Just had a question for either proof or toned collectors. I just saw in the latest ANA magazine that a 1893 CC proof morgan in 65, (highly toned), sold for about $150k recently, but in the same month a 64 that was original white sold for about 35k MORE. Do proof collectors prefer original coins, and not caught up in the toning fad? Is toning really a lower end coin phenomenon? Or was this maybe a rare instance where the 64 was simply a much superior coin to the 65, regardless of grade and/or toning? I am not trying to be smart or put toned coin collectors in a corner. I am honestly asking if someone knows why the white 64 sold for so much more than a brightly toned 65. Chris
It seems highly unlikely that the 1893-CC could be a proof, as all standard proof coins in the U.S. were minted in Philadelphia before 1968.
That is simply not true. Branch mints made proofs as well, they were just scarcer. This month's Numismatist, page 27-28 has an article about them. That is where the example I am referring to comes from.
Nice try Chris, If you look at the actual coins, you will find a much more logical reason for the prices realized by these coins and it has nothing to do with toning. Please click on the links below: 1893-CC Morgan Dollar PCGS PR65 CAC $149,500 and making a CAMEO appearance in this thread: 1893-CC Morgan Dollar PR64 CAMEO CAC $184,000 Personally I think that the journalism provided in that article is misleading. If you would like, I would be happy to send a letter to the editor pointing out the real reason for the price variation.
Not trying to catch anyone sir. Could you explain why the 64 is pricier than the 65? Is it the cameo designation? A 64 cameo is frequently pricier than a regular 65? Again, asking straight up questions. Btw, the color in the article looked much more bright than in the link you provided. The article made this coin look very brightly colored.
Chris, Stop it! You have been collecting coins for decades sir. Do you really expect me to believe that you don't know that CAMEO coins routinely drive premium prices that will often reach or surpass the price level of the next highest grade? The problem with your example is that it deals with an ultra rare issue. So rare in fact, that it isn't even included in the registry sets. There were only a few dozen 1893-CC Proof Morgans minted and the extant number is unknown. Here is what I do know. Collectors of proof coins covet CAMEO designations, especially on issues where the CAMEO coins are scarce in comparison to the total population. In this case, every coin is rare but it can't be disputed that the CAMEO coins are even more rare. I don't have access to the PCGS population reports but the NGC totals are 7 graded without CAMEO and only 2 with CAMEO. So in answer to your question, the CAMEO designation is the reason why the PR64 outperformed the PR65.
I agree with you about the newbie point but I think we can dismiss that as the price range is over $100K.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that comment. Yes there are some investors that do prefer blast white. But there are just as many who do not. Pretty much anybody that knows coins also knows that blast white is almost always an indicator that the coin has been dipped. And in today's world originality is often the most important factor to many. It doesn't have anything to do with color. They just want an original coin, a coin that has not been messed with, a coin that has not been dipped.
Not true at all. There are many "collectors" who actually search for well toned coins, especially from the late 19th century. I'm one of them because I believe toning gives a coin character. NFN, but I would think investors(someone who invests in coins for their monetary value in hopes of appreciating in the future) wouldn't care about toning one way or the other since they are only concerned about buying low, selling high for a profit.
Well I never dealt with higher end cameo coins, so I don't know the market. I know cameos are higher than non cameo, but it used to be a large leap between 64 and 65, so I was trying to ask the question. I understand the cameo adds value, but I remember many cameo 64 morgans not being pricier than a 65 because of the magical "gem" and "investment grade" nomenclature. Maybe those are not as important as they once were, but a regular 64 used to sell for much closer to 63 than 65 money. I am sorry Lehigh you think I am gaming this thread. Maybe my wording could have been different on the original post. I was honestly trying to learn, and greatly appreciate you pointing out that they were comparing a cameo to a non cameo, and if a cameo 64 nowadays routinely sells for more than a regular 65 I appreciate that knowledge as well. Like I said, I didn't participate in those markets much when I colelcted US coins, (prefering AU as my grade of choice), but just remembered the large gulf between a 64 and a 65 for the reasons stated. Peace man, I am not trying to throw stones sir. Chris
A cameo 64 is not necessarily worth more than a non cameo 65. In this case, yes, it is. But it depends on the coin you are talking about. And I think it is important to note that the designation cameo is not only applied to Proofs when you are dealing with the older coins like it is when you are dealing with more modern coins.
Doug, That coin resides in an NGC generation 7 holder circa 1997-2000. I contend that if that coin was resubmitted today, it would be given either a PL or DMPL designation as opposed to the CAMEO designation which according to NGC's releases is for proof coins only. I searched Heritages archives and could not find one other mint state coins with a CAMEO designation.
I'm well aware of that Paul. There's also more than a few in gold. But I grant you, they are not common. They had DMPL's back then too Paul. But MS cameos are slightly different for you can have the cameo effect without having the reflectivity of PL or DMPL.
