection as a benchmark but it would have some obvious differences. When the Eliasberg collection was assembled, it was much easier to locate choice, original coins than it is today. Unfortunately, I would be unable to locate early gold that could rival the phenomenal unmolested pieces in the Eliasberg collection; many of which were purchased by the Clapp family as early as the 1890’s.

But I would also be able to buy many issues in much higher grade than what was present in the Eliasberg collection. As an example, many of the post-1880 issues in this collection were represented by very low grade pieces which would be considered unremarkable, at best, today. A number of these dates are now available in fairly high grade as a result of finds in Europe and other overseas sources. It would certainly be fun to tell this new collector that a coin that he just purchased in MS64 was represented by a dingy VF in the Eliasberg collection!

Another collection that I would love to work on would attempt to replicate the John Adams collection of 1794 Cents but in a less specialized fashion (for those of you unfamiliar with this collection, John Adams is a well-known Boston collector who formed a remarkable die variety set of 1794 Cents by Sheldon variety. His parameter for purchasing a coin was to find a piece with a great pedigree entailing as many famous collectors as possible. I have always thought that this was the most fascinating specialized collection ever formed).

The gist of the Adams collection was to “collect the collectors” who had become part of the folklore of the Large Cent culture. This has never really been done in the area of gold; partially because pedigree research on gold coinage is nowhere near as comprehensive as it is on early copper. But wouldn’t a collection that included examples from all of the great gold collections from the past be interesting?

Getting to assemble a major set of early gold coinage would be a lot of fun as well. I’m currently working on a few very impressive sets of early gold but I seldom—if ever—get the chance to buy the macho, six-figure pieces that sometimes come up for sale at shows and auctions. My personal dream assignment would be to assemble a world-class set of Fat Head half eagles (from 1813 to 1834) and to be able to purchase duplicate examples of the dates that the collector and I thought were “neat” or “undervalued.” And to maybe even expand this set to include the die varieties that exist for dates such as the 1818, 1820, 1823, etc. Now that would be fun!

But, really, I have no complaints about what I’m doing right now. I get the chance to work with interesting, nice people who trust my judgment when it comes to coins. Some of these people have become good friends of mine and I’ve now known many of them for over a decade (actually two decades in some cases).

That said, if Paul Allen or Bill Gates call me tomorrow and tell me they are ready to seriously start collecting United States gold coinage, I think I can get the proposal written pretty quickly…

What Constitues A Complete Coin Set?

A client of mine recently asked me an interesting question about whether the addition of a specific Charlotte half eagle would—or wouldn’t—remove the stigma of Incompleteness from his set. I thought this was an interesting question and it got me to thinking about how the presence or absence of certain issues relate to rare gold coin collecting. Not everyone is cut out to work on a complete set. Some collectors do not have the patience; others do not have deep enough pockets. To some collectors, a complete set is monotonous and an exercise in futility. To others, it is an interesting challenge with defined goals.

So what exactly constitutes a complete set?

There is no standard answer to this question. As an example, what should a collector do if he collects Three Dollar gold pieces and he doesn’t want to spend $200,000+ to purchase nice examples of the 1875 and 1876. These are issues that were struck only as Proofs and, in theory, they do not need to be included in a set of Three Dollar gold pieces if the focus is business strike issues. In my opinion, a set of Threes is not technically complete without an 1875 or an 1876 but I can fully understand a collector’s decision to not purchase these two issues due to the fact that they were not struck for circulation.

In the case of Three Dollar gold pieces, what is the collector supposed to do about the proverbial elephant-in-the room, the unique 1870-S? My suggestion would be to ignore this date as its extreme rarity makes it an essentially impossible issue to obtain.

In the Charlotte series there are a few issues that are open to debate as to whether they should or should not be in a complete set. In my opinion, both varieties of 1842-C quarter eagles (Large Date and Small Date) and both varieties of 1842-C half eagles should be included. These are design variations which are readily visible to the naked eye. A set that has only one of these could be called a complete date set but it would not be a complete variety set.

What about mintmark variations on Charlotte coins, such as an 1850-C Weak C. Is a set complete without one of these pieces? This is a striking variation and it is not, in my opinion, an essential component of a set unless the set is very in-depth and it includes die varieties and strike variations. In this case, I would then include interesting items such as an 1855-C half eagle with a cud reverse or an 1840-C half eagle with broad and narrow milling.

The Dahlonega series has a few issues that are difficult to decide where they fall as far being included in a set or not. Clearly, the 1842-D Small Date and Large Date half eagles should both be included in the set as they are design variations. What about the interesting 1846-D/D and 1848-D/D half eagles? I have always regarded them as members of a complete set but can totally understand the argument that they are die varieties. And if these two varieties are included than what about the less well-known but equally significant 1840-D and 1841-D Small D and Tall D varieties? Again, my position on these is that they are die varieties and should only be included in a highly specialized collection that includes significant naked-eye die varieties.

And what about New Orleans gold coinage? I have always considered the 1843-O Large Date and Small Date quarter eagles to be essential components of a complete set as well as the 1843-O Small Letters and Large Letters half eagles. In my opinion, anything else is a die variety which does not need to be complete.

What about the 1854-O and 1856-O double eagles; two issues which now cost over $250,000 each for a presentable example? Sorry, but a set of New Orleans gold coinage that is complete except for these two coins is impressive but still not finished. These two coins are totally legitimate regular issues with no stigma of controversy attached to them. If you are a serious enough collector to want to assemble a full set of circulation strike New Orleans gold coins, you just have to face up to the fact, unpleasant or not, that there are two very, very expensive coins waiting for you down the road. And, for better or worse, these two coins are probably going to define the quality of your set.

(Oh, and by the way, the 1841-O half eagle does not exist. So don’t worry about filling a phantom hole…even if this coin is mentioned in the Redbook and the Breen Encyclopedia).

OK, so what about 20th century issues?

In my opinion, an Indian Head half eagle set is very straight forward. The Indian Head eagle set has traditionally required a 1907 Rolled Edge and 1907 Wire Edge to be considered complete. This is a pretty tricky question. The Wire Edge was issued in a large enough quantity that I think its safe to say that it was a regular issue and, thus, it should be included in any set. The Rolled Edge is a much tougher call. Only 50 or so pieces were produced and the fabric of this coin suggests that it is experimental in nature. The 1907 Rolled Edge is listed in the Judd book as a pattern (but, then again, so is the Wire Edge…) but it has traditionally been included in the regular issue set. I’m not certain what the right answer is but I think most advanced collectors have decided that they will purchase the Rolled Edge.

The St. Gaudens set contains some really tricky “include it vs. don’t include it” issues. Obviously, the Ultra High Relief does not belong in a regular issue set. Neither, of course, does the (currently) illegal 1933. What about the Wire Edge and Flat Rim varieties of High Reliefs? To me, it’s obvious that these are strike-related varieties and they do not constitute any sort of design change. The 1927-D? It’s a regular issue coin and you don’t have a complete set of Saints if you don’t have a 1927-D.

2006 Las Vegas Show Summary

The recently concluded Las Vegas coin show could certainly be summarized by the well-known Spaghetti Western director Sergio Leone as “the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” First, the Good. I wasn’t expecting much from this show. In fact I was expecting so little that I decided to cut my stay to just one night and to bring only a small group of coins that I wanted to blow out of my inventory as I thought they were tired.

The coin show turned out to be more active than I would have expected. Dealers were clearly looking to buy. I sold all of my coins to the first (and only) two people I showed them to and for what I thought were pretty strong prices. In my conversations with other dealers at the show, I got the feeling that some of the doom and gloom that was being bandied about in September might have been a bit premature. The market has certainly corrected in certain areas but I think the pronouncements of its impending demise might have been a bit premature.

I was actually able to buy a few interesting coins as well (all of which are now listed on my website with descriptions and images). I wouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination call this show a blockbuster but it wasn’t all that bad and was certainly worth it for people like myself who live on the West Coast.

Next, the Bad. Do we really need an ANA sponsored show in Las Vegas? Clearly, Vegas is not a “coin town.” There are a lot of reasons to go to Las Vegas but trying to buy coins is probably pretty low on the list. Plus, this show is less than two months after the September Long Beach and just a few weeks before the Santa Clara show held in November. Does the West Coast need a third show in the Fall? I would tend to think not and this could really hurt the future growth potential of the Las Vegas show.

Finally, the Ugly. The previous incarnation of this show was held at the Mandalay Bay hotel. Now I do not consider myself to be a “Vegas kind of guy.” But I love the Mandalay Bay and had really gotten to know my way around the massive grounds. At the Mandalay, a non-gambler like me could find plenty to do in the way of eating, drinking and people watching.

This time, the show was moved to the Riviera Hotel convention center. I didn’t know anything about the Riviera so I went online and checked out their website when I was deciding where to stay. I figured it was a bad sign when I read that I could get a room there for $74 and that their “signature” restaurants were a buffet and a coffee shop.

The Riviera Hotel turned out to be everything I hate about Old Las Vegas. 96% of the people in the hotel were chain smokers and it looked like the average age of the gamblers there was 76 years. Many of the people were wandering around the hotel in a zombie-like stupor and the whole atmosphere was pretty depressing.

Although I didn’t stay there (I wound up at the Wynn which was four times more money but worth every penny) I was told that the rooms looked like they had been last updated in 1974. If the promoters of this coin show are interested in attracting upscale collectors and dealers, I think they are going to have to present a nicer venue than the Riviera. It might have been a swingin’ good time back in the days of the Rat Pack but, today, it was just plain Ratty…

Online Coin Sale Observations

In the last five years, my website raregoldcoins.com has become a primary focus in my business. It has been interesting to observe which coins sell the most quickly and why, in my opinion, they do. I’d like to pass on some of the lessons I’ve learned as I believe it will help you make better decisions when it comes to your collection.ntage Adidas jackets and sporting event tickets. But when it comes to buying coins on Ebay, I think I’m pretty much done. 1. Photogenic coins sell. In this instance the term “photogenic” is interchangeable with the more numismatic term “eye appeal.” When I buy a coin which has really pretty color or which has great luster or which has a very sharp strike (or, better yet, a combination of all these attributes) I can be reasonably certain the coin will sell well. If a coin has a glaring negative attribute that is readily apparent in an image, it is likely to be a hard sell. As an example, an otherwise nice coin which has a large grease spot on Liberty’s cheek will be hard to sell, even if the coin is quite rare. When you are putting together a collection, buy coins that are pretty.

2. Coins in the right pricing “sweet spot” sell. For me, this pricing zone is in the $2,500 to $7,500 range. There are coin dealers who seem to be able to sell lots of $25,000+ coins. (I certainly sell my fair share of them). But once you get past $10,000 or so, the air gets pretty thin in most series and liquidity drops. That’s why I like interesting coins in the $2,500-7,500 range. They are generally quite liquid and I can turn over my inventory a lot more quickly when I’m selling coins in this price range then when I’m selling expensive coins. Let me add that I have no problem with buying expensive coins but that my resistance level increases based on the series. In other words, with early gold coins, there are virtually no decent pieces available in the $2,500-7,500 and I would expand this sweet spot to $10,000-20,000. But with Charlotte, Dahlonega and New Orleans issues, I feel that there is excellent value in the lower price range(s) and my focus shifts accordingly. I will certainly buy a $20,000 Charlotte or Dahlonega coin but it has to be pretty special to get me interested.

3. Interesting coins sell. People like coins which can be summarized in a few words or less. The 1838-C half eagle is popular because it’s a first year of issue and it’s the only Classic Head half eagle from the Charlotte mint. Even if you aren’t a specialist in Charlotte coinage, you are likely to quickly discern the appeal of this coin. In the same series, an 1844-C half eagle may not be an easy to sell. It is clearly a scarcer date than the 1838-C but its range of appeal is limited to collectors who specialize in Charlotte gold coinage; whereas the 1838-C might appeal to type collectors, date collectors and people who just like neat coins. There are other “neatness factors” that appeal to collectors: very low mintage figures, unusual designs, key date status, good pedigrees and large size are all positive attributes. If a coin which I am being offered for sale has one or more of these attributes, the chances are good that I will add it to my inventory. A collection that contains interesting coins is a collection that I would be very pleased to purchase from its owner.

4. Coins have to be properly priced. In this day and age, it is reasonably easy for a collector to determine how much the last four AU55 1840-0 quarter eagles have brought at auction. If I price a coin comparably to these four auction records (and it is a decent looking piece) the chances are good that it will sell. If I price my coin at 50% more than the last four records, it won’t sell. Now there are exceptions to this rule. Coins that do not trade regularly at auction (like the same 1840-O quarter eagle but in MS63) are much harder to price. And certain coins (like an 1880-O eagle in AU50 or better grades) are clearly undervalued and are worth more than most published pricing guides suggest.

5. Rare coins sell. This sounds obvious but it is a point that needs to be reiterated. Whenever I list a really rare coin for sale (like an 1861-D gold dollar, an 1847-O half eagle or an 1870-CC eagle) it sells quickly and receives multiple enquiries. People want to own rare coins, especially if they are attractive and fairly priced. If I had to chose between, say, an 1870-CC eagle in EF45 and an 1873-CC eagle in AU55 (an issue which is rarer than the 1870-CC in higher grade yet priced comparably) I would always choose the former. Unless you are putting together a date set, focus on the rare dates for each series.

So what doesn’t sell? Obviously, I don’t go out and try to purchase coins for my inventory that are going to sit around for months and stagnate. But there are patterns I see on my website and these are patterns which you should avoid when assembling your collection:

1. No matter how rare the coin, certain series are really hard to sell. An example of this would be Liberty Head San Francisco eagles. Even if I have a really attractive, fairly priced example of a very rare issue like an 1863-S this is a hard coin to sell unless I happen to be working with a specialist collector who needs this specific date. I try to avoid thin, highly specialized markets.

2. Even if they are cheap, I avoid ugly coins. On more than one occasion, I’ve bought a coin at auction because it’s been too cheap to resist. But it’s been cheap for a good reason: it has heavily abraded surfaces or it is obviously scrubbed or it is very poorly struck. You get what you pay for and if you are buying coins based solely on price, you are destined to have a collection full of duds.

3. Ubiquitous coins are hard to sell as well. If I listed a bunch of common and semi-common Liberty Head half eagles or had a long list of common Saint Gaudens double eagles, the chances are good that they wouldn’t sell, even if they were genuinely nice coins for the grade or if they were priced competitively. Buyers go on my website looking for rare gold coins. You are building a rare coin collection. Always keep the word “rare” in mind when you are considering adding a coin to your set.

I Hate Ebay

It’s official. I hate Ebay. This is a pretty big statement coming from someone who has, in the past, been an enthusiastic user and supporter of Ebay. And I still do use Ebay to look for knick-knacks like National Bank postcards, vintage Adidas jackets and sporting event tickets. But when it comes to buying coins on Ebay, I think I’m pretty much done. For the sort of coins that I am interested in, the selection of coins on Ebay has gotten pretty dismal. With a few exceptions, most of the coins are either cleaned no-grades or they are housed in third-world slabs (including a few so-called grading companies that even I haven’t heard of!). Yes, there are occasionally a few interesting, fresh coins but, man, do you have to troll through a lot of trash to find the occasional jewel.

For me, it’s a question of time. If I want to spend time searching through coins online (and at this point in my life I’d like to think I have a few better things to do…) I’d rather spend an hour on the Heritage website going through their 7,000+ Signature Sale lots. There seems to be a lot more of a payoff on an auction site specifically designed for coins than on one like Ebay, where coins are one of hundreds of categories.

Ebay really is like the world’s biggest flea market. It’s as if every item was dumped on a table and you have to sort through it (with the assistance of some pretty nifty technology…). I’m tired of the lousy images, the poor descriptions and the games that you know many of the sellers are playing.

And when I do bid on something on Ebay…ah, that’s when the fun begins. It seems that every day I get yet another Phishing email from someone trying to get my account number or password or credit card number. When I bid with Heritage, I might get a little too much spam but at least I don’t get Phished three times a day. Not to mention the fake post-sale re-offering of lots from my friend Vladimir in Estonia.

With Ebay, I just don’t feel a sense of security anymore. Sure, I’m willing to bid on a $65 Adidas jacket but I’m very hesitant to bid on a $5,000 coin from a seller that I don’t know. I think that Ebay’s caveat emptor attitude is tiresome.

Ebay would argue that their feedback system is safe and it represents the market policing itself. I say that is a crock. I have seen coin sellers with extremely high feedback rates (and hundreds—if not thousands-- of transactions) that I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw them. When I bid in an online coin auction with Heritage or ANR or Goldberg, I know exactly who I am dealing with and I have recourse in case there is a problem. In Ebay’s world, you’re on your own.

Another thing that drives me crazy about Ebay is sniping. Yes, I know that I can use software that enables me to bid 0.01 seconds before a lot closes. But why should I have to go through the hassle? The problem with Ebay is that I never feel secure enough about the whole process to bid my maximum early in the game.

I’m not certain that I’ll ever be able to totally resist the allure of Ebay. I can think of at least three items I purchased on Ebay that I’ve made alot of money on. The greedy side of my nature thinks there is another five-figure payday waiting for me at the end of the Ebay Rainbow and I guess I’ll have to check the coin listings every now and then to find that special New Orleans double eagle or Dahlonega gold dollar.

But that doesn’t mean that I’m going to enjoy my Ebay experience any more than I already do…not.

Proposed New Grading System

Oh great…just what we need: more numbers to further complicate grading. I’ve got a proposal that doesn’t entail expanding the current Sheldon scale or creating new adjectives. But I think it could be very beneficial to collectors. Let me run it by you and see what you think. Back in the early to mid 1980’s, before the creation of PCGS and NGC, I knew a few reputable dealers who employed an expanded numerical grading system. This system never really caught on but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

A sample grade using this system would be as follows:

1886 $2.50 MS65 A/B/A/B/B

Basically what this means is that an 1886 quarter eagle has been graded MS65 and it is rated as an A for strike, B for luster, A for color, B for surface quality and B for overall eye appeal. This system was used, in a form somewhat similar to this, by ANACS back when they were the only game in town and graded coins using photo-certificates. What if PCGS and NGC decided to use this system and these expanded ratings appeared on their holders?

There are, of course, good things and bad things about this system. The good things are that these expanded grades tell a potential buyer more about a coin that just the simple grade of “MS65.” The negative aspect is that it potentially adds more subjectivity to a system that has already been accused of being too subjective.

But I don’t think this system is a negative. I think if standards are created within each series, than a system with expanded grade modifiers could be very helpful to the collector.

As an example, rating a coin from “A” to “F” based on strike is really not all that difficult. In the case of an 1886 quarter eagle—an issue that is generally seen very well struck—most examples will garner either an “A” or a “B.” What would be more difficult is an issue like an 1844-O eagle which shows a wide variation in strike. My answer for this is that only a few 1844-O eagles will be given an “A” for strike; most will be called a “B” or even a “C.”

Luster is not difficult to categorize. A coin either has superior luster (which means it will be given an “A”) or it has inferior luster (it will, in this case, probably be given a “C”).

Coloration on gold coins does not presently carry the weight that it does on silver so it should not prove to be as controversial to call a coin an “A” when it comes to this factor. However, there are certainly some subjective areas here, especially when it comes to circulated coins. As an example, I tend to not like coins which have what I call a “Euro Grime” look. These are coins that have been stored in European bank vaults for 50-100 years and they have developed a dark golden color with blackish highlights. Other people do like this color and think coins with this look are “original.”

Surface preservation is also reasonably easy to categorize. A coin with very clean surfaces for the grade and issue is clearly easy to identify as is a coin with heavily marked surfaces. Certain issues, like Type Two double eagles from San Francisco, are almost never seen with choice surfaces so an example that was given an “A” for its surfaces might be more desirable than one given a “C.”

The really difficult category would be the fifth and final one: eye appeal. This is clearly the most subjective of these categories. A coin that one person finds appealing might be looked at as unappealing by others. However, I think that experts can reach a very high level of consensus on eye appeal. If you show a certain Dahlonega half eagle to ten experts, I think that nine or ten of these people would consistently agree that this coin has “A” level eye appeal.

If all coins were given these five categories, it would be interesting to see the effect on pricing. Obviously, an 1886 quarter eagle in MS65 that was rated as A/A/A/B/A would sell for more money than a similarly graded coin that was rated as B/B/B/A/B.

I’ve read about possible changes to the Sheldon system which include expanding to a 100 point system. I hate this idea. But changing the current 70 point system to a system with five ranked categories just might make sense.

Atlanta Coin and Collectibles Expo Show Summary

The Atlanta Coin and Collectibles Expo has real potential. It’s held in an excellent facility which has seen many great shows in the past—including at least one ANA convention. It’s well-run by friendly and efficient people and it has an aura of class that is sadly lacking at most other shows. In fact, it is only missing one thing…attendance. There just weren’t a lot of collectors at the show. The crowds were very light on Thursday and you’d almost have to view this day as wholesale-only. I actually did a decent amount of wholesale business and sold a few five-figure coins. I would have liked to have bought some interesting new material but, to my regret (but not my surprise) there was not much available to purchase. The few new coins I came home with are described and imaged on my website.

I’m told that Friday and Saturday are the more active retail-oriented days of the show. I can’t really offer any incisive comments on this as I bailed out during the early afternoon hours of Friday. I did see most of the major collectors from the Atlanta area and had the chance to speak with a few new collectors who I had not previously met.

In my opinion, there are two major reasons why this show is not doing well and these are problems that, if not corrected soon, will probably do irreparable damage. The first is that the auction that is part of the show has not traditionally been strong; certainly not strong enough to draw any collectors for a special trip down to Atlanta. Secondly, neither PCGS nor NGC were at the show. Simply put, no grading services and no auction of note means no new coins getting made and becoming available for trading among dealers.

Speaking of the auction, I attended the Stack’s/ANR sale on Thursday night. It was an extremely small sale with just 100 or so lots of United States gold. Prices, for the most part, reflected the quality of the coins that were offered. Most of the gold coins appeared not to hit their reserves but the few lots I purchased were extremely reasonable. I would blame the weakness of this sale more on its venue and lack of exciting material than on the market.

From my observation at the show and from conversations with a number of savvy wholesale traders, I can state with no fear of rebuke that the market has clearly slowed down from a few months ago. What is interesting about the current market, though, is the strong degree of realism shown by most of the leading market traders. Certain coins have dropped 15-35% in the past few months but with very few exceptions, I do not see people refusing to believe in these new levels and trying to get “old market” prices for their coins. This is a complete change from past market slowdowns where certain dealers might hold onto their bad deals for years before conceding that, in fact, their values had dropped.

There are still a number of areas that are showing strength. These include Carson City issues of nearly all denominations and price points and early gold. I had four pieces of early gold that I brought to the show and I sold every one of them to dealers for my full asking price. If I had had another four (or maybe even fourteen) similar coins I think I could have sold them as well. New Orleans gold is also selling well. I bought six New Orleans gold coins at the show and sold four of them to collectors. Scarcer half eagles and eagles from New Orleans appear to be in very strong demand right now with a number of collectors beginning sets of these two denominations.

Other areas are clearly showing weakness. Charlotte and Dahlonega gold priced at over $10,000 is very hard to sell right now unless the coin is either really nice or really rare. Common date Three Dollar gold pieces have dropped dramatically in price in the last few months, especially in MS63 to MS66 grades. I actually think the market has overreacted on these coins and they are really good deals at the new, lower levels. Generic gold is also very weak right now, especially Indian Head quarter eagles and half eagles. While I do not encourage speculating in generics, I think that some smart people will make a fortune in the next few months buying depressed series like Liberty Head eagles in MS63 and MS64 or Indian Head half eagles in MS64, running prices up and selling into the market.

At this point, there are not many major shows or auctions left until the end of the year. The forthcoming October Stack’s auctions in New York are impressive and we should see some record-breaking prices. The Baltimore show in November will, in my opinion, be much better than most people expect as this is going to be, for all intents and purposes, the close to the numismatic year.

Winter's New Book Reviewed

A review of my book “Gold Coins of the New Orleans Mint 1839-1909” was recently featured in the on-line publication “The Esylum” dated October 1, 2006 and listed as Volume 9, Issue #40. The Esylum is the online weekly publication of the Numismatic Bibliomania Society and I very highly recommend it to anyone with an appreciation for numismatics as it is a really exceptional publication made all the more wonderful by the fact that it appears, like clockwork, every Sunday night in the in box of my email. To subscribe, contact Wayne Homren (the newsletter’s editor) at his email address which is whomren@coinlibrary.com. BOOK REVIEW: GOLD COINS OF THE NEW ORLEANS MINT 1839-1909

One new book I've had the pleasure to review recently is the second edition of Doug Winter's "Gold Coins of the New Orleans Mint 1839-1909." The 237-page paperback is published by Zyrus Press ($34.95). From the publisher's web site: "In 1989, the first edition of Doug Winter's book Gold Coins of the New Orleans Mint: 1839-1909 was published. It popularized these under-appreciated coins and introduced many new collectors to the field.

In the ensuing two decades, much has changed in the New Orleans gold market. Newly discovered hoards have changed the rarity levels of certain dates while others remain very difficult to locate."

Well, it hasn't quite been two decades since 1989, and the book wasn't published in 1989, it was published in 1992. Still, fourteen years between editions is a long time. But it's been worth the wait. The new edition is much improved, starting with the all-new enlarged color images of each coin. But this new edition is more than just an update - it is essentially a new book with completely updated information encompassing all that has been learned about the series in the past fourteen years.

One of the biggest changes, acknowledged by the author in his preface, is the number of post-1880 eagles that are now known. He writes: "Substantial quantities of these coins have been found in Europe since 1992. In some cases, total populations have doubled or even tripled and I don't doubt that the numbers will continue to rise in the coming years."

For example, I turned randomly to the entry for 1894-O Eagles and compared it with the corresponding entry in my copy of the first edition. Of the original mintage (still believed to be 107,500), the total number known is now 550-750+, whereas at the time of the first edition only 140-160 were known.

The layout of each entry follows a common format and is very easy to read, another great improvement over the first edition. Mintage, Rarity Rankings, Strike, Surfaces, Luster, Coloration, Eye Appeal, Die Characteristics, Major Varieties, Significant Pieces Known, Auction Records, and Total Known (with a breakdown by grade) are listed for each coin.

To address what he felt were two major shortcomings of the first edition, the author included research articles which in my opinion, are worth the price of the book alone. In his Preface, Winter writes "[in the first book] ... there was virtually no information about the history of the New Orleans Mint. I am not a historian and I felt that my contributions about this topic would be unoriginal at best. I commissioned Greg Lambousy, the Director of Collections of the Louisiana State Museum, who wrote what I feel is a simply brilliant concise history of the Mint. Also, David Ginsberg has written an article about how gold coins of this era circulated; a study that will explain exactly why so many of these coins are so rare today.”

Lambousy's article draws on many of the known sources in numismatic literature such as the 1862 Harper's New Monthly Magazine article "Making Money" and writings by and about Mint official John Leonard Riddell, but it also references a number of much lesser known sources. The bibliography is quite complete to my knowledge, although I didn't see a reference to the 1846 Merchants Magazine and Commercial Review article by Freeman Hunt titled "United States Branch Mint at New Orleans." The thirteen-page article includes two pages of photos of the interior of the New Orleans Mint and its workers, courtesy of the Louisiana State Museum.

I have to agree with Winter that Lambousy's article is a very valuable concise history of the Mint, and well worth reading. There are some great tidbits of history here, numismatic and otherwise, such as Riddell's invention of the rotary ingot machine, and brothers Rufus and Philos Tyler's invention and patenting of the silver dollar counting table. Along the way there are interesting diversions into Riddell's conflicts with fellow workers, structural problems of the Mint building, control of the Mint under the Confederacy, and story of William Mumford who was hanged by Union forces in front of the Mint of June 7th, 1862.

David Ginsberg's article is equally original, well-researched, and interesting to read. In addition to consulting some of my own favorite references on this era (Carothers' "Fractional Money" and Gibbons' "The Banks of New York, Their Dealers, The Clearing House, and the Panic of 1857," Ginsburg uncovered a number of valuable other sources including an 1843 publication, "The Letters of Lowndes, Addressed to the Hon. John C. Calhoun." The book has a priceless account, reprinted here, of a traveler's maddeningly difficult cross-country journey while attempting to conduct commerce with a mishmash of different paper money issues. Such difficulties make it easy to understand how having gold coinage could greatly ease the problem of traveling to distant parts of the country in those days.

On page 88 Winter reprints a delightful account by David Akers of "Debunking the Myth of the '1841-O Half Eagle,' taken from the October 1997 Pittman I catalog. It's the story of John J. Pittman's 1841-C Half Eagle, which he purchased in the Farouk sale. The coin had earlier been part of the Col. E.H.R. Green collection. The New York firm Stack's had a beautiful album of photographs of the Green Half Eagle collection in their research library, and Walter Breen reviewed it while researching his monograph on U.S. Half Eagles.

"Because of the shadows on the photo, the C mintmark looked like an O to him, so Breen mistook it for an example of the legendary (but non- existent) 1841-O." Breen's mistake was taken as fact and carried on through the decades while the grinning Pittman would neither confirm nor deny the existence of the coin, saying only coyly, "It pays to look at every lot!" Pittman later admitted "I always knew there was no such thing as an 1841-O Half Eagle, but I had so much fun going along with Breen's story."

Three Dollar Gold Pieces From the 1880's

As I have mentioned before, I have long been a fan of the low mintage Three Dollar gold pieces struck during the 1880’s. I like these coins because of their very low original mintage figures and their relative affordability. Even though the Three Dollar gold series is currently showing a slowdown after two or three years of intense activity, these particular issues are still in great demand. Let’s take a quick look at these low mintage Threes from the 1880’s. 1881: This is the rarest of the five issues we are focusing on, from the standpoint of high grade rarity. There were just 500 pieces struck for circulation of which an estimated 100-150 are known today. Unlike many of the other Three Dollar gold pieces from the 1880’s, the 1881 was not saved by contemporary dealers and hoarders and most of the survivors are in the EF40 to AU55 grade range. This issue is nearly always seen with prooflike surfaces but most have poor eye appeal due to the fact that they have been cleaned or dipped. In addition, most have major abrasions in the fields and many show hairlines as well. There are probably no more than two dozen known in Uncirculated and many of these are marginal quality coins that grade MS60 to MS61. A properly graded MS62 is extremely scarce while an MS63 is rare. I know of approximately four or five examples that grade MS64 and just one Gem: a superb MS66 that has been graded by PCGS.

This is an issue that, in my opinion, is worth full Trends, if not more. For a nice AU55, I would expect to pay in the area of $8,000 to $10,000 while an AU58 is worth around $9,000 to $12,000. The Trends values for Uncirculated examples are fairly accurate although I think that a PCGS MS65 might actually bring more than the current Trends listing of $65,000.

1883: A fairly large percentage of the original mintage of 900 examples struck has survived. I would estimate that there are 200-250 pieces known and very few of these grade below AU53 to AU55, suggesting that the 1883 did not readily circulate. This issue is not really all that rare in the lower Uncirclated grades but it becomes rare in MS62 to MS63 and it is very are in MS64 and better. Most 1883’s are prooflike and many show very nice original color, unlike the 1881 which is almost never seen with good eye appeal.

In the last few months, I have sold a number of nice AU 1883 Three Dollar gold pieces in the higher AU grades for under $5,500. I still can’t get over what a great deal this is. Think about it. A United States gold coin with a mintage of fewer than 1,000 business strikes in very presentable condition for such a reasonable price. Here’s another thing to think about when pondering the 1883 (or any of these other dates). A very common date Three Dollar gold piece in AU58 will cost the collector $2,250 or so. For a little more than double this number, he can buy a truly scarce coin like an 1883. Seems like a no-brainer to me…

1884: For many years this date was my “secret sleeper” in the Three Dollar gold series. I would buy every single example I could find and despite being willing to pay more than anyone else for this date I was still not able to buy many. The 1884 is the second rarest collectible date in the series (trailing only the 1877) as far as overall rarity is concerned. There were 1,000 examples struck of which an estimated 100-125 are known today. The majority of these grade MS60 or better, suggesting that the 1884 was a date that did not see much—if any—circulation. This is borne out by the fact that PCGS has graded only two coins lower than AU55.

I believe that the 1884 remains very undervalued. The current issue of Trends shows a value of $5,000 for this date in AU55 as opposed to $4,000 for the 1883 and $4,500 for the 1886. Given the rarity of the 1884 it should be priced at a premium of at least 50% over these two dates. In MS62, the 1884 is accorded a Trends value of $12,000. This is the same as for the 1885 in this grade and just $1,000 more than the 1883 and the 1886. I would suggest that if you are offered an 1884 at anywhere near Trends prices, you should purchase it.

1885: A total of 801 business strikes were produced. The 1885 was saved in much greater quantity than the 1884. An estimated 200-250 pieces are known; giving this date one of the highest survival rate of any 19th century American gold coin produced for circulation. That said, the 1885 is still a tough coin to locate and I have always found examples to be easy sellers when they are in my inventory. The overall eye appeal for this date is probably the best of the five in our discussion and there are some higher grade 1885’s known with superb color and luster.

The 1885 is almost never seen in grades below AU55 to AU58. It is scarce but still obtainable in the lower Uncirculated grades and only moderately rare in MS63 to MS64 (the PCGS and NGC population figures for MS63 and MS64 coins, by the way, are hugely inflated by resubmissions). I estimate there are as many as eight to ten Gems known and the finest I am aware of is a superb PCGS MS67.

1886: The 1886 has the exact same business strike mintage figure as the 1884: 1,000 pieces. The 1886 is less scarce than the 1884 in terms of overall rarity but it is much scarcer in higher grades. In fact, the 1886 is the second rarest of these five low mintage dates in Uncirculated, trailing only the 1881. There are an estimated 150-200 examples known with perhaps as many as 20-30 known in Uncirculated. The 1886 is generally seen with Prooflike surfaces. Many have been cleaned at one time and, for some reason, this date is found with deeper and more intense abrasions on its surfaces than are other Three Dollar gold pieces from this era.

Most 1886 Three Dollar gold pieces are found in the AU50 to MS60 range. This date is quite scarce in MS61 to MS62. It becomes very rare in MS63 and it is extremely rare in MS64. I am aware of just one Gem: a PCGS MS65 which I recently sold and which was earlier in the Richard Jewell collection (it is plated in my book on Three Dollar gold pieces). Current Trends values for this date are very low, in my opinion, and any example that can be bought for 80-100% of Trends is an excellent value, especially in MS60 and higher.