Biggest Story of the Year

[RockMyAmadeus]

What a fantastic discovery. The find of the last half century, going back to the discovery of the 1870-S half dime in 1978. Very few discoveries could top this...the "second" 1870-S $3, maybe a fourth 1822 $5, maybe another 1870-S half dime...or any 1873-S Seated dollars.

How exciting. Just exciting. Numismatists wait their whole lives for discoveries like this. 

[Conder101]

I would think the fourth 1853 O no errors and rays half-dollar comes close, or is at least in the running. And for honorable mention, the fifth 1873 CC no arrows quarter, the Linderman 1804 dollar, and the DuPont 1866 no motto quarter, half, and dollar. All of those of turned up in the last 50 years. And how about the 1792 Silver Center. Cent that walked into the ANA a few years ago?

What I'm really waiting for is for somebody to turn up the 1870 S quarter.

[World Colonial]

5 hours ago, Conder101 said:

I would think the fourth 1853 O no errors and rays half-dollar comes close, or is at least in the running. And for honorable mention, the fifth 1873 CC no arrows quarter, the Linderman 1804 dollar, and the DuPont 1866 no motto quarter, half, and dollar. All of those of turned up in the last 50 years. And how about the 1792 Silver Center. Cent that walked into the ANA a few years ago?

What I'm really waiting for is for somebody to turn up the 1870 S quarter.

If the 1870-S quarter shows up, I agree it's roughly equivalent to the 1854-S half eagle.

The 1804 dollar is an actually famous coin (outside the numismatic community) and the 1792 silver cent is at least unique in its appearance. 

The 1866 no motto quarter, half and dollar are fantasy coins with hugely inflated perceptions and values primarily or entirely due to inclusion in the Red Book. Otherwise, there are numerous listings in Judd and Pollack which are (approximately) equally scarce with equivalent distinction. 

The 1853-O no arrows half dollar is actually an obscure coin.  The 1873-CC no arrows quarter, to my knowledge it's slightly better known than the 1853-O.  Both are "necessary" for a "complete set" of seated coinage for those who allow references books to define their collecting but not otherwise. 

I'm aware it's exciting to find one of these coins for the lucky few or those who have an interest in the series.  But when this is extended to the potential number of coins which I know US collectors think of equally which they like, it makes no sense other than financially.

[Conder101]

The 1804 dollar and the 1866 no motto pieces I mentioned were stolen in the same DuPont robbery as the 1854 S half eagle.

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

The 1804 dollar and the 1866 no motto pieces I mentioned were stolen in the same DuPont robbery as the 1854 S half eagle.

Yes, I understand your point.

The point I made is that numerous posters have listed any number of coins as candidates for the "discovery of a lifetime".  Financially due to the inflated price level, I get it.

Numismatically, it makes no sense at all.  In your examples, the three 1866 Liberty Seated coins have no distinction whatsoever other than the inflated price and the scarcity which is a given considering all three are fantasy coins incorrectly thought of by many as patterns and incorrectly included in the Red Book with other Seated coinage.  There are over 2000 patterns listed in Judd and Pollack, all are scarce by most US collector standards, and even the cheapest one has a price tag of at least several thousand or near it.  US collectors collectively have an inflated perception of these coins first because 95%+ can't remotely afford even one, second because they look different and third because they incorrectly compare the scarcity to circulating coinage.

Let me give you an example where this designation actually makes sense.  I can explain to anyone why a potential 5th 1861 CSA half dollar is a big deal; about as big a deal as exists with a coin from anywhere.

Practically every single other high price tag US (or other) coin doesn't meet this description.  Non-collectors have overwhelmingly never heard of 99%+.  Knowledgeable collectors in other fields (like stamps) will probably "get it" but unless they also use contrived standards, won't think it significant either.  Many coin collectors in other countries have heard of the 1804 dollar and a few others but nothing more, including the subject coin of this thread.  Even most US coin collectors likely have no clue about most of the relatively few coins listed in this thread unless they happen to remember it from the Red Book, read a forum such as this one or the numismatic press.  This is only a minority of the collector population.  The same applies equally to the concurrent thread on the PCGS forum which also lists numerous actually obscure but supposedly prominent coins.

[LINCOLNMAN]

54 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Yes, I understand your point.

The point I made is that numerous posters have listed any number of coins as candidates for the "discovery of a lifetime".  Financially due to the inflated price level, I get it.

Numismatically, it makes no sense at all.  In your examples, the three 1866 Liberty Seated coins have no distinction whatsoever other than the inflated price and the scarcity which is a given considering all three are fantasy coins incorrectly thought of by many as patterns and incorrectly included in the Red Book with other Seated coinage.  There are over 2000 patterns listed in Judd and Pollack, all are scarce by most US collector standards, and even the cheapest one has a price tag of at least several thousand or near it.  US collectors collectively have an inflated perception of these coins first because 95%+ can't remotely afford even one, second because they look different and third because they incorrectly compare the scarcity to circulating coinage.

Let me give you an example where this designation actually makes sense.  I can explain to anyone why a potential 5th 1861 CSA half dollar is a big deal; about as big a deal as exists with a coin from anywhere.

Practically every single other high price tag US (or other) coin doesn't meet this description.  Non-collectors have overwhelmingly never heard of 99%+.  Knowledgeable collectors in other fields (like stamps) will probably "get it" but unless they also use contrived standards, won't think it significant either.  Many coin collectors in other countries have heard of the 1804 dollar and a few others but nothing more, including the subject coin of this thread.  Even most US coin collectors likely have no clue about most of the relatively few coins listed in this thread unless they happen to remember it from the Red Book, read a forum such as this one or the numismatic press.  This is only a minority of the collector population.  The same applies equally to the concurrent thread on the PCGS forum which also lists numerous actually obscure but supposedly prominent coins.

According to what I've read, someone recently paid almost $3m for a 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card. Here is an object, manufactured solely as a collectible, made of cardboard, of no artistic merit, of no real historical significance, and not connected to the athlete himself. There is no rational reason that this object should be desired by anyone, except perhaps as a minor curiosity. Chances are fair that I used one of these cards on my bike in 1952 to simulate a motorbike sound. This sort of behavior occurs from time to time, one just has to let it go and shake one's head.

[World Colonial]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 5:19 PM, LINCOLNMAN said:

According to what I've read, someone recently paid almost $3m for a 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card. Here is an object, manufactured solely as a collectible, made of cardboard, of no artistic merit, of no real historical significance, and not connected to the athlete himself. There is no rational reason that this object should be desired by anyone, except perhaps as a minor curiosity. Chances are fair that I used one of these cards on my bike in 1952 to simulate a motorbike sound. This sort of behavior occurs from time to time, one just has to let it go and shake one's head.

To my knowledge, you are correct.  I have looked in the Heritage archives.  It makes no sense to me either and my only explanation is nostalgia which doesn't exist to the equivalence in any coin.

[Raisethis2]

Would have been interesting to describe the circumstances of the find. Maybe which state, without revealing too much info. The coin itself is one of America's great rarities but those who own the others probably don't share in the excitement since the number dilutes the dollars I'd guess. 

 

 

 

[thebeav]

I'm sitting on the 1913 nickel, number 6......I really don't want to talk about it though ....

[DWLange]

Early Whitman coin boards and folders listed the mintage as "6." I always thought that was a mistake. 

[Conder101]

That was probably because early stories about the special holder that Col Green had the coins in had six openings (I heard that story in the 1960's).  Actually it had eight, but three of the coins in the holder were Buffalos or pattern buffalo nickels. If I remember correctly one regular issue, one pattern with no designers initial, and one regular design struck in copper.

[MarkFeld]

2 hours ago, Conder101 said:

That was probably because early stories about the special holder that Col Green had the coins in had six openings (I heard that story in the 1960's).  Actually it had eight, but three of the coins in the holder were Buffalos or pattern buffalo nickels. If I remember correctly one regular issue, one pattern with no designers initial, and one regular design struck in copper.

The coin which was said to be a copper Pattern turned out to be a regular issue example which had been plated.

 

[DWLange]

The coin which was said to be a copper Pattern turned out to be a regular issue example which had been plated.

Eric Newman proudly shared this coin with me when I was writing my Buffalo Nickel book in the 90s, and I had J. T. Stanton shoot a photo there at the ANA convention. I knew the coin wasn't what Eric thought it was, because there was obvious die erosion that wouldn't appear on a trial or pattern. Nevertheless, his act of bringing it to a coin show just for me to see was so thoughtful that I kept my opinion to myself. When it came to NGC for certification a few years ago the truth was confirmed.

[Walkerfan]

What means did Rick Montgomery and NGC use to determine that this new discovery piece is not the stolen Wolfson / DuPont piece?

Certainly, they had more to go on than just a grainy, out of focus, black and white 50+ year old auction image?

 

[Conder101]

Thanks for that information Mark.