I think it's fair to say that most, if not all, of us who've been collecting for awhile have had a coin that we upgraded on by purchasing a nicer example when circumstances allowed. This forum often has postings of members happily sharing recent purchases and wins that improved upon an existing piece in their collection. However, have any of you ever purposefully down-graded by replacing a coin in your collection with a similar one that is in inferior condition? If so, why? Regarding myself, I had the following coin of the Visigothic king Suinthila (AD 621-631): AV Tremissis (20 mm, 1.41 grams, 6h), Barbi mint (near Antequera, Spain) Obverse: + SVIИTHILɅ RE:, facing bust Reverse: + PIVS BɅRBI, facing bust References: CNV 284.4; Miles 224c; MEC 1 235 I was very content with this coin but then a similar example came up for auction at the Aureo & Calico 248 sale of November 2012, lot 1093: AV Tremissis (19 mm, 1.47 grams, 6h), Barbi mint (near Antequera, Spain) Obverse: + SVIИTHILɅ RI:, facing bust Reverse: + PIVS BɅRBI, facing bust References: CNV 284.9; cf. Miles 224; cf. MEC 1 235 It was certainly in lesser condition than my original example but had the very desirable provenance of being from the Caballero de las Yndias collection, a beautiful gathering of Spanish gold coinage from Roman to modern times formed by a Basque gentleman who emigrated with his family to Cuba in the early 20th century. The collection was disbursed by Aureo & Calico in four auctions during 2009-2010. I already had the good fortune of owning three Visigothic coins from the original Caballero sale of 2009 and although I missed this one when it was first auctioned, the opportunity to acquire another when it was re-offered was irresistible. Ideally, I would have liked to keep both but finances don't always permit such luxuries. I chose provenance over condition and sold the first one at the CNG 94 sale in September 2013, lot 1563. I often think of that original "lost" coin wondering if I made the right decision. I think I did but I keep finding myself scanning through auctions to see if it ever re-emerges... some day. It is the current fashion among coin collectors that an obsession with condition dominates all other considerations, but please let me know if any of you ever made such a choice.
BOTH are great, John! Nice! LOL, yeah, understand the decision ... always hard to do. I posted this one before, but it fits to what you are asking: VULCAN from SAMNIA NORMALLY, this coin has SPLIT FLANS. I should never had found this little guy, but I "lucked" into it. After I received it, I felt that I had cheated myself by NOT having the cool split flans that this coin was known for Samnium Aesernia 263-240 BCE AE 20 Vulcan Pilos Tongs Jupiter Biga So, at a later time: My SECOND Vulcan coin from Samnium was this one, because the SPLIT FLANS is the norm for that coin: Not a downgrade purchase, rather a SIDEWAYS purchase to capture the coin as it is known for! Samnium, Aesernia AE21 263-240 BCE HN Italy 430 Vulcan Left - Biga
Not all "downgrades" are inferior coins. In my collection of Classic Silver Commemoratives, several times I've sold a MS66 and replaced it with a MS65, or a MS65 with a MS64. Specifically, I've done that with the Hudson and California coins with a two grade down substitution. I try to buy the coin, not the holder and sometimes you can get a coin in a lower grade with much better eye appeal as you free up some cash to keep the process going. BTW, I do not take part in registry set competitions, so for me the grade may not be as important as it is to others. Good luck with the search!
I once downgraded a NGC graded MS-63 AV Bern 2 Duplones 1793 with a Kunker fast stempelglanz example. However, it was really an upgrade/ since Kunker fast st. =MS65/66. I ended selling the MS-63 to a member of our coin club. In the end, I got a way better coin and made $900 profit.
Somewhat related, a guy who owned a 1927-D Saint-Gaudens coin requested it be regraded lower so it would qualify for a CAC sticker.
Wait, drop the grade for CAC? What grader would do that? Wouldn't the integrity of the TPG be called into question?
The owner of the coin wanted a CAC sticker on it -- don't ask me why. It was graded MS65+ and at that level couldn't get the CAC designation. Owner submitted it to PCGS (I believe it was in an NGC holder) and "requested" an MS65. That's what it got. Then it qualified for a CAC bean. I guess the TPG could say that for a 1/2 designation -- the "+" sign -- they just graded it a bit more conservative. The whole thing was ridiculous to me, FWIW.
Yeah, I mean there are hundreds of Saint collectors looking to pay $2,000,000 for a coin that you definitely enhance the $$$ price with a 65 CAC vs. a 65+ (and no CAC). I guess for $2 MM folks are buying the holder not the coin.
I have never downgraded since I don't sell. However, like you I have definitely bought a lower grade when I owned a higher grade. Why? Sometimes because something about it was different, sometime simply because I am a hoarder.
