The Third Annual RYK/DWN "Mashup"

Are you ready for a third RYK/DWN Mashup? Sure you are. Let’s get the background information out of the way and then get to the meat of the matter. This is, I believe, the third time collector Robert Kanterman and I have exchanged questions and answers about a variety of topics (the first was a two-part article). We’ve covered a lot of ground in the past; some of it warm and fuzzy, some of it, controversial, but all of it interesting and relevant. (Previous "installments" can be found here, here, and here.)

The format for this year is a bit different than in the past. I asked RYK five questions which he answered, and he did the same for me. After each of our respective answers, we each add some pithy comments. Simple, right?

Just remember the code: DW = Douglas Winter, head of Douglas Winter Numismatics, and gold coin specialist, while RYK = Robert Kanterman, collector extraordinaire, and popularizer of the DOG, or Dirty Original Gold coin.

Questions that DW asked RYK:

  1. What is the most undervalued series of us gold and what is the most overvalued? Why?

  2. If you had unlimited funds, what would you collect?

  3. What are three books on us gold you'd like to see written?

  4. Has grading gotten more conservative or looser in the last two years?

  5. Originality is finally in vogue. How much more are original coins worth versus commercial quality coins?

RYK’s answers with DW’s comments:

1. To be honest, I do not see anything that is truly undervalued at this point in time. If I had to pick one area, I would suggest that the most undervalued series of US gold to be No Motto Philly $5's and $10's. Some of these dates are really tough, and even the more common dates are tough to find in better grades and original condition.

The most overvalued areas to me are New Orleans and Carson City $20's. They are far more common than their valuations would suggest, especially the more prevalent dates (1851-O, 1852-O, 1875-CC, 1890-CC, etc.). I see 1851-O $20's in ugly XF going for $4500—which seems outrageous for an easy date/MM.

DW: Wow, what radiologist got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? I disagree about the “what’s undervalued” comment. I think there are dozens of good values to be had in the Liberty Head gold series. As an example, Philadelphia quarter eagles from the 1840’s and from the 1867-1877 date range are really good deals right now. There are many San Francisco quarter eagles and half eagles that can be bought for less than $5,000, which are rare both in terms of absolute and condition rarity. I think a case could be made for calling nearly any C or D mint coin in truly original EF and AU grades a relatively good value given how hard they’ve become to find. Even seemingly mundane coins like nice AU No Motto eagles from Philadelphia at $1,000-1,500 are great values for collectors. And I can think of many more examples!

I see RYK’s point about calling O mint and CC double eagles “overvalued,” but you have to remember that the demand for these coins is huge. When you could buy CC double eagles in EF for $1,500 these were just flat-out undervalued coins. At today’s levels they are clearly not cheap anymore. But always remember these coins are big, have a great story, and are promotable. To a new collector, a nice CC $20 at $3,000-5,000 still seems like a fair value.

2. My first stab at this was to pick proof $20 Libs—a big, beautiful trophy coin, if ever there were one. However, as infrequently as these appear on the market, and if you add some criteria for quality and originality, despite the unlimited funds, you might not be buying many coins.

More realistically, I think that I would rebuild a series like Dahlonega $5's in MS-62/3/4 and model it after the original Duke's Creek and Green Pond collections.

If I am allowed to stray outside US Mint gold coins, I would probably do something in territorials, perhaps a high-end type set.

Finally, outside US coins completely, and not requiring a huge budget, a Pillar dollar date set in original XF/AU is something that would be really cool and interesting to me.

DW: I’m a little surprised that RYK mentioned Proof $20 Libs as this doesn’t strike me as a very RYK-esque series. I would have actually guessed he’d have picked a date run of early gold; possibly Fat Head half eagles.

Love the idea about re-building the Duke’s Creek and Green Pond collections. Just let me say that if you decide to do so, I’m here to help!

Like the idea on Territorials, but I’d caution that buying these coins requires extreme knowledge of the series and a good working relationship with an informed, savvy dealer.

And I’m crazy about the Pillar Dollar date set. That would be something that I would actually like to do for myself. Or maybe a date run of Mexican 8 Escudos gold coinage.

3. A Collectors Guide to San Francisco Gold Coins (1854-1880) — notice the date range.

An Encyclopedia of Original XF Branch Mint Gold Coins, 1838-1861.

Gold Coin Collectors and Dealers of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

DW: I’ve been kicking around a SF gold coin book for years. I’d need help to do it and, unfortunately, the two dealers I asked to help have contributed a collective sum of zero pages. I agree with RYK that the post-1880 coins tend to be easily over-lookable and the real interest lies in the earlier issues.

The second book seems a little self-serving (bad RYK, bad!), but it gives me an idea. It would be neat to do a web-based photographic record of totally crusty individual coins filed by date. A photographic record, if you will, of DOG gold. I probably have enough photos already available to partially complete this project and, in fact, if you go to my "Coinapedia," you can get an idea of how many of these photos I already have. Anyone with web savvy care to help…?

The third project is kind of interesting as well; I’m assuming RYK would want biographic sketches of collectors and dealers who specialized in US gold coins. Pete Smith did a project along these lines around a decade ago that was outstanding.

4. To be honest, I submit very rarely, and only to PCGS. I think that there is a psychology to grading that leads to grading decisions that are greatly affected by the other coins that the grader has seen on a given day, in a given session, immediately before and after your coins, the mood, the last phone call with the spouse, the time of day, etc. That said, I will have to say that when grading my coins, the grading service seems more conservative than when they grade the next person's coins. ;)

On a more serious note, I have seen some overenthusiastic grading of special collections when they get evaluated as a group. I am not going to call anyone out, but most people will know what I am talking about.

I would say that grading has become more conservative over the last five to seven years, and I am not sure that I have noticed much change specifically in the last two. I do see fewer obvious problem coins in newer holders. Maybe we should say that the grading services are getting better (and maybe Don Willis and Scott Schechter will remember I said so next time I submit some coins).

DW: That is an excellent answer and there isn’t much I can add to it. I like RYK’s point about special collections being graded “specially,” but if I had a $5 million deal of, say, fresh Dahlonega half eagles, you are darn tootin’ that I’d expect the grading to be “enthusiastic.”

5. Originality is indeed in vogue, and I am going to take some credit for spreading the gospel. DOGs (Dirty Original Gold coins) rule!

That said, the premium is complicated but certainly exists in ways that are difficult to characterize or articulate. I will attempt to make my point:

  1. Original gold coins will sell much faster than non-original gold coins of the same grade. This is indisputable.
  2. The premium for the original coin can range from zero (if purchased from a seller who does not appreciate originality) to 100% or more. I think an average would be around 20-25%.
  3. Sometimes the obviously unoriginal coin lingers on the market for a very long time, and it is hard to ascribe a value to it.
  4. There are an increasing number of collectors, like myself, that are buying the right look, irrespective of the grade, and it is very hard to say what the premium for doing so is.

DW: Wow, this guy RYK, he’s a confident fellow, no? Taking credit for spreading the Gospel of Crust…wonder where he learned that from?

I couldn’t agree more with answer #1. If you look at what sells on my website, the crustiest coins are the best received. Duh.

What sort of premium do these coins sell for? Let’s take a random example. A decent, but not really nice, common date C mint half eagle in PCGS EF40 is worth around $2,000. The same date in EF40 but with a deserved CAC sticker (dark, mellow surfaces and few appreciable marks) is easily worth $2,300; maybe even $2,500. For a coin like an 1861-D gold dollar or an 1864-S half eagle, a completely crusty example could sell for a much bigger premium than this.

As a rule, I’d say that True Crust certainly adds 10-20% and in certain exceptional cases, the premium could easily be 50% or more.

Questions that RYK asked DW:

  1. Four gold coins that have risen dramatically in value over the last ten years are the 1861 branch mints. If you had to pick four to hold for the next ten years, and could not pick these, which four coins would you pick? Which group of four would you rather have?

  2. Many people say that today's modern coins are tomorrow’s classics. Do you see any future classics among today's moderns (post-1986)? If I made you choose one…

  3. Pocket change is becoming less and less a part of daily life. What impact, if any, will this have on specifically gold coin collecting, in your opinion?

  4. The current high-end coin marketplace is strongly influenced by the duopoly of PCGS and NGC (with some nudging from the CAC). 80 years ago, Ford and GM dominated the car marketplace. Under what circumstances do PCGS and NGC become lesser players, or even inconsequential? Same question for Heritage and Stacks-Bowers.

  5. What is the most expensive-liquid (high demand) gold coin and least expensive-illiquid (low demand) gold coin that surprised you among coins that you have owned, bought, or sold in the last couple years?

And a special “mulligan” question to be named later…you’ll have to read on to see the question and the answer!

DW’s Answers with RYK’s Comments:

1. It’s hard to narrow this down to four coins, but the following four were chosen for one or more of the following reasons: popularity, “uniqueness,” multiple levels of demand, standalone qualities. The four coins that I would pick, and some reasons why, are as follows:

  • 1854-S quarter eagle: This date has finally been recognized as a Classic Rarity but it is still wildly undervalued when compared to a coin like an 1894-S dime. I just bought the fifth finest known of 12-14 known for under $300,000 and, in the rarified air of Classic Rarities, this seems cheap to me.
  • 1870-CC eagle: Here is a coin with so much going for it: rare in all grades, first-year-of-issue and history out the wazoo. A lovely EF40 just sold for less than $50,000 and I think this is cheap, especially when compared to the only slightly rarer 1870-CC double eagle.
  • 1854-D three dollar: This is another issue that has everything going for it: low mintage, odd denomination, one year status, etc. It’s not as rare as you think it might be but most of the “AU” examples are stripped-n-dipped and a really nice, wholesome example at its current market value seems like good value.
  • 1875 eagle: This is not a cheap issue but I don’t think many people know how rare it is (well under 10 known business strikes) and how scuzzy most of the survivors are. Given how wildly popular Ten Libs have become, this is a coin I could expect selling for $500,000 or more in the near future with just a wee bit of promotion.

RYK: Those are all excellent choices, but in the spirit of one of my favorite Thanksgiving activities, I am going to throw the yellow flag for roughing the collector by including coins that are as scarce as 94-S dimes! I like the 70-CC $10 as a choice—I wish I purchased the XF-45 example one you had on your website when I first started coming around 11+ years ago. I am less enthusiastic about the 1854-D $3, in part because my enthusiasm for $3's has waned over the years. I might include such coins that are more available like the 1795 $5 (which seems to have backed off from recent highs), the 1838-D $5 (which continues to lose ground to the 1838-C $5), the 1838 $10, and the 1861-O $20.

2. Oh, great, you would have to ask me a question about moderns…a subject I know absolutely nothing about. So, how about those Blazers…

I’m sure there are future scarcities among the post-1986 coins, it’s just that I have no idea which these are.

And please make sure to take a breath mint on your way out the door….

After taking the Modern Coin Walk of Shame, the ever generous RYK asked me a question about a subject I actually know something about.

SECRET HIDDEN QUESTION ALERT!!!

2a RYK: If you could have the entire series of Dahlonega $5's except, the 1861 (1838-1860), in circulated condition OR own only the 1861-D $5 in MS-62 from the series, which would you prefer? Assume the sum of the value of the 25 coins is roughly the same as the value of the 1861-D.

2a DWN: Hmmm…that’s a great question. My answer would depend on the quality of the coins themselves. If the 1861-D was just a so-so coin, I’d probably go for the quantity option. If the majority of the other coins were nice, I’d select that option. As an “investment” option, I’m pretty sure I’d want the 1861-D but from the standpoint of being a collector, I’s want the virtually-complete set of D mint fives.

RYK: In my question, I am assuming that all coins are quality for the grade and the sum of the value of the first 25 was about equal in value to the higher grade 1861-D...and I would select the One Coin (to rule them all...).

3. I don’t think that the direction we are taking to becoming cashless will impact collecting. I am not that old, but I can’t remember finding cool coins in change, and I still fell in love with coins at an early age.

Here in Portland, I am seeing a renaissance of old things. Young adults in their 20’s here love vinyl, they dig typewriters, and they go gaga for books and ‘zines. I can see this happening with coins as well. No more change makes these little round discs a lot more interesting.

RYK: I am going to agree with my friend from Oregon. Things that are obsolete become collectibles, and despite the fact that gold coins have not truly circulated for generations this has not limited their popularity. Just in case, I am going to buy my own smelter...

4. I could see something happening in the next decade to shatter the PCGS/NGC duopoly. What if exceptionally good counterfeits pass through the graders undetected? How would PCGS or NGC explain their inability to detect these coins? What if an insider trading/insider grading scandal rocked one of the services? It isn’t likely but it could possibly happen.

Or what if a better mousetrap is invented? Say someone patents really effective computer grading with the ability to interpret eye appeal?

Heritage and Stacks Bowers certainly control a good share of the market but they aren’t infallible. Say a hedge fund saw opportunity in the coin market and threw a lot of money at creating a firm to directly compete with the Big Two. It would be expensive but there is enough talent out there to topple them. And don’t forget about good old fashioned hubris. As you pointed out in your example above, Ford and GM seemed infallible but they never considered that the Japanese would make a better, cheaper product.

RYK: I am usually the last person to see the end of the line for a company, a fad, species, etc. That said, counterfeit holders (containing counterfeit or misrepresented coins) seem to be more likely to be a threat than counterfeit coins, at least in the near future. While on the surface, business seems to be booming at the Big Two, business conditions could change on a dime (no pun intended!), possibly leaving one of the other - or both - flatfooted. Perhaps if a consortium of very well respected numismatists came up with a better mousetrap, they could give some competitions, especially in the wake of a scandal or public controversy.

As for the auction environment, the Legend-Morphy entry, at the high end, and Great Collections, as a soup-to-nuts entry, both seem to have legs and are clearly taking away business from the Big Two. Neither of the new entrants currently seems to be a major threat to the dominance, but they are certainly chipping away.

Bottom line: ten years from now, Heritage and the latest iteration of Stacks-Bowers will still remain the Big Two, as will PCGS and NGC.

5. The most expensive ultra-liquid gold coin, in my opinion, is probably a Stella. They are worth $200,000+ for a nice one, but I could sell a bunch of them right now for a fair price and get paid within 72 hours. The least liquid would have to be in a very thinly traded area like patterns. If you had a High R-7 pattern (around 3-4 known) is might be a surprisingly hard sell if the one or two major collectors already had one.

RYK: I do not know much about Stellas (other than the fact that I once held five in one hand at lot viewing), but I probably should throw a penalty flag for illegal use of the pattern in a numismatic conversation, not once, but twice, in the same paragraph. My first thought was that the High Relief Saint was the most expensive and liquid gold coin, but coins like 70-CC $5 and $10, and 1861-D $1 and $5 sell very quickly when offered for a fixed price—almost no matter the price! I also continue to be surprised by the shipwreck coins, especially from the SS Central America, that sell for higher and higher prices as time goes by.

As far inexpensive but illiquid, in the context of gold coins, I would say that there seems to be a cadre of ugly, puttied, and/or otherwise abused gold coins from the southern branch mints that is perpetually available for sale.

So, there you have it. Another installment of the RYK/DWN Mashup!

 

Do you buy rare gold coins? Do you have gold coins you care to sell? Would you like to have the world’s leading expert work with you in assembling a set of coins? Contact Doug Winter via phone at (214) 675-9897 or email him at dwn@ont.com.

When the "Best" Coin isn't the "Better" Coin

In many series, collectors are slaves to the holder. By this, I mean, they make purchases which aren’t always prudent based on what a PCGS or NGC holder says. This is most prevalent in Registry-oriented 20th century series such as Lincoln Cents and Washington Quarters (amongst others) - series in which a single grading point can inflate the value of a coin by 5, 10 or even 20 times.

This tends not to be the case with classic 19th century gold coins, but every now and then a situation arises in which a coin which is theoretically the highest graded may not be the best purchase for an advanced collector.

A situation involving this scenario emerged at the recent Baltimore Stacks Bowers auction and I’d like to share my thoughts.

Please note that this is not meant to be a negative rant about the following coin, and the buyer of this coin is, no doubt, happy with his or her purchase.

The 1876-S eagle has long been a favorite issue of mine. It has a small mintage of just 5,000 coins, and I think five or six dozen exist, with most in the VF to EF grade range. I have never seen an 1876-S which grades higher than AU53 to AU55, and my best estimate is that there are around six or seven properly graded AU examples known. Until recently it was an unloved and generally undervalued coin.

In the recent Stacks Bowers Baltimore show, a newly graded PCGS AU55 example of this date was offered. In theory, this is the “finest known” example as it is a population one, none finer, coin. It sold for $22,325. I examined the coin and, in my opinion, it was sub-par for the grade. (Had it been a very choice coin for the grade, I think it would have brought closer to $30,000).

1876-S $10.00 PCGS AU55, image courtesy of Stack's Bowers

While $10 Libs are not a typical Registry Set series, there are a few advanced, deep-pocketed collectors who are specializing in these coins. And the opportunity to acquire a PCGS finest known coin—with the “points” this would add to such a set—is an unusual opportunity to say the least.

But what if a cheaper example of this same date was actually a “better” coin? What if an 1876-S eagle graded AU50 by PCGS were more original, more appealing (in my opinion), and a fraction of the price?

Back in their 2011 ANA auction, Stacks Bowers sold a PCGS AU50 example of an 1876-S eagle. I didn’t buy it even though, in retrospect, I probably should have.

Take a look at this coin:

1876-S $10.00 PCGS AU50, image courtesy of Stack's Bowers

I think it compares favorably to the PCGS AU55 shown above. It is a bit less “meaty” but it is more original, less “baggy,” and has comparable—if not better—overall eye appeal.

Most intriguingly, it sold for just $6,325 - or around a quarter of what the AU55 brought.

Here is an instance where Registry-mania caused a so-so coin to sell for a lot of money but didn’t have an impact on a nice, slightly lower grade coin because it wasn’t “the finest known.”

Examples like this are becoming more and more prevalent in the area of 19th century United States gold coins.

The moral of the story? Don’t always trust the plastic you buy to equate with the best value in your series. There is no substitute for knowledge and, in many cases, this knowledge will save you money and provide you with a better overall collection.

Do you buy rare gold coins?

Do you have gold coins to sell?

Would you like to have the world’s leading expert working directly with you when assembling a set?

Contact Doug Winter at 214.675.9897 or by email at dwn@ont.com.

Some Thoughts on Proof Gold Survival Rates

As someone who handles a decent amount of rare and interesting Proof gold coinage, I've been thinking about survival rates. I'd like to share some thoughts about typical survival rates and why certain issues don't comply with the "basic laws." First, a little background. The United States mint struck proof gold coins as far back as the 1820's, but production became more established by the 1858-1860 era; which neatly coincides with the beginning of coin collecting as a hobby in this country. Production of most proofs remained small until the early to mid-1880's, when collectors and dealers became more interested and a decent-sized mania for Proofs began to take hold.

For most United States Proof gold coins, I believe that the following survival rates are pretty consistent:

*Pre-1870 gold issues, with exceptions, appear to have a survival rate of around one-third of the original mintage.

*Issues from around 1870 to around 1890, with exceptions, appear to have survival rates of around half of the original mintage.

*Issues from 1890 until the end of the Liberty Head design (1907) typically have survival rates that range from one half to two-thirds of the original mintage.

Let's now take a look at some of the factors that influence survival rates of Proof gold coins. Please note that these are not listed in order of importance.

1. Original Mintage Figures. This seems pretty obvious but it is an important factor that needs to be discussed. A gold issue with a low mintage (say 25-50 coins) tends to be rarer than an issues with a relatively high mintage (100 or more).

However, there are some notable exceptions to this rule.

There are some years that mintage figures are incorrect. An example of this is the 1861 gold dollar with a reported mintage of 349. This figure has never made sense to me and given the small number of survivors (two to three dozen) and the unlikely scenario that nearly all of the supposed "349" struck were melted.

The opposite situation exists with Proof Three Dollar gold pieces dated 1875 and 1876. These are Proof-only issues; i.e, they were made only in a Proof format with none made for business strike purposes. The reported mintage figures for these two dates are 20 and 45, respectively.

But there are probably more than 20 and 45 known of these dates. As an example, looking at the PCGS and NGC population data for the 1876 three dollar, we see that eighty examples have been graded. Even if we discount, say, 30 of these as resubmissions, this still means that 50 examples may have been graded.

It is my belief that both the 1875 and 1876 three dollar gold pieces were restruck, in order to fill a demand among collectors, either later in the year(s) or, perhaps, a year or two later.

2. The Size of the Coin. Small sized Proof gold (i.e., gold dollars and quarter eagles) tends to have a higher survival rare than larger sized coins.

The reasons for this are fairly obvious. The face value of a small gold coin means that it was more likely to survive the Depression era where a number of larger Proofs were spent or melted by collectors because of their high face value and low numismatic value.

3. The Era in Which it Was Struck. I mentioned above that proof gold from the 1890's was saved with greater regularity than those issues from the 1860's.

In the 1890's, coin collecting was a well-developed hobby. But in the 1860's, there were far fewer collectors. It is a known fact that many Proofs struck in the 1860's and 1870's went unsold to collectors and were later melted by the mint. Even if the number melted was not great (say five or ten coins) with issues that mintages of just 25-50 coins, this small number becomes significant.

As far as we know, proofs were still melted up to the early 1900's but not as often as with earlier issues.

4. Economic Issues I mentioned meltings during the Depression in the second bullet point above. This is an important factor, worth repeating.

As remarkable as it seems today, a Proof double eagle in the early 1930's had very little numismatic premium. For some collectors, it made more sense to spend a Proof double eagle from the 1880's then it did to try and sell them to a coin dealer or place them in an auction. Many higher denomination proofs (specifically eagles and double eagles) were lost in this fashion. Some were melted while others circulated so much that they are barely recognizable as Proofs today.

There are other issues that were produced during years in which the economy suffered. The Panic of 1893, while not as well known as the Depression, was a short-lived but highly significant downturn in the economy. It is likely that proof gold coins from 1892-1894 were unsold and melted due to collectors suddenly not being able to afford luxuries such as coins.

5. Contemporary Hoarding Not unlike with today's modern coins, dealers and collectors speculated with smaller denomination proof gold in the 1880's and early 1890's. If you look at mintages for gold dollars, they increased dramatically in the 1880's: from a low of 36 in 1880 to a high of 1,779 in 1889. This was due to significant demand from hoarders and speculators; a situation not all that much different than what we see in 2011 with the hoarding of the 25th anniversary ASE sets!

These issues that were hoarded tend to have higher survival rates than earlier issues, due to the fact that they went into numismatic channels.

How exactly does a collector determine the survival rate of a proof gold issue he is contemplating buying? I think the best way is to study auction appearances over the years. A close study will often reveal interesting anomalies. An example: I recently bought an 1870 gold dollar in PR65. I did a little research and realized that I had only handled one example in twenty+ years and not an especially nice one at that. A study of auction records showed that only a few Gems have ever been sold and nothing better than PR65. My sort-of-cool coin suddenly seemed very cool, not to mention exceedingly rare.