The unprecedented exhibit marks the first time the complete set has been included in the PCGS Set RegistrySM. It also marks the fulfillment of a boyhood dream of the collector who owns the coins, Texas business executive Bob R. Simpson, Co-Chairman of the Texas Rangers baseball club.

“A total of nine off-metal World War II-era Lincoln cents from Mr. Simpson’s collection will be displayed at the PCGS booth (#102) at the FUN convention,” said Don Willis, President of PCGS, a division of Collectors Universe, Inc. (NASDAQ:). “There’s the unique set of three 1943 bronze-planchet cents, a set of three 1944 cents on zinc-coated steel planchets, and three wartime Lincoln cents erroneously struck on silver planchets apparently intended for the production of dimes.”

Simpson wanted to own a 1943 bronze cent error since he was a teenager, and now owns the only-known 1943-D bronze cent as well as other wrong-planchet, wartime cents. All will be exhibited at FUN.

Zinc-coated steel was used for producing cents in 1943 to conserve copper for other uses during World War II, but a small number of coins were mistakenly struck on bronze planchets left over from 1942. In 1944 the Mint resumed use of copper for cent production using recycled ammunition shell cases; however, a small number were mistakenly struck on zinc-coated steel planchets intended for use only on 1943-dated cents.

“Mr. Simpson is the first collector to ever assemble a complete P-D-S set of bronze-planchet 1943 Lincoln cents,” said Laura Sperber, President of Legend Numismatics. “When he recently saw all three coins together for the first time, he said, ‘This is incredible!’ Now, he’s graciously agreed to publicly display them.”

Sperber said that when he was a youngster, Simpson thought he’d actually found a 1943 copper cent in circulation. “But it was not authentic. He still has that in his desk drawer.”

The unique 1943-D bronze cent was purchased by Simpson in September for a record $1.7 million through Legend Numismatics after four years of negotiations with the coin’s anonymous former owner who donated all the proceeds to charity. It is the highest price ever paid for a United States cent.

“It was always special to buy each coin for this set, and until I had all the coins together I just did not realize how important and unreal this project really was! I’m as excited as any collector can be to see this amazing display,” Sperber said.

“Not only is Mr. Simpson’s Set of Off-Metal Cents the All-Time-Finest, it’s the absolute finest possible given the scarcity of the coins,” said BJ Searls, PCGS Set Registry Manager. “Photos of Mr. Simpson’s 1943 bronze and 1944 steel cents can be viewed online in the PCGS Set Registry for ‘Lincoln Cents Off-Metal Strikes, Circulation Strikes (1943-1944)’. The one-of-a-kind complete set has a weighted grade point average of 62.89.”

The coins and their PCGS Secure Plus grades are:
1943-P bronze, graded PCGS MS62BN
1943-D bronze, PCGS MS64BN
1943-S bronze, PCGS AU58BN
1944-P steel, PCGS MS64
1944-D steel, PCGS MS62
1944-S steel, PCGS MS66
1943-P struck on a silver planchet, PCGS AU50
1943-S silver planchet, PCGS AU58
1944-P silver planchet, PCGS AU53

A free, full-color, illustrated PCGS brochure about the coins in the exhibit, “One of a Kind: The Simpson Off-Metal Lincoln Cent Collection,” will be available while the supply lasts at the PCGS booth during the FUN convention.

Established in 2001, the PCGS Set Registry now hosts over 53,000 sets. For additional information about PCGS and its services, visit www.PCGS.com, call PCGS Customer Service at (800) 447-8848, or email info@PCGS.com.

Related posts:

1. Unique Bronze 1943-D Lincoln Cent Sold for $1.7 Million by Legend
2. 1943-S Lincoln Cent Struck in Bronze sold by Heritage for $207K
3. Previously Unaccounted 1943-S Bronze Cent Acquired by Rare Coin Wholesalers

A Weekly Column by Greg Reynolds

I had originally intended to write this week about a variety of coins that were offered in the recently concluded Southern California auctions by the Goldbergs and Heritage. News regarding auction results, however, has been superseded by a 1943-D copper cent selling privately for a reported price of “$1.7 million.” So, I will discuss this piece, some of the early copper in the Goldbergs auction, and the 1811/0 overdate large cent that Heritage sold. This column is devoted to copper.

I. 1943-Denver Mint Copper Cent

In 1943 only, in order to allocate more copper for purposes relating to World War II, U.S. cents were made of zinc coated steel and have a whitish-steely appearance. Probably by accident, a few were struck in copper, almost certainly on planchets (prepared blanks) that were leftover from 1942. Perhaps a few copper planchets were temporarily stuck in the hoppers and became loose over time. Likewise, some 1944 cents were accidentally struck on steel planchets dating from 1943.

I am very skeptical of claims that any of these off-metal strikings were intentionally made. It is possible that U.S. Mint employees may have discovered one or more such errors and intentionally released them from the premises. These are, though, probably true errors. In the 1940s, it would have been extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for U.S. Mint employees to strike their own fantasy pieces.

Ten or eleven 1943 Philadelphia Mint copper cents and five to seven San Francisco Mint 1943 coppers are known. Curiously, only one 1943-Denver Mint copper cent is believed to exist. It is PCGS graded MS-64 and Laura Sperber sold it to a collector for “$1.7 million.”

Stewart Blay feels “the price has been inflated because the buyer seeking the coin is a billionaire. He loves coins. He wanted to own it and eventually paid what the owner was willing to accept.” Blay is the leading collector of Lincoln Cents and is a long-time participant in coin markets. Stewart also collects silver coins.

A price of “$1.7 million” is, by far, a record price for a Lincoln Cent and for a Mint Error of any kind. For the same collector, Sperber was responsible for the previous record of $373,750 that a 1944-S steel cent realized in the Summer 2008 ANA Auction, which was conducted by Heritage in Baltimore. Furthermore, a 1943-S copper cent was sold privately, a day or so earlier, at the Summer 2008 ANA Convention. I focus on both coins in a two part series that I wrote shortly after this convention ended (Part 1).

Sperber reveals that this “deal really was four years in the making. We agreed to terms in late July. The deal closed Sept 16th.” A total of $2 million, she says, was paid for three items, this 1943-D, a 1944 Philadelphia Mint steel cent and a 1942 pattern cent in “white metal.” This collector is “not seeking” patterns, Sperber relates, “the white metal pattern was just part of the deal.”

Sperber used to collect these off-metal strikings herself. The building of this set “started when” Laura sold this collector her “personal 1943-S PCGS AU-58” copper cent, “which he still has.” She and this collector “have been working on [a set of 43-PDS coppers and 44-PDS steels] for about five years.” Sperber maintains that “completing the 1944 [three piece steel] set was a very underrated piece of work.” I (this writer) point out that there are only two or three known 1944-S steel cents and Sperber acquired the finest 1944-S steel in 2008, as I then reported (in part 2).

Much background information regarding the rarity and importance of 1943 coppers and 1944 steel cents may be found in my two part series in 2008: part 1, part 2.  I also discussed then the reasons why 1943 coppers and 1944 steel cents are extremely popular.

To save time and space, I usually refer to all coins, patterns, and errors that are at least 90% copper as being ‘copper.’ The distinction between copper and bronze, which is usually 95% copper, is beside all points put forth herein.

This same 1943-D cent was auctioned by the Goldbergs in Feb. 2003. It then brought $212,750, which was the auction record for a Lincoln cent until the just mentioned 1944-
S steel cent went for $373,750 on July 31, 2008. I know of only two 1944-S steel cents, though there could be a third. The PCGS graded MS-64 1944 Philadelphia Mint steel cent, which was part of the deal, was valued by Sperber at “$250,000.”

This collector, Sperber’s client, now has the only complete dual set of 1943 coppers and 1944 steels from all three U.S. Mints that produced cents during this era. Sperber’s “client is thrilled to have satisfied a life’s goal in coin collecting.” Laura explains that “he is not a penny collector” in general. He has been focused, since childhood, on these off-metal cent strikings of 1943 and 1944.

“I [Sperber] rank this as the real highlight of my career. Yes, [the building of this set is] greater than owning a 1913 [Liberty] nickel or an 1894-S dime! Never before has a set of these fabled coins been assembled.”

I (this writer) maintain that there are other events in Sperber’s career that are of greater importance than building a set of these off-metal pennies. Parts of the Simpson collection come to mind, especially Saints, Indian Head Eagles and patterns. The “Law” collection of half dimes, including the unique 1870-S, was spectacular, as was the “Legend” (TDN) collection of Trade Dollars, with the Eliasberg 1884 and 1885 gems.

II. 1795 Reeded Edge Cent

The reported private sale of this 1943-D copper for “$1.7 million” notwithstanding, the auction record for a copper coin or copper pattern remains $1,265,000. It was set in Sept. 2009 when the Goldbergs auctioned the Dan Holmes collection of early date large cents, 1793 to 1814. Holmes’ 1795 Reeded Edge cent, a variety that is known as Sheldon-79, realized this amount.

In Sept. 2009, Greg Hannigan was the successful bidder for the Holmes 1795 Reeded Edge cent. Hannigan was acting on behalf of a collector who recently, during the summer of 2010, completed his set of all 295 Sheldon die varieties of “collectible” early large cents. There is some discussion of Sheldon varieties in my 2008 overview of Walter Husak’s collection of early large cents.

Hannigan was the consignor of another 1795 Reeded Edge cent to the Goldbergs’ Sept. 2010 auction. It is a new discovery. I have never seen it. My impression is that it grades Poor-01 at best by widely accepted standards. In accordance with the criteria employed by specialists in early U.S. copper coins, however, its net grade is “Good-04,” I am told by more than one source.

In early 2009, there were, in my view, 5½ known 1795 Reeded Edge cents. Now, it seems that there are 7½! The ½ is a brockage. Please see my column of Sept. 15 for a definition of a brockage and my column of June 23rd for a discussion of the importance of 1795 Reeded Edge cents. (As always, clickable links are in blue.) Please click to find a discussion of Dan Holmes collection of early date large cents. This newly discovered 1795 Reeded Edge cent was first reported, anywhere, in my column of Aug. 11.

Personally, I find it curious that, since the announcement of the sale of Holmes’ early dates circa Jan. 2009 along with the speculation that then started regarding the value of Holmes’ 195 Reeded Edge cent, two ‘new’ 1795 Reeded Edge cents have been discovered and another emerged that had not been publicly seen, as far as I know, since it was offered at auction in 1977. Again, please see my column of June 23rd.

Both the recent discoveries and the one that recently re-emerged probably would be considered ungradable by the PCGS and the NGC. In another words, if all three were submitted to both the PCGS and the NGC, experts at these services would, I guess, find that all three have problems that are so serious that these coins do not merit numerical grades. Specialists in the die varieties of early copper coins employ grading criteria that is different from the respective criteria used by the PCGS and the NGC.

Specialists in die varieties seem to rank the known 1795 Reeded Edge Cents as follows: (1) Holmes – VG-08 {PCGS VG-10};(2) ANS VG-07; (3) Robinson–Kuntz-Frankenfield-Brown — Good-06; (4) coin auctioned by B&M in Nov. 2008 – Good-05 {PCGS Good-04}; (5) Coin that NGC encapsulated without a grade in the Spring – Good-05; (6) Newly discovered Hannigan coin that was just auctioned in Sept. 2010 – Good-04 {PCGS Genuine Holder – No Grade!}; (7) Coin that was newly discovered during the Spring or Summer of 2009 – Poor-01; (½) Brockage that has not been seen in decades. Additionally, Chris McCawley has doubts as to whether the 1795 Reeded Edge cent in the ANS museum, (#2 above) would receive a numerical grade if (hypothetically) it were to be submitted to the PCGS. So, only two of the seven have received numerical grades from the PCGS and the Robinson-Brown coin might if it were submitted.

As for the one that was discovered in 2010, a relatively young man received an assortment of coins from his father, who was not a wealthy collector. His father, however, seemed to know that his 1795 cent was very special and emphasized to his son that it might be worth ‘a lot of money.’ The son, John B., attended a coin show in Baltimore in June 2010. Greg Hannigan bought this coin from him and Hannigan consigned it to the Sept. 2010 Goldbergs auction. During the summer, it was authenticated and encapsulated, though it failed to be graded, by the PCGS. It was in a PCGS genuine holder when it was auctioned. It realized $322,000, a healthy price. The 1795 Reeded Edge issue is now not as rare as it was two years ago. Though none were seen for many years, four have been around in 2009 or 2010.

As I explained in my column of June 23rd, I maintain that 1795 Reeded Edge cents are experimental pieces rather than coins. The fact, however, that this issue is a recognized die variety that is strongly demanded by those who wish to assemble sets of the 295 recognized, “collectible” Sheldon die varieties indicates that it is of tremendous importance to large cent collectors. Oddly, many standard price guides list this issue as if it were a separate, distinct date that is needed for a regular set of large cents. Such listings, in standard price guides, may have contributed to the current values of 1795 Reeded Edge cents. While I can understand the reasons why die variety collectors are eager to buy 1795 Reeded Edge cents, it makes no sense for standard price guides to list them along with the major varieties that have the status of distinct dates.

These should not be demanded by collectors who are assembling regular sets of large cents. It is logical for variety specialists and ‘pattern’ collectors to seek 1795 Reeded Edge cents. Patterns, narrowly defined, are embodiments of proposals for new designs or for other changes in coinage. The category of patterns, broadly defined, is comprised of a wide range of items, including most all experimental pieces.

III. Highest Graded 1811/0 Cent

In the official auction of the Sept. 2010 Long Beach (CA) Expo, Heritage sold the highest graded 1811/0 overdate large cent. Though it is known to die variety specialists as Sheldon-286, it is an overdate that is actively and rightfully collected as if it was a separate and distinct date. The overdate is clear. In the die, the last numeral one was certainly punched over a zero. This issue is not just of interest to die variety specialists. It is certainly and logically collected by those assembling regular sets of large cents ‘by date’!

This 1811/0 cent in the Heritage auction is NGC graded MS-63 and has a sticker of approval from the CAC. There is also an 1811/0 cent that is NGC graded MS-62. Neither the PCGS nor the NGC have graded any other 1811/0 cents above MS-61.

Collectors take other factors into consideration in addition to the certified grade of a coin, and large cent collectors tend to be wary of the grading services. Personally, I find that the criteria employed by the PCGS and the NGC, respectively, are far more logical than the grading criteria employed by early copper specialists. These specialists maintain, for example, that a coin that has no wear and is indisputably uncirculated may grade EF-45 if it has many contact marks, even if all such contact marks came about at the U.S. Mint before the respective coin was released.

As I have not seen some of the highest ranked 1811/0 cents, and there may be high quality 1811/0 cents that are not in PCGS or NGC holders, I am not concluding that this is the finest known 1811/0 cent. It is certainly one of the finest known. As the highest graded of a scarce issue, it is very much newsworthy. Plus, it is the only 1811/0 cent that has had its PCGS or NGC grade approved by the CAC. How many others been submitted to the CAC?

This coin has appeared at auction several times. According to cataloguers at Heritage, it was in Heritage auctions in 1997 and in 2003. In 1997, it was NGC graded MS-62 and realized $12,362.50. Later, ANR auctioned it twice. In August 2004, it realized $23,575. In March 2005 in Baltimore, however, it sold for only $14,950.

In Sept. 2010, this NGC graded MS-63 1811/0 realized $41,400. The 1811/0 cent that is NGC graded MS-61 realized this exact same price at a Heritage auction in Jan. 2005. Unlike the Heritage auction event of Sept. 2010, the Heritage auction extravaganza of Jan. 2005 included a major collection of large cents and other famous early coppers. So, demand for large cents was probably more intense at the Jan. 2005 Heritage auction. There were not many noteworthy large cents in the Sept. 2010 Heritage auction.

I wonder if the just mentioned NGC graded MS-61 1811/0 may has more natural toning than the NGC graded MS-63 coin. If so, this may possibly explain why an NGC graded MS-61 1811/0 could be worth as much or more as an NGC graded MS-63 1811/0 cent.

IV. Half Cent Errors

This month, the Goldbergs auctioned the Dan Holmes collection of large cent errors and the “Davy” collection of half cent errors. Both collections are mentioned in my column two weeks ago.

As I have written so much about large cents over the last three years, and in passages in this column, it seems fair to provide more coverage of half cents. Besides, while there have been one or two better collections of large cent errors sold at auction in the past, there has never been a recognized collection of half cent errors that is in the same league as the “Davy collection.”

Brockages attracted the most bids of any category of errors. Please see my column of Sept. 15 for a definition of a brockage as well as an explanation as to how brockages are made. It suffices to say here that a brockage has two obverse (front) designs or two (tail) reverse designs. On one side, there is an ordinary striking (unless the same piece is characterized by more than one kind of error that affected the ‘regular’ side of the respective brockage.) On the other side, there is a sunken (incuse) backwards image of the coin’s design. In most cases, a reverse brockage lacks a date (stated year).

As it is not practical to analyze the prices realized of many of the hundreds of half cent errors in the Davy Collection, I will mention a few. An 1803 obverse brockage (lot #125) was also struck 5% off-center. It is thus a “double error,” states Bob Grellman, who catalogued it. “Very attractive glossy chocolate brown, with smooth surfaces,” Grellman exclaims, this piece’s “eye appeal is excellent.” It sold for $12,075, a stunning price for a half cent brockage. I expected a result in the six to eight thousand dollar range, which would have been significant. I indicated that it is important in my column two weeks ago.

I was startled that an 1804 obverse brockage (lot #140), which seems to be artificially toned, brought $9,487.50. It is graded by McCawley & Grellman as Very Good-08. I just do not understand the result. There are many other more appealing brockages in this auction. I would have guessed that this piece would bring less than $3500.

Another 1804 obverse brockage, lot #145, seems very special to me. It was estimated by McCawley to bring “$2,000 [and] UP”! It sold for $23,000! Is it the queen of half cent brockages?

Two weeks ago, I also mentioned that I found a particular reverse brockage, lot #213, to be entertaining. Though it is widely believed to be an 1806, Grellman maintains that it is really an 1804. The obverse, which features a backwards reverse design, looks ghastly. It garnered $6037.50, probably twice the amount that some experts estimated. I suggest that its entertainment value played a role in the demand for this piece.

Though it is not related to brockages, a particular 1809 half cent error caught my attention as being both noteworthy and affordable, lot #256. It was struck twice. “One strike was centered and the other was 95% off center to [the area conceptually referred to as being around four o'clock] creating a tab at stars 11 [to] 13,” states Grellman, who grades this coin as Good-06. This 1809 half cent sold for $126.50. Several half cent errors realized prices below $300.

Another 1809 half cent error caught my attention because it lacks fascinating characteristics, lot #295. It has no obverse. The front of this piece is just blank. The reverse is ordinary. It is graded VF-20. This uniface piece sold for $12,075. Is this a high price?

A thorough analysis of the Davy Collection of half cent errors would require discussions of several varieties of errors, including various double and triple-struck coins, blundered edges, half cents struck over large cents, clipped planchets, etc. I continue to insist, though, that brockages are the most exciting of all early copper errors. There were numerous brockages in the Dan Holmes collection of large cent errors. Both these collections of early copper errors fared well at auction.

©2010 Greg Reynolds

Related posts:

1. Coin Rarities & Related Topics: 1943-D copper cent, 1795 Reeded Edge cent, 1811/0 cent, and half cent errors
2. Coin Rarities & Related Topics: 1794 Silver Dollar, 1795 Reeded Edge Large Cent, and selected coins in the Summer FUN Auction
3. Coin Grading: NGC Certifies Rare S-79 1795 Reeded Edge Liberty Cap Cent

You may have noticed the past two weeks or so we have been saying and doing little with our web site. NEWPS have been minimal and Market Reports and Hot Topics have slowed. We can now tell you why. We have been super busy traveling completing deals-not just any deals, deals that are at world record prices and that include some of the rarest coins on earth! We are now finally back home and are pleased to make the following announcement:

LEGEND NUMISMATICS HAS BOUGHT AND SOLD THE UNIQUE 1C 1943D COPPER FOR $1,700,000.00!

We actually purchased a 3 coin coin deal for $2,000,000.00. We figured the 1943D at $1.7 million cost. The other two coins in the deal were the finest 1944 P Steel cent PCGS MS64, and a 1C 1942 PCGS 65 made out of white metal. Yes, you have read this right-3 pennys for $2 million dollars!

The 1943D and the 1944P are both now part of the ONLY COMPLETE PDS sets for their metals. The steel cent collection is by far the finest, as are the coppers. We are hoping to display both these sets at the PCGS table at FUN 2011.

Hard to believe, but Legend tried unsuccessfully for four years to buy the 1943D. The seller in the end was still reluctant. However, we can state ALL of the monies he received from the sale are going to a pet charity project of his. The seller (who wishes to remain anonymous) was represented by Lincoln Cent Specialist Andy Skrabalack of Angel Dee’s.

Our customer is thrilled to own the 1943D. Ever since he heard the coin existed, we had been sent on a mission to acquire it. His desire to own the complete and only PDS copper set came from his finding what he thought was a 1943 copper when he was young. Sadly, this piece was found to be a fake. Still he keeps this coin in his desk draw. He believes 43 Coppers are one of the ultimate classic rarities (and so do we). While the price we paid was stiff, the monies went to a good cause and the coins are now locked away in a great home.

Legend Numismatics has handled MANY million dollar plus classic rarities over the years. The 1943D really is one special highlight for us. We thank the seller and congratulate the new owner. For us, it really has been a career highlight.

WHAT ELSE DID WE TRAVEL FOR?

We have now flown several coast to coast trips over the past 2 weeks. There have also been stops in Dallas, NYC, and Denver in between.

One exciting collection we purchased was a spectacular Pattern Collection. When we got the call we were like, “oh great, more patterns”. This deal turned out to be an incredible “old time” collection with the majority of the coins being raw. Highlights included Earring Quarters, Amazionan Dollars, and several R-8 Seated patterns. These coins will be sent in for grading shortly. We did not grade anything less than PR65! ALL of the coins have been off the market for at least 20+ years. Guess we can never have enough great Patterns!

Besides patterns, we also bought and sold a 50C 1919D PCGS MS65. The price was in excess of $200,000.00. This sale now completes what maybe the second finest Walker set assembled (no, its NOT registered).

Over the next 2-3 weeks as we get coins back from the services, you’ll see some spectacular Type we picked up on these road trips. Most of the coins have NOT been seen in at least a decade.

MARKET ACTIVITY

Some skeptics will say our customer base does not resemble the true marketplace. While not everyone pays almost $2 million for a penny, the fact that we have so many eager buyers at the higher levels shows strong confidence in the market. If there were only confidence in MS65 Walkers, the market would be in trouble. We have done substantial business not “on the radar” in the past 2-3 weeks. We though it would have been a “dead time” and were we wrong!

People are definitely there for the “right” coins. Still need rare PR gold, HR’s in MS67, GEM silver Bust coins, MS 65 and better Seated Dollars,etc. Gold certainly is helping things too: We have been running tape messages for commoner coins like non 1908 PCGS MS66 CAC Saints. We will buy EVERYONE that has a green bean ever made (we are paying $3,450.00-price subject to change). Our demand is that strong. Maybe now you can see that we are not exaggerating when we say: if we had the right coins, we could sell at least $20,000,000.00 immediately.

NO LONG BEACH FOR US

Now you can understand why we will NOT be in attendance at the Long Beach Show now going on. We’re exhausted and decided to take this show off. This is only the second time in 30+years we have missed a Long Beach Show.

Legend WILL attend and have its double table at next weeks Whitman Show in Philadelphia.

THE SIMPSON DUPLICATE PATTERNS

We finally have the balance of the duplicate patterns from the Simpson Collection ready for sale. We will bring them to Phili and we will start posting them shortly on our web site. There are so many coins here it will take us 3-4 postings to list everything!

The Denali Collection will have a full color catalog in another week or so and then we will being selling those coins.

We appreciate all the interest that has been expressed in these two magnificent groups of coins.

Related posts:

1. Unique Bronze 1943-D Lincoln Cent Sold for $1.7 Million by Legend
2. Legend Numismatics Arranges $30+ Million Sale of Pattern Coins
3. Finest Lincoln Cents & Registry Rarities Star In Heritage’s $11 Million Houston Coin Auction

A Weekly Column by Greg Reynolds

For decades, the Long Beach (CA) Coin, Stamp and Collectible Expo has been a major event for coin collectors. The third Long Beach Expo of 2010 will start on Sept. 23 and end on Sep. 25. As usual, Heritage will conduct the official auction. Earlier, in Los Angles County, the firms of Bonhams and of the Goldbergs will also conduct auctions. The Goldbergs will offer a very wide variety of coins on Sept. 19th, 20th and 21st at the Beverly Hills Crowne Plaza.

I. Eliasberg 1893-S $5 Gold Coin

At the ANA Convention in Boston, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to closely examine some of the coins in the upcoming Goldbergs auction. One of my favorites is an 1893-S Half Eagle ($5 gold coin) that was formerly in the Louis Eliasberg collection, which is the greatest collection of U.S. coins that was ever formed.

Many gold coins with an Eliasberg pedigree are of tremendous quality, and this 1893-S is one of them. It is PCGS graded MS-66, and was certified at some point in the mid 1990s. I grade it as 66+. Furthermore, it has a sticker of approval from the CAC, which indicates that experts at the CAC determined that its grade is at least in the middle of the 66 range.

This 1893-S Half Eagle has great luster and an excellent strike. It is wonderfully brilliant. This coin has almost no contact marks or hairlines. The inner fields exhibit some pleasant, natural light green toning.

The 1893-S Half Eagle is somewhat common in grades up to MS-62, in which range it is valued only slightly higher than the most common Liberty Head ‘With Motto’ Half Eagles. In MS-63 and MS-64 grades, an 1893-S Half Eagle commands a substantial premium. In MS-65 and higher grades, it is an extreme condition rarity. At most, one half dozen true gems exist, and probably not even that many. This Eliasberg 1893-S is the only 1893-S that is graded MS-66 by the PCGS or the NGC, and none have been certified as grading higher than MS-66. There is certainly a good chance that it is the finest known.

In MS-66 grade, the PCGS price guide values this 1893-S at $22,500 and very common dates at $7500. A rival price guide at Numismedia.com values a MS-66 grade 1893-S, which must be this one, at $20,150. An old green PCGS label, an Eliasberg pedigree, and a CAC sticker all have the potential to bring about a price that is higher than would otherwise be realized. This coin, though, speaks for itself. It is exceptionally attractive and a delight to view.

II. Carter 1797 ’small eagle’ $10 Gold Coin

In the upcoming Goldbergs auction, the re-appearance of the NGC graded MS-63 1797 ‘Small Eagle’ Eagle is newsworthy. Gold coins were first struck at the U.S. Mint in 1795. The major varieties of the first type of Eagles that are collected as if they were distinct dates are: the 1795 with thirteen leaves on the branch, the 1795 with nine leaves on the branch, the 1796, and the 1797 ’small eagle’. This first type has a bust of Miss Liberty on the obverse (front) and a relatively small eagle on the reverse (back). The second type of Eagles, which date from 1797 to 1804, have the same general obverse (front) design along with a much different reverse (back) design. The new reverse features a large or heraldic eagle. It is not just the size of the eagle that is different; the style of the eagle and other reverse design devices are also different.

There are fewer than twenty-five known of the 1795 ‘Nine Leaves’ variety. The 1797 ’small eagle’ issue is extremely rare as well. I believe the estimate in the BD book that there exist fifty-five to sixty-five coins of this issue is incorrect. I theorize that fewer than fifty 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagles are known.

In May 2007, I wrote about the 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagle issue and I discussed this exact same coin. (Please click here to see that article.) Through research, I then identified it as the very same 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagle that was in the famous Amon Carter collection, which Stack’s auctioned in Jan. 1984.

Both Amon Carter, Sr. and his son, also named Amon, were dedicated collectors. The Carter collection contained an excellent array of U.S. gold coins, especially early issues, and one of the all-time best assemblages of U.S. silver dollars and Trade Dollars. The 1794 silver dollar that is PCGS certified Specimen-66 was part of the Amon Carter collection and was sold in the Jan. 1984 auction event.

The Carter 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagle in the upcoming Goldbergs auction is the highest graded coin of this issue. The NGC has graded three as MS-62 and two of these are definitely different coins, the coin that ANR auctioned in August 2006 and the 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagle that Heritage auctioned in January 2004. In 1996, Superior auctioned an NGC graded MS-62 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagle. I have not viewed a copy of that catalogue. I wonder if the 1797 Eagle that Superior auctioned in 1996 and the NGC graded MS-62 coin that Heritage sold in 2004 are the same.

One of two Bass 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagles has had three different certified grades in each of its three recent auction appearances. In 1999, it was PCGS graded “AU-58,” in 2003, NGC graded MS-61. Before ANR auctioned it in Aug. 2006, the NGC upgraded it to MS-62! The other Bass 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagle is not certified and remains in the Harry Bass Core Collection. It is believed that it would grade MS-61 or MS-62, if it was submitted to the PCGS or the NGC. I have never seen it.

Though its grade is not in the upper reach of the 63 range, this Carter 1797 ’small eagle’ makes the MS-63 grade, in my view. The lines on the obverse are adjustment marks that were made at the U.S. Mint before striking. Blanks that were overweight were filed down. It is common for early gold and silver coins, especially those dating before 1807, to have adjustment marks. These do not bother me much. Even if a grader found the adjustment marks to be very bothersome, this coin would still merit a grade of at least a high end MS-62, assuming that it has not changed since I examined it in 2007. Given all the imperfections that pre-1800 coins tend to have, this coin’s relative lack of problems is particularly important.

Many early Eagles appear washed-out, have many noticeable contact marks, and/or are characterized by numerous hairlines. This coin does not have such negative characteristics. Indeed, as I remember, there are just a few minor contact marks and no significant scratches. It has decent color. This 1797 ’small eagle’ Eagle is an appealing coin.

III. Davy Collection of Half Cent Errors

The Goldbergs auction events will be highlighted by the “Davy” collection of half cent errors and the Dan Holmes collection of large cent errors. Please read my discussion of the Dan Holmes collection of early date large cents, which were auctioned about a year ago, and click here to read my June 9th column that covered some of Holmes’ Middle Date large cents.  As I have written so much about large cents over the last three years, I will focus upon half cent errors here.

A collector in the Midwest, who prefers to remain anonymous, formed the “Davy” collection of half cent errors. My strong impression is that it is the best collection of half cent errors to ever be publicly sold. Plus, I am not aware of a finer collection ever having been sold privately.

Half cents and large cents were minted from 1793 to 1857, though not in every year in between. Large cents (pennies) are similar in size to quarters, and half cents are a little greater in diameter than five cent nickel coins are now. (Five cent nickels were first minted in 1866; Three Cent Nickels were first minted a year earlier.)

The Davy and Holmes collections each contain literally hundreds of errors. There are several kinds of errors. Often, coins were struck off-center. Sometimes, when a coin was struck off-center, it was struck again, or even a third time, to ‘correct’ the initial error. There are numerous coins that were each struck multiple times. In other cases, the edge lettering is blundered. Coins that are too light in weight, or too heavy, are also errors. Coins that were struck on planchets (prepared blanks) that had various kinds of sharply noticeable imperfections, too, fall into the category of errors.

I find brockages to be most significant of early error coins. These are more interesting, in my view, than the coins that are struck off-center, or even struck off-center two or three times. For an explanation of a brockage, please see the appendix below. In some ways, a brockage has two obverses or two reverses. Usually on a brockage, one side is a regular obverse (front) or reverse (back) and the other is an incuse (sunken) backwards image of an obverse or a reverse design.

“Brockages have always been fascinating to most all collectors of early U.S. coins,” remarks Greg Hannigan. “They are a lot rarer than some of the other categories of errors.”

An 1803 half cent error, which will be sold as lot #125, is an obverse brockage and it is struck five per cent off-center. So, this piece is characterized by two major kinds of errors. The cataloguers grade it as Fine-15. “Sharpness VF-20.” they say, “and the eye appeal is excellent, but there are a few dull contact marks on the incuse [sunken devices] brockage side.” It was formerly in the collection of Richard Picker and it is estimated, by the cataloguers, to bring at least $4000, maybe much more. There are many items in the “Davy” collection that have low estimates below $500, though it is plausible that some items will bring multiples of their low estimates.

An obverse brockage of an 1804 half cent will be sold as lot #145. It is of the famous spiked chin obverse variety. An 1806 half cent reverse brockage, which has no visible date, will be sold as lot #213. I find this piece to be entertaining. Seeing reverse designs on both sides of the same early U.S. Mint item, including one with sunken devices, is curiously cool.

U.S. Mint personnel often thought of brockages of early copper coins as failed strikes and sent them through the system again, as if they were bare planchets (prepared blanks). So, a coin, with a proper obverse and reverse, may be ’struck over’ a brockage. These are sometimes particularly noteworthy.

A 1795 half cent ’struck over’ a reverse brockage large cent, lot #31, caught my attention. It is estimated to bring $300 or more. A similar error will be sold as lot #114. It is an 1802/0 half cent that was “struck over a cut-down spoiled large cent with an obverse brockage,” explains the cataloguer. “The obverse of the half cent is struck over the incuse off-center brockage side of the large cent. Incuse [sunken] letters from the undertype cent show along the throat and jaw.” It is said to be one of the most valuable half cent errors in this collection.

Jim McGuigan finds ’struck over’ brockages to be among the most desirable of all early copper errors. McGuigan is a specialist in pre-1840 U.S. coins of all metals. Jim personally collects half cents and much of his collection is listed in the PCGS registry. He reveals that he “started collecting half cents in 1957.”

McGuigan declares that the “Davy collection is the best ever of half cent errors, both in quality and quantity.” Greg Hannigan “would agree that it is best collection of all time of half cent errors.” Hannigan is a leading dealer in large cents, and handles several other types of early U.S. coins. Hannigan particularly likes “double struck and triple struck errors.” Interestingly, Hannigan finds that “early copper errors did not get any respect until the last twenty years.”

The consignor is not named “Davy.” He has been collecting errors, and many other coins, for decades. McGuigan “is not aware of anyone else ever having more than a hundred half cent errors.” The “Davy” collection contains more than three hundred.

IV. Appendix: What is a Brockage?

Many coin enthusiasts, including myself, find brockages to be among the coolest kinds of errors. For a brockage to come about, first, a coin must be, for one reason or another, not ejected or otherwise removed from a mechanical coining press. Accidentally, it remains on one of the dies. (Please see my column of Sept. 1 for a definition of a die.) Secondly, when the next planchet (prepared blank) is fed into the coining press, it will, during striking, become sandwiched between an already struck coin and one of the two dies. Third, if the design devices on one side of the already struck coin become imparted onto one side of a fed planchet (prepared blank) and the other side of this planchet is struck by a die (as it should be), then a brockage comes into existence.

Yes, this process may sound confusing and it would be even more confusing to explain the variations of brockages. For simplicity, I will explain only the type of brockage that is most often seen, an obverse (Front) brockage that comes about after a struck coin is left in the press on top of the bottom die that is the reverse (tail) die. When the next planchet (prepared blank) is fed into this press, it falls on top of the coin that was not ejected, and then the ‘hammer’ die comes smashing down on top of this planchet (prepared blank), which is thus sandwiched between a coin and an obverse die. So, the obverse die imparts (as it should) an obverse design to the obverse of the planchet. The leftover coin, however, is ‘in between’ the reverse die and the obverse die. So, a reverse design is not imparted. Instead, the obverse of the leftover coin is impressed into the underside (reverse) of the planchet. Therefore, an incuse (sunken) and ‘backwards’ transformation of the obverse design is imparted into the underside (‘reverse’) and the newly created error has a normal obverse and an incuse and backwards version of the obverse design as its ‘reverse’!

Yes, in some cases, the hammer die is the reverse die, but this is beside the point. I am using the most typical scenario of the making of a brockage to illustrate the concept. In other situations, a brockage, which features reverse designs, may come about when a planchet is sandwiched in between the bottom (anvil) die and a struck coin that clings to the hammer die, sometimes by forming a ‘cup’ shape. It not necessary to understand all the variations in order to understand how most brockages are created.

©2010 Greg Reynolds

Related posts:

1. Coin Rarities & Related Topics: Southern California Auctions and Market Realities
2. Coin Rarities & Related Topics: 1794 Silver Dollar sells for $1,207,500, and More Auction News
3. Coin Rarities & Related Topics: Stack’s auction of the W. L. Carson Collection of Proof Coins

Some time ago a fellow sent in an error-variety coin with some very interesting questions. He said: “I have a 1999-W $5.00 Gold 1/10th Eagle that was struck by the Mint with an Uncirculated Matte Finish instead of the intended Proof finish for the West Point issue. Is this an error or variety — the grading service states it’s an error? Also, why is it referred to by the grading service as struck with “Unfinished Proof Die” when the die has clearly been “finished” albeit the wrong finish?

He made to very good points and I had to explain that it was both an error and a variety and that the grading service was technically wrong. My answer to him was as follows and aught to be of interest to others.

According to Alan Herbert in his book, The Official Price Guide To Mint Errors:
“Only a small fraction of the mint product is an “error.” The E word was born back in the dark ages when almost nobody knew anything about the minting process. Today we know enough about the complexities of minting coins to be able to pinpoint the exact cause, or causes, in 99 percent of the cases. We desperately need the proper language to fit with that increased knowledge. Teaching novice collectors nicknames and slang is akin to teaching a chimp how to use a baseball bat. It curls my hair to hear professional people, engineers, doctors, lawyers and other college graduates misusing the language like they do.

We know that many actions by mint personnel are expedients-things done to speed up production, salvage worn or damaged dies, use up substandard planchets, or just simply to save money. Obviously, an expedient is not an “error.” It was done deliberately. Other mint products are different because of wear and tear to the dies, coin press, or other equipment. Again this stretches the definition of “error” to have to include a normal result of heavy usage.

The more we know about the minting process, the harder it is to stretch the E word to fit the end result. The simple solution is to have a “real” term which will include any and all variations, and-just as important-will include “errors,” but in their proper perspective. That term is minting varieties.

A minting variety is, by definition, “A coin which is normal or which exhibits a variation of any kind from the normal, whether intentional, accidental, or due to wear and tear on the equipment, as a result of any portion of the minting process, whether at the blank or planchet stage, as a result of a change or modification of the die, or during the striking process.”

Having been employed within a manufacturing environment for over 30 years I can confirm Herbert’s statements as being accurate. The fact is the majority of items stated to be errors in our hobby most probably were not made in error! Just like any other factory in the world, the Mint must knowingly make many of them as an expedient or for other logical reasons.

However, on a more practical level I do realize that the term error is here to stay, like it or not, and that the terms error and variety carry certain connotations to many in the error-variety hobby. So, I will not debate the pros and cons of the terms and in most cases on a commercial level I will refer to those items most often referred to as errors as just that.

On a more scholarly level I recognize that most items termed errors are not. Certainly minor changes in a die due to age and use such as die chips, die dents, die breaks, clashes, die flow lines, etc., are no more errors than age lines on a person’s face. Another way of putting it is: would you consider the effects of wear and tear on the tires on your car resulting from driving it back and forth to work to be errors? Nonetheless, there are differing opinions as to whether or not normal wear and tear on a die should be considered an error when it is used to strike a perfectly acceptable coin.

On the question of referring to your coin as struck with an “unfinished proof die,” you are correct in alluding to this being incorrect terminology. The fact is the die was finished completely, so calling it unfinished is inaccurate. The proper terminology would be “improperly finished proof die” or something to that effect. It would be proper to elaborate further by saying “… finished as a matte uncirculated die” or similar.

Related posts:

1. 1999-W 1/10th Eagle $5.00 Gold Matte Finish Error or Variety?
2. Stacks to offer a Curious Specimen 1914 Gold Eagle. Is it a Proof Coin without the Matte Finish?
3. Is it an Error Coin or a Variety?