Market Blog - Written by Doug Winter on Monday, August 24, 2009 19:23 - 5 Comments
How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Like the PCGS Genuine Holder
If you’ve followed my blogs in the past few years you know that I’m a Coin Purtist. I tend to be particularly pure when it comes to “no grade” coins.
Loosely defined, a “no grade” is a coin with a problem (or problems) that preclude it from getting into a regular PCGS or NGC holder. This can range from harsh cleaning to scratches to rim damage to a hole.
Until two weeks ago I had never (as in not one single time…ever) had a coin on my website that was not in a regular PCGS, NGC or ANACS holder. But I made an exception to this Winter Rule when I bought an 1864-S half eagle in a PCGS Genuine holder at the recent Los Angeles ANA show.
The coin I bought had clearly been around the block (a few times…) It had been mounted in a soldered bezel and when it was removed it lost detail at the borders. The surfaces had some roughness and the coin had probably been recolored at one time to make it look more original. That said, I still liked this coin alot.
Why? Because it had one thing going for it: extreme rarity. Many people don’t know this, but the 1864-S half eagle is the second rarest Liberty Head half eagle after the 1875 and there are as few as 20-30 pieces known in all grades. This is clearly an issue that does not become available very often. To put it in perspective, it is rarer than an 1870-CC double eagle and not much less rare than the celebrated 1854-O and 1856-O double eagles.
But here’s the kicker. I sold this 1864-S half eagle for just a touch over $5,000. To me, this seemed like remarkable value. And I wasn’t the only person who felt this way. Three collectors ordered the coin within two days of it appearing on my website RareGoldCoins.com.
So am I going to become a regular player in the PCGS Genuine market? I seriously doubt it. But I am going to be more attentive to affordable examples of extremely rare coins like the 1864-S half eagle. Would I buy an 1864 Philadelphia half eagle that was damaged? Absolutely not. But the next time I see a major rarity in the Liberty Head gold series that is fairly priced yet extremely rare, I will give some serious thought to adding it to my inventory.
5 Comments
DW,
I agree with you. My standards may not be as high as yours, but there are some nice PCGS “Genuine” coins out there. I have on numerous occasions, while looking through auction lots, had two consecutive coins of the same date and type in my hands, one graded and one in an NCS details grade or similar holder and liked the bodybagged coin more.
RYK
Doug,
I’m very glad to hear this. Especially since you recently bid and won a coin for me in the same auction in a NCS “Genuine” holder. It also was a rare coin for which I have been searcing for several years. In the past 10 years it has never come to auction in any form, graded or not. So, when it showed up in the Los Angeles auction I was highly interested even though it was a no grade. Forturnately, it is a beautiful coin. Thanks for representing me.
Doug, yours is a great write-up on the topic. I have noticed that many dealers and collectors have a particular tone of endearment when discussing ownership of PCGS geuine only holders. It has changed my opinion on the concept. Most have stated that if the coin is rare, desireable, and looks halfway nice, there will definately be a demand for it.
I would much rather buy a rare eagle with a low mintage and issues than a pristine high mintage one. I kind of like the visual history of having been handled and used throughout history. I like to look at the early 1860′s eagles and guess if Pres. Lincoln had handled them and scuffed them. Did Andrew Jackson scuff my 1838?
I have collected a varied collection of dates that would have been completely unaffordable if they weren’t scatched, mounted, scuffed, cleaned and toned. Am I happy having the coins of the common man? You betcha.
Shootingwater: Read my blog again. You missed the point entirely. Damaged coins are not the “coins of the common man” nor are you the “common man.”
RYK - Aug 25, 2009 10:41 am