Photos used with permission and courtesy of Legend Numismatics

Only one 1870 San Francisco Mint half dime is known to exist. It was on display on Oct. 27 & 28 at the first CoinFest, at the East Greenwich (CT) Civic Center. Please see my separate article about the CoinFest event. Most collectors have either never heard of the 1870-S half dime or do not know much about it.

The most famous coins are not the rarest. Almost all collectors know about 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincolns, 1877 Indian Cents, 1913 Liberty Nickels, 1894-S, 1895-O and 1916-D dimes, 1901-S and 1913-S quarters, 1916 and 1918/7-S Standing Liberty Quarters, and other key dates in series that are avidly collected. Moreover, 1804 silver dollars are the most famous of all coins. As fifteen 1804 dollars are known, there are quite a few other coins that are rarer. Most collectors are not familiar with the rarest U.S. coins.

There are three, privately owned U.S. coins that are each unique. Before itemizing the three, it makes sense to emphasize that I am referring to privately owned coins. There are unique pieces in the Smithsonian, and these are more complicated, for at least two reasons. Most unique pieces in the Smithsonian are patterns rather than true coins. Those unique pieces that are definitely true U.S. coins are not necessarily distinct dates. The issue of whether a particular die variety is a separate date is often controversial. There is no doubt that the three privately owned unique U.S. coins are true coins and are distinct dates.

There is only one 1873 Carson City (NV) Mint dime without arrows near the numerals on the obverse (front of the coin). On dimes, quarters, and halves, arrows were added at some point in 1873 and were also employed as part of the design in 1874. On all other 1873-CC dimes, there are arrows. The presence of arrows not only signifies additional dates for coins of the year 1873, the 1873-74 with arrows Liberty Seated coins are distinct subtypes for dimes, quarters and halves. As the arrows are near the numerals and are readily visible without a magnifying glass, this characteristic is definitely part of the ‘date’ and is even often thought of as being indicative of a separate design type. So, an 1873-CC without arrows is a date that is different from an 1873-CC with arrows coin. Curiously, there are a substantial number of both Philadelphia Mint 1873 without arrows dimes and 1873 with arrows dimes.

The unique 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ dime was, unsurprisingly, in the Eliasberg collection. Louis Eliasberg, Sr., had the all-time best collection of U.S. coins. It was the most complete and it contained many coins of tremendous quality. The Eliasberg 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ dime was auctioned in May 1996 in New York City by Bowers & Merena (New Hampshire). It is also unsurprising that it was owned for many years by Jay Parrino, who certainly has owned more Great Rarities in silver than any other dealer in the history of U.S. coin collecting.

There is also only one 1870-S $3 gold coin. It is easy to guess that it was in the Eliasberg collection, and such a guess would be correct. It is now in the collection of the late Harry Bass, and is on display at the ANA museum in Colorado Springs.

Those who have guessed that the 1870-S half dime was also previously in the Eliasberg collection are wrong. The 1870-S half dime was discovered in 1978, and Louis Eliasberg, Sr., died in 1976.

At some point in the mid 1980s, the 1870-S half dime was offered to Richard Eliasberg. After Louis Sr.’s death in 1976, Richard’s brother, Louis, Jr., inherited the U.S. gold coins, and Richard inherited all other parts of the Eliasberg collection. Richard Eliasberg declined to tell me why he did not buy the 1870-S half dime. When I asked again, he just smiled and walked away. As he is not a coin enthusiast himself, and none of his living relatives are extremely interested, maybe he could not bring himself to make such an acquisition?

At the 1991 ANA convention in Illinois, Jay Parrino acquired the 1870-S half dime when he bought Martin Paul’s collection of half dimes for “several million dollars.” Parrino owned the 1870-S half dime for a long time. Perhaps it should be called the Parrino 1870-S half dime. In the 1990s, he sold it to an investor and then bought it back again a few years later.

Bowers & Merena (CA) auctioned the 1870-S half dime in July 2004. A somewhat leading coin website incorrectly lists Jim Gray as the consignor. Gray never owned it.

Laura Sperber was the successful bidder, on behalf of the current owner. The 1870-S half dime realized $661,250. Sperber was prepared to bid a much higher amount, if necessary. It is certainly worth much more in 2007.

The 1870-S half dime belongs to a collector who has been buying coins from Sperber for more than twenty years. He prefers that his name not be mentioned. As he is a lawyer, he decided to register his sets at the PCGS website under the name “Law.” He thus should not be confused with other recognized collectors who really are named ‘Law.’ He put himself through law school by buying and selling coins.

According to Sperber, “Mr. Law has always demanded the finest coins. Second best would never do for him.” In the PCGS registry, Mr. Law has the “All-Time Finest” sets of business strike Three Cent Nickels, business strike Three Cent Silvers, Proof Three Cent Silvers, business strike Capped Bust half dimes (1829-37), business strike Barber dimes, and Proof Barber dimes.

It is curious that ‘Mr. Law’s’ collection of Liberty Seated half dimes is not in the PCGS registry, as it is the only one that can possibly be complete in the present. Furthermore, it is disappointing that most of his registered sets are almost completely lacking in pedigree information. It would be helpful and fun to know which coins were earlier in some of the greatest collections of all time.

The 1870-S half dime is an attractive and interesting coin. It certainly left a strong, positive impression on me.

At first glance, from a distance, Miss Liberty and the other design elements on the obverse (front) exhibit a very light, consistent russet tone. The fields (bare areas) have a neat bluish-gray tint, and several moderate hairlines are noticeable, plus a few heavier ones.

The obverse die (used to stamp the design into the front) was very heavily polished at the San Francisco Mint, and the obverse of the coin features numerous raised die lines that are really only noticed by coin enthusiasts, but are, nevertheless, really cool. Any careful observer would notice that the obverse fields are fully reflective and dynamic.

The texture of the reverse (back) is very different from that of the obverse, though is also interesting and pleasantly distinctive. The wreath is very lightly frosted, from treatment of the reverse die at the Mint, and is toned a more subtle light russet color. The fields are naturally crisp. The reverse is slightly reflective, but nowhere near as much as the obverse. On the whole, the reverse is not as attractive as the obverse, but is still very appealing.
In a technical sense, the reverse is of a higher grade than the obverse. There are much fewer imperfections.

When tilted under a light, the obverse looks even more cool. There are touches of green and orange, plus various shades of russet about the fields and outer elements. The patches of a somewhat bright russet tone about the numerals in 1870 are enticing.

I strongly believe that all the toning on this coin is natural. Further, I did not see any evidence that it has ever been ‘dipped.’

The 1870-S half dime is not sharply struck. When seen in actuality, it is clearly better struck than it appears to be in pictures. It is better struck than many other uncirculated Liberty Seated half dimes that I have seen. Indeed, a large percentage of Liberty Seated half dimes are not well struck. Besides, even the best struck Liberty Seated half dimes, in general, lack detail in comparison to several other types of U.S. coins.

The coin does not have any wear or friction on the highpoints. There is no doubt that it is uncirculated. It has been graded MS-63 by both the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) and Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC). In 2005 or 2006, it was upgraded to “MS-64” by the PCGS.

I would tend to grade it a mid range to high end MS-63, though I understand why some experts may grade it as 64. In my view, it is definitely a business strike, not a specimen striking. Neither service has called it a specimen striking, but the topic has been mentioned to me in private conversations.

It is not unusual for business strikes from polished dies to have reflective surfaces. Raised die lines of the magnitude found on this coin’s obverse are much more unusual than the presence of reflective surfaces. Such raised lines are, however, found on a fair number of 19th century silver business strikes. It is impossible to explain all the reasons why I think that the coin’s texture is that of a business strike. The obverse could be plausibly determined to be prooflike, or maybe semi-prooflike?

How important is the 1870-S half dime? It certainly warrants more attention than it has received.

David McCarthy, senior numismatist at Kagin’s, is one of the more studious and reflective of coin dealers. He asserts that “Liberty Seated dimes and half dimes are woefully under-appreciated in general. The 1870-S half dime in particular has been overlooked. In terms of numismatic importance,” McCarthy concludes, “it is in the same category as the 1894-S dime.” There are ten known 1894-S dimes. Please see my very recent article regarding the sale of one.

I believe that Liberty Seated half dimes, dimes, and quarters are all ‘under-appreciated.’ These are attractive, rare, and, historically, very much a central part of the culture of coin collecting in the United States. The market for rare date, pre-1840 and 1907-33, gold coins boomed from 2002 to 2006 and is still hot now. Bust gold coins, in particular, have been intensely demanded for several years, and are often ‘in the spotlight.’ Moreover, post-1920 20th century coins have been receiving a disproportionate share of attention in the present and recent past. Furthermore, markets for Bust U.S. silver coins, generally dating from the 1790s to the 1830s, have been very active this year. So far this decade, people do not seem to be all that excited about Liberty Seated coins, even as type coins.

I understand why McCarthy thinks that 1894-S dimes and the 1870-S half dime “are in the same category.” He believes both these two issues, and several other Great Rarities, were struck for special, though sometimes different, purposes.

In my view, it is best to place the 1870-S half dime in a category that is much different from that of the 1894-S dime. No one really knows exactly why this particular 1870-S half dime was struck. Moreover, in my articles on 1894-S dimes, I emphasize that the 1894-S and Barber dimes in general have an unusually strong and very distinctive appeal in the traditions of coin collecting.

Of all series that started in the 19th century, Barber dimes are among the easiest to collect, and are very popular with kids. Barber coins also appeal to adults, including those that are just starting out.

In low grades, many dates in the Barber dime series may be obtained for less than $2.50 each. A collector who is willing to spend up to $50 per coin could almost complete a set of Barber dimes. Only the 1894-S, the 1895-O and the 1893/2 overdate would necessarily cost more than $100 each. As the 1894-S is a ‘Proof-only’ date, and the 1893/2 is an esoteric overdate, an 1895-O would really be the only moderately priced coin needed to complete a set of business strike Barber dimes.

Consider that many adult collectors have fond memories of collecting Barber dimes as kids, and many who start as adults collect Barber dimes for years. There may be more than five hundred thousand collectors who have, at one time or another, dreamed about owning an 1894-S dime. Not nearly as many people have dreamed about owning the 1870-S half dime.

Liberty Seated Half Dimes are a more complicated series to collect. Scarce date Liberty Seated half dimes are not that expensive, but are more difficult to obtain, at market prices, than scarce date Barber dimes. There is less trading volume in Liberty Seated half dimes. In addition to the 1870-S, there are about seven dates in this series that would necessarily cost more than $100 each. Even finding decent examples of some of the relatively inexpensive dates would require considerable time and effort.

Liberty Seated half dimes are also more difficult to grade and otherwise interpret than Barber dimes. It may also be more difficult to find Liberty Seated half dimes with original surfaces. Indeed, many half dimes have been harshly cleaned by non-experts who kept them as novelty items or conversation pieces. So, there are several reasons why Barber dimes will always be more popular than Liberty Seated half dimes, and Barber dimes have a greater role in the culture of coin collecting.

I strongly agree with McCarthy’s insight that one reason why the 1870-S half dime is not thought of more often is that “it has never been in one of the great collections of all time,” nor even in a widely recognized collection until ‘Mr. Law’ obtained it. Had it been in the Cleaney, Mills, Earle, Newcomer, Boyd, Norweb or Eliasberg collections, it would be much more famous now.

While it will never have the emotional allure of an 1894-S dime to most coin enthusiasts, the 1870-S half dime is a very appealing coin and it is deserving of much more respect and acclaim. Liberty Seated half dimes, in general, are cute, fun to collect, and more challenging to collect and evaluate than Barber dimes. Collectors who make an effort to learn about them will find themselves intrigued.

©2007 Greg Reynolds

Of the twenty-four dimes that were reportedly minted in San Francisco in 1894, only ten are believed to exist today. On Oct. 17, Stack’s auctioned a Proof-64 1894-S dime, for $1,552,500. The auction was held at the Parker Meridien Hotel in midtown Manhattan. The consignor wishes to remain completely anonymous. As the new owner of this 1894-S dime is a “new player” in the game of acquiring really great rare coins, I will refer to this dime as the “New Player’s” 1894-S.

An understanding of this auction record involves more than just a description of the bidding activity. It is necessary to discuss the two other 1894-S dimes that have sold at auction for more than $1 million each. Furthermore, there is the pertinent point that higher grade pieces are often worth multiples of lower grade coins. In addition, the demand for extremely rare coins has increased markedly over the past ten years, particularly since 2003. Moreover, 1894-S dimes are more highly demanded than several other Great Rarities. The aesthetic characteristics of this particular 1894-S dime are also an important factor

This ‘New Player’s’ 1894-S has a nice overall look. It is not very bright, but it is not dark. It is somewhat brilliant. The hair and headband of Miss Liberty, and much of the wreath, feature a cameo contrast. The white glow of these areas contrasts really well with the fields, which feature blends of blue and gray, with purplish overtones. There is a light blue tone about UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The fields on the obverse (front) are partly covered with a neat, pale orange overtone. The reverse fields are more gray than blue, though appear very purplish when the coin is tilted at certain angles.

This New Player’s 1894-S dime is very attractive. The surfaces exhibit full, strong mirrors, more so than the surfaces of the BRS 1894-S. It is true, though, that the BRS 1894-S has a great deal of attractive blue toning, with shades of green and touches of orange. The New Player’s 1894-S dime plus the Richmond-JAS and BRS 1894-S dimes all have natural toning.

Charles Browne is a grader and analyst for a leading wholesale firm. He is also an instructor at ANA grading seminars. In his view, this dime is a “premium quality Proof-64,” and it is “one of the nicest 1894-S dimes” that Browne “has ever seen in more than thirty years as a professional numismatist.” Browne makes clear, though, that “the Richmond [? James A. Stack] 1894-S dime is definitely superior to this one.” This New Player’s 1894-S dime “brought more than the $1,250,000 or so” that Browne “figured it would bring.”

The Richmond-James A. Stack 1894-S dime is widely regarded as the finest known. It was PCGS certified Proof-66 in 1990, and was NGC graded PF-66 when it was auctioned for $1,322,500 in March 2005. When it sold privately during the summer, for $1.9 million, it was again PCGS graded 66. Proofs are manufactured differently from business strikes. As all 1894-S dimes were struck as Proofs, there is not a need to keep pointing out here that particular 1894-S dimes are Proofs.

The BRS 1894-S is probably the second finest known. It was PCGS graded 64 in 1992, PCGS graded 65 earlier than 2005, and NGC graded 66 in 2005 or ‘06. It sold for $1,035,000 in Heritage’s January 2005 Platinum Night event at the Florida United Numismatist’s convention.

This just auctioned dime, the New Player’s 1894-S, is PCGS graded 64. It is at least the fifth finest known, and may possibly be the third finest.

What do these grading numbers mean? There is no way to completely explain coin grading. The state of preservation and aesthetic appeal of a coin are the central factors involved in determining its grade. Higher grade pieces are typically worth much more than lower grade coins of the same type and date. Indeed, a higher grade piece is often worth many multiples of a lower grade piece.

In May 2007, I wrote about a 67 grade 1893-S dime, which is much different from an 1894-S and it is not a Proof. It is PCGS graded, and it sold at a Heritage auction for $63,250. A Good-04 grade 1893-S dime is worth less than $15! A 64 grade 1893-S would be worth around $2000, maybe 3% of the value of the 67 grade ‘93-S that sold in May.

Before the auction, most market participants were really not sure how to value this 64 grade 1894-S dime. There was an aura of excitement in the room when the opening bid, adjusted for the buyer’s commission, was announced to be more than $1.1 million! About a half dozen bidders were in the running before a Virginia dealer indicated $1,380,000. It then became clear that the old auction record for a dime was broken.

Next, Laura Sperber bid $1,437,500 ($1.25m+15% buyer’s commission). David Schweitz immediately joined the contest with a bid of $1,495,000. Sperber hesitated, talked on her cell phone, and then raised her paddle.

Kevin Lipton, who was also talking on a cell phone, asked the auctioneer for permission to “cut the bid.” He was told that the next bid must be $1,610,000, which amounted to an extremely reasonable increment of 3.7%. Bidding increments in coin auctions often range from 5% to 10%. Lipton declined to raise his bid to that level, and Sperber became the winning bidder.

Sperber informed me that her firm, Legend Numismatics, is the buyer of record. My interpretation of her remarks is that she was buying this dime on behalf of an individual, and it has now been formally sold to him (or her).

She declined to identify or discuss the buyer other than to say that he (or she) “is not one of the usual suspects.” He (or she) is not one of Sperber’s established collector-clients nor is he the collector who calls himself ‘TradeDollarNut,’ a longtime Sperber associate. As Sperber used the term “new player” in response to my questions, I chose to name this dime the New Player’s 1894-S.

Discussions of coins are much clearer, and more precise, when individual coins have names. Besides, it is a long established tradition in the coin collecting community for Great Rarities to have names.

Prices for Great Rarities have been trending upwards for several years. In the mid 1990s, Jay Parrino was buying numerous Great Rarities and boldly expressing his opinion that Great Rarities were undervalued. Back then, there were few people who would pay more than $200,000 for a coin. Many extremely rare coins are now worth three to five times as much as they were worth in the mid 1990s.

Consider the first coin to ever sell for more than a million at auction, the Eliasberg-Parrino 1913 Liberty Nickel, the finest of five that exist. It realized $1,485,000 in May 1996. Earlier in 2007, Sperber and her partners sold it privately for $5 million.

In January 1990, the finest known 1894-S dime sold for $275,000 in the Stack’s auction of the James A. Stack, Sr. collection of dimes, the all-time finest collection of that denomination. The late James A. Stack is not related to the family that founded the Stack’s auction firm. Fifteen years later, in DLRC’s Richmond III sale, this same dime was auctioned for nearly five times as much.

Consider the value of the one 1792 half dime that has been PCGS certified as a special “Specimen” striking. In July 1993, it was then PCGS certified SP-66, and it was auctioned for $96,250. At some point over the years, the PCGS upgraded it to SP-67. In April 2006, Heritage auctioned this same half dime for $1,322,500, more than thirteen times the amount that it realized in 1993. A 1792 half dime is not even a Great Rarity!

For a coin to be a Great Rarity, there must be fewer than twenty-five coins of the same type and date (year and Mint location) known to exist in the present, including both business strikes and Proofs, and including all die varieties. Amazingly, in this same Stack’s October auction event, four coins sold are Great Rarities, three U.S. coins and one privately issued gold coin. Please look for articles about these, on CoinLink, very soon.

While it is widely believed that ten 1894-S dimes exist, only six have been seen by the coin collecting community since 1990. I have examined five of these six. The one of these six that I did not see is NGC graded AG-03 (the third lowest possible grade), and is said to have a prominent arc-shaped cut on the obverse (front). Its place in the condition rankings is obvious enough. Curiously, Laura Sperber sold this AG-03 1894-S in 1990, and she was the successful bidder for the BRS 1894-S in Jan. 2005. She has thus been involved in transactions of three different 1894-S dimes.

David Schweitz, the underbidder for the New Player’s 1894-S dime, was previously part owner of the BRS 1894-S dime, long before it was called the BRS 1894-S. In October 2002, he and John Feigenbaum bought it and later sold it to the collector who consigned it to Heritage’s January 2005 Platinum Night event. Furthermore, Schweitz advised the collector D. Rosenthal who bought the finest known 1894-S in DLRC’s Richmond III sale, on March 7, 2005.

In Schweitz’s view, the New Player’s 1894-S has “the most eye appeal of any 1894-S dime” that he “has seen.” Further, Schweitz declares that it “definitely grades Proof-65”!

Although it is deeply toned, I personally believe that the Richmond-JAS 1894-S dime has the best look of any 1894-S dime. The New Player’s 1894-S does have a lot of eye appeal, and very few imperfections. I believe that it could merit a low 65 grade.

Unlike others who are or were convinced that the Eliasberg 1894-S deserves a 65 grade, I strongly thought the Eliasberg 1894-S grades just 64. In advance of the Jan. 2005 FUN auction, Heritage cataloguers sharply argued that the BRS 1894-S, which was not yet called BRS, is of higher quality than the Eliasberg 1894-S dime. I have no reason to challenge this point.

I suggest that the New Player’s 64 grade 1894-S, which Stack’s just auctioned, is of higher quality than the Eliasberg 1894-S dime. I admit, though, that I have not seen the Eliasberg 1894-S in a long time.

The Heritage cataloguers also asserted that the BRS 1894-S is superior to the Richmond-James A. Stack 1894-S. A very prominent collector, and recognized grading expert, put forth a similar remark in an Internet forum. Most experts in 19th century silver coins, however, hold that the Richmond-James A. Stack 1894-S is the finest known, and that is my opinion as well.

Quality is one factor that determines the demand for coins. Rarity and popularity are also central factors. All 1894-S dimes are intensely demanded, including the two lowest grade ones, which grade AG-03 and Good-06, respectively. A major reason is that Barber Dimes are very popular.

The 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ dime is rarer than the 1894-S. There is only one known, the Eliasberg piece, and it sold for $891,250 at a B&M auction in July 2004. It, however, is a Liberty Seated Dime. There is more demand for Barber Dimes than for Liberty Seated Dimes.

Like many of my friends, I collected Barber dimes when I was a kid. At coin shows, I also saw adults buying them. Many dates in the Barber dime series were then available for around $1 each. For less than $5 each, several somewhat scarcer dates could be easily purchased.

Even now, the least scarce dates can be obtained for less than $2 each, and many better dates for under $15. Indeed, a large percentage of the dates in the Barber dime series are obtainable in Good condition, at modest prices, usually less than $30 each. Only the 1894-S, the 1895-O and the 1893/2 overdate would necessarily cost more than $100 each.

So, numerous collectors, rich and poor, beginning and advanced, have collected Barber dimes ‘by date,’ and dreamed, at one time or another, about owning an 1894-S dime. As there are thousands extant of every other date in the series, it is the 1894-S date that stands out. Often, wealthy adult collectors seek the rarities that they dreamed about when they were kids. It does not surprise me that 1894-S dimes are each worth a fortune.

I was very surprised that the New Player’s 1894-S realized more than $1½ million on Oct. 17. I was only a little surprised, in Jan. 2005, when the 65 grade BRS 1894-S brought $1,035,000. Before 2005, the auction record for an 1894-S dime had been the $451,000 paid for the Eliasberg coin in May 1996, and prices at the Eliasberg sales tended to be above the market levels that then prevailed. Even given the increasing demand for Great Rarities, I expected this one to sell for less than it did.

I very much like this 1894-S dime. It was a pleasure to view it, and fun to see a half dozen bidders energetically vie for it. In all the years that I have covered coin auctions, the selling of this 1894-S dime was certainly one of the more exciting moments.

©2007 Greg Reynolds

On Wednesday, Oct. 17, a Choice Uncirculated 1876-CC Twenty Cent piece will be offered by Stack’s in New York City. It is graded “MS-64” by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS). As of 01:30 AM on Tuesday, Internet bidding already pushed the price over $200,000. A large variety of U.S. coins and many other numismatic items are included in this auction event.

This 1876 Carson City (NV) issue is an attractive coin, and is moderately brilliant. Its reverse (back) is very attractive and features a cool, very frosty eagle that glows in vivid contrast to gray-silver fields. There are a few hairlines and small contact marks here and there, but these are not particularly distracting. As on all 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces, the letters in LIBERTY are doubled. Other design elements are doubled as well.

Twenty Cent coins were only minted for circulation for two years, in 1875 and ‘76. People confused them with quarters, and generally found them to be annoying. The silver mining industry, directly and indirectly, had influenced several members of Congress to sponsor legislation mandating a Twenty Cent coin.

Twenty Cent pieces have been favorites with collectors for a very long time. Even in the 19th century, collectors demanded them. For two additional years, in 1877 and ‘78, Proof Twenty Cent pieces were specially made, many of which were sold directly to collectors by the Philadelphia Mint.

Estimates vary widely regarding the number of 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces in existence. As it is very likely that there are fewer than twenty-five are known, it can be concluded that it is a Great Rarity. For a definition of a Great Rarity, please see my CoinLink articles on 1841 Quarter Eagles or 1856-O Double Eagles, and my relevant discussion of the concept of rarity in my article on 1888 $3 gold coins.

In the 1980s and 1990s, quite a few 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces were auctioned. The James A. Stack 1876-CC was auctioned by Stack’s in March 1995. A West Coast dealer was the successful bidder, at $99,000. It has mellow light russet and green toning, with touches of blue. After the auction, it was PCGS graded “MS-65.” James A. Stack Sr., who is not related to the family that founded the coin auction firm, bought this coin from Mehl’s mail bid sale of the very famous William Atwater collection.

Two of the finest known 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces were sold by Bowers & Merena (NH) in the 1980s, the Emery-Nichols and Norweb pieces. Unfortunately, I have not seen either of them. My understanding is that, by 1988, both had been graded MS-65 by the Numismatic Guaranty Corp (NGC). Many silver coins that were graded MS-65 in 1987 or 1988 have since been graded MS-66 or -67. As the PCGS has, along the way, graded two as MS-66, could these be the two?

The Norweb coin has (or had) attractive medium toning, while the Emery-Nichols 1876-CC is (or was) naturally bright, or so I have been told. In 1988, Andy Lustig owned them both. A few years later, Jay Parrino owned them both. My guess is that the PCGS graded MS-66 1876-CC that Parrino advertised in 1995 is the Norweb piece.

Now, the PCGS registry listing of the “Driftwood Collection” includes an 1876-CC that is said by the owner to be the Norweb coin. This listing is not accompanied by images. I have no reason to doubt that the Driftwood 1876-CC and the Norweb 1876-CC are the same. Could the NGC graded MS-66 piece that Heritage auctioned in October 2001 also be the Norweb-Driftwood 1876-CC?

In March 2001, Superior offered at auction an NGC graded MS-66 1876-CC that reportedly sold for $161,000. Coin markets were very weak at the time. The Superior cataloguer identified it as the Emery-Nichols 1876-CC. The serial number on the NGC holder was 700000-001. The evidence that I have collected so far suggests that the Emery-Nichols 1876-CC was auctioned by B&M in Nov. 1984, was owned by Lustig in 1988, was owned by Parrino in the mid-1990s, and was offered by Superior in 2001 (and maybe in 2003 as well?).

From all the hearsay that has come to my ears over the years regarding the quality of particular 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces, it seems very plausible that the Emery-Nichols and Norweb pieces are the two that are PCGS graded MS-66. It is also possible that someone at NGC made a clerical error, and the Emery-Nichols piece is still in an NGC ‘MS-66′ holder, but not included in the NGC census.

Other 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces have ‘entered the marketplace’ in recent years. In March 2002, Stack’s auctioned an uncertified 1876-CC. It was sold privately in 2003 by the firm of David Lawrence (DLRC), after it had been NGC graded MS-65. Later, it was graded MS-65 by PCGS. Within the last thirty days, DLRC sold it again. It is said to have been earlier in the famous F.C.C. Boyd, Edwin Hydeman and Reed Hawn collections.

If I had seen the Emery-Nichols and Norweb pieces, I would probably be writing about them in more definitive terms. After I gather more information from experts who have seen these and have attended some of the pertinent auctions that I missed, I hope to put together a clear roster incorporating condition rankings and pedigrees. I would then include my comments regarding the Eliasberg 1876-CC and a couple of others that I saw long ago.

In recent years, the nicest 1876-CC that I have seen is the Neil-Richmond coin. It is a really appealing Twenty Cent piece that has been overlooked collectors, researchers and other coin enthusiasts.

This 1876-CC was auctioned by DLRC in the Richmond III sale on March 7, 2005. It is (or then was) NGC graded MS-64, and its grade is certainly at least in the high end of the MS-64 range. It has medium to deep, natural toning, though it is not too dark. It features a neat, dusky, purplish-steel tone. Several of the design elements, including Miss Liberty, are outlined in green. There is a pleasant, rich green tone about the numerals and covering much of the reverse (back) outer fields.

The Neil-Richmond 1876-CC has very few marks, all of which are minor, and has a small number of faint hairlines, especially in the upper reverse inner field. Many collectors would not even notice these imperfections.

Overall, the Richmond 1876-CC is very attractive with a soothing, balanced blend of natural tones. It was earlier in the famous Neil collection that B. Max Mehl sold, with some fanfare, in 1947. In 2005, it sold for $158,125. John Hammrick was the successful bidder. He was acting on behalf of a Southern collector.

Buyers for 1876-CC 20 cent pieces are usually either looking to complete a set or wish to enjoy owning a special rarity and view it as an entity that stands on its own. A set of business strike Twenty Cent pieces requires only five coins: 1875, 1875-CC, 1875-S, 1876, and 1876-CC. Before 1942, the absence of a mintmark almost always indicated that a coin was struck at the main branch in Philadelphia. There are a large number of collectors who have the other five dates, and need only an 1876-CC to complete their respective sets.

There is no doubt that the 1876-CC Twenty Cent piece is legendary and attracts more attention than some other Great Rarities, such as 1829 $5 gold coins. Many adult coin collectors started as kids, and kids tend to acquire at least one Twenty Cent piece, as this ’strange’ denomination is so curious. Further, kids tend to dream about owning an 1876-CC. It is common for wealthy adult collectors to acquire rarities that they dreamed about when they were kids. Moreover, thousands of coin collectors get started as adults and are intrigued by Twenty Cent pieces. Most beginning collectors learn fast that the 1876-CC is a Great Rarity and is the key to whole twenty cent denomination.

©2007 Greg Reynolds

An 1870-CC Double Eagle ($20 gold coin) is ‘in the news’ as one of the finer pieces sold privately in the middle of August. It had surfaced at the ANA Convention.

Bob Green of Park Avenue Numismatics sold this 1870-CC to a Nevada collector for an amount greater than $400,000!

As it did not come from a famous collection, at least not in recent decades, I will refer to it as the Green 1870-CC to distinguish it from others of the same date. The Green 1870-CC is certified, graded and encapsulated by the Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC). Its “AU-53” grade indicates that it is certainly one of the ten finest 1870-CC Double Eagles, possibly even one of the two or three finest?

I am not aware of any 1870-CC Double Eagles that grade MS-60 or higher. Many of those that currently grade AU were graded as Extremely Fine in the 1980s or early 1990s. Likewise, many that were graded Very Fine in the past few decades have been certified as “Extremely Fine” over the past ten years. There are two Extremely Fine grade increments, EF-40, EF-45, and four in the AU range: AU-50, AU-53, AU-55, and AU-58.

Grades of MS-60 to -70 roughly approximate the range relating to the traditional grading concept of ‘Uncirculated.’ In 1988, the late researcher Walter Breen asserted that the 1870-CC is “unknown” in uncirculated. David Akers, the foremost expert on U.S. gold coins, stated that he never saw an uncirculated or “Mint State” 1870-CC. Curiously, one other expert, in a somewhat recent book on Double Eagles, estimates, without any pertinent references, a population of one or two Mint State 1870-CC Double Eagles.

I have not found any convincing evidence of an ‘Uncirculated’ or MS 1870-CC ever existing after 1870. It may be true that no one saved any before these coins went into circulation.

The ‘CC’ mintmark stands for the Branch Mint in Carson City, Nevada, where coins were minted from 1870 to 1893. For many dates in several denominations, uncirculated ‘CC’ pieces are extremely rare. In the late 19th century, a very large percentage of coin collectors lived in the Eastern United States, particularly New England and the Middle Atlantic States. In 1870 in Nevada, there may not have been anyone who was seriously collecting $20 gold coins.

There are four categories of potential buyers for an 1870-CC Double Eagle. (1) There are a small number of people who collect all Liberty Head Double Eagles (1850-1907) ‘by date.’ (2) There are many collectors who specialize in Carson City coins, usually of more than one denomination. (3) There are always speculators and others who seek to buy and resell important and expensive coins for profit. (4) There are a sizeable number of collectors who enjoy owning very rare coins, especially famous ones, even if such coins are not intended to be parts of sets.

Most of the demand for an 1870-CC Double Eagle comes from collectors who specialize in Carson City Coins. Some collect all silver and gold Carson City coins. Others focus on just silver or gold.

The 1870-CC is much rarer than any other CC Double Eagle, and is rarer and more famous than all CC Half Eagles ($5 gold coins) and Eagles ($10 gold coins). The 1870-CC Double Eagle is the Queen of Carson City gold.

It is not the rarest, business strike Liberty Head Double Eagle. Please see my CoinLink articles on the 1854-O and the 1856-O, both of which are very likely to be rarer. If the 1861 with the Paquet reverse is deemed to be a date of its own, then it is the rarest business strike Double Eagle. Among Type 3 Double Eagles (1877-1907), there are four Philadelphia Mint dates from the 1880s that are extremely rare in business strike format. The 1854-O, ‘56-O, and 1861 Philadelphia Paquet are all Type 1 ‘No Motto’ Double Eagles (1850-66).

In addition to being the first and rarest Carson City Double Eagle, the 1870-CC is the rarest date in the Type 2 Double Eagle (1866-76) series. The Motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ was added in 1866, and, in 1877, design changes were made including the ’spelling out’ of the word DOLLARS on the reverse (back of the coin). From 1850 to 1876, an abbreviation, ‘D.’, was used.

Douglas Winter estimates that from thirty-five to forty-five 1870-CC Double Eagles exist. Walter Breen, Don Taxay, and David Akers all thought that this date is considerably rarer than Winter’s estimate would indicate. Several other experts, however, have followed Winter’s lead, without really providing an explanation or any evidence of at least thirty-five existing.

There are two varieties, which Winter explains in an awkward manner. I have attempted to simplify and clarify the distinction. (1) The CC mintmark lies above the N and the T of TWENTY D., and the mintmark sort of straddles the area above these two letters. As the CC mintmark is largely in between the N and the T, this is the ‘in between’ variety or just ‘B’ for short. (2) On the other variety, the first C in CC is clearly above the N and the mintmark is, for the most part, above the N. In my view, there are thus the B and N varieties, for ‘Between’ and the letter ‘N.’

So far, I have individually identified six 1870-CC-B coins and ten or eleven 1870-CC-N Double Eagles. It may be true that the variety ‘B’ is rarer than variety ‘N’. If so, very few collectors would care. Does anyone seriously collect Carson City gold coins, or Liberty Head Double Eagles, by die variety?

Coins are struck with dies, and, often, more than one pair of dies is used to manufacture a coin of a specific date and type. Collecting by ‘die variety’ would involve seeking coins struck from every single pair of dies, even if that means obtaining a dozen examples of one date. There are hundreds of people who collect Bust Half Dollars (1794-1836) by die variety. For technical, financial, and practical reasons, it is very unusual for anyone to collect late 19th century gold coins by die variety.

The two 1870-CC die varieties are important as they play a role in authentication and better enable experts to identify individual 1870-CC Double Eagles. For example, I am certain that the just sold Green 1870-CC is not the 1870-CC Double Eagle that was formerly in the famous Amon Carter Collection. One reason that I am certain is that the Green 1870-CC is of variety ‘B’ while the Carter 1870-CC is of variety ‘N.’

Which is the single 1870-CC Double Eagle that the NGC has graded “AU-55”? The Jeff Browning ‘Dallas Bank’ collection contained many rare gold coins that are among the finest known for their respective dates. The ‘Dallas Bank’ 1870-CC was graded ‘Extremely Fine’ when it was auctioned in 2001. In the PCGS registry, it is stated that the Browning 1870-CC is not PCGS certified and this coin is “estimated” by at least one PCGS expert to grade “EF-45.” Could the NGC have graded it as AU-55? I do not know.

In January 2004, Heritage auctioned an 1870-CC that has been graded AU-53 by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS). It then realized $368,000, the auction record for the date. I have not seen it. Could this 1870-CC have been ‘cracked out’ of its PCGS holder and then submitted to NGC? Of course, it could have been, but did the NGC grade it AU-55?

The Eliasberg 1870-CC was catalogued as Very Fine 20/30 in 1982. Later, it was “estimated” in the PCGS registry that the PCGS would, if it was ever submitted, assign an “EF-40” grade to the Eliasberg 1870-CC Double Eagle. Given trends in grading, an AU grade for the Eliasberg 1870-CC may be plausible. Perhaps it already has been certified? I would be surprised, however, if the NGC graded it as AU-55.

The NGC graded AU-53 1870-CC is the coin that Bob Green just bought and sold this month. I have identified it as the 1870-CC that Heritage auctioned in Sept. 2003 in Long Beach, California. It was then NGC graded AU-50.

Although the NGC census reports only one as being graded AU-53, Bob Green reports handling two. These are the one that he just sold in August and another that he sold to a Nevada dealer in October 2006. My impression from Green is that he bought the “Wyoming” collection 1870-CC that Heritage auctioned in August 2006 for $359,375. Before October 2006, the NGC upgraded it to AU-53.

At least three different 1870-CC Double Eagles have, at one time or another, been NGC graded AU-50. There are only two currently listed in the NGC census. When the Richmond 1870-CC was auctioned in July 2004, it was NGC graded AU-50. It realized $218,500 in the DLRC Richmond 1 auction in New York. Bob Green reveals that he bought it at the DLRC auction. Green then submitted it to the PCGS. It ‘crossed over’ and became PCGS graded AU-50. Green sold it to a “Hawaiian collector.”

In Orlando, during January 2004, Green purchased a PCGS graded AU-50 1870-CC from Christine Karstedt. She was probably acting as an agent for a collector. Green, in turn, sold it to a collector who is from Nevada, not the same collector who bought an 1870-CC in August 2007. It is common for collectors who live in or near Nevada to specialize in Carson City gold or silver coins.

PCGS and NGC listings of 1870-CC Double Eagles that grade “AU-50” include resubmissions of the same coins, coins that were upgraded from EF grades, and at least one coin that has since been certified as AU-53. Resubmissions are unsurprising. After all, an AU-53 graded 1870-CC Double Eagle may be worth $40,000 to $100,000 more than an 1870-CC that is certified as AU-50. Grading standards for circulated, rare-date gold have certainly become ‘looser’ over the past five to ten years, though have tightened in recent months.

The significant numbers of 1870-CC Double Eagles that the PCGS and the NGC have graded EF-40 or EF-45 probably amount to four to seven different coins that have not since been graded AU-50 or -53. The 1870-CC Double Eagle in the epic Harry Bass collection was PCGS graded EF-45 back in 1999. It sold for $97,750 in October 1999, a very high price at the time. Many of the coins in the Harry Bass collection have since received grades from PCGS that are higher than the grades PCGS assigned in 1999, though I am not sure that the Bass 1870-CC has or ever will be graded higher.

Another PCGS graded EF-45 1870-CC was auctioned by the Goldbergs in June 2000. A third PCGS graded EF-45 1870-CC was auctioned by Heritage in August 1999, for $92,000.

In January 2002, the “Eagle Collection” 1870-CC, NGC graded EF-45, was auctioned by Heritage for $97,750. Brett B. assembled this set. It was strange and confusing to name a set of Double Eagles the “Eagle Collection”! An Eagle is a $10 gold coin.

I have concluded that the Bass 1870-CC, the Brett 1870-CC, the PCGS graded EF-45 coin that the Goldbergs auctioned in 2000, and the one that Heritage sold in August 1999, are four distinct coins. I am not sure, though, how these four compare, quality-wise, to each other, or whether any of the four have since been certified AU-50.

An NGC graded EF-40 1870-CC was auctioned by Heritage in Sept. 2005, at the Long Beach Expo, for $184,000. It is not one of the PCGS or NGC graded 1870-CC Double Eagles that I mentioned above.

Relatively recent auction records include two problematic 1870-CC Double Eagles that have been certified by ANACS, and one that was certified by NCS. This NCS certified 1870-CC, from the Barry Donnell collection, was auctioned by Heritage in June 2004, at Long Beach. It garnered $97,750. Not long afterwards, it was auctioned by Stack’s, in March 2005, at which time it was not certified. My guess is that a dealer bought it in 2004 and removed it from its NCS holder. Stack’s graded it as “Extremely Fine” without a numerical designation. It realized $138,000 in March 2005.

When an expensive U.S. coin is certified and encapsulated by NCS, an affiliate of NGC, it usually means that the coin has problems that were considered to be too serious for it to qualify for NGC certification. The existence of 1870-CC Double Eagles with serious problems must be considered when estimating the rarity of this date.

I have definitely identified eighteen different 1870-CC Double Eagles. I have found records of another three to five that are likely to be distinct from these eighteen.

Bob Green has provided a rather startling list of the 1870-CC Double Eagles that he has personally handled. He is perhaps the foremost trader of coins of this date.

The eighteen mentioned above include 1870-CC Double Eagles that I have seen and those for which I have carefully examined pictures. My research regarding others, in combination with the information that Green provided, leads me to conclude that there are twenty-four to thirty-three in existence. The 1870-CC Double Eagle thus may be a Great Rarity, and is certainly extremely rare. I believe that Winter, Garrett and Guth have all over-estimated the number of survivors. In contrast, Akers’ estimate of twenty to twenty-five may be too low. The appeal of extremely rare Double Eagles and the popularity of Carson City coins in general suggest that the 1870-CC will be famous forever.

©2007 Greg Reynolds

During one of the auctions preceding the recent ANA convention, an 1854-O Double Eagle ($20 gold coin) sold for a record $494,500. Bowers and Merena (California), a division of Spectrum Numismatics, auctioned this 1854-O along with a wide variety of other U.S. coins on August 4. Herein, I will discuss the supply and demand of 1854-O Double Eagles, and I will put forth my findings regarding the pedigrees (ownership histories) of three of them.

The ‘O’ mintmark on the reverse (back of the coin) stands for New Orleans. All New Orleans Mint Double Eagles struck from 1854 to 1861 are very rare. The 1856-O is probably the rarest, and the 1854-O is the second rarest New Orleans Mint Double Eagle ($20 gold coin). Aside from an 1861 Philadelphia issue with a stylistically different reverse die, the 1854-O and the 1856-O are the two rarest business strike Liberty Head Double Eagles (1850-1907).

Back in March, this same auction firm, Bowers and Merena, auctioned an 1856-O Double Eagle for $356,500. It was from the collection of the late Jack Bains. That was the last time that an 1856-O has sold at auction.

This 1854-O and the Bains 1856-O are both certified, graded and encapsulated by the Professional Coin Grading Service. The PCGS and the Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC) are the two leading grading services. This 1854-O is PCGS graded AU-55 and the Bains 1856-O is graded AU-53.

In my CoinLink article on 1856-O Double Eagles, which was published just prior to the sale of the Bains piece, I estimated that fifteen or sixteen 1856-O Double Eagles exist. The 1854-O is not as rare as the 1856-O.

There are no 1854-O Double Eagles that grade MS-60 or higher. Many of those that currently grade AU were previously thought to grade Extremely Fine, when standards were stricter. There are four AU grades 50, 53, 55 and 58.

The PCGS reports grading two as AU-53 and three as AU-55, including the one that just sold. The NGC reports twelve that grade from AU-53 to AU-58, plus four in the EF-45 to AU-50 range. It is likely that the 29 that PCGS and NGC together report really amount to twelve to seventeen different coins. Consider, as an important example, that the Harry Bass 1854-O was PCGS graded AU-55 in 2000 and was NGC graded AU-58 by 2004.

For an 1854-O, the difference in value between grade increments may be anywhere from $15,000 to more than $100,000. “Probably the finest example known,” say Jeff Garrett & Ron Guth in their gold coin encyclopedia (2006, p. 428), is the 1854-O that was found in the shipwreck of the S.S. Republic, which is NGC graded AU-58. According to Garrett & Guth, “it was sold by private treaty in late 2004 for $675,000.” Monaco Financial purchased a large number of gold coins from the firm that salvaged the S.S. Republic, including the 1854-O. Did Adam Crum, the head of Monaco’s rare coin division, sell the Republic 1854-O for $675,000?

A price of $675,000 for an 1854-O is above the values listed in most price guides. In late 2004, the prevailing auction record was the $304,750 paid for the Richmond 1854-O, NGC graded AU-53, at a DLRC auction in New York in July 2004. If it is true that the S.S. Republic 1854-O is the finest known, then it would be unsurprising that it sold for a dramatic premium over the values of the second and third finest 1854-O Double Eagles.

The NGC graded AU-58 1854-O that Heritage sold at the FUN auction of January 2002 is the same as the 1854-O that Heritage sold at the January 2004 FUN auction. This point is explicitly put forth in the Heritage catalogue of January 2004. It is also evident from a comparison of the images of the two offerings. In 2002, it brought $92,000, and almost exactly two years later, it garnered $189,750. Its value thus more than doubled! If it had been auctioned again in Jan. 2006, would its price have doubled again, and realized $380,000?

The collection of Double Eagles that Heritage auctioned, at the 2002 FUN convention, was assembled by Brett B. I will thus call the 1854-O that was auctioned in Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2004 the Brett 1854-O. It may be true that the finest Double Eagles of this date are the Brett 1854-O, the Republic 1854-O, and the Dallas Bank-Browning 1854-O, and the Bass 1854-O. Three of the four are NGC certified AU-58, and the Dallas Bank 1854-O may be the fourth so certified?

The Dallas Bank-Browning 1854-O was auctioned in October 2001 for $160,000. It was uncertified. At the time, coin markets were weak, and there was not much interest in rare date gold coins that grade less than 60. It is certainly true that bidders were thinking of this coin as one of the top two or three, if not the finest. The S.S. Republic 1854-O had yet to be discovered.

Bowers and Merena (New Hampshire) auctioned most of the coins from the Harry Bass collection in New York, during 1999 and 2000. On May 26, 2000, the Bass 1854-O sold for $103,500, which was then an astounding price for an 1854-O. During the 1990s, 1854-O Double Eagles were auctioned for prices ranging from around $20,000 to $46,000 in Jan. 1999. In May 2000, the Bass piece was the only 1854-O to be PCGS graded AU-55. Now, there are three listed, at least one of which is a lower graded 1854-O that was upgraded. The Bass 1854-O is no longer PCGS graded AU-55, though it still may be one of the three listed in PCGS reports.

I have identified the NGC graded AU-58 1854-O that Heritage auctioned in July 2005 as the Harry Bass piece. There is no pedigree information regarding this 1854-O in the Heritage catalogue. In July 2005, the Bass 1854-O sold for $431,250, more than four times the price the exact same coin realized a little more than five years earlier!

Before the B&M-Spectrum auction on August 4, this $431,250 result was the auction record for an 1854-O Double Eagle. The $494,500 record for a PCGS graded AU-55 1854-O is further evidence that the market for rare pre-1880 gold coins is very hot. (Please read some of my other recent articles on CoinLink and find additional evidence.)

My research demonstrates than several auction events are repeat appearances of the same 1854-O Double Eagles. This date is thus much rarer than a list of auction appearances might suggest.

In Jan. 2005, Heritage auctioned a PCGS graded AU-53 1854-O for $368,000. The Heritage cataloguer stated that it is from the “Cincinnati Collection.” I have identified it as the same 1854-O that David Akers auctioned in July 1990 for $23,100, a small fraction of its 2005 price. Akers’ graded it as “EF-45” in 1990. I saw it. I believe that ‘AU-53′ is a fair grade. Plus, it is a really attractive coin.

I have determined that the PCGS graded AU-50 1854-O that the Goldbergs auctioned in October 2000 is the same 1854-O that Heritage auctioned at the Long Beach Expo during the winter of 2004. It realized $81,650 in 2000 and $161,000 in 2004. If it were offered in 2007, would it sell for more than $300,000?

As for the 1854-O that B&M just auctioned for $494,500, I strongly believe, though I am not completely certain, that it is the same 1854-O Double Eagle that Heritage auctioned in February 2001, for $87,400. If so, the PCGS has jumped its grade from EF-45 to AU-55! It is true that, in Feb. 2001, $87,400 was in the price range for an AU grade, not an ‘EF’, 1854-O. Was it graded “EF-45″ by PCGS years earlier, when standards were more stringent? A price increase from $87,400 to $494,500, in 6 ½ years, is another example of the increased demand for Type 1 Double Eagles (1850-1866), and for circulated rare date gold coins.

In August 2006, Heritage auctioned a PCGS graded AU-50 piece, from the “Wyoming” collection, for $301,875. Before DLRC sold the Richmond 1854-O in July 2004 for $304,750, a price of more than $300,000 for an 1854-O was almost unthinkable.

How rare are 1854-O Double Eagles? David Akers, probably the nation’s foremost expert in gold coins, has, as recently as October 1997, estimated that twenty to twenty-five 1854-O Double Eagles are around today. Winter estimates twenty-five to thirty-five.

The number of auction appearances may have led some experts to over-estimate the number of 1854-O Double Eagles that survive. In addition to the point put forth above that many auction appearances are repeats of the same coins, I hypothesize that an extremely large percentage of known 1854-O Double Eagles have been auctioned over the last quarter century. Some came from some of greatest collections of all time, which happened to be auctioned over the past quarter century or so, including the Eliasberg and Pittman collections.

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, there was very little interest in circulated, rare date gold coins. Advanced collectors of gold coins were focused on coins that graded MS-64 and higher. So, as old-time collections, and collections built in the 1960s and 1970s, were sold, the emerging 1854-O Double Eagles were traded among dealers and speculators, and repeatedly consigned to auctions. So, observers of coin markets could certainly get the impression that there are more than twenty-five 1854-O Double Eagles in existence.

I am not asserting that all known 1854-O Double Eagles were traded during the last quarter-century, just an extremely large percentage of them. I am aware of the PCGS graded EF-40 1854-O Double Eagle that B&M auctioned in July 2005, for $241,500. It was in the same family since early in the 20th century. It is difficult to estimate how many such coins may be locked away somewhere. Could there be many families that just keep an 1854-O Double Eagle, which may be worth from $200,000 to $600,000, after the collecting family-member has long been deceased? I suspect that there are only one or two such 1854-O Double Eagles.

There are also some collectors, particularly of lower grade examples, that may never submit their coins for certification. Coins owned by such collectors, however, were often submitted at earlier or later times by dealers or other collectors. After all, both the PCGS and the NGC were founded in the mid 1980s. How many never certified 1854-O Double Eagles could there be? Garrett & Guth report that the Smithsonian has only one, and they do not mention 1854-O Double Eagles in any other museums.

I suggest that there are twelve to seventeen different 1854-O Double Eagles that have been graded by PCGS or NGC, and five to seven others. My estimate of seventeen to twenty-four is in line with Akers’ estimate of twenty to twenty-five, which should probably stand, for now. There does not seem to be any evidence that there are more than twenty-five. So, it seems that the 1854-O Double Eagle is a Great Rarity.

Copyright © 2007 Greg Reynolds for CoinLink

Of all early U.S. gold coins (1795-1834), two of the rarest varieties are the 1810 ‘Large Date – Small 5′ and 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagles. These are dramatically rarer than the corresponding 1810 ‘Large Date – Large 5′ and 1810 ‘Small date – Tall 5′ varieties. Does this sound confusing? It should. Many coin collectors, including some who are very advanced, are puzzled by the rarity and significance of these varieties, and fairly wonder whether these are worth bothering with at all. The topic here is the rarity and importance of the 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ $5 gold coin.

Half Eagles are $5 gold coins. An 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagle has ‘made the news’ in a big way. On Aug. 5, Stack’s auctioned one for $126,500, undoubtedly an auction record for this variety. The previous record for an 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ was set when Stack’s auctioned another for $65,550 in October 2005.

It is clear that the rage for early U.S. gold coins continues. This has been one of the hottest areas of coin markets for several years. Even so, an 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ has never before sold for nearly as much, and it is not a coin that many collectors seek. It is important to discuss ‘what it is’ and why it sold for so much. Such an inquiry contributes to an understanding of the values of rare varieties and of early gold coins in general.

This 1810 Half Eagle has been graded AU-55 by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS). Coins are graded on a scale from 01 to 70. There are four AU grades: 50, 53, 55, and 58. There are eleven MS grades, all increments from 60 to 70 inclusive. The PCGS and the Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC) have never assigned a grade above 62 to an 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagle. So, a choice uncirculated example may not exist.

The 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ is of the Bust Left Half Eagle type (1807-12). It is a short series. The following dates are certainly included: 1807, 1808/7, 1809/8, 1810 ‘Large Date,’ 1810 ‘Small Date,’ 1811 and 1812. Curiously, additional varieties relating to the denomination on the reverse (back of the coin) are included in most guides as if these are separate dates. As mentioned above, the 1810 ‘Large Date’ is divided into two dates, Large 5 and Small 5. Likewise, the 1810 ‘Small Date’ is so divided into ‘Small 5′ and ‘Tall 5′, as is the 1811. There is no doubt that these are additional die varieties. One die is used to strike the obverse (front of the coin) and a separate die is used to strike the reverse. An 1811 Half Eagle with a ‘Tall 5′ on the reverse was struck from a reverse die that is different from that used to strike an 1811 Half Eagle with a ‘Small 5′ on the reverse. How important is the distinction between different 5s?

The denomination of a Half Eagle is ‘Five Dollar Gold’ and the “5 D.” on the reverse indicates the denomination. Likewise, Draped Bust Half Cents (1800-08) have the denomination “1/200” on the reverse. All Type 2 Liberty Nickels have a Roman Numeral V along with the word “CENTS” on the reverse. Many design types of U.S. coins do not feature a denomination identifier. People who spend coins generally know their face value.

Is a minor difference in the denomination identifier really indicative of a separate date? It is true that the term ‘date’ refers to more than just the year on the coin.

Two coins of the same type and year may have different dates. An 1817 half dollar and an 1817/4 half dollar are of the same year, but are different dates. The term ‘date’ refers to a combination of the year, the characteristics of the digits, and the design type. It also relates to issues regarding Mint locations and mintmarks, but these will be ignored here as all Bust Left Half Eagles were struck in Philadelphia and none have mintmarks.

Small dates, large dates, and overdates, frequently indicate more than one date of the same type with the same year. Likewise, two different types with the same year will amount to at least two different dates. An 1807 Bust Right Half Eagle and an 1807 Bust Left Half Eagle are both different types and different dates.

Even a difference in the digits of a date, such as a fancy ‘2,’ may constitute an additional date relating to the same year. When an overdate (usually featuring one numeral punched over another) is easily seen, it is a distinct date. While the ‘year’ is part of the date, there is much more to the concept of the ‘date’ of a coin.

In order for a second variety of a particular year from a specific Mint to be an additional date, there must be something very different and readily apparent about the numerals in the date, or some difference in the design that can be seen and identified by an intermediate-level collector in a few seconds. It is probably true that the 1810 ‘Large Date’ and the 1810 ‘Small Date’ are clearly different dates, though this point is also debatable. It is true that numerals in each are of significantly different sizes.

Particularly for coins minted before 1834, of all denominations, there are a large number of die varieties, most of which are not separate dates. There are often differences in the sizes and spacing of letters or stars. Leafs, berries, branches, arrows, and other design elements may be slightly different. Most such differences are of interest to people who collect die varieties, or by researchers who seek to identify individual coins. Only a very small percentage of collectors pay attention to die varieties, though most collectors are interested in the distinct dates in at least one series. Even those who collect ‘by type,’ rather than ‘by date,’ still need to know about dates in order to decide how much to pay for coins for their respective type sets.

The pressing question here is whether differences in the size of the numeral 5 (on the reverse) are defining characteristics of separate dates. Essentially, the only noticeable difference between an 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagle and an 1810 ‘Small Date – Tall 5′ is the size and shape of the 5. Very few collectors, even experts, would notice. Even if a ‘Tall 5′ coin and a ‘Small 5′ coin were placed ’side by side,’ the difference is very subtle. The so-called ‘Small 5′ is only slightly shorter than the ‘Tall 5′!

In my view, these ‘Small 5′ Half Eagles should be referred to as die varieties, not additional dates. If the 1810 ‘Large Date – Small 5′ and 1810 ‘Small Date -Small 5′ are truly dates of their own, then these would be the rarest two dates of the Bust Left Half Eagle type; and they would both be Great Rarities that are undervalued in general. I do not believe that most gold coin collectors view them as separate dates. Louis Eliasberg certainly did not think so.

In their encyclopedia of gold coins, Jeff Garrett & Ron Guth boldly state that it is hard to distinguish the four varieties of 1810 Half Eagles (Whitman, 2006, p. 185). Oddly, Garrett & Guth are surprised that the Smithsonian does not contain an 1810 ‘Small 5′ Half Eagle. This indicates that the Lilly collection did not have either of the 1810 ‘Small 5′ varieties, yet Lilly had an epic collection of gold rarities, including some obscure varieties. Josiah Lilly’s collection was donated to the Smithsonian. Curators of the Smithsonian’s coins, and of the Philadelphia Mint collection that preceded it, probably never thought that these 1810 ‘Small 5′ varieties were significant enough to bother acquiring. The absence of these two ‘Small 5′ varieties in the Smithsonian is circumstantial evidence that several prominent experts of the past did not think of the 1810 ‘Small 5s’ as separate dates.

It is shocking that almost all price guides list 1810 ‘Large Date – Large 5′ and the 1810 ‘Small date – Tall 5′ varieties as separate dates, and that the PCGS has assigned separate numbers to them. Such a practice confuses collectors. It is counter-productive to give the impression that subtle die varieties, pertaining only to reverses, are separate dates. Viewing them as separate dates discourages people from collecting Bust Left Half Eagles, which would otherwise be a series that could be ‘completed by date’ by more than seventy-five collectors at a time. Besides, when collectors actually see that the Small 5s are not substantially smaller, they may think that they have been misled.

There is no doubt that Jim Matthews did a thorough job of cataloguing this 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagle. Matthews provides an extensive description, and he puts forth the best effort that I have ever seen at a roster of the surviving examples of this variety. It is strange, though, that Matthews keeps talking about it as if it is a separate date, and asserts, citing John Dannreuther in this regard, that the ‘Small Date – Small 5′ and Large Date – Small 5′ 1810s are the “most sought-after’ Bust Left Half Eagles. They may be marketed to some wealthy buyers, but the ‘Small 5′ varieties are truly and purely ’sought after’ by the ten or fewer people who seriously collect Bust Left Half Eagles by die variety. There has been a marked increase in variety-specific demand. Ten years ago, there were probably only three or four dedicated collectors of Bust Left Half Eagles by die variety.

Why are both 1810 ‘Small 5′ varieties worth so much? Consider the combination of the fact that only ten or fewer people seriously demand them and the extreme rarity of these two varieties. The 1810 ‘Large Date – Small 5′ is even rarer than the 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagle.

Matthews reports communicating with die variety expert John Dannreuther regarding the rarity of 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagles. Dannreuther concurred that his previous estimate of twenty-five to thirty known should be reduced to match Matthews’ estimate of twenty.

This estimate of twenty is unsubstantiated, and puzzling. As of 1988, Walter Breen had not even seen eight. Matthews lists seventeen, but illogically, he itemizes each submission to PCGS or NGC as if it is a separate coin. In fairness, Matthews repeatedly states that many of the known coins may have been “upgraded” to higher certified grades and thus counted more than once in his list. Indeed, it seems that a few coins may have been counted two or three times in his list. Also, Matthews ignores that Garrett & Guth (Whitman, 2006, p. 185) “suspect” that all three certified MS-62 grade 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagles are “a single coin.”

I suggest that the eleven 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagles that have been certified by PCGS and NGC amount to five to eight different coins. There are two known that would not qualify for PCGS or NGC certification. Is there convincing evidence of any others existing? Maybe Dannreuther knows of one or two others that he has not revealed in publications? Of course, it is plausible that there are a few unknown pieces. An estimate of seven to fourteen in existence would be sensible.

This just auctioned 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagle is undoubtedly among the most attractive of the seven to fourteen known. Light green tints and russet patches blend well with the dominant orange-yellow color. While it has its share of technical imperfections, it has plenty of pizzazz and personality. It is a sparkling coin that really grabs the viewer’s attention.

Why did it sell for $126,500? Imagine that this coin had a ‘Tall 5′ rather than a ‘Small 5′! If so, it would have sold for less than $15,000.

There are fewer than ten people who collect Bust Left Half Eagles by die variety and maybe fewer than ten 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagles in existence. A few of the owners of the others are probably not people who collect Bust Left Half Eagles by die variety, or even ‘by date.’ There are a lot of collectors who enjoy owning rare or unusual items. Essentially, they buy them just for fun. They might not even bother to compare a ‘Tall 5′ to a ‘Small 5.’ Likewise, rising prices of early gold coins have been magnets for speculators, who have, in turn, contributed to the demand. Many speculators spend more time looking at price guides than at coins. Some speculators just listen to salespeople. I suggest that buyers formulate collecting strategies, and think carefully about how particular coins fit into their respective collections.

The point that some of the 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagles may be owned by people who are not systematically collecting die varieties could mean that there are even fewer available for those who do. It is understood that collectors who acquire assorted unusual and interesting coins, rather than aiming to complete sets, are always important factors in coin markets. I am concerned that the demand for this ‘Small 5′ variety has been influenced and re-shaped by coin buyers who mistakenly think that it is a separate date. Even so, the core of the demand, for this variety, may remain dedicated die variety collectors, however few in number, and, hopefully, they are largely responsible for the $126,500 auction result for this piece. It is one of the finest and may be the most attractive 1810 ‘Small Date – Small 5′ Half Eagle!

© 2007 Greg Reynolds

Half Eagles are U.S. $5 gold coins, and were minted for circulation from 1795 to 1929, though not continuously. A gem quality 1813 Capped Head Half Eagle is ‘in the news.’ On August 5, Stack’s auctioned an 1813 that is certified as MS-65 by the Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC). It realized $86,250.

Half Eagles, $5 gold coins, dated 1813 are the least rare of the Capped Head type (1813-34). The 1813 is one of the three or four least rare dates of all early Half Eagles (1795-1834). The 1813 Half Eagle is often the focus of those who collect by design type. A type set includes one coin of each series of coins with the same design, within a defined framework, while a ‘date’ set includes most or all of the dates in one or more series.

An 1813 in Fine-12 condition, if one could be found, would have a retail value ranging from $2200 to $3400, depending upon the technical and aesthetic characteristics of the individual coin. An 1813 in Extremely Fine-40 grade might be found for around $5000, a marked increase over such a coin’s market value just two or three years ago.

Coins are graded on a scale from 01 to 70, though not all numbers in between are used. The four grades for ‘Very Fine’ are 20, 25, 30 and 35. All eleven points from 60 to 70 are “Mint State” (or Proof) grades. The term ‘Mint State’ is approximately equivalent to the traditional concept of ‘uncirculated.’ Coins that grade 65 or higher are usually termed ‘gems.’ This 1813 Half Eagle qualifies as a gem.

This 1813 is a very attractive coin. The very few light copper spots are appealing. My tentative conclusion is that this coin has not been cleaned, chemically processed, or surgically enhanced. It may have been lightly dipped at one time, as have a very large percentage of uncirculated 19th century gold coins. The contact marks, light abrasions, and very thin hairlines are very small and few in number. It was sharply struck on a select planchet (prepared blank). Furthermore, this 1813 Half Eagle is very brilliant. Though it is not a high end ‘65,’ it definitely makes the grade, and is an enticing coin.

This 1813 may be of slightly higher quality than the 1813 Half Eagle that Heritage auctioned in March 2005, which was earlier auctioned by ANR in July 2003. It realized $69,000 in 2005 and $52,900 in 2003. It is also NGC graded MS-65. I like that one, too. It has neat deep, original luster, and also has an attractive greenish tint. The 1813 that Stack’s auctioned, on Aug. 5, is more brilliant.

The Garrett piece is widely recognized as the finest known 1813 Half Eagle. It is graded MS-66 by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS). The Garrett family assembled one of the all-time greatest collections of U.S. coins. The Garrett 1813 Half Eagle was auctioned in the Garrett 1 sale, on Nov. 29, 1979, when it realized $34,000. Much later, it became part of the ‘Gold Rush Collection.’ Among collections that were planned as type sets, the ‘Gold Rush Collection’ is possibly the greatest gold type set of all time.

At the January 2005 FUN Convention in Fort Lauderdale, the Gold Rush Collection was auctioned and the Garrett 1813 garnered $230,000. Heritage sold it again, at the Jan. 2007 FUN auction, for $316,250.

The surfaces of the Garrett 1813 Half Eagle are almost flawless. The contact marks and abrasions are extremely small and extremely few in number. It probably has never been cleaned or dipped. The natural coppery shades are attractive and well balanced. It is sharply struck, though not quite as well struck as the two 1813s discussed above. It is not the most exciting early gold coin, but I am not aware of a challenge to its status as the finest known 1813 Half Eagle.

One reason that 1813 Half Eagles are primarily demanded as type coins is that so many of the other dates of its type are extremely rare. Indeed, quite a few are Great Rarities.

As only one of three known 1822 Half Eagles is privately owned, only one privately owned complete set may exist at a time. Probably fewer than five collectors have completed such a set in the history of coin collecting, and only two in modern times. Louis Eliasberg’s gold coins were auctioned in 1982. The Eliasberg 1822 Half Eagle is now part of a set of Capped Head Half Eagles, which I believe is complete. This set is owned by a collector who wishes that his not name not be mentioned.

A set of Capped Head Half Eagles (1813-34) that is just two-thirds complete may cost $400,000 in AU grade, and between $1.5 and $2.0 million in MS-64 grade, if it could be done. An 80% complete set would be dramatically more expensive, though it would be very challenging. A type set, in contrast, requires only two Capped Head Half Eagles, one of the so-called large size type (1813-29) and one representing the small size type (1829-34).

Only nine coins are needed for an entire type set of U.S. Half Eagles: Bust Right with Small Eagle reverse (1795-98), Bust Right with Large Eagle (1795-1807), Bust Left (1807-12), Capped Head Large (1813-29), Capped Head Small (1829-34), Classic Head (1834-38), Liberty Head ‘No Motto’ (1839-66), Liberty Head [with] ‘Motto’ (1866-1907), and Indian Head (1908-29). Proof and non-proof commemorative Half Eagles that have been minted since 1986 are a different species.

The Bust Right, Bust Left and Capped Head types are generally thought of as ‘Early Half Eagles.’ The 1813 is certainly the least rare Capped Head Half Eagle, and all Bust Left Half Eagles (1807-12) are probably rarer than the 1813. There is a good chance, however, that the 1813 is rarer than the 1803/2 and 1806 ‘Round 6′ Bust Right Half Eagles.

In my CoinLink article on 1807 Bust Left Half Eagles, I estimated that from 275 to 400 of those are around, and I explained that it is the least rare date of the Bust Left type (1807-12). If I had to narrow my estimate to one number, it would be 325. In my article on 1812 Half Eagles, I estimated that there are between 150 and 225 of those. Additionally, there are 250 to 300 1810 ‘Large Date’ Half Eagles.

The total number of 1818 Capped Head Half Eagles, including all varieties, is more than one hundred, though nowhere near two hundred. There could possibly be more than one hundred 1820s, though it is unlikely. Otherwise, there are fewer than one hundred coins known, usually much less, of every other date in the Capped Head Half Eagle series.

I hypothesize that 400, more or less, 1813 Half Eagles exist. It is thus rare, but not very rare. Only five to nine, however, grade MS-65 or higher. Indeed, there are probably forty to fifty Capped Head Half Eagles, for the whole series, that have been, or would be, graded MS-65 or higher by PCGS or NGC.

Though the Capped Head Half Eagle series is comprised mostly of extremely rare dates, the Bust Left series is rarer, as a type, in MS-65 or higher grades. There are probably twenty-five to thirty-five different Bust Left Half Eagles (1807-12) that have been, or would be if submitted, graded MS-65 or higher by PCGS or NGC.

My estimate of forty to fifty MS-65 or higher grade Capped Head Half Eagles includes both the large size (1813-29) and small size (1829-34) types. In 1829, the diameter was slightly reduced, though this is not the only difference between the two Capped Head types. Other differences are subtle, including the format of the letters and the size of the stars.

When a type collector cannot find an MS-65 grade 1813 Half Eagle, he (or she) may seek an MS-64 grade 1813 or 1814/3. In the last two years, only two certified MS-64 grade, 1813 Half Eagles have sold at auction. The auction record for a certified MS-64 grade 1813 was set when an NGC certified 1813 sold for $46,000 in August 2006. In that same session, during a Heritage ‘Platinum Night,’ a PCGS graded MS-64 1813 sold for $40,250. Over the last two years, NGC graded MS-64, 1814/3 Half Eagles also have sold for prices between $40,000 and $50,000. An MS-65 grade 1814/3 may not exist.

In 2004, Heritage, Bowers & Merena, and ANR all auctioned certified MS-64 1813 Half Eagles for amounts in the $20,000 to $23,000 range. Earlier in the decade, MS-64 grade 1813 Half Eagles tended to sell at auction for prices in the range of $14,500 to $20,000. Prices for early gold coins have risen, sometimes tremendously, since 2002.

If a type collector cannot find an 1813 in MS-64 or MS-65 grade, or an 1814/3 in MS-64 grade, then an 1818 or 1820 may be considered. In 2005, certified MS-64 grade 1818 Half Eagles, regardless of variety, were auctioned for amounts between $50,000 and $60,000. In May 2007, the Palakika 1818, PCGS graded MS-64, sold for an astonishing $109,250! (Please see some of my other CoinLink articles for information on stellar coins in the Palakika collection.)

It has been awhile since an MS-65 grade 1818 has been offered at auction. The record of $71,875 was set at a Goldberg auction in May 2001. The record setting 1818 is of the overdenomination variety, ‘5 D.’ punched over ‘50′ on the reverse (back). This same 1818 might sell for more than $170,000 if offered in 2007?

Of all Capped Head Half Eagles, of both types, the 1820 may be the least rare date in certified MS-65 and higher grades including those that would be so certified if submitted. While there are five to nine different 1813s in the gem quality grade range, my guess is that there are eight to fourteen 1820s in this range.

In the second auction of the Harry Bass collection, October 1999, there were two excellent 1820s; both were PCGS graded MS-65. These then brought $52,900 and $71,300, and would bring much more if auctioned in 2007. In August 2004, the Bass 1820 that brought $52,900 in 1999 was sold again in an ANR auction, for $69,000. I wonder if the other gem Bass 1820 and the James A. Stack 1820 are the two that the NGC has graded MS-66? An NGC graded MS-65 1820 sold for $92,000 in a Superior auction in May 2006.

It does seem that, for a price of $80,000 to $110,000, a collector should be able to buy a PCGS or NGC certified MS-65 Capped Head Half Eagle. If the prices of high-grade early gold coins continue to increase, as they have since 2002, then auction levels for such coins may go well beyond $110,000 in the near future.

An 1813 Half Eagle, that is graded MS-63 by PCGS or NGC, would probably sell for $17,000 to $22,500 at auction in the present. Some MS-63 grade 1813s are a lot more appealing than others. Nevertheless, a collector would probably not have to wait a long time to acquire an acceptable MS-63 grade 1813.

Quite a few 1813s that grade from AU-58 to MS-62 exist, though many of them have moderate to serious problems. Certainly, a willingness to spend from $8,000 to $15,000 and some patience would enable a knowledgeable collector to obtain a decent, attractive 1813 Half Eagle, in the 58 to 62 range, at auction.

The 1813 Half Eagle is a rare coin in its own right and it is the least expensive member of the Capped Head Half Eagle series, which contains more Great Rarities than any other series of U.S. coins. It has a special place in the culture and history of coin collecting.

© 2007 Greg Reynolds

It seems likely that only nine or ten 1894-S dimes exist. The San Francisco Mint struck only twenty-four dimes of this date, all as Proofs. While other researchers have presented rosters, I am attempting a condition ranking.

The 1894-S dime is among the most famous of all U.S. coins. Barber Dimes were minted from 1892 to 1916. These are extremely popular. Most dates in the series are available for very small amounts of money, particularly in low grades.

Like many of my childhood friends, I collected Barber Dimes when I was a kid. Indeed, I knew of dozens of kids and adolescents who did. I am certain that there were, and still are, tens of thousands nationwide. Many adults collect Barber Dimes as well, in a range of grades. Coins are graded on a scale from 01 to 70. Not all grades in between are used. All eleven points between 60 and 70 are used for “Mint State” or Proof coins.

Proof coins are much different from business strikes. They have sharper details, very reflective (or artistically granulated) surfaces, and design elements that are brought about and defined in a special way. Proof coins are struck more than once, though not all coins that are struck more than once are Proofs.

When I collected Barber Dimes as a kid, I was delighted by those that graded Good-04, or even AG-03. On occasion, I would acquire one, often a scarcer date, in Fair-02 condition. I dreamed of owning an 1894-S, as did many of my friends. When I gave a presentation on coins to my class, in fifth grade, I spent more than five minutes discussing 1894-S dimes. I have since collected more information about them:

1.) The Richmond-Parrino-JAS 1894-S dime – Finest Known

The Richmond 1894-S that DLRC just sold was graded Proof-66 by the Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC) around 1997. In 1990, it received the same grade from the Professional Coin Grading Service.

This dime is called the Richmond 1894-S since it was part of the epic Richmond collection that DLRC auctioned in 2004 and 2005. The collector known as Richmond, Bradley H., assembled an incredible collection of U.S. coins, including many Great Rarities. His collection of Eagles ($10 gold coins) was complete ‘by date’ from 1795 to 1933, and was missing only one major variety. His collections of Proof Liberty Seated silver coins are among the finest ever assembled. The whole Richmond collection is probably one of the fifteen all-time finest collections of U.S. coins.

In January 1990, this same dime brought $275,000 at the auction of the James A. Stack, Sr. collection of dimes, which may be the best ever collection of the dime denomination. Although Stack’s conducted the auction, James A. Stack, Sr. is not related to the Stack family that founded an auction firm. As it is a confusing coincidence that always seems to call for an explanation, it is best to refer to this dime as the Richmond 1894-S.

When this 1894-S sold at auction in 1990, it had been in the James A. Stack, Sr. collection for a very long time, probably more than forty years. A lawyer named Armen Vartian was the successful bidder. At the time, he was General Counsel for Heritage. A customer of Heritage, David D., was a serious collector of Barber coins, and obtained this 1894-S. Gary Tancer was the underbidder.

The $275,000 price was much higher than any previous price for an 1894-S dime. In the blazing hot market of the time, it was not considered to be that high, especially since it graded Proof-66 and there was manic demand for supergrade silver coins dating from before 1917 or so. Later in 1990, Jay Parrino acquired the coin in a complex transaction that may have consisted of more trades than cash. If my memory serves me correctly, several coins were included, and the late Bob Rose was involved. The price for this 1894-S was imputed to be about $450,000.

In 1998, DLRC obtained it from Parrino and sold it, for $825,000, to B.H., the collector known as ‘Richmond.’ As Parrino seems to have owned it for more than seven years, it is fair to include his name in the coin’s title.

Louis Eliasberg once owned the Richmond 1894-S. It is indisputable that Eliasberg formed the greatest all-time collection of U.S. coins. No other collection even comes close in terms of quality and completeness. For example, James A. Stack never had the unique 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ Dime. It was in the Eliasberg collection for more than forty-five years.

In the 1940s, Eliasberg had two 1894-S dimes. When he decided to consign some of his duplicates to public auction, he chose to part with this one. Experts at Heritage auctions have suggested that Eliasberg would have kept the finer 1894-S and let an inferior 1894-S go. It would not be fair to draw such a conclusion

Most of the superb gem quality coins in the Eliasberg were obtained when Eliasberg acquired the John Clapp collection in its entirety, through Stack’s, in 1942. Clapp was a connoisseur, and he had an amazing number of coins that were graded from 66 to 69 in the 1990s. Many of the individual coins that Eliasberg personally acquired were not of gem quality, or not all that spectacular. I examined a large portion of the Eliasberg collection, and I have analyzed many of the pedigrees (histories) of individual coins, and it is my impression that Eliasberg himself was not a grading expert, and was not focused upon quality to the extent that certain other legendary collectors were so focused. Consider John Clapp, John J. Pittman, George Earle, and Thomas Cleaney, all known for possessing many pre-1917 superb gem quality coins.

I am thus not convinced that the Eliasberg duplicates were always of lower quality than the ones that he kept. The 1894-S dime that Eliasberg retained was auctioned by Bowers and Merena (New Hampshire) in May 1996. One reason that Eliasberg kept it may be that it looks more like a Philadelphia Mint Proof than most (or all) other 1894-S dimes including the one that he let go, the Richmond 1894-S.

Not only are 1894-S dimes Great Rarities, branch mint Proofs are extremely rare in general. Before 1968, almost all Proofs were minted at the main Mint in Philadelphia. There are more New Orleans (O) Mint Proofs than there are San Francisco (S) Mint Proofs or Carson City (CC) Mint Proofs in total, for all silver and gold coins of the 19th century. Only occasionally, however, were any Branch Mint Proofs struck, and all such coins are extremely rare.

The most branch mint Proofs estimated to exist for any one date is probably about fourteen 1838-O half dollars. Sometimes, many years passed in between the strikings of branch mint proofs of any denomination.

Experts do not expect branch mint Proofs to look exactly like Philadelphia Mint Proofs. The branch mints had different equipment, different personnel, and employed slightly different techniques. Besides, branch mint personnel were not accustomed to manufacturing Proofs. So, the Eliasberg 1894-S is startling in the sense that, to a substantial extant, it looks like a Philadelphia Mint Proof. It almost has the thick glossy mirrors of a Philadelphia Mint Proof. The Richmond 1894-S has full mirrors, but these are more delicate and not as thick. There are other differences that I cannot easily explain.

A Proof with thicker mirrors is not necessarily of higher quality than a Proof with less glossy, thinner mirrors. The Richmond 1894-S (Eliasberg duplicate) is almost flawless, while the Eliasberg (primary) 1894-S has some light hairline scratches and other imperfections in the fields. These marks and scratches are not severe, and many would only be noticed by knowledgeable coin collectors. The point here is that the Richmond 1894-S is at a higher technical level than the Eliasberg 1894-S.

It is also true that the appearances and grades of coins change over time. Many of the dimes in the James A. Stack, Sr. collection developed appealing natural blue and tan-russet natural toning. They were properly stored in envelopes, probably designed for collectibles, for decades. He died in the 1950s, and his dimes were auctioned in the 1990. Did anyone look at them before other portions of his collection were auctioned in the mid 1970s?

Put simply, the grade of the James A. Stack-Parrino-Richmond 1894-S could well have increased between the 1940s and 1990. If a coin that is not very attractive takes on especially attractive natural toning, then its grade may increase substantially. Therefore, the James Stack-Richmond 1894-S could have been of a lower grade than the Eliasberg (Primary) 1894-S in the 1940s and, years later, have become of a higher grade.

In 1996, the Eliasberg 1894-S was catalogued as being “Proof-64 or finer.” I really thought that it had too many imperfections in the fields to merit a 65 grade. I remember thinking then that the James A. Stack-Parrino-(later)Richmond 1894-S was much more attractive.

When I first saw the JAS-Parrino-Richmond 1894-S, I was awestruck. The blue, orange-russet, tan, and green toning was really cool. Furthermore, it was struck four or five times. The design elements are brought up high (in relative terms) and some have a layered or ‘blocked’ look. It is a really cool coin. It has continued to tone, and is a little darker now than it was in 1990. Even so, I still believe that it is the finest known 1894-S.

2.) Chicago-BRS 1894-S Dime – Second Finest Known

The Chicago-BRS ‘94-S is sometimes called the “Daggett specimen.” It was auctioned by Superior Galleries, then operated by the Goldbergs, in August 1992. The consignor was a collector from the Chicago area. (It is probably not the 1894-S that Breen skeptically refers to as the ‘Chicago specimen.’) This Illinois collector had purchased it directly from James Ruddy, of Bowers & Ruddy, in Los Angeles more than fifteen years earlier. He had no interest in completing a set of Barber dimes. He had always dreamed of owning a Great Rarity, especially one of the ones that child collectors tend to dream about, the 1913 Liberty Nickel, the 1894-S dime, and the 1804 silver dollar. He paid Ruddy an amount between $90,000 and $100,000.

After it was consigned to Superior’s August 1992 auction, it was submitted to PCGS and it was certified as Proof-64. The legendary collector Pat Bolen was the underbidder at the auction. It is the only date of the dime denomination that Bolen never owned. Bolen bought the unique 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ Dime at the 1996 Eliasberg sale.

In August 1992, the successful bidder was Dwight Manley, who, as usual, bid via telephone. At the time, Manley was president of Spectrum Numismatics. The Chicago 1894-S dime sold for $165,000. Later, Spectrum sold it privately. In October 2002, DLRC and a Nevada dealer bought it and sold it to a collector who was assembling a set of Barber Dimes. John Feigenbaum believes that this collector was the consignor when the Chicago-BRS 1894-S dime was auctioned at Heritage’s ‘Platinum Night’ event during the January 2005 FUN Convention in Fort Lauderdale. It was not represented as being part of a larger collection.

At the January 2005 Heritage Platinum Night event, Laura Sperber was the successful bidder, for $1,035,000. It was the first time that a dime sold for more than one million dollars. In July 2004, Bowers & Merena (CA) auctioned the unique 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ dime for $891,000.

For the Chicago 1894-S, Sperber was acting on behalf of the collector known as “BRS.” It was acquired to complete a set of Proof Barber Dimes, all NGC certified, and currently listed on the NGC website.

At the time of the Heritage auction, the Chicago-BRS 1894-S was PCGS certified as Proof-65. Afterwards, it was NGC certified Proof-66. So, it was PCGS certified Proof-64 in 1992, PCGS upgraded to Proof-65 before 2005, and NGC certified Proof-66 in 2005 or 2006.

Assuming that it is certainly true that the Chicago 1894-S sold in 1992 is the same as the one that Heritage auctioned in 2005, then this Chicago-BRS 1894-S dime has substantially toned over time as well. In 1992, it was very light in color with non-large toned areas of mostly light blue, with some other light colors. In 2005, the toning was thicker, and covered a larger percentage of the coin. Some of the imperfections that were visible in 1992 were covered, or blended, with toning. As such imperfections are no longer visible, or not as visible, and the expanded toning is attractive, the grade of the coin may have, in actuality, increased. Besides, when I saw the Chicago 1894-S dime in 1992, I can remember thinking that a Proof-65 grade was plausible. My thinking then was that the obverse (front) was really pretty, and had very few imperfections. I am, however, skeptical of the recent Proof-66 grade. In my view, the JAS-Parrino-Richmond 1894-S remains the finest of the five that I have personally examined and the two others about which I have somewhat reliable information.

3.) The Eliasberg 1894-S Dime

I have not seen the Eliasberg 1894-S dime in years. The general belief is that either PCGS or NGC would grade it as Proof-64, and that NGC may certify it as Proof-65, an event that certainly could have already occurred. Since around 2002, grading standards have loosened. Even in the late 1990s, some very rare coins were receiving higher grades than the same coins received in the early 1990s.

The Eliasberg coin sold for $451,000 in May 1996. It was offered by Stack’s in October 2000. In late 2004, cataloguers at Heritage reported that this coin had been “dipped at least twice” since 1996 and they implied that it had suffered as a result. As I have not seen the coin in many years, I cannot comment on this report. It is possible, though, that the Norweb-Lovejoy 1894-S has become the third finest known. Until more evidence is forthcoming, however, I will continue to rank the top four 1894-S dimes, in terms of how I evaluated them when I saw them.

4.) Norweb-Lovejoy 1894-S

The Norweb-Lovejoy 1894-S was NGC certified as Proof-62 in 1990 or earlier. It was not certified when it was auctioned by Bowers and Merena (New Hampshire) in 1987. It was acquired by Allen Lovejoy, and his collection of dimes was auctioned by Stack’s in October 1990. Jeffrey Bernberg was the successful bidder.

It is certainly plausible that either PCGS or NGC did, or would now, assign a higher grade to this coin. At some angles, the light scratches on the face are very noticeable, and, at other angles, these are not readily apparent. In late 1990, when grading standards were much stricter than they are in 2007, I thought that this coin was on or near the border of a Proof-63 grade.

It has excellent natural toning, with evenly blended tones of blue, lavender, pearl gray, with touches of green. Miss Liberty’s headband is russet, and her cap is a grayish-russet, a shade of which dominates the reverse (back).

5.) Newcomer-Neil-Hinman-Gillio 1894-S

The Newcomer-Gillio 1894-S was offered at auction by Ron Gillio’s firm in 1986 and then maybe sold privately to one of the Gillio’s clients in 1988 or so? I have never seen it.

No one I know seems to have a clear recollection of it. Years ago, in a library, I looked at the pictures of this 1894-S in the catalogue of the 1986 auction. I found it difficult to get an idea of the appearance of the coin. The Richmond 2005 cataloguer said that it has “a noticeable spot on [Miss] Liberty’s chin and the obverse shows evidence of being harshly cleaned.” I remember seeing such a spot in the 1986 picture, but I do not know to what extent it was cleaned.

More recently, I have located a catalogue sale of the Hinman-Century collection sale, held during the Spring of 1965. Though awful by the image standards of 2007, the pictures in the Hinman-Century catalogue are phenomenal for a 1960s coin catalogue. Spots and the remnants of a substantial cleaning of the right obverse inner field are apparent in the pictures of the Newcomer-Neil 1894-S. Hinman was the consignor.

My best guess, which is very crude and extremely tentative, is that the Newcomer-Hinman-Gillio 1894-S would grade Proof-60 to -62 now. The DLRC cataloguer of the Richmond 1894-S and Heritage cataloguer in January 2005 both list this 1894-S as grading “Proof-60”! Who has seen it over the last ten years?

6.) Jerry Buss 1894-S

I am not aware of the Jerry Buss 1894-S being graded by PCGS or NGC. Buss is a chemist, an entrepreneur, a real estate tycoon, and an owner of professional sports franchises. He was a flamboyant collector, who also owned the Olsen-Hawn 1913 Liberty Nickel and an 1804 dollar. Superior auctioned his coin collection in 1985. The Buss 1894-S dime was last auctioned in 1988, by Superior. Catalogue descriptions of this coin vary considerably. It may grade anywhere from Proof-45 to Proof-61! It seems that there is a good chance that the Newcomer-Neil-Hinman-Gillio 1894-S is of higher quality than the Buss 1894-S.

7.) Rappaport 1894-S

Is the Rappaport piece of a circulated grade? No one I know seems to have a clear recollection of it. Walter Breen mentioned it in his 1988 encyclopedia, but he clearly states that he never saw it. Where did Breen’s information about it come from? The only clue that I have read is the remark in the 2005 Richmond 3 catalogue that it is “probably an impaired proof which would not certify at PCGS or NGC due to mishandling.” Who determined that it is “impaired”?

8.) Ice Cream 1894-S

This 1894-S dime is traditionally referred to as the “Ice Cream Specimen.” It is #9 in David Lawrence Feigenbaum’s list, and he refers to it as grading Good-04. I grade it as Good-06, and I like it a lot. It was in Steve Ivy’s 1980 ANA auction, Bowers & Ruddy’s 1981 Sieck sale, and the Bowers & Merena (NH) March 1989 auction. I vaguely remember seeing it again someplace else. It has even wear and pleasant, natural, light, battleship gray toning. The few marks and scratches are not distracting. Besides, the surfaces of a circulated Proof are much more sensitive than the surfaces of business strikes. It is an appealing coin.

9.) Romito-Montesano 1894-S

The Romito-Montesano 1894-S was NGC graded AG-03 in 1990. I have read that it has a long, arc shaped cut on the obverse. Laura Sperber sold it to a collector in 1990. The names Romito and Montesano are vaguely mentioned by Breen.

Other 1894-S Dimes have been rumored to exist. None have surfaced for a half-century or so, and the rumors never had much substance. It is unlikely that there are more than ten 1894-S dimes. If the Rappaport piece disappears or is never authenticated, then there may only be eight known?

Without an 1894-S, a set of Barber dimes is relatively easy and inexpensive to complete. It will always be a very popular series, and the 1894-S will always be one of the most famous and exciting Great Rarities.
© 2007 Greg Reynolds

Half Eagles, $5 gold coins, dated 1807 are not extremely rare. The Bust Left 1807 is probably among the five least rare dates of all early Half Eagles (1795-1834). Indeed, Capped Bust Left Half Eagles (1807-1812) are not well understood, and do not receive as much publicity as Bust Right Half Eagles (1795-1807) or Capped Head Half Eagles (1813-34). It is thus worth discussing the rarity of the Bust Left type, and the reasons why an 1807 Bust Left Half Eagle just sold for $103,500 on July 13 in West Palm Beach, Florida. It is only the third or fourth time that a Bust Left Half Eagle has sold at auction for more than $100,000.

Heritage conducted the official auction of the Summer Florida United Numismatists (FUN) convention. This inaugural summer event should not be confused with the primary FUN convention that is held every year in January, usually in Orlando, though an epic FUN event was held in Fort Lauderdale in 2005.

This 1807 Half Eagle has been graded MS-65 by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS). Coins are graded on a scale from 01 to 70, though not all numbers in between are used. The four grades for ‘Very Fine’ are 20, 25, 30 and 35. All eleven points from 60 to 70 are “Mint State” (or Proof) grades, and those that grade 65 are usually termed ‘gems.’ This coin is definitely a gem.

This 1807 Half Eagle has a very attractive obverse (front) and a more than very attractive reverse (back of the coin). Under three-times magnification, there are very few contact marks and light small scratches on the obverse, and almost none on the reverse. It merits a mid range MS-65 grade. The reverse, by itself, might even grade MS-66. The very few, short, light scratches on the face and in the obverse left inner field, along with one medium length hairline scratch from the eleventh star to Miss Liberty’s hair, probably prevented this coin from grading MS-66! It has, or nearly has, sufficient eye appeal for a MS-66 grade.

The obverse is subtly brilliant, and somewhat lustrous. The reverse is brighter and has a rich luster accompanied by some light orange-russet toning about the design elements and near the periphery. Like most early U.S. gold coins, the gold itself has a greenish tint. On the obverse, this green color is subtle. It is a little richer on the reverse. I like this coin a lot. It has an appealing personality, which cannot be completely described.

In more than fifteen years, only one other 1807 ‘Bust Left’ Half Eagle has ever realized more than $100,000 at auction. In 1999, the Moore 1807, PCGS graded MS-67, sold for $121,000. The PCGS graded MS-67 1807 that was reportedly auctioned for $115,000, in 2002, is very likely to be a re-appearance of the Moore coin. It was previously auctioned, before it was certified, in New York in 1988. More than once, I had the opportunity to carefully examine it. For the whole Bust Left Half Eagle type, the Moore 1807 is the highest quality coin that I have ever seen. It is widely believed that another PCGS graded MS-67 1807 Bust Left Half Eagle, similar to the Moore 1807, is in a private collection in Texas.

The 1807 Bust Left Half Eagle may be the least rare date of this short-lived design type. The 1808/7, 1809/8 and 1810 ‘Small Date’ are all clearly rarer. The 1808 ‘Normal Date,’ 1811 and 1812 are probably rarer as well.

While the 1807 is the least rare (or second least rare) date of the Bust Left Half Eagle design type, it is not a common coin. In last Tuesday’s ‘Rarity of the Week’ column, I explained that a 19th century date is ‘Very Rare’ if 250 or fewer pieces exist in the present, and is ‘Rare’ if fewer than 500 are around today. The Bust Left 1807 date is probably not Very Rare, though it might be.

It is true that the two leading grading services, the PCGS and the Numismatic Guaranty Corp., report a combined total of much more than 250 1807 Bust Left 1807 Half Eagles. A large number of the recorded submissions, however, are repeat counts of the same coins. Sometimes, a dealer will keep ‘cracking out’ a coin from its holder and sending it in again because he believes that it will eventually be certified at a higher grade level. An increase in one grade increment may amount to a dramatic increase in market value.

It is also true that some collectors will remove coins from their PCGS or NGC holders for emotional reasons. These are often resubmitted by dealers or other collectors, years later.

It is debatable as to whether as many as 250 different 1807 Bust Left Half Eagles have been submitted to PCGS or NGC. There are, however, additional 1807 Half Eagles that have problems that are so serious that these would not qualify for PCGS or NGC certification. Over the decades, some coins of almost every issue are deliberately abused, including mounting for use as jewelry, or accidentally harmed. These additional pieces will not be reflected in PCGS or NGC data.

It could be fairly argued that there are fewer than 250 1807 Bust Left Half Eagles in existence. My rough estimate, though, is 275 to 400. I am almost certain that fewer than 500 are known. It is thus a rare date. Indeed, all dates of the Bust Left Half Eagle (1807-12) type are rare.

In their Encyclopedia of U.S. Gold coins (Atlanta: Whitman, 2006) Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth say that, “Other than the 1810 issue, this [1807 Left] is the most common date of this type” (p. 184). Although this is an excellent book and is strongly recommended, I disagree with a few statements therein, including this one. Also, Garrett & Guth report that the 1807 Bust Left Half Eagle in the Smithsonian grades “MS-61.”

Of the four major varieties of 1810 Half Eagles, the least rare is the 1810 Large Date, Large 5. As there are fewer than ten 1810 Large Date, Small 5, Half Eagles in existence, for purposes here, I will refer to the 1810 Large Date without reference to reverse varieties. It seems that Garrett & Guth asserted that there are more 1810 Large Date Half Eagles in existence than 1807 Bust Left Half Eagles. I disagree.

Sometimes, researchers rely too heavily on auction data when formulating conclusions regarding rarity. The 1810 Large Date, Large 5 is more likely to be consigned to auctions than the 1807. Beginning collectors, and potential buyers among the general public, will find Large Date, Small Date, and ‘Large 5 – Tall 5 -Small 5′ concepts to be confusing or annoying, or both. The 1807 is much easier than any 1810 variety to market to people who are not interested in die varieties or who do not know very much about coins in general.

In comparison with the 1810, there are more AU, MS-61 and MS-62 grade 1807 Bust Left Half Eagles in existence, and these can be marketed without a detailed explanation of numerical grading. These certified AU and “MS” 1807 Half Eagles could be fairly called ‘Almost Uncirculated’ and ‘Uncirculated,’ respectively.

There are firms that sell millions of dollars worth of coins to the general public and they are tend to sell coins that are relatively easy to explain. In contrast, knowledgeable collectors who understand the varieties of 1810 Half Eagles are more likely to participate in auctions or to authorize agents to represent them. So, dealers and collectors are more likely to consign an 1810 Half Eagle to auction while an 1807 Half Eagle would be relatively easier to wholesale and retail at predictable prices. So, one reason, though not the only reason, to conclude that the 1810 Half Eagle is rarer than the 1807 Bust Left Half Eagle is that totals of auction appearances are more likely to understate relatively the number of 1807 Bust Left Eagles in existence as 1810 Half Eagles are more likely to be consigned to auction.

Additionally, PCGS and NGC data needs to be interpreted before being used in the process of estimating the rarity of individual dates. There is reason to believe that there are more resubmissions of 1810s than of 1807s. The seventy 1810 Large Date Half Eagles that PCGS has graded MS-64 probably represent ten to twenty different coins. Only four to seven different, certified MS-64, 1810 Half Eagles have appeared at auction over the past ten years. The fact that nearly 100 have been graded MS-64 by PCGS or NGC should not be used as a literal factor in the formulation of an estimate of the number of 1810 Large Date Half Eagles that exist.

Consider that a MS-64 grade 1810 Large Date might be worth $40,000 retail, while a MS-65 grade piece could be worth anywhere from $70,000 to $200,000 depending upon the pedigree and characteristics of the individual coin. It is obvious that there is a financial incentive to resubmit multiple times an MS-64 grade 1810 Large Date Half Eagle in hopes of receiving an MS-65 grade, especially since the PCGS has only graded two Half Eagles of this date above MS-64.

Gems are very rare for ALL dates in the Bust Left Half Eagle series. I doubt that there are more than six for any one date. The PCGS and the NGC together have probably only certified twenty to thirty-two different Bust Left Half Eagles in MS-65 and higher grades!

Only two or three collectors are seriously aiming to complete the whole Bust Left Half Eagle set with the highest quality pieces that they can find. Therefore, as long as there are more than two privately owned gems for a date, most of the demand for gems of that date will come from type collectors. It is also true that speculators and connoisseurs who are not completing sets are interested in gem quality Bust Left Half Eagles. Put differently, almost all of the demand for a gem quality 1807 comes from buyers who would be equally interested in other dates of Bust Left Half Eagle type. Potential buyers of gem early Half Eagles are focused on the quality of the coins.

Type collectors need only one coin of each design type for a type set. Only nine coins are needed to complete a Half Eagle type set: Bust Right Small Eagle (1795-98), Bust Right Large Eagle (1795-1807), Bust Left (1807-12), Capped Head Large (1813-29), Capped Head Small (1829-34), Classic Head (1834-38), Liberty Head ‘No Motto’ (1839-66), Liberty Head ‘Motto’ (1866-1907), and Indian Head (1908-29). Proof and non-proof commemorative Half Eagles that have been minted since 1986 are a separate topic.

In recent years, Bust Left Half Eagles that are PCGS or NGC graded MS-65 have tended to sell at auction for prices in the $50,000 to $80,000 range. Besides the above-mentioned PCGS graded MS-67, Moore 1807, I know of only one other Bust Left Half Eagle has been auctioned for more than $100,000. The Palakika 1812 sold in May at a Heritage auction for a staggering $149,500. It is PCGS graded MS-65, and I have never seen it.

Another PCGS graded MS-65 1807 Bust Left Half Eagle sold for $97,750 at Heritage’s January 2007 FUN auction. In May 2006, a PCGS graded MS-65 1807 was auctioned for $80,500.

In Sept. 2005, a PCGS graded MS-65 1809/8 Half Eagle was auctioned by ANR (later merged with Stack’s) for $77,625, which could be the auction record for an 1809/8 overdate. Only two 1811 Half Eagles have sold for more than $50,000 at auction, and both of those are NGC graded MS-65 coins that realized between $60,000 and $70,000.

I have seen the one 1812 Half Eagle that the PCGS has graded MS-66. It was in a great type set. It was offered at auction in 1991. The high bid of $148,500 notwithstanding, it did not sell. The fact that the underbid of $143,000 was not enough is worth noting.

It does seem that the $149,500 price for the Palakika 1812 in May set an auction record for the whole type. The Moore 1807 brought $121,000 back in 1999 (and maybe $115,000 in 2002). The Moore 1807 might be worth more than $300,000 now?

The price of $103,500 for this MS-65 grade 1807 is indicative of strong and growing interest in high quality Bust Left Half Eagles. Why did the Palakika 1812 bring much more? It is plausible that the Palakika 1812 is of higher quality than this 1807 and/or it may be true that a bidding collector who already has a gem 1807 needed a gem 1812.

Although it is not noted in the catalogue, Heritage auctioned the Palakika 1812 in July 2003 for $54,625, a little more than a third of its May 2007 price. As for certified MS-65 grade 1807s, in addition to the recent $80,500 and $97,750 prices mentioned above, Heritage auctioned an NGC graded MS-65 1807 for $51,750 in June 2004. It is certain that prices for certified MS-65 Bust Left Half Eagles have gone up over the last two years, though the price increases may apply largely or exclusively to coins that the potential buyers judge to be truly of MS-65 grade and appealing in other ways.

© 2007 Greg Reynolds

An 1888 $3 gold coin is ‘in the news,’ as Heritage just sold a beautiful one for $34,500. It is graded 66 on a scale from 01 to 70. It was in the official auction of the Summer Florida United Numismatists (FUN) Convention, on July 13. This event should not be confused with the primary FUN convention that is always in January, usually in Orlando, though in Fort Lauderdale in 2005. The inaugural Summer event was held at the West Palm Beach Convention center.

This ‘Rarity of the Week’ is a ‘type coin’ that is best recognized for its quality and aesthetic characteristics. Because it is a ‘type coin,’ however, it should not be assumed that it is not rare. Plus, it is meaningful in other ways. While I have viewed other $3 gold coins of higher quality, there are very few that are as terrific looking as this 1888.

Although 1888 is one of the least rare dates in the Three Dollar Gold series (1854-89), it is not a common coin. Many collectors would be surprised to learn that the whole series is not common. There are probably fewer than twenty-two thousand Three Dollar Gold pieces in existence, and more than sixty percent of those are of just three dates, 1874, 1878 and 1854. My estimate of the total extant includes several thousand pieces that have problems that are too serious for them to qualify for certification by the two leading services, the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) and the Numismatic Guaranty Corp (NGC).

Consider that there are certainly more than a quarter-million 1904 Double Eagles ($20 gold coins) around today. There could exist more than one million 1924 Saint Gaudens Double Eagles, and two hundred thousand dated 1928. As a series, Three Dollar Gold pieces are particularly scarce.

There could be more than 100,000 1901-S Eagles in existence, most of which are worth just a modest premium over their bullion (gold) content. It would not be worthwhile to send such 1901-S Eagles to PCGS or NGC for certification. For a circulated or problematic, very common date, 20th century gold coin, the fee for PCGS or NGC certification would amount to a substantial percentage of the numismatic value of the coin. For these dates, therefore, PCGS and NGC data will not reflect a large number of coins that will never be submitted.

So, even the most common Three Dollar Gold piece is not all that common, especially when compared to 1901-S Eagles and to Double Eagles dated 1904, 1924 and 1928. Moreover, while type collectors only need one coin of each type for a type set, type collectors often prefer a date that is not the most common of the respective type.

Scarcer dates are more fun to acquire than relatively common ones. Generally, rare coin collecting involves the pursuit of rare coins not the passive ordering of common coins. As there are hundreds, or even thousands, more 1874 and 1878 Three Dollar gold coins than other dates in the series, it is unsurprising that most type coin collectors may find obtaining an 1874 or an 1878 to be just too easy.

What is a rare date? My definition of a Great Rarity and my definitions of other concepts of rarity, while personally formulated, are strongly consistent with the traditions of coin collecting in the United States. The concept of a Great Rarity is discussed in other CoinLink articles, including those on 1856-O Double Eagles and 1841 Quarter Eagles. There must be twenty-five or fewer coins of a particular date, including Proofs and business strikes, and including all die varieties, for that date to be a Great Rarity.

For silver coins dated before 1892 and gold coins dated before 1934, a date is extremely rare if there are fifty to one hundred in existence. For some series, the number fifty is applicable, and, for others, a maximum of one hundred is logical. A date is Very Rare if 150 to 250 exist. With some exceptions, the rule for a rare date is that there must be fewer than five hundred coins of the respective date in existence in the present. The concept of rarity is applied differently to Morgan silver dollars, nickels in general, silver coins of the 20th century, and most coins minted after 1934.

My rules of 25, 100, 250, and 500 as maxima for a Great Rarity, an Extremely Rare Date, a Very Rare date, and a rarity, respectively, relate to most 19th century business strike, U.S. coins. Logically, a different scale must be employed to gauge the rarity of die varieties, patterns, and Proofs considered separately from corresponding regular issues. A standard scale for this purpose is found in standard books on patterns and large cents.

While the 1888 Three Dollar Gold piece is one of the least rare dates in the series, there are much fewer 1888s than there are 1874s and 1878s. For a Three Dollar gold piece to be ‘rare,’ there must be fewer than five hundred extant of the respective date. It is very like that there are fewer than five hundred 1888 Threes. In contrast, there are probably more than five thousand 1878 Three Dollar gold pieces, a ratio of more than ten 1878s to every one 1888.

As for PCGS or NGC data regarding the numbers of Threes that have been graded, there is no easy way to explain how to interpret such data. In the case of the 1888, it is certain that disproportionate numbers of those submissions that have been graded AU-58 and MS-64 are indicative of numerous repeat submissions of a very much smaller group of coins. For $3 gold coins, especially dates that tend to survive with brilliant, lustrous fields, the difference between MS-64 and MS-65 is not as pronounced as it is for other coins from the mid to late 19th century, and, over the last seven years, quite a few Threes have been promoted from MS-64 to MS-65 grade. Many certified MS-64 Threes have been ‘cracked out’ and resubmitted by those who are hoping that such pieces will eventually grade MS-65.

Even though 1888 Threes are rare coins, they tend to sell for about the same, or modestly higher, prices as 1878 Threes, which are not rare. Are most dates in the series rarer than the 1888? Yes, of course they are, but 1888 is a good choice for a type set as it is much more elusive overall than the 1854, 1874 and 1878. The 1874, however, is certainly rarer than the 1888, condition-wise, in MS-64 and higher grades.

The MS-66 grade 1888 that was in the Summer FUN auction is PCGS certified. There are probably more than a dozen different 1888 Threes so certified. Only one or two different 1888 Threes are PCGS graded MS-67, and there are probably only twenty to twenty-two that are PCGS graded MS-67 for the whole series!

Some of the 1888 Threes that the NGC has graded MS-66 are the same as some of those that have been graded MS-66 by PCGS. I doubt that there are more than twenty-five different, PCGS or NGC graded MS-66 1888s in total, and maybe nowhere near that many. The NGC does not currently list any 1888s as grading MS-67. It is unlikely that most of those that have been graded MS-66 have the eye appeal of the one in the Summer FUN auction.

This 1888 Three definitely has the ‘look’ of a MS-67 grade coin. It has a few more imperfections, however, than would be expected of a MS-67 grade $3 coin. There are some light, medium-length lines on the face that are apparent, under magnification, at certain angles. There are a few other very light lines and shallow marks in several areas of the coin.

This 1888 Three is well struck, though I do not think that the coin has the “penetrating” strike that the cataloguer attributes to it. Certainly, I have seen many Threes that have considerably more detail.

A true MS-67 Three Dollar gold piece, of any date, would have a retail value between $80,000 and $110,000. So, this coin has marks, lines and weak areas that are commensurate with a MS-66 grade. It may have more eye appeal than several Threes that have been certified as MS-67.

This PCGS graded MS-66 1888, sold in the Summer FUN auction, has neat natural toning, especially light blue about the face and obverse (front) periphery. The orange-red color that predominates the coin, in more than one shade, is, I believe, this coin’s natural color as struck, rather than a color that came about by way of toning. Moreover, it has terrific, dynamic original luster. Indeed, the luster is both deep and rich plus sparkling and bright.

On many Three Dollar gold coins, and also on some coins of other denominations, there is a particular kind of lines on the fields of the Mint dies (which are used to strike the designs into blanks as they become coins). These ‘lines,’ which remind me of gentle folds in soft fabrics, result in the fields (open spaces) of the coins looking like they contain parts on multiple planes, neatly bordering each other. Of course, this result is just accidental. U.S. Mint personnel were not aiming to create any special effects on business strike $3 gold coins. Even so, this amazing result almost resembles some kind of ‘geometric style’ 20th century modern art.

I have noticed this visual effect on more than twenty-five Three Dollar gold coins. It is not always terrific. This 1888 Three, though, is so bright and alive, anyway, that the additional effect of light being reflected at different angles by adjacent shapes in the fields is mesmerizing.

As type collectors are not seeking the rarest dates, coins that are somewhat or moderately rare with natural surfaces and terrific looks are well suited for quality-oriented type sets. For those who cannot afford to spend $34,500, it may not be too difficult to locate an MS-64, or even an AU-55 to -58 grade Three that has lively, original luster.

It would be most accurate to say that this 1888 has gorgeous color and is dazzling overall. While a dipped “MS-66 grade” Three, or one with fewer imperfections, may be available for substantially less money, the lucky buyer should be glad that he only had to pay $34,500 for this coin. It is truly special.

© 2007 Greg Reynolds