Do not clean your coins! From $250,000 to less than $10,000

[CSdot]

See video and listing* attached:

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1850-Liberty-Double-Eagle-20-Gold-Coin-UNC-NO-RESERVE/191781999391?_trksid=p2047675.c100009.m1982&_trkparms=aid%3D777000%26algo%3DABA.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131227121020%26meid%3D6ba299cfb93c4fefacf97a9fc96a75c7%26pid%3D100009%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26sd%3D262126306483

 

 

*not my coin, not my listing.

[physics-fan3.14]

It appears to have been used as a pocket piece. The coin is clearly not UNC. Look at the significant flattening of the hair and other high points. It is EF to AU, at best, and very harshly polished/cleaned (probably in an attempt to make it look PL)

 

I'm not even sure its the same coin. Anyone can take a picture of a high grade slab and say its the same coin.

 

Oh Julian, the many ways you entertain us...

 

Edited to add: so he sent it in to NGC, and they sent it back with "altered sufaces" but wouldn't put it in a genuine holder? Uh... that's not what they do. The story sounds even fishier after watching the video....

[Nutmeg Coin]

"The greatest numismatic tragedy I have ever seen!"

 

It makes no sense whatsoever to do this type of damage to a high end coin. Even if the coin sadist was the rightful owner, they should be regarded with contempt.

[CSdot]

He says the non-collector client bought the coin in 2004 as an investment for @ $100K, then decided to "make it better." I imagine with a dremel?

[jerseycat10]

No comment about this auction or the seller.

[MarkFeld]

It appears to have been used as a pocket piece. The coin is clearly not UNC. Look at the significant flattening of the hair and other high points. It is EF to AU, at best, and very harshly polished/cleaned (probably in an attempt to make it look PL)

 

I'm not even sure its the same coin. Anyone can take a picture of a high grade slab and say its the same coin.

 

Oh Julian, the many ways you entertain us...

 

Edited to add: so he sent it in to NGC, and they sent it back with "altered sufaces" but wouldn't put it in a genuine holder? Uh... that's not what they do. The story sounds even fishier after watching the video....

 

I didn't click on the video link, because I didn't need to in order to know the coin in question. I saw it in hand roughly a year ago and sadly, I have no reason to doubt the story.

[comicdonna]

[MarkFeld]

By the way, the coin was not merely "cleaned".

[WoodenJefferson]

Interviewer: The person who bought the coin, were they a coin collector?

 

Julian: It was someone who had $102,000

[mark]

MarkFeld:

 

Do you have any idea what was done to the coin?

 

Mark

[MarkFeld]

MarkFeld:

 

Do you have any idea what was done to the coin?

 

Mark

 

Mark, my guess is that, at a minimum, it was heavily buffed with some type of wheel/attachment.

[AHFreak]

Looks to me like it was polished with a high power buffer. PF3.14, That's why the high points are like you described. Metal only gets that way from a high speed buffer. Not to imply that this story isn't true, but if Julian didn't crack it himself and "alter the surface" (not to imply he did) but how would he know without question that it's the same coin as the 64PL? It looks worked to a point where it's beyond recognition to me.

[dcarr]

Looks to me like it was polished with a high power buffer. PF3.14, That's why the high points are like you described. Metal only gets that way from a high speed buffer. Not to imply that this story isn't true, but if Julian didn't crack it himself and "alter the surface" (not to imply he did) but how would he know without question that it's the same coin as the 64PL? It looks worked to a point where it's beyond recognition to me.

 

The locations of tiny bag marks could be scrutinized to positively match up the "before" and "after" states of the coin.

 

[MarkFeld]

Looks to me like it was polished with a high power buffer. PF3.14, That's why the high points are like you described. Metal only gets that way from a high speed buffer. Not to imply that this story isn't true, but if Julian didn't crack it himself and "alter the surface" (not to imply he did) but how would he know without question that it's the same coin as the 64PL? It looks worked to a point where it's beyond recognition to me.

 

Why would the person who cracked out (and did whatever was done to) the coin make up such a story? Hopefully, that wouldn't fool someone into thinking the coin is currently other/better than what it is. Regardless, I think it's very wrong to have the coin listed as "Unc."

[Walkerfan]

'Foolish' is not even a big enough word for what the coin's owner did to that $20 gold piece.

[Zoins]

Unbelievable....

[coinman_23885]

It appears to have been used as a pocket piece. The coin is clearly not UNC. Look at the significant flattening of the hair and other high points. It is EF to AU, at best, and very harshly polished/cleaned (probably in an attempt to make it look PL)

 

I'm not even sure its the same coin. Anyone can take a picture of a high grade slab and say its the same coin.

 

Oh Julian, the many ways you entertain us...

 

Edited to add: so he sent it in to NGC, and they sent it back with "altered sufaces" but wouldn't put it in a genuine holder? Uh... that's not what they do. The story sounds even fishier after watching the video....

 

This is interesting. I'm surprised that he didn't disagree with NGC that it was a business strike and didn't call it a proof or maybe a specimen striking (since proofs weren't made for this issue) with a $100k price tag.

[coinman_23885]

Looks to me like it was polished with a high power buffer. PF3.14, That's why the high points are like you described. Metal only gets that way from a high speed buffer. Not to imply that this story isn't true, but if Julian didn't crack it himself and "alter the surface" (not to imply he did) but how would he know without question that it's the same coin as the 64PL? It looks worked to a point where it's beyond recognition to me.

 

The locations of tiny bag marks could be scrutinized to positively match up the "before" and "after" states of the coin.

 

If we had decent before images...Is it just me or do the eBay original slab shots look like the slab is bogus or at least the acrylic plastic removed?

 

Edited: It looks like a stock board cut out with images of a sketchy slab which is even worse. NGC slabs have rounded corners. Also since this coin is raw, it is against eBay policy to list a numerical grade. The coin shouldn't be labeled as UNC and the slab label should not be included. The coin is obviously no longer MS64 PL.

[Tyler N.]

The interviewee strikes me as dishonest and reminds me a lot of a used car salesman. My opinion was developed long before seeing this interview/story. This auction and the "story" behind this piece just further my distrust and dislike of him.

 

I'm struggling to see how he is able to tie the ruined piece to the 64PL.

 

Doesn't NGC send sketchy coins back in an "Unverifiable Authenticity" slab? His explanation of NGC sending it back is off too. You'd think he'd remember the reasoning behind NGC sending it back without slabbing it. Too fishy for me.

[DaveG]

I understood, from Julian's story in the video, that the owner damaged the coin fairly soon after taking possession of the coin (in 2004). I forget when NGC started slabbing coins in "details" slabs, but I think it was within the last five years or so.

 

Therefore it's possible that the coin was resubmitted between, say, 2005 and 2010, which would have been when they were still body bagging coins.

 

I also understood that Julian knew the owner before he bought the coin, saw the coin when the owner first bought it and has known the owner ever since, so unless the owner is the one trying to pass off a second coin as the first coin (which I think Julian would be able to detect), Julian would know that it's the same coin.

 

All that being said, I don't disagree that Julian sometimes gives me "used cars salesman" vibes.

[coinman_23885]

Therefore it's possible that the coin was resubmitted between, say, 2005 and 2010, which would have been when they were still body bagging coins.

 

I also understood that Julian knew the owner before he bought the coin, saw the coin when the owner first bought it and has known the owner ever since, so unless the owner is the one trying to pass off a second coin as the first coin (which I think Julian would be able to detect), Julian would know that it's the same coin.

 

Julian's response was equivocal; listen around 1:32-1:40 where he states that he was "almost certain" that the client showed it to him in the NGC MS64PL. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has seen several show stoppers and he may genuinely have forgotten (although I think this one would stick out in one's mind as a 1850s PL). Nevertheless, if you aren't certain that you actually saw the coin, I believe you are even less likely to be able to remember the minutiae that would be required to trace the coin back and identify it as the former MS64 PL given the massive alterations and lack of high quality images to look for diagnostics. And it certainly isn't something that I would personally stake my professional reputation on (i.e. unsupported hearsay of an interested/potentially biased client) and even include photos suggesting that it is the same coin.

 

As such, I vehemently disagree with his eBay listing. Given that he is "almost certain" but not actually completely "certain" that his client showed it to him, it seems that he is relying on hearsay when he makes the following declaration in his eBay listing :

 

This coin was previously encapsulated by NGC until it was broken out of the holder and the surfaces were altered. We don't know exactly what was done to it. This coin used to be one of the very finest known examples of the 1850 Liberty Double Eagle, and could have been worth $250,000 today if it were in it's original condition. This may be the greatest numismatic tragedy I've ever seen.

 

The moral of the story is, don't clean your coins unless you know exactly what you're doing!!

 

This listing will include the original bill of sale from Blanchard and pictures of the original slab.

 

I am also bothered that the coin is listed as uncirculated when it most clearly is not. It bothers me even more that the original slab photos with a numerical grade are there. If his argument was that the coin was uncirculated at some point, well, then so is every other coin ever made and the term would lose all meaning.

 

For legal purposes, I am not accusing anyone of impropriety or wrongdoing, but the listing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth especially with the unqualified text from the listing reproduced above notwithstanding his oral admission in the video.

[coinman_23885]

This may seem like a stupid question, but how does one authenticate a coin with that much damage and how is it distinguishable from any other "Alibaba special" available from China? I'm not saying the coin is counterfeit, but it would seem that a lot of diagnostics would have been destroyed by the process used. I'm assuming that Julian tested the specific gravity and other tests to confirm the composition of the planchet, but that is hardly conclusive as correct alloy counterfeits may exist. Even if I would be willing to buy a coin with that much damage (I wouldn't), I would want it in TPG plastic prior to acquisition. What type of consignor with a $100k+ to blow on coins is going to be so cheap as to try to save a measly $50 or less on certification fees when it could make a difference in liquidity and value? I would think Julian would dump his consignor or at least have it slabbed himself (since he is presumably making a decent commission) to ensure maximum price realized if that is his goal.

[mumu]

Therefore it's possible that the coin was resubmitted between, say, 2005 and 2010, which would have been when they were still body bagging coins.

 

I also understood that Julian knew the owner before he bought the coin, saw the coin when the owner first bought it and has known the owner ever since, so unless the owner is the one trying to pass off a second coin as the first coin (which I think Julian would be able to detect), Julian would know that it's the same coin.

 

Julian's response was equivocal; listen around 1:32-1:40 where he states that he was "almost certain" that the client showed it to him in the NGC MS64PL. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has seen several show stoppers and he may genuinely have forgotten (although I think this one would stick out in one's mind as a 1850s PL). Nevertheless, if you aren't certain that you actually saw the coin, I believe you are even less likely to be able to remember the minutiae that would be required to trace the coin back and identify it as the former MS64 PL given the massive alterations and lack of high quality images to look for diagnostics. And it certainly isn't something that I would personally stake my professional reputation on (i.e. unsupported hearsay of an interested/potentially biased client) and even include photos suggesting that it is the same coin.

 

As such, I vehemently disagree with his eBay listing. Given that he is "almost certain" but not actually completely "certain" that his client showed it to him, it seems that he is relying on hearsay when he makes the following declaration in his eBay listing :

 

This coin was previously encapsulated by NGC until it was broken out of the holder and the surfaces were altered. We don't know exactly what was done to it. This coin used to be one of the very finest known examples of the 1850 Liberty Double Eagle, and could have been worth $250,000 today if it were in it's original condition. This may be the greatest numismatic tragedy I've ever seen.

 

The moral of the story is, don't clean your coins unless you know exactly what you're doing!!

 

This listing will include the original bill of sale from Blanchard and pictures of the original slab.

 

I am also bothered that the coin is listed as uncirculated when it most clearly is not. It bothers me even more that the original slab photos with a numerical grade are there. If his argument was that the coin was uncirculated at some point, well, then so is every other coin ever made and the term would lose all meaning.

 

For legal purposes, I am not accusing anyone of impropriety or wrongdoing, but the listing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth especially with the unqualified text from the listing reproduced above notwithstanding his oral admission in the video.

 

This part of the conversation also struck me as odd. He went from "almost certain he saw the coin" to detailing very specific conversations back and for the with the owner describing trying to talk him out of improving it.

[mumu]

It appears to have been used as a pocket piece. The coin is clearly not UNC. Look at the significant flattening of the hair and other high points. It is EF to AU, at best, and very harshly polished/cleaned (probably in an attempt to make it look PL)

 

I'm not even sure its the same coin. Anyone can take a picture of a high grade slab and say its the same coin.

 

Oh Julian, the many ways you entertain us...

 

Edited to add: so he sent it in to NGC, and they sent it back with "altered sufaces" but wouldn't put it in a genuine holder? Uh... that's not what they do. The story sounds even fishier after watching the video....

 

This is interesting. I'm surprised that he didn't disagree with NGC that it was a business strike and didn't call it a proof or maybe a specimen striking (since proofs weren't made for this issue) with a $100k price tag.

 

Well in reality he is disagreeing with NGC. If its true they refused to even put it in a genuine holder and he is selling it is a definite genuine and former MS 64 PL and currently UNC

[PocketArt]

Yeah,..this to me is some contrived hoax to draw attention to a piece of metal. That's all "until" proven otherwise. Video's claimed unknown pedigree from "renowned" seller with sketchy photo's on listing on eBay?

 

Heck, their throwing the piece around like the're checking to see if it sounds like gold! I'd be very upset if someone was handling my coin like that.....Really? How'd you feel?

 

Darwin award for all involved. Story doesn't compute with any degree of honesty. No pity for the buyer...hope you get at least 10 K of gold off purchase...good luck with that!

 

 

[Tyler N.]

Would NGC be able to chime in and advise of the reason it was returned raw since Mr. Leidman forgets? I doubt that information would be released, but I'm curious. I wouldn't forget so many details of such a rare coin.

[physics-fan3.14]

I wouldn't forget so many details of such a rare coin.

 

Assuming it is genuine (which I have doubts about, given the "story" and appearance of the coin), it really isn't a rare coin in the condition it is in. The coin is EF-AU details (remember - grade the coin, not the story). In EF, it lists for $3600, in AU it lists for $6300. As a harshly polished, buffed coin, its probably worth half of that.

 

It is rare as a 64PL - then it is a condition rarity and very valuable. In the condition it is, calling it "UNC" and saying it is worth "$10k" is wishful thinking at best, and dishonest at worst.

[physics-fan3.14]

Breaking news! This 1857 Quarter used to be one of the very finest known examples of the date, when it was freshly minted. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, it was circulated and whizzed. But it used to be MS-67+ when it came out of the coining chamber! That puts it in the top 3 for the date. It could have been worth $30k, but you can have it for $25....

 

[mumu]

Breaking news! This 1857 Quarter used to be one of the very finest known examples of the date, when it was freshly minted. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, it was circulated and whizzed. But it used to be MS-67+ when it came out of the coining chamber! That puts it in the top 3 for the date. It could have been worth $30k, but you can have it for $25....

 

[/img]

 

I dunno. Story sounds unlikely without pictures of an ms67+ coin side by side as proof.

[AHFreak]

Shoot I want it for 25.... and Id probably pay 50 if you had some pics of it in 67 condition, maybe a video or cute story about the who did, "whatever he did to it".

 

But yeah something very off about this Julian guy. I don't trust him enough to buy coins from him these days, but back when I didn't know better, I made him several, more than fair offers. .. he turned down everyone and usually we weren't close. I was offering market value, sometimes high retail. I don't know how he sells anything ever. . Are there really that many people who are willing to overpay?