Learn about buying, selling and collecting rare U.S. gold coins with Douglas Winter Numismatics and read related articles on this blog.
Need to get the rest of the article from Mary. In a recent blog (July 30, 2007) I discussed my criteria for what constitutes "originality." Using this criteria, how available are Charlotte, Dahlonega and New Orleans gold coins? In the first of what may be a multi-part series of articles, I’m going to look at C, D and O mint gold dollars and discuss their availability with original surfaces and color.
The term “original” gets thrown around a lot these days. I should know; I probably use (and overuse) this term as much as anyone. But as much as this term is used, I think there is considerable confusion and disagreement over what original actually means. As it applies to 18th and 19th century United States gold, the concept of originality fits just a small percentage of actual coins. Unless you can trace a complete history of a coin, it is essentially impossible to state with certainty that it is truly original—i.e., it has never been cleaned or in anyway enhanced.
So what exactly do I think constitutes originality? I think it’s easier to explain what “isn’t original” than what “is original.”
A coin that is original has the right color for the issue. On rare gold coins, a give-away that a coin has “bad” color is when it is a bright orange or intense reddish-gold hue. This bad color tends to be artificially applied and it is generally done in an attempt to hide hairlines or surface problems. Original color tends to be a medium to deep green-gold or rose-gold hue. In all of the books that I’ve written, I’ve mentioned the color(s) that I’ve observed on specific gold issues. I highly suggest that you read these books when you are making a purchasing decision.
An original coin has surfaces that lack obtrusive hairlines. When a coin is cleaned, it tends to show hairlines. But here’s where a sticky subject comes up: what about a coin that was cleaned 75 or even 100 years ago and which has now naturally retoned in deep hues atop these hairlines. Is it original? Strictly speaking, no. Is it desirable? If the coloration is attractive and the hairlines are not too dense, absolutely. One has to operate under the assumption that virtually all 18th and 19th century United States gold coins have been cleaned at one time and light, unobtrusive hairlines can’t be considered as a detriment when calling a coin “original.”
An original coin also has luster that has not been significantly impaired (assuming, of course, that it does not have enough wear that the luster has been lost). When a coin is cleaned or processed, the luster is changed. Non-impaired luster has a circular or “cartwheel” pattern. When it is disturbed, the luster no longer rotates in a circular pattern. It becomes irregular and it appears to “jump” as opposed to spinning.
A coin that is original also does not have any sort of putty or “gunk” that has been applied to the surfaces in an attempt to hide imperfections. This can usually be determined by the presence of dull or whitish areas that can be seen when a coin is viewed in a good light source.
In summary, a coin that is original is none of the following:
It is not unduly bright or shiny.
It does not have an abundance of hairlines, especially on both sides.
It does not have any foreign substances on the surfaces that were applied in an attempt to hide imperfections.
Given the fact that so few coins meet these stringent criteria, can the collector who favors original coins actually ever expect to find anything for his collection? I would say that the answer is yes.
There are still a decent number of coins that are either original or which have an “original appearance.” (Perhaps this last term is actually more accurate, given the fact that no one can state with absolute certainty that a 150 year old coin has or hasn’t been completely untouched in its long and winding road through numismatics and/or commerce).
Coins that have a good provenance tend to have an original appearance more often that coins that just happen to show up on Ebay. I think we can state with relative certainty that collectors like Mrs. Norweb and Louis Eliasberg were not sitting at home doctoring their gold coins.
Is original always best? That’s an interesting subjective question. There are gold coins with coloration that I refer to as “Euro” which have very dark hues caused by years and years of sitting undisturbed in bags in European vaults. This color is clearly natural but it can be pretty ugly; even to a purist like me who loves coloration on coins. In the case of a coin with dark Euro-grime on it, I could certainly see washing it in soap and water to remove the top layer of dirt. Once this is done, is the coin technically “original?” Or has it been processed? A smart dealer I know once told me that if a coin has been processed in a solution that isn’t lethal to humans upon drinking it is still natural. As you can see, this becomes a matter of semantics that is very difficult to answer.
The bottom line is that there IS clearly a “look” that coins that are perceived to be original do have. This look is appealing to sophisticated collectors and dealers and few coins display it.
As a dealer who has spent over $100 million on rare coins, what are some of the “tricks” that I have learned that can help you when you are buying coins? Read on to see some of the ones that I think you will benefit most from. When I buy a coin I am looking to sell it immediately for a profit. This makes my needs as a buyer slightly different than yours as a collector. But your ultimate goal, I would hope, is to sell your coins for a profit. What are a few of the most obvious but most important parameters to consider each and every time you buy a coin?
1. Buy Coins That Are Pretty
Numismatics has always been a highly visual hobby. But the advent of the Internet has made the visual aspects of numismatics more significant than ever before. When I look at coins now one of the first questions I ask myself is: will it image well on my website? Coins that are pretty are very easy to sell.
The term “pretty” is somewhat semantic. I tend to like gold coins that are dark and dirty and find these to be aesthetically appealing. Not everyone agrees me. Some people like gold coins that have bright, dazzling luster while others prefer coins that two-tone contrast between the devices and the fields. But I think most people can agree that a certain percentage of coins are, for lack of a better term, “special.” This does not necessarily mean “expensive.” I have seen circulated $100 Bust dimes that I thought were really pretty. The bottom line is that you should try and have as many pretty coins as possible in your collection.
2. Buy Coins That Are Popular
There are many coins that no matter how many examples I have purchased over the years, I have never lost money on them. As an example, I have probably owned twenty 1838-D half eagles in the past decade, ranging in grade from VF25 to MS62. Every time I’ve owned one, it has sold quickly to a happy collector and I’ve made a decent amount of money on each transaction. It’s obvious to me why this date sells quickly: it’s a first-year-of-issue, it’s a one-year type, it has a neat design, it’s a Dahlonega coin and it is relatively affordable.
In the last few years, key date coins in virtually every series have shown dramatic increases in value. There is a good reason for this: they are very popular and this creates a constant level of demand for these issues. In some cases (like 1901-S quarters or 1907 High Reliefs) prices are now probably too high and these key issues are currently overvalued. But I would personally rather have a collection (or inventory) that was full of popular coins than ones that were too esoteric and hard to sell.
3. Buy Coins That Are Problem-Free
I’m pretty staggered at how unappealing most coins are that I see these days. As I look through other dealer’s inventories at coin shows or at auction lots, nearly every coin I pull out has some sort of problem. It has been dipped. It has funky color. It has hairlines from an old cleaning. That’s why when I see something that I really like, I try and aggressively pursue it.
In certain 18th and 19th century series, it is likely that 90-95% of all the coins currently on the market have some sort of problem. If you can patiently and carefully assemble a collection that focuses on the remaining 5-10% of the coins that are what I would call high end and choice, you will have a truly significant coin collection.
4. Buy Coins That Pre-Sell Themselves Every time I’ve made a big mistake purchasing a coin for inventory, it’s been a coin that I had to give myself a hard sell on. I’ve found that my first impression regarding a coin is inevitably correct. If I see a coin and it makes me gasp because it’s so pretty or it’s so above-average an issue that usually comes with bad eye appeal, I’m inevitably going to buy this coin no matter what. If my first reaction is “I don’t really like this” or “It’s OK except that spot in the right obverse field sort of bothers me” that doesn’t strike me as the sort of coin that is going to go flying out of my inventory when it is imaged and described on my website. As a rule, if you don’t like a coin the first time you see it, don’t buy it.
5. Buy Coins That Have Been Pre-Screened
Never, never, never buy expensive coins sight-unseen or based solely on a mediocre quality image with no return privilege. It’s one thing if someone is trying to sell you a generic MS63 St. Gaudens double eagle sight-unseen; even if the coin is low-end it is essentially a commodity and what it looks like is not especially important. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had clients send me expensive coins that they have purchased sight-unseen out of an auction and how many times I’ve had to politely tell them that it is very low-end. If your dealer insists you buy coins sight-unseen, find another dealer. If you think you can buy nice coins sight-unseen out of auctions, swallow your pride and hire a trusted representative to view the coins in person for you.
If you talk to nearly any dealer or read nearly any numismatic newsletter you’ve no doubt heard a similar complaint for many years: it has become incredibly hard to buy “nice coins.” Clearly, this is true. But the reason(s) why nice coins have become so hard to buy are somewhat less obvious. I have a few theories as to where all the nice coins have gone and why it is so hard in today’s market to find others. The first reason has to do with the increased size and scope of the rare coin market. There are far more deep-pocketed collectors than ever before and certainly far more than most people realize. There are many reasons for this: the increased appeal of numismatics as a result of the Internet, the explosion of wealth in this country and around the world and the lack of good investment alternatives as in years past. Simply put, tens of thousands of very high quality coins have left the market as a result of new collectors.
The second reason is a little less obvious. It is my opinion that more formerly-nice coins have been ruined by cleaning and processing than we realize. Let’s take a typical common date Dahlonega half eagle as an example. Let’s say that there are 200-300 examples known of this date in all grades. Even before the mania for cleaning coins began, at least 75% of these coins had either been harshly cleaned, damaged or very heavily worn. This leaves us a pool of approximately 25-50 original or semi-original “nice coins.” Now let’s say that this number has been reduced another 50% in the last decade as dealers have given into the temptation of taking a crusty EF coin and turning it into an ugly AU coin. Now we are talking about maybe as many as 15-25 nice original examples of this supposedly common date. This number is further diluted by the fact that most of the choice examples of scarce, popular collector coins are off the market in tightly-held collections. At the end of the day, we are talking about a tiny pool of nice, original coins available for the new collector.
Here’s another theory of mine which we’ll call reason #3. Veteran observers of the rare coin market (like me) became jaded by the proliferation of great collections which came to the market in the 1980’s and the 1990’s. Eliasberg, Bass, Pittman, Norweb...the list goes on and on. We were spoiled by these great old collections and now that hardly any other great old collections await us, our reaction is that “there are no more nice coins left.” I find it interesting that the coin market of the 2000’s has become more democratized than the market(s) of the past. Instead of one person owning huge numbers of great coins (i.e., Harry Bass), there are now many collectors who own smaller numbers of the good stuff. Old School dealers like me are just going to have to get used to the fact that the auctions we will be attending in the future are not likely to be Eliasberg-esque.
One final reason comes to mind. The rare coin market has become watered-down by modern coins. As recently as a decade ago, no one collected coins made during their lifetime; let alone paid huge premiums for coins struck a year or two ago. A number of dealers (and collectors) who used to be active in the market for “nice coins” jumped ship and are now focusing on modern issues. Moderns also get a lot of publicity these days while the day-to-day trading of attractive classic issues is done with less fanfare. Ironically, there’s a whole new generation of collectors who are a lot more excited by a PR70 American Silver Eagle from 1999 than by a superbly toned PR67 Barber Quarter from 1899. As always, what is “nice” is a matter of perspective...
I think the bottom line is this: in 2007 we are seeing a lot more collectors competing for a lot fewer nice coins. It was never easy to buy nice coins. In some ways, I’d love to turn back the clock to 1987 but when I really stop and think about the market twenty years ago, nice coins weren’t growing on trees back then and when you did have them, they were a lot harder to sell.
