Assembling a Set of Liberty Head Eagles

Let’s say you want to assemble a set of Liberty Head eagles. You’ve got a daunting task ahead of you. This design lasted from 1838 through 1907 and it features over 180 issues including numerous rarities which are very expensive and/or extremely rare in higher grades. Unless you have a large coin budget, you are going to be priced out, right? Maybe you just need to look at gold collecting differently. How about doing a year set of Liberty Head eagles? A year set includes one example of every year in which this design was produced; in this case a total of seventy years. By choosing a year set (instead of a date set), the collector can significantly reduce the number of coins he needs to complete a set.

Another great feature of a year set is that you can avoid having to buy prohibitively rare and expensive issues like the 1875. The year set collector can fill his 1875 hole with a far more affordable 1875-S or 1875-CC.

The two most intimidating things about assembling a date set of Liberty Head eagles are the length and the cost. As I just pointed out, a year set reduces both of these immeasurably. It also allows the condition-oriented collector the chance to pursue higher grade coins.

Take, for instance, the eagles struck in the year 1849. There are two: the Philadelphia and the New Orleans issues. The former is relatively affordable in comparatively high grades (the collector should be able to find an MS60 to MS61 coin for around $5,000) while the latter is not only expensive in higher grades (an MS60 if available would sell for $30,000+) but it is incredibly rare.

Even the collector on a relatively tight budget can participate in the Liberty Head eagle series. How about a 20th century Liberty Head eagle set? This would consist of 21 coins, produced from 1900 to 1907. The beauty of this set is that every single date can be purchased in MS60 or better and most of these dates can be found in reasonably high grades for under $1,000.

What if you only buy Gem coins and can’t “deign” to own anything below MS65? How about a year set of 20th century Liberty Head eagles? This consists of just eight issues and every one can be found in MS65 (or in some cases better).

It’s about time that the popularity of Set Registry collecting which has fueled the market for 20th century gold coinage starts to take hold with the far rarer but less popular issues from the 19th century. How many collectors who pay $50,000+ for a St. Gaudens double eagle with an in-grade population of, say, ten or more (plus others in higher grades) would reassess their collections if they know that they could buy far rarer Liberty Head eagles for a fraction of the price?

Are date sets of Liberty Head eagles going to suddenly replace St. Gaudens double eagles as the hot new trend in gold collecting? Probably not. But what if set collecting of Liberty Head eagles were better marketed? What if more (and better) categories for these existed in the PCGS and NGC Set Registries? Could this change in the next few years? I contend that this is a possibility. After all, who would have ever thought that collectors would pay $10,000++ for high grade modern coins?

Rating the Numismatic Auction Companies

For better or worse, auctions have become a more integral part of the numismatic scene than at any time in recent memory. In 2006, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of coins traded at auction and a number of price records were set. How do I rate the auction companies and what are their strengths/weaknesses? I thought it would be interesting to share my opinions of the five major American numismatic auction firms. There are five categories that I feel are important to consider: catalogs (and the ability to accurately catalog coins), websites (ease of use, usefulness, technology, content and images), customer service (how well do these companies handle problems), prices realized (what types of coins bring the most money at each sale) and overall strengths and weaknesses. Each of these categories is then ranked as follows: excellent, very good, good and poor.

1. Heritage: In the past few years, Heritage has clearly become the industry leader. It is now common for Heritage to conduct a $20-30 million dollar sale which features a huge variety of coins ranging in value from a few hundred dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Heritage has become dominant for two reasons: their use of technology is incredibly innovative and they are extremely aggressive when it comes to securing consignments.

Catalogs: Heritage produces a good catalog. Their use of graphics is exceptional and the design is far more professional than any other firm. Their photography is not as good as certain other firms but I would attribute this primarily due to the fact that they tend to have so many more coins for sale that they can not spend enough time on quality control. I regard their cataloging as good to very good. They write nice, accurate descriptions of coins but tend not to have enough time or manpower to do much in-depth, original research.

Website: No one has a numismatic website with more useful bells and whistles than Heritage. It is incredibly easy to bid online in their sales and their auction archives feature is wonderful. My one complaint about the Heritage website is that it is a bit cold and impersonal. But its overall ranking is excellent and no other numismatic auction firm even comes close.

Customer Service: Since Heritage sells more coins than anyone else, they make more mistakes. But I’ve found them to be excellent at dealing with these issues in a timely and fair fashion. I would advise the collector to find someone at Heritage they like and build a long-term relationship with that person. I personally recommend Sam Foose.

Prices Realized: Prices in a typical Heritage sale tend to be strong, especially due to the fact that they have dramatically more retail buyers participating than anyone else. The areas that Heritage does best in are 20th century issues and Registry Set quality coins. Their weakest areas tend to be the more sophisticated, esoteric areas that Stack’s/ANR excel in.

Strengths and Weaknesses: Heritage has the best website and the greatest number of bidders of any numismatic auction firm. They are extremely easy to do business with despite their size. My major complaint with Heritage as a consignor is that their sales are way too big and coins can get lost in 5,000+ lot sales. But they are clearly the leader in this segment of the market and this does not appear to be changing any time soon.

2. Stack’s Rarities: In the fall of 2005, Stack’s and American Numismatic Rarities merged. I am basing my ratings for this new firm primarily on ANR as I’ve had many positive experiences with this firm in the past unlike Stack’s who I have not.

Catalogs: ANR, hands down, had the best catalogs in the numismatic auction business. No one does a better job of cataloging coins that ANR, especially rare and esoteric items like tokens, medals and colonials. With the exception of colonials, I thought Stack’s cataloging was inconsistent, at best. Stack’s color photography was exceptional while ANR’s wasn’t as good. Assuming these firms can combine the best of each world, their new catalogs should remain the best in the industry.

Website: Stack’s website was very poor for many years but in the last two or three years it improved considerably. ANR’s was decent but could have stood to have been updated and given a technological makeover. The new combined website is good to very good but it still is long ways away from comparing to Heritage’s.

Customer Service: I always thought ANR had excellent customer service while Stack’s was poor. It will be interesting to see whether the new firm is friendly and “small townish” like ANR or rude and “New Yorkish” like Stack’s. My two “go to” people at ANR have always been John Pack and Cynthia LaCarbonera and I think very highly of both of them.

Prices Realized: ANR and Stack’s were both capable of realizing extremely strong prices for fresh, original collections. Their prices for the more mundane meat-n-potatoes items which constitute the bulk of most sales were never as strong as Heritage’s due to the fact that neither firm had an active online bidding presence.

Strengths and Weaknesses: It will be interesting to see how the combination of Stack’s and ANR works. There is a tremendous amount of talent present at the two firms although this talent tends to be more academic while Heritage’s is, in my opinion, more market-savvy. I would expect that the new Stack’s Rarities firm will never replace Heritage as the top dog in the numismatic auction world but it will continue to at least keep Heritage from getting too complacent.

3. Bowers and Merena: The last few years have been a roller coaster ride for Bowers and Merena. As recently as the early part of this decade, Bowers and Merena was one of the major forces in the coin auction business. A disastrous stretch during the middle part of the decade almost destroyed this firm’s reputation but the last year or two have seen considerable improvement.

Catalogs: The graphics and design of a B+M catalog are good but the overall quality of the cataloging and the images could stand improving. However, I have noted a marked change for the better in the past year. B+M still needs to hire photographers who can make coins not look like lumps of coal.

Website: The B+M website is attractively designed but it does not have many interesting features. Bidding online is easy and secure. I would rate their website as good but it could certainly stand to be improved.

Customer Service: I have had a few problems in the past with B+M but they have always been resolved to my satisfaction. The biggest problem that this firm has had in recent years is considerable turnover which makes it difficult to establish a relationship with a capable person. I would personally recommend dealing with Debbie McDonald as I have found her to be very competent and honest.

Prices Realized: In the past year or two, Bowers and Merena has begun to create a niche as a company who is able to get strong prices in the various 20th century series. Their ability to get collections which are strong in 18th and 19th century material is not yet as well developed.

Strengths and Weaknesses: After a rough few years, Bowers and Merena has established itself as a strong #3 in the coin auction business. But in order to become more competitive, they will have to show they are capable to doing something that distinguishes themselves from their competitors.

4. Goldbergs: As someone who runs a niche business himself, I admire the fact that Ira and Larry Goldberg have a clearly defined goal as a company. They do not want to be as big as Heritage and they want their sales to be small, manageable and held in their own backyard of Beverly Hills. They have created a well-run, solid company that consistently offers good coins.

Catalogs: I think the Goldberg catalogs are very nicely designed with excellent graphics. Their cataloging is weak and their images appear to be enhanced. I would not personally feel comfortable bidding on a coin in one of their sales based on the image in the catalog.

Website: The Goldbergs website is solid if unspectacular. It is sometimes hard to find a specific coin due to an unsophisticated search feature. I do not personally care for their online images although I think they look more realistic and accurate than the ones in their catalogs.

Customer Service: The level of customer service in this firm is very good and when problems arise it is easy to deal directly with one of the owners. I personally recommend dealing with Glenn Onishi who I have known for many years and who I think is extremely trustworthy.

Prices Realized: Like any coin auction firm, the Goldbergs can get great prices for fresh, original deals. They tend to have recycled dealer consignments in their auctions and these coins typically bring exactly what they are worth. My one complaint with their sales is that some coins are too aggressively reserved by consignors.

Strengths and Weaknesses: If you live on the West Coast, this firm is a good resource. I’m not certain that I would travel all the way from the East Coast just to attend a Goldberg sale but the fact that they are typically held in conjunction with the Long Beach shows makes them convenient for dealers. The best compliment I can give this firm is that if I were creating an auction company, it would have many of the same basic goals as the Goldbergs do.

5. Superior: This is another firm that appears to have seen better days. Back in the 1980’s and 1990’s, Superior sales were massive and featured extremely interesting coins. In the last few years, the volume and quality of their sales appears to have shrunken considerably although they still get the odd interesting fresh deal every now and then.

Catalogs: Superior’s catalogs are unimpressive from a visual standpoint. Their cataloging is underwhelming and their images are poor. To remain competitive in the marketplace, they will have to improve in these areas.

Website: Not to pick on Superior, but their website is by far the worst of the five firms discussed in this report. It is confusing, sloppy and difficult to navigate. This is another area that will require a comprehensive overhaul by the powers that be at Superior if they are going to remain relevant in this increasingly web-driven business.

Customer Service: I’ve found customer service at Superior to be well-intentioned but erratic. One person at Superior who is very competent and knowledgeable is Larry Abbott. I have also had good experiences with Paul Song.

Prices Realized: Prices at the last few Superior auctions have ranged from very strong to indifferent. These sales are generally not well-attended and have little retail participation.

Strengths and Weaknesses: The numismatic auction business is very competitive and Superior finds itself (currently) lagging. The future of this firm depends on whether or not they can retain their key personnel. I’d guess that if Superior’s next two or three sales are not successful then the signs are ominous for their future.

Factors That Determine a Good Coin Show

I hate to think how much time I’ve spent at coin shows. As an example, I’ve been going to Long Beach for 24 years now. Long Beach shows are held three times a year (that’s 72 Long Beach shows) and I’m there an average of three nights. Which adds up to a total of at least 216 days spent at Long Beach shows or, gulp, nearly three-quarters of a year. There are clearly good coins shows and bad coin shows. What are some of the factors that make a coin show good and why do some thrive while others languish or die?

1. Location: I live in the far upper left corner of the United States so every location is tough for me to get to. But I can endure endless plane flights to Orlando for the FUN show or to Baltimore (two or three times a year) because these are first-rate shows where I do a lot of business. A good coin show needs to be in a heavily populated area and in an area that is regarded as being “good” for coins. It is hard to explain why a wealthy, vibrant city like San Francisco is not a good coin town but it is pretty easy to venture a guess that St. Louis (a site of numerous conventions) is a really bad coin town. New York would seem to be a great location for coin shows but the price of putting on a good show in Manhattan makes it prohibitive for most promoters. I’ve often wondered why there aren’t more shows in Chicago—it’s in the center of the country and home to many collectors but for whatever reason there hasn’t been a major show in downtown Chicago for years.

2. Facilities: I don’t even want to attempt to figure out how many days of my life have been in spent in convention centers across the United States. After a while, the convention center in Pittsburgh seems to blend into the facility in Kansas City which appears to look like the building in Denver. But I will say that a nice, convenient location sure beats spending a few days in the basement of some ratty motel. I can remember coin shows back in the 1980’s that were held in underground garages and others that I half expected my lunch to be carried off by vermin. Unfortunately, a nice facility does not guarantee a good show. The Palm Beach show which died a fast death last year was held in a beautiful new facility in a great city. The bad news was that the closest hotel to this facility was a long walk and just try to get a flight from Portland, Oregon to Palm Beach, Florida…

3. Timing/Conflicts: One of the reasons why everyone loves the FUN show is that it’s held in a (usually) sunny climate in a month that’s traditionally gloomy and awful if you live in much of the non-tropical parts of the country. If the FUN show were held in Boston in January, I don’t think it would quite as popular. Another important factor to consider about a show is its conflicts with the traditional coin circuit. If I were starting a brand new show I would make certain it isn’t competing against a major convention and I would also be sure that it wasn’t being held a week or two after a major show. I suffered from a major case of “show burnout” in 2005 and 2006 and the conventions that I decided not to attend were the ones held too soon after major shows.

4. Public Attendance: This is less of a factor for me today than it might have been in the past. Many of my clients do not attend coin shows and prefer to do business with me via private treaty. And with just a few exceptions, I look at coin shows as opportunities for me to buy and sell coins with dealers. The exceptions to this are the major shows like FUN, ANA, Central States and Baltimore. I typically meet a number of collectors at these shows and I tend to stay longer, in an attempt to be “retail friendly.” The bottom line is that a show with good retail attendance has a much better buzz than a show that seems like a morgue and this translates to a better overall atmosphere.

5. Major Auctions: Every major show has a major auction which is held in conjunction with it. You can have a major auction without a coin show attached to it but you certainly can not have a major show with an auction to bring in collectors. One of the problems that new shows face is the difficulty in getting an auction company to commit to holding a major auction. At this point, the only big show that does not have an auction which I consider first-rate is Baltimore but even this seems to be changing as Bowers and Merena is attracting more interesting and better consignments. At other shows, like FUN or ANA, the problem tends to be too many auctions and not enough time to get these auctions done.

6. Grading Services In Attendance: If PCGS and NGC aren’t at a coin show, no fresh coins get made and the show is a waste of time. This may not necessarily be the case for a collector but for a dealer it goes without saying that “if the coins aren’t being made than the dealers aren’t getting paid.” I can’t think of a single coin show that I’ve attended in the past few years that was worthwhile when one or both of the major services weren’t in attendance.

7. Miscellaneous Factors: I can think of a few other factors that separate the wheat from the chaff as far as shows go. If the best hotel option is a Motel Six, then I’m probably not going to be anxious to get a table at a show. The same goes for the ability to fly into a town. If I’m traveling with coins and I have to change flights three times or fly a tiny commuter plane, I’m either going to come without coins or, better yet, not go at all. Safety is always a factor with me. I do not like going to shows in downtown Detroit or St. Louis because, in all honesty, I don’t feel safe. By the same token, I’ve always thought that suburban venues were sterile and boring and it’s sad when your best dining option after a hard day’s work is Applebee’s.

In summary, I think there are too many coin shows and I, for one, have decided that I will not be attending as many of them in 2007 as I did in 2005 or 2006. I’m not certain if other dealers will do the same (everyone complains about there being too many but everyone is too greedy to not go to every major show) but I predict that whenever the market gets soft, some of the shows that seem healthy now will either contract or fade away altogether.

November Baltimore Show Review

Great crowds, a strong gold market, a daily ration of Lobster rolls from the nearby Legal Seafood Restaurant, amazing Spring-like weather…what more could you ask for at the third and final Baltimore show of the year? It was an excellent show and one of the few in some time that had me wondering if I wasn’t leaving too early when I boarded the plane at BWI airport late Friday evening. Baltimore has clearly become the #3 coin show, trailing only the FUN and ANA conventions and the Fall edition is, in my opinion, easily the best of the three held each year. Thursday was a day given over primarily to wholesale trading and it was one of the busier days I can remember having at a coin show all year. From the minute the show opened until it closed that day, I was busy buying and selling. In the course of one three hour burst in the middle of the day, I sold three six-figure coins including a Stella in PR66 and a very rare piece of Proof gold.

It was really easy to sell coins at this show, provided that the coins were interesting or fresh. Given the fact that I had a number of interesting, fresh coins in my inventory, it was clearly a great selling show. Buying was another story altogether. There were just not a lot of interesting coins at the show. I spent much of Friday pounding the pavement looking for interesting gold coins. I did find a few great items (all of which are listed on my website with descriptions and images) but would have liked to have purchased more.

If you collect Carson City gold coinage, I have a major announcement to make. I am working on acquiring two important collection of Carson City gold with an emphasis on eagles. I hope to have these available in a few weeks and when I do, you will have the opportunity to acquire numerous important coins including a few Finest Knowns and many Condition Census pieces. For more information, please feel free to email me.

The Stack’s/ANR sale held prior to the show did not contain much in the way of rare date gold coinage. It did contain some amazing Washingtonia from the fabled Norweb collection and prices were, in most cases, remarkable. Still think that a good pedigree doesn’t make a difference to buyers? Try explaining that to the room full of buyers at this sale.

One of the most remarkable items in the auction was a unique presentation medal awarded to Zachary Taylor and struck from the first gold found in California in the original Gold Rush days of 1848. It was massive (weighing a pound), it was gorgeous, it was fresh to the market (having been consigned by descendants of President Taylor) and it was accompanied by its original presentation box. It sold for $460,000 which is almost certainly a world-record price for a United States medal.

I did not participate in the Bowers and Merena auction held during the sale because it contained virtually no gold coins of interest to me. I was told that a number of Registry Set quality 20th century coins sold for very strong prices including a PCGS MS67 1941-S half dollar which brought an amazing $90,800 (!). Its probably not my place to comment here about this purchase and I’m certain that the new owner is happy with his coin but $90,800 is A LOT of money for a 1941-S half dollar, especially given the fact that a nice MS66 can be readily bought in the $2,000-3,000 range. This is an example where I think two bidders kept pushing and pushing in a display of who is more macho and the winner may well have been the loser. (But you have to think the consignor, at least, was thrilled…)

Gold jumped up quite a bit right before the show began which gave generic issues a nice little upward push. The generic market is still not exactly healthy but buyers were more active than at any show since ANA in this area and this translates to greater overall liquidity in the market with more money available for rare coins. It will be interesting to see what generics do in the next thirty days and if they continue to trend upward, I can’t help but think this will be a good thing for the coin market in general.

For me, the 2006 edition of the coin market is pretty much drawing to a close. I am not attending any more shows until FUN in January 2007 and plan on taking some much-needed vacation time in December. I do plan on going to Dallas in mid-December to look at FUN auction lots in what, rumor has it, could be the most valuable coin auction of all time.

Getting back to the Baltimore show for a second, I’d like to answer a question someone asked me the other day. Why has this show grown and prospered in the past few years while the Long Beach show seems to have lost some its luster? I think the Baltimore show is doing a great job of promoting itself and it has, at the very least, doubled in size in the past year or two. In addition, it is now for all intents and purposes the only show of any consequence on the East Coast. When I was growing up in New York, there were major shows in New York, Philadelphia and Boston every month or two. Today, all these shows have fallen by the wayside and the many thousands of serious Eastern collectors are left with Baltimore as their closest convention. One has to wonder if someone isn’t missing the boat not trying to put on a good another good show on the East Coast; perhaps in Philadelphia or a site close to Manhattan.

Which Coins Are the Best Investment?

A potential new client recently asked me a basic but interesting question: which gold coins are the best investments? As those of you who know me realize, I don’t really tout coins as an “investment.” But I want my customers to make money on the coins that they purchase from me and I try to steer them towards pieces that I think will appreciate in value over the course of time. In my opinion, there are a few factors that make specific coins a good investment and which should perform well. Some of these factors are as follows:

1. Liquidity: Does a specific type of coin sell very quickly when I list it on my website or does it tend to languish for an interminable period of time? I notice that certain coins are consistently good sellers. Generally speaking, they fall in the “sweet spot” pricing range of $2,500 to $7,500. They are usually coins with an interesting history and pieces with good aesthetic appeal. As a rule of thumb, the more expensive a coin is the less liquid it becomes (although, in the last three to five years, very expensive coins and ultra-rarities have been remarkably liquid). As I told the gentleman who inquired about coins as investments, the pieces that are the most liquid are the best to own.

The “quality of liquidity” is important as well. Will the person most likely to buy your coin(s) be a specialized collector or a dealer? I personally like coins that I can sell to end-users as opposed to dealers who will look at them primarily as commodities and be more conscious of price than quality.

2. Popularity: Popularity and liquidity are not the same thing. A coin can be liquid but be a part of a not especially popular series (an 1838-C half eagle is an example of coin that is very popular but it is from a series—Charlotte half eagles—that I would not describe as being immensely popular) while a popular coin can be relatively illiquid (an example of this would be an unappealing, lower grade High Relief which most collectors would probably pass on and spend a bit more money to acquire a nice piece). An excellent collection could be created out of nothing but very popular coins—pieces like 1861-D gold dollars, 1839-O quarter eagles, 1838-C and 1839-D half eagles, 1838-D and 1839-D half eagles, 1838 eagles, 1861-O double eagles, etc. I refer to issues like this as the “Krugerrands of Rare Date Gold” as they are coins that are almost like cash.

In the same vein, I am an advocate of “absolute rarity” as opposed to “condition rarity.” A coin like an 1841-O eagle is rare in all grades and I will buy any example I can find, unless it has been harshly cleaned or damaged. An 1843-O eagle is not a rare coin in lower grades and I will generally not purchase a piece unless it grades at least AU55. Give the choice of owning a nice EF40 1841-O eagle or an AU55 1843-O eagle, I would personally rather have the former.

3. Rarity: It would seem obvious that the rarer the coin, the better the investment it is. This is actually not always the case. If a coin is very rare but it is part of a series that is not popular and/or readily liquid, then it may not necessarily be a good investment. An 1846 eagle is a genuinely rare coin that is nearly impossible to find in any grade higher than EF45 to AU50. If I were offered a nice, original AU55 I would certainly purchase it. But this is a coin that I would not expect to sell quickly and it might actually take me a number of months to move it. The problem with this coin is that it is a member of a series (Liberty Head eagles) that does not have many specialists and it is a Philadelphia issue.

The perfect “investment quality” coin is one that is not only rare but which is popular and liquid. A coin that scores highly on all three of these fronts is one that should perform well.

4. Historic Price Performance: With the advances in price dissemination available to collectors, it is easier than ever to track how coins have performed over the past three to five years. We have been in the midst of what is ostensibly the greatest sustained bull market in numismatic history and if a specific coin hasn’t done well since the early 2000’s, than the chances are good it isn’t going to do very well when this market finally cools off.

By the same token, an investor wants to avoid a coin that is currently at an all-time high in price. If you look at the price levels for a coin like a 1911-D quarter eagle in Uncirculated, you can see that it was selling for considerably more money by the beginning of 2006 than it had at any time since the halcyon days of the late 1980’s. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that the 1911-D had probably risen to the point where it was no longer a good value. And this is exactly what has happened, as the value of this issue has dropped 10-20% in the past few months.

If you are a bottom-line oriented coin buyer, avoid issues which appear to be at a market peak. Conversely, being a total contrarian might not be a great idea either. The perfect coins to buy are those that have shown some price increases in recent years but whose price levels still make sense, considering their rarity and grade.

Exciting Coin Sets Yet To Be Assembled

In the twenty-five years that I’ve been a professional numismatist, I’ve had the opportunity to build some pretty interesting coin collections. I’ve put together two of the finest sets of New Orleans gold ever assembled, the unquestioned finest set of Carson City gold and numerous high grade Charlotte and Dahlonega sets, to name just a few. At this point in my professional career, what sets would really excite me to have the chance to assemble? First and foremost, I’d love to have a wealthy, patient connoisseur call me and decide that he wanted to put together a complete set of high grade United States gold. How much fun would it be to be able to buy all the really high grade and really rare issues that I’ve passed on in the last few years because I just didn’t have a home for them at the time?

(And how cool would it be to walk around a coin show with a checklist of all United States gold issues and have to look at it when I saw, say, a nice About Uncirculated 1858-S eagle and remind myself if the collection already had an example of this date or not…)

My dream collection would, in some ways, use the Eliasberg collection as a benchmark but it would have some obvious differences. When the Eliasberg collection was assembled, it was much easier to locate choice, original coins than it is today. Unfortunately, I would be unable to locate early gold that could rival the phenomenal unmolested pieces in the Eliasberg collection; many of which were purchased by the Clapp family as early as the 1890’s.

But I would also be able to buy many issues in much higher grade than what was present in the Eliasberg collection. As an example, many of the post-1880 issues in this collection were represented by very low grade pieces which would be considered unremarkable, at best, today. A number of these dates are now available in fairly high grade as a result of finds in Europe and other overseas sources. It would certainly be fun to tell this new collector that a coin that he just purchased in MS64 was represented by a dingy VF in the Eliasberg collection!

Another collection that I would love to work on would attempt to replicate the John Adams collection of 1794 Cents but in a less specialized fashion (for those of you unfamiliar with this collection, John Adams is a well-known Boston collector who formed a remarkable die variety set of 1794 Cents by Sheldon variety. His parameter for purchasing a coin was to find a piece with a great pedigree entailing as many famous collectors as possible. I have always thought that this was the most fascinating specialized collection ever formed).

The gist of the Adams collection was to “collect the collectors” who had become part of the folklore of the Large Cent culture. This has never really been done in the area of gold; partially because pedigree research on gold coinage is nowhere near as comprehensive as it is on early copper. But wouldn’t a collection that included examples from all of the great gold collections from the past be interesting?

Getting to assemble a major set of early gold coinage would be a lot of fun as well. I’m currently working on a few very impressive sets of early gold but I seldom—if ever—get the chance to buy the macho, six-figure pieces that sometimes come up for sale at shows and auctions. My personal dream assignment would be to assemble a world-class set of Fat Head half eagles (from 1813 to 1834) and to be able to purchase duplicate examples of the dates that the collector and I thought were “neat” or “undervalued.” And to maybe even expand this set to include the die varieties that exist for dates such as the 1818, 1820, 1823, etc. Now that would be fun!

But, really, I have no complaints about what I’m doing right now. I get the chance to work with interesting, nice people who trust my judgment when it comes to coins. Some of these people have become good friends of mine and I’ve now known many of them for over a decade (actually two decades in some cases).

That said, if Paul Allen or Bill Gates call me tomorrow and tell me they are ready to seriously start collecting United States gold coinage, I think I can get the proposal written pretty quickly…

13 Interesting Gold Coins Priced Below $2,500

Is it possible to build an interesting collection of desirable United States gold without having a large per coin budget? I think the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” There are plenty of extremely interesting pieces that are within the average collector’s price range and this includes a number of coins that are both scarce and in comparably high grades. Here are a baker’s dozen suggested areas for a collector with a budget of $2,500 (or less) per coin. 1. San Francisco Gold Dollars: The San Francisco mint produced seven different gold dollars. These include all three types. The 1854-S is a Type One issue, the 1856-S is a Type Two and the 1857-S, 1858-S, 1859-S, 1860-S and 1870-S are all Type Threes. With the exception of the popular (but somewhat overvalued) 1856-S, any of these dates can be obtained in AU50 to AU55 grades for $1,500-2,500. My personal favorite date in this group is the 1857-S. Did you know that from the standpoint of overall rarity, this date is actually rarer than the 1857-C or the 1857-D? The 1857-S has a current Trends value in AU55 of $2,500 which is very cheap for a coin of this rarity; the 1857-C Trends for $7,000 in this grade, while the 1857-D is listed at $6,500.

2. Reconstruction Era Philadelphia Gold Dollars: The Philadelphia gold dollars produced from 1866 to 1872 all have mintages of 7,100 or below (except for the 1868 which had a mintage of 10,500) and all of these issues are reasonably scarce in all grades. This group of coins is not generally seen in circulated grades but very presentable Uncirculated examples (in this case in the MS62 to MS64 grade range) can typically be purchased in the $1,000-2,500 range. I like the 1865 and 1867 best. The former has a Trends value of $1,700 in MS60 and $2,500 in MS62 and is a great value at anything near these levels. The 1867 is listed at $2,000 in MS63 and if you can find a piece at this level, you’ve just bought a truly scarce coin at a most reasonable level.

3. Classic Head Quarter Eagles: If you have a limited coin budget, you won’t be able to buy any early gold as it has become too expensive. But you can still purchase a really nice AU55 to AU58 common date Classic Head quarter eagle for $2,000-3,000. Classic Head gold coinage is sort of a bridge between the pre-1834 “early gold” issues and the more familiar Liberty Head design which was employed all the way into the early 20th century. I personally like the Classic Head design and have seen some pieces in the AU55 to AU58 range which are really attractive. If possible, buy a date other than the ubiquitous 1834 as these issues are considerably scarcer. My “sleeper” date is the 1839 which considerably scarcer than the mintmarked issues of this year but priced much lower.

4. Philadelphia Quarter Eagles From The 1840’s: This group includes some dates that are well out of the price range of the $2,500 and lower budget but it contains a number of other overlooked issues that fall well within these parameters. Want some suggestions? How about the 1844. This is a low mintage coin with just 6,784 pieces originally produced. There are probably no more than 50-75 pieces known in all grades and this date is considerably scarcer than the mintmarked issues from this era. Despite this fact, Trends lists an AU50 example at $2,250. Other dates from this era that I think are very undervalued include the 1843, 1846, 1847 and 1848. Your $2,500 per coin budget will go a long way in this series and you should be able to buy some nice AU pieces if you are patient.

5. Nice About Uncirculated New Orleans Quarter Eagles: There are a number of scarce New Orleans quarter eagles from the 1840’s and 1850’s that the collector can buy in AU55 to AU58 grades for $2,500 or less. This includes the 1846-O, 1847-O, 1850-O, 1851-O, 1852-O, 1856-O and 1857-O. In this same price range it is also possible to purchase nice MS61 examples of the 1843-O Small Date and the 1854-O. I would strongly recommend that the collector looking at these coins familiarize himself with their peculiarities of strike (these are described in my book “Gold Coins of the New Orleans Mint, 1839-1909”) and pay a premium for examples with original surfaces and color.

6. Low Mintage Quarter Eagles, 1880-1899: A collector with a budget of $2,500 per coin could put together a high quality set of Quarter Eagles dated between 1880 and 1899. With just two exceptions, every coin in this set would be Uncirculated and in some cases the coins could grade as high as MS64 or even MS65. What’s great about these coins is that they are well-produced and not hard to find with pleasing original color and surfaces. Some of the dates in this two decade production run are very challenging to find in Uncirculated (1880, 1883 and 1884 come to mind as the stoppers) while others (including nearly all of the coins struck in the 1890’s) are easy to find in Mint State. The real budget-busters in this set are the popular low mintage 1881 and 1885 issues. For $3,500-5,000, the collector will be able to find a nice AU 1881 should cost $4,000-5,000. This is a great set for the collector who wants to own some very high grade yet legitimately scarce gold coins.

7. Scarcer Date Three Dollar Gold Pieces: Three Dollar gold pieces have been a whipping boy in many “experts” recent newsletters but I think there is still great value in this series. For $2,500 you can buy a number of the scarcer issues from the 1860’s and 1870’s in Extremely Fine grades. These coins are not that easy to locate due to the fact that this denomination did not typically circulate enough to get word down to Extremely Fine detail. But when Three Dollar gold pieces are available in EF, they tend to be reasonably attractive and very affordable. All of the Civil War dates (except for the rare 1865) can be purchased in EF40 to EF45 for around $2,500 and a number of the tougher dates from the 1870’s (such as the 1870, 1871 and 1872) can be found in the same grade range for around the same price.

8. Classic Head Half Eagles: I like this series for the exact same reasons mentioned in Item #3, above. I’ve always looked at Classic Head half eagles as the “early gold for collectors who can’t afford early gold.” Think about it. You can still buy a nice Choice AU half eagle that is approaching 175 years in age for less than $3,000. The sleeper date in this series is the 1837 which is many times scarcer than the 1834-1836 issues but which commands just a 20-30% premium in AU. I’d suggest that the collector be fussy when looking at Classic Head half eagles as they are plentiful enough that he can wait for the “right” coin to come around.

9. No Motto New Orleans Half Eagles: This is an area where a collector with a budget of $2,500 per coin will be able to purchase some very scarce and desirable issues. One date that I feel is extremely undervalued is the first-year-of-issue 1840-O. I recently posted an example in NGC AU55 on my website (I priced the coin at $2,350) and received seven orders for it. For $2,500 or less, the collector will be able to purchase nice EF45 examples of such scarce dates as the 1843-O Small Letters, the 1845-O, 1846-O, 1851-O, 1856-O and 1857-O. All six of these dates are much harder to find in this grade than most of the Charlotte and Dahlonega half eagles from this era yet they are priced at between $500-1,000 less per coin.

10. 1890’s Carson City Half Eagles: No, the four half eagles struck at the Carson City mint during the 1890’s are not rare coins. But how can you not be attracted to the history and allure of any gold coin struck at this legendary mint. For $2,500 per coin, you could put together a set that would include an MS62 1890-CC, an MS62 1891-C, an MS61 1892-CC and a high end MS61 1893-CC. Four nice Uncirculated coins with a great story for under $10,000. How can you not like this collection?

11. No Motto New Orleans Eagles: If you have a $2,500 per coin budget, you won’t be able to assemble a complete set of No Motto New Orleans eagles; the 1841-O and the 1859-O will prove just about impossible to find in that price range. But you can buy every other date in Extremely Fine or About Uncirculated grades. On the lower end of the grade range, you’ll probably have to settle for EF45 examples of the scarce 1852-O, 1855-O, 1856-O and 1857-O and on the high end, you might be able to go as high as AU55 on the more common issues like the 1847-O, 1851-O, 1853-O, 1854-O and 1858-O. I personally think this would be an extremely interesting set to assemble and when you are done you can take pride in having assembled a group of coins that is genuinely scarce and, in my opinion, extremely undervalued.

12. Type One Philadelphia Double Eagles: A collector on a limited budget is going to find double eagles to be a frustrating area to collect. A date run of Philadelphia double eagles from the 1850’s can be assembled by the individual with tight budgetary constraints and most of his coins will actually be attractive. With just a few exceptions, nearly every coin in this group can be purchased in AU53 to AU55 for $2,500 or less. This includes the 1856, 1857 and 1858 which I feel are much undervalued. The only two dates that will cost more than $2,500 for nice AU’s are the overvalued but popular 1850 and the rare 1859. For $3,500, the collector will be able to purchase a nice AU55 1850 while an AU50 1859 will run around $4,000 and be a very good value.

13. Type Three San Francisco Double Eagles: If you are on a tight budget, you can forget Philadelphia and Carson City Type Three double eagles…they are too expensive. But a collector of average means could assemble a complete set of San Francisco Type Three issues in Uncirculated for a reasonable amount per coin. In my opinion, I think the best grades for this set are the ones just before big price jumps. In other words, I like an MS62 1889-S for this set at $1,000 as opposed to an MS63 at $6,000. With the exception of the 1878-S, 1879-S, 1880-S and 1881-S, every coin in this set could be at least MS62 (with some MS63 examples of the common later dates thrown in for good measure) while the scarcer early dates would all grade MS61.

So there you have thirteen suggestions of collecting areas for gold coin collectors with a budget of $2,500 per purchase. If your budget is a bit larger (say $3,500-5,000) you could greatly expand this list or take some of the items already discussed and move up a grade or two.

What Constitues A Complete Coin Set?

A client of mine recently asked me an interesting question about whether the addition of a specific Charlotte half eagle would—or wouldn’t—remove the stigma of Incompleteness from his set. I thought this was an interesting question and it got me to thinking about how the presence or absence of certain issues relate to rare gold coin collecting. Not everyone is cut out to work on a complete set. Some collectors do not have the patience; others do not have deep enough pockets. To some collectors, a complete set is monotonous and an exercise in futility. To others, it is an interesting challenge with defined goals.

So what exactly constitutes a complete set?

There is no standard answer to this question. As an example, what should a collector do if he collects Three Dollar gold pieces and he doesn’t want to spend $200,000+ to purchase nice examples of the 1875 and 1876. These are issues that were struck only as Proofs and, in theory, they do not need to be included in a set of Three Dollar gold pieces if the focus is business strike issues. In my opinion, a set of Threes is not technically complete without an 1875 or an 1876 but I can fully understand a collector’s decision to not purchase these two issues due to the fact that they were not struck for circulation.

In the case of Three Dollar gold pieces, what is the collector supposed to do about the proverbial elephant-in-the room, the unique 1870-S? My suggestion would be to ignore this date as its extreme rarity makes it an essentially impossible issue to obtain.

In the Charlotte series there are a few issues that are open to debate as to whether they should or should not be in a complete set. In my opinion, both varieties of 1842-C quarter eagles (Large Date and Small Date) and both varieties of 1842-C half eagles should be included. These are design variations which are readily visible to the naked eye. A set that has only one of these could be called a complete date set but it would not be a complete variety set.

What about mintmark variations on Charlotte coins, such as an 1850-C Weak C. Is a set complete without one of these pieces? This is a striking variation and it is not, in my opinion, an essential component of a set unless the set is very in-depth and it includes die varieties and strike variations. In this case, I would then include interesting items such as an 1855-C half eagle with a cud reverse or an 1840-C half eagle with broad and narrow milling.

The Dahlonega series has a few issues that are difficult to decide where they fall as far being included in a set or not. Clearly, the 1842-D Small Date and Large Date half eagles should both be included in the set as they are design variations. What about the interesting 1846-D/D and 1848-D/D half eagles? I have always regarded them as members of a complete set but can totally understand the argument that they are die varieties. And if these two varieties are included than what about the less well-known but equally significant 1840-D and 1841-D Small D and Tall D varieties? Again, my position on these is that they are die varieties and should only be included in a highly specialized collection that includes significant naked-eye die varieties.

And what about New Orleans gold coinage? I have always considered the 1843-O Large Date and Small Date quarter eagles to be essential components of a complete set as well as the 1843-O Small Letters and Large Letters half eagles. In my opinion, anything else is a die variety which does not need to be complete.

What about the 1854-O and 1856-O double eagles; two issues which now cost over $250,000 each for a presentable example? Sorry, but a set of New Orleans gold coinage that is complete except for these two coins is impressive but still not finished. These two coins are totally legitimate regular issues with no stigma of controversy attached to them. If you are a serious enough collector to want to assemble a full set of circulation strike New Orleans gold coins, you just have to face up to the fact, unpleasant or not, that there are two very, very expensive coins waiting for you down the road. And, for better or worse, these two coins are probably going to define the quality of your set.

(Oh, and by the way, the 1841-O half eagle does not exist. So don’t worry about filling a phantom hole…even if this coin is mentioned in the Redbook and the Breen Encyclopedia).

OK, so what about 20th century issues?

In my opinion, an Indian Head half eagle set is very straight forward. The Indian Head eagle set has traditionally required a 1907 Rolled Edge and 1907 Wire Edge to be considered complete. This is a pretty tricky question. The Wire Edge was issued in a large enough quantity that I think its safe to say that it was a regular issue and, thus, it should be included in any set. The Rolled Edge is a much tougher call. Only 50 or so pieces were produced and the fabric of this coin suggests that it is experimental in nature. The 1907 Rolled Edge is listed in the Judd book as a pattern (but, then again, so is the Wire Edge…) but it has traditionally been included in the regular issue set. I’m not certain what the right answer is but I think most advanced collectors have decided that they will purchase the Rolled Edge.

The St. Gaudens set contains some really tricky “include it vs. don’t include it” issues. Obviously, the Ultra High Relief does not belong in a regular issue set. Neither, of course, does the (currently) illegal 1933. What about the Wire Edge and Flat Rim varieties of High Reliefs? To me, it’s obvious that these are strike-related varieties and they do not constitute any sort of design change. The 1927-D? It’s a regular issue coin and you don’t have a complete set of Saints if you don’t have a 1927-D.

2006 Las Vegas Show Summary

The recently concluded Las Vegas coin show could certainly be summarized by the well-known Spaghetti Western director Sergio Leone as “the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” First, the Good. I wasn’t expecting much from this show. In fact I was expecting so little that I decided to cut my stay to just one night and to bring only a small group of coins that I wanted to blow out of my inventory as I thought they were tired.

The coin show turned out to be more active than I would have expected. Dealers were clearly looking to buy. I sold all of my coins to the first (and only) two people I showed them to and for what I thought were pretty strong prices. In my conversations with other dealers at the show, I got the feeling that some of the doom and gloom that was being bandied about in September might have been a bit premature. The market has certainly corrected in certain areas but I think the pronouncements of its impending demise might have been a bit premature.

I was actually able to buy a few interesting coins as well (all of which are now listed on my website with descriptions and images). I wouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination call this show a blockbuster but it wasn’t all that bad and was certainly worth it for people like myself who live on the West Coast.

Next, the Bad. Do we really need an ANA sponsored show in Las Vegas? Clearly, Vegas is not a “coin town.” There are a lot of reasons to go to Las Vegas but trying to buy coins is probably pretty low on the list. Plus, this show is less than two months after the September Long Beach and just a few weeks before the Santa Clara show held in November. Does the West Coast need a third show in the Fall? I would tend to think not and this could really hurt the future growth potential of the Las Vegas show.

Finally, the Ugly. The previous incarnation of this show was held at the Mandalay Bay hotel. Now I do not consider myself to be a “Vegas kind of guy.” But I love the Mandalay Bay and had really gotten to know my way around the massive grounds. At the Mandalay, a non-gambler like me could find plenty to do in the way of eating, drinking and people watching.

This time, the show was moved to the Riviera Hotel convention center. I didn’t know anything about the Riviera so I went online and checked out their website when I was deciding where to stay. I figured it was a bad sign when I read that I could get a room there for $74 and that their “signature” restaurants were a buffet and a coffee shop.

The Riviera Hotel turned out to be everything I hate about Old Las Vegas. 96% of the people in the hotel were chain smokers and it looked like the average age of the gamblers there was 76 years. Many of the people were wandering around the hotel in a zombie-like stupor and the whole atmosphere was pretty depressing.

Although I didn’t stay there (I wound up at the Wynn which was four times more money but worth every penny) I was told that the rooms looked like they had been last updated in 1974. If the promoters of this coin show are interested in attracting upscale collectors and dealers, I think they are going to have to present a nicer venue than the Riviera. It might have been a swingin’ good time back in the days of the Rat Pack but, today, it was just plain Ratty…