Spotted this online from the famous "Eliasberg Collection." It has a pretty obvious fingerprint on the obverse...maybe even the fingerprint of Louis Eliasberg himself. I wonder if that would increase the value to some. http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELIASBERG-C...189018?hash=item41ac18ed5a:g:lWAAAOSwtJZXVZ9O
That is a Half Dollar. I don't think I have ever seen a fingerprint that large! Unless Eliasberg was a giant!
My guess, though others may know better, is that the coin would be worth much more without the fingerprint - unless one could prove that it came from someone of renown or significance. In any case, it's already selling for mid 4 figures, so it's apparently valuable enough.
There are several prints on the coin. IMO, it is an ugly dog. This is a case of "forget the eye appeal" its owner was famous. MS-65 coins should have "very pleasing" eye appeal. That coin is a solid MS-61 (probably has cabinet friction too) based on eye appeal. Excellent case for buy the coin not the holder.
While I'm pretty sure your question was asked tongue in cheek, I'm kind of surprised that nobody thought of the rather blatantly obvious response - it's definitely not his because Louis Eliasberg knew better !
I was wondering if anybody would say that. But yes, my original comment was more a joke than anything. My first thought when I saw this coin was it got a significant bump because it was owned by Eliasberg (as were a ton of other coins, lol). But, I thought it would be a fun piece to talk about.
Here's some high-res images from a previous transaction of this coin: http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?sale=85&site=1&lot=1312
Well, I see no friction; BUT even if it were "blast white," IMO it is too baggy to be a 65! Still an over-graded UGLY coin.
I don't think I've ever seen a fingerprint that large on a coin. I also agree about wondering how that coin got such a lofty grade, particularly with such a massive fingerprint on it.
For, what it is worth and probably how most of Eliasberg's collection was acquired. I collect a lot of modern coinage, cash register stuff, cwr's. I am not sure of the wealth that this man had, before he died, other than the coins he collected. But, I can imagine himself as one who, probably at the time didn't notice the finger print on the coin. He collected it because it caught his Eye. Just like we do.
It's also possible that when he had it the toning was far more subtle and the print wasn't that visible.
I've always wondered if this 1933 Fuad 10 Piastres had King Farouk's finger prints on it. He was notorious for that sort of thing, and Pittman having been at the Farouk sale...,, Well, you get the idea... Speaking of Farouk a coin with him on it from the Eliasberg collection.
