Many clients are inquiring about their self directed New Direction IRA account buying metals. If you’ve taken an interest in purchasing real precious metals with your retirement account, it’s important to know what types of metals are allowable and the qualifications that must be followed to satisfy the IRS’ guidelines. This article sheds light of many of the different options available to precious metal investors and covers some of the more specific information regarding specific types of coins and bullion products for IRA investments.

First, let’s cover the basics. Your self directed IRA can only invest in Gold, Silver, Platinum and Palladium. The keyword here is “invest”. Your IRA cannot buy collectibles – your IRA is only investing in the metal itself, not rare or attractive coins. The metal must be in a certain form (usually coins or bars) and/or of certain purity. The purity or fineness of the metal is how the quality of the metal will be measured for your IRA.

When most of us hear about gold investment we picture the 400 ounce gold bars we have seen in movies. Extraordinarily heavy (about 25 pounds), those bars are also quite the expensive items, particularly with the recent price increases in gold. IRAs are often priced out of the gold bar market, but, fortunately, other options exist. One other option is smaller units of bullion, provided they meet the fineness, or purity level, requirement. Another option is coins.

Initially, the IRS deemed all coins to be collectable and disallowed IRA investments in coins.

In the mid-1990s, after realizing that a 400 ounce gold bullion bar would be prohibitively expensive for most IRAs, Congress revised the rules and allowed IRAs to own certain coins in addition to bullion.

Generally these IRA allowable coins fall into two categories:

Category #1: Coins specifically listed in the Internal Revenue Code, and defined as NOT being collectable. These include only the American Eagle coins minted by the US Mint. Specific coins include:

• American Gold Eagles – Proof and Non-Proof

These coins are issued by the US Mint in both Proof and Uncirculated (non-proof) form. Because the coins are specifically listed as NOT being collectables, they are allowed in your IRA. Prices for Proof and Non-Proof Gold Eagle coins vary due to a number of factors including the availability, original production, and date.

Interestingly, these US minted coins are not of sufficient purity to classify them as bullion. They are only approximately 91% pure gold. The other material in the coin off sets the softness of the gold and makes the coin more durable. Gold Eagles arrive in one of 4 forms: 1/10, ¼, ½ and 1 full ounce coins.

• American Silver Eagles. – Proof and Non-Proof

These coins are issued by the US Mint in both Proof and Uncirculated form. Because the coins are specifically listed as NOT being collectables, they are allowed in your IRA in proof and non-proof form. Prices for Proof and Non-Proof Silver Eagle coins vary due to a number of factors including the availability, original production, and date. Silver Eagles land in only one form: 1 full ounce coin. They are of bullion fineness, but are only .999 (three nines) due to the addition of a touch of copper for added durability.

• American Platinum Eagles. Proof and Non-Proof.

These coins are issued by the US Mint in both Proof and Uncirculated form. Because the coins are specifically listed as NOT being collectables, they are allowed in your IRA in proof and non-proof form. Prices for Proof and Non-Proof Platinum Eagle coins vary due to a number of factors including the availability, original production, and date. The rarest of birds, the Platinum Eagles are minted in 4 forms: 1/10, ¼, ½ and 1 ounce coins. These are of .9995 fineness.

Any of the above coins which have been graded for condition by certification organizations and placed in tamper-proof plastic containers called “slabs”, will generally fall into the collectible category and thus are not allowed for IRAs. Recently a national certification service has initiated an authentication service for bullion coins. Authentication provides a guarantee as to the purity of the metal and the weight of the coin. While the authentication process does place the coin in a tamperproof container and give it a unique serial number, it is intended for verification only and does not move the bullion into the collectable category.

If you’re not sure about this, ask your self directed IRA provider or metals dealer. All US minted coins have nominal face values, but the true value is based on the value of the metal in the coin.

Category #2: Some coins meet the minimum fineness requirements but are not rare enough to receive collector attention.

• American Gold Buffalo coins. Non-Proof Only

First minted in 2006, they are of bullion fineness, .9999 fine (known as four nines). Note that the specially processed proof version of this coin is NOT acceptable, due to the treatment raising the value of the coin beyond the value of the metal.

• Gold Coins – .995+ note that gold is a soft metal (although heavy) and thus most typical minting includes other alloys to harden the coin. Therefore most minted gold coins intended for use as currency do not meet the fineness requirement.

• Silver Coins – .999+

• Platinum – .9995+

• Palladium – .9995+

Non-coin forms of metal, such as smaller gold bars, must be manufactured to meet specific weight specifications for the amounts of metal included and meet the above fineness requirements.

In addition to these American options, there are some coins issued by mints of other nations that do meet the fineness requirements:

• Australian Nugget (Kangaroo) Gold coins .9999 fine

• Australian Kangaroo and Kookaburra Silver coins .999

• Australian Koala Platinum coin .9995 fine

• Austrian Philharmonic Gold coins .9999 fine

• Austrian Philharmonic Silver coins .999 fine

• Canadian Maple Leaf Gold coins .9999 fine

• Canadian Maple Leaf Silver coins .9999 fine

• Canadian Maple Leaf Platinum coins .9995 fine

• Canadian Maple Leaf Palladium coins .9995 fine

• Mexican Libertad Silver Coins .999 fine

• Isle of Man Noble Platinum coins .9995 fine

Some examples of coins that don’t meet the fineness requirements are: Austrian Corona and Ducat, Belgian Franc, British Sovereign and Britannia, Chilean Peso, Columbian Peso, Dutch Guilder, French Franc, German Mark, Hungarian Korona, Italian Lira, Mexican Peso and Ounza, South African Krugerrand, Swiss Franc, and any coin that falls into the “Rare”, and thus collectible, category.

Again, if you’re not sure about the fineness, ask your metals dealer to verify it.

Next time, we will talk about the process of getting metals into your IRA or other tax sheltered account. Note that Health Savings Accounts, another plan that can be self directed, is also eligible to be self directed and purchase metals.

by Louis Golino for CoinWeek

Dr. Michael Bugeja was appointed last year to serve on the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, which advises the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury on U.S. coin and medal designs and themes.

He is also a columnist for Coin World magazine, where he writes the “Home Hobbyist” column, and writes the “Coin Capsule” feature for Coin Update News that deals mainly with graded coins. He is very active in the numismatic arena, and has served as president of the Ames Iowa Coin Club, helped organized Coin-A-Rama,” a large Midwestern coin show, writes a blog about the auction platform Proxbid, and buys and sells coins at a local shop in Iowa.

In addition, Dr. Bugeja is Director of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa State University and a former journalist and editor for United Press International. He is the author of numerous books and articles on issues such as ethics and poetry, among many others.

The CCAC was established though a 2003 law to advise the Secretary of the Treasury on the themes and designs that appear on all U.S. coins and medals, including circulating coins, bullion, commemoratives, and Congressional Gold Medals and other medals. It also advises on what people, events, or places should be honored with commemorative coins and makes recommendations on mintage levels.

The Treasury secretary makes the final decision on coin designs, but the recommendations of the CCAC play a critical role in informing those decisions.

After each of the committee’s meetings, it sends a letter to the Secretary with the minutes of the meeting. According to its web site (http://www.ccac.gov), “The CCAC serves as an informed, experienced, and impartial resource to the Secretary of the Treasury and represents the interests of American citizens and collectors.”

In my view, the CCAC is a critical link between the numismatic community and the U.S. Mint.

Dr. Bugeja serves in a position on the committee that is reserved for someone specially qualified in numismatics. The CCAC also has members who are numismatic historians and researchers, sculptors, experts on medallic arts, and so forth.

By serving on the CCAC, Dr. Bugeja plays an important role in promoting the hobby we all love so much and representing the views and interests of coin collectors.

I recently interviewed Dr. Bugeja about his work with the CCAC and his views on modern commemorative coins, circulating coins, coin design and artistry, the state of the U.S. coin market, and his interest in coins.

LG: 1.) Last year you were appointed to serve on the CCAC. Please briefly describe your work with the committee.

MB: I was chosen for knowledge of numismatics, after responding to an open call for applications. Because of my work for Coin Update News and Coin World, in addition to my love of the hobby, I was chosen in a very informative application process. I was asked pertinent questions, and I addressed them in part by recalling U.S. Mint history, especially as it related to coin design. The research and interview process prepared me well for the design critiques that we routinely do in our public sessions. I remember that I also am there to promote the hobby. As a collector, that always helps in the critiquing of designs for US coinage. We have a very good group of experts and a proactive, engaged and committed chair in Gary Marks. He prepares an agenda, the Mint sends designs in advance of the meeting–often with pertinent background information on legislation or commemorative occasions–and we analyze at home and then share in committee. Often, you’ll see preconceived ideas change during discussion. That’s the exciting part about being on the committee.

LG: 2.) Do you agree that the maximum authorized mintage levels for many recent U.S. commemorative coins have been far too high, which has depressed secondary values for many issues? It almost seems as if the Congress and the Mint have forgotten that these coins no longer have anywhere near the level of demand they did in the 1980′s, when they sold in very large numbers.

MB: As you know, often mintage is legislated and the Mint does what it can to fulfill obligations. But yes, I think mintage levels have been too high on some modern commemorative coins. I recently did a column for Coin World on privy marks and how Canada, for instance, uses them rather than mint coins commemorating one occasion in different coin denominations.

LG: 3.) I thought the Mint was working with the Congress to set lower mintage levels, but I noticed that the authorized level for many releases in the next couple years is still much too high, such as for the Marshall Service commemorative half dollar at 750,000. The most recent commemorative halves, the 2011 Army coins, only sold a total of about 108,000 pieces. Is the committee making an effort to suggest to the Treasury Secretary that these levels be set more realistically?

MB: In the meetings that I attended, that topic had not been debated or discussed at length with respect to commemorative coins. We have discussed mintage levels with presidential [$1] coins because of the recent news stories about the backlog of coins in storage. Personally, I think hobbyists want presidential coins to continue, but at lower levels, perhaps just in mint and proof sets, as we did with the Kennedy half dollar.

LG: 3.) Do you agree with the view some people have expressed that there have been too many military-themed commemorative issues in recent years (Army and Medal of Honor coins last year, infantry soldiers this year, five-star generals next year, etc.)?

MB: I really don’t have a personal position on that. I have great respect for those who serve our country in the armed forces. Also, since ancient times, military symbols and icons traditionally appear on coins. I believe we need more women on our coins. And I would like iconic women, such as Lady Liberty, to look like real women of different ethnic backgrounds, rather than media images of female beauty.

LG: The second part of this interview will appear next week. In it Dr. Bugeja discusses coin artistry, the use of classic images of liberty on our coinage, and other issues.

Louis Golino is a coin collector and numismatic writer, whose articles on coins have appeared in Coin World, Numismatic News, and a number of different coin web sites. His column for CoinWeek, “The Coin Analyst,” covers U.S. and world coins and precious metals. He collects U.S. and European coins and is a member of the ANA, PCGS, NGC, and CAC. He has also worked for the U.S. Library of Congress and has been a syndicated columnist and news analyst on international affairs for a wide variety of newspapers and web sites.

News and Analysis on scarce coins, markets, and the collecting community #92

A Weekly Column by Greg Reynolds

Regarding the FUN Convention auction in Orlando earlier this month, I discussed quarters last week, the Garrett-Jacobson 1829 ‘Large Date’ Half Eagle the week before, the Eliasberg-Atwater-Jung 1793 Chain Cent right after the sale, and Dr. Duckor’s Saints before the auction. (Clickable links are in blue.) The topic now is bust half dollars that sold during the first Platinum Night session, on Jan. 4, 2012.

In this auction session, the selection of half dollars had more depth than the offering of quarters. It is not practical to cover all or even most of these halves here. So, I have chosen bust halves for the present discussion. Next week, I will focus upon Liberty Seated Half Dollars. Eventually, I will write about rarities of other denominations in the FUN auction, perhaps including a specially struck 1927 nickel, an 1802 half dime, a 1799 dollar, and some more gold coins.

I. Flowing Hair Half Dollars

Flowing Hair Half Dollars were minted only in 1794 and 1795. A PCGS graded VF-30 1794 sold for $27,600, which may seem just slightly strong to an analyst who has not seen the coin. Jim McGuigan asserts that it has “questionable color.” In my view, it has significant issues relating to its ‘colors.’ The $27,600 price is very strong, given the characteristics of this particular 1794 half.

In Nov. 2011, Stack’s-Bowers (SBG) auctioned another 1794 that is also PCGS graded VF-30, for $25,875. It was naturally toned and much more desirable overall than this one.

The next lot was a 1795 (Two Leaves variety) half that is PCGS graded MS-61. It has been moderately dipped in the past and has naturally retoned to some extent. I just glanced at it briefly. I tentatively find it to have minimal abrasions. Furthermore, it has less friction than most certified ‘MS-61’ bust halves. Plus, this coin’s overall appearance is somewhat pleasing.

Even Jim McGuigan grudgingly accepts that the assigned 61 grade “may be okay.” Jim is known to be tough on coins that are certified as grading MS-61 or MS-62. For decades, McGuigan has been a specialist in pre-1840 U.S. coins. He attends almost all major auctions and leading coin conventions.

Although this exact same 1795 half sold for $54,625 in May 2007, I find the current $51,750 realization to be strong, well within the retail price range. The values of many coins have not returned to respective peak levels that were reached during 2007 or during the first eight months of 2008.

II. 1797 Half Dollar

Draped Bust Half Dollars of 1796 and 1797 are much rarer than Flowing Hair Half Dollars of 1794 and 1795, though each pair of dates constitute two-year types. Draped Bust, Small Eagle Half Dollars were minted only in 1796 and 1797. These are the rarest type coins of all series of silver U.S. coins.

The 1797 half in this auction is NGC graded ‘Extremely Fine-45.’ In terms of widely accepted price guides, the $86,250 price would seem to be very weak. Experts who have seen the coin, however, tend to be unsurprised by this auction result.

McGuigan regards this 1797 half as “VF-30, cleaned” and suggests that “maybe” the PCGS would grade it as “VF-35.” McGuigan and I each found this coin to have an awkward, washed appearance that is not rare for Draped Bust, Small Eagle Half Dollars.

In September, SBG auctioned this exact same 1797 half for $89,700. Further, it seems that, even earlier, Stack’s auctioned this same coin on March 23, 2007 in Baltimore. Although the online catalogue images are a little murky, I believe that it is the same coin. If so, it then realized $95,450.

As I have stated on numerous occasions, fresh coins tend, on average, to fare better at auction. For a coin to be fresh now, it must NOT have been publicly offered, such that many dealers and/or collectors know about it having been offered, for more than five years. This 1797 half is not fresh.

Additionally, circulated 1796 and 1797 halves now seem to constitute a category for which PCGS graded coins tend to be worth substantially more than NGC certified coins of the same respective grades. Price guides do not incorporate such wide gaps. Not too long ago, most collectors would have treated PCGS certifications equally, more or less, with NGC certifications, with respect to circulated bust halves. Market realities change over time, and such changes are often not reflected in price guides.

III. 1807 Draped Bust Half

In this sale, the first bust half that I became enthusiastic about is an 1807 Draped Bust, Heraldic Eagle coin that is PCGS graded MS-64 and has a CAC sticker. Draped Bust obverse, Heraldic Eagle reverse Half Dollars were minted from 1801 to 1807.

While this 1807 half is not exciting and maybe has the attractiveness of a 63+ or 64 minus grade coin, it is exemplary in a technical sense. There are minimal contact marks and this 1807 half does not exhibit any noticeable friction. Moreover, I do not remember any significant hairlines. The fields are impressive. Plus, for this issue, this coin is sharply struck. Also, it scores high in the category of originality. This 1807 half grades 64.4 or so, in my view. The price realized of $28,750 is strong, a full retail price.

IV. 1809 Half with Bars (|||) Edge

It is tricky to analyze the result for the 1809 Capped Bust Half in this auction, as it is of an unusual edge variety with irregular repeats of somewhat parallel bars among the words that are usually found on the edges of coins of this type. Capped Bust, Lettered Edge Half Dollars were minted from 1807 to 1836.

The 1809 ‘with bars’ ||| edge half in this auction is NGC graded MS-66 and sold for $43,125. John Albanese asserts that this “price is very strong.” I find it to be extremely strong and puzzling.

In 1809, other halves were minted with repeats of so termed “XXX” or “XXXX” devices between words on their respective edges. These seem to be sloppy, hand-engraved characters of some sort, which look more like graffiti than ‘X’ letters. Coins with such X devices on edges are even scarcer than those with the (|||) ‘bars’ edge. Most 1809 halves have normal edge devices, as the term ‘normal’ is defined in this context, typical letters for the type.

It has been argued that these extra edge devices are indicative of experiments. I doubt, however, that these 1809 halves relate to experiments. My guess is that some U.S. Mint employees were bored and added these devices in whimsical manners.

I was under the impression that collectors assembling sets of Capped Bust Half Dollars usually seek at least three 1809 edge varieties, normal edge, bars (|||) edge and XXX edge. Regarding this subject, I consulted Sheridan Downey, who is a specialist in varieties of Capped Bust Half Dollars.

“The ||| and XXX edge 1809 bust halves are anomalous” edge varieties that are listed in a widely read book covering all U.S. coins, according to Sheridan Downey. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines ‘anomalous’ as “inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected,” and as “of uncertain nature or classification; marked by incongruity or contradiction.” “There are no other ‘edge varieties’ listed for the series” in the same guide book, Downey emphasizes.

I note that the famous researcher Breen addresses these varieties in his comprehensive encyclopedia that was published in 1988. Breen points out that there are a large number of edge varieties of Capped Bust Half Dollars and that it does not make sense for the (|||) bars and XXX varieties of 1809 halves to be specially itemized without mentions of many others.

Downey implies that these two ‘edge varieties’ should not be listed as separate entries in guides, except in very specialized volumes. I agree. While I am usually respectful of traditions, the significance of these edge varieties is grossly exaggerated. These seem to be barely noticeable, irregular varieties, perhaps due to thoughtless behavior of some U.S. Mint employees, rather than coins that should be treasured as distinct issues. In my view, these are not separate issues and should not command substantial premiums.

The PCGS price guide values an 1809 ‘with bars’ edge at $30,000 in MS-65 grade, as opposed to $17,500 for a PCGS graded MS-65 1809 half with a typical edge. The PCGS price guide does not value this issue in MS-66 grade, as there are no PCGS graded MS-66 coins of the ‘with bars’ variety.

“The XXX and ||| [bars] edge 1809s are sought by [guide book oriented] and Registry Set Collectors,” Sheridan Downey asserts. “Date and Overton-variety collectors don’t care about them.” Varieties of Capped Bust Half Dollars are typically identified and catalogued with a system that was originally developed by Al Overton.

Maybe the solution to the puzzle is that the buyer and/or the underbidder were thinking about including this 1809 in a PCGS or NGC registry set. There are popular categories in both the PCGS and the NGC registries for which three edge varieties of 1809 halves would be needed for a complete set of Capped Bust Half Dollars, an 1809 normal edge, an 1809 XXXX edge and an 1809 ‘with bars’ edge.

An objective relating to a registry set seems to be a plausible and logical explanation for the $43,125 result for this coin. After all, this 1809 is the highest certified representative of the ‘with bars’ edge variety. In April 2009, Heritage auctioned an NGC graded MS-66 1809, with a typical edge, for $14,950. The die variety, irrespective of edges, of that 1809 is rarer than the die pairing that was used to strike the $43,125 1809 ‘bars edge’ half being discussed here. Is it fair to suggest that the ‘with bars’ edge variety must have been the major factor factor contributing to the $43,125 result?

After all, the assigned 66 grade is debatable and very few high grade representatives of this edge variety have been documented. Downey “looked at but was not particularly impressed by the NGC [graded] 66” with bars (|||) edge half, this coin. I did not grade it as MS-66. I am not sure that the PCGS would even grade it as MS-65. The $43,125 price is one of the more interesting results in this auction.

Also, this NGC graded MS-66 1809 ‘with bars’ edge coin was previously in the collection of George Byers, which Stack’s auctioned in October 2006. If it then sold, this same realized $21,850, about half as much as the current result. I covered that auction for Numismatic News newspaper.

V. Run of Capped Bust Halves

There was a run of NGC certified Capped Bust Halves in this auction, several of which received grades that are sharply debatable. Very few are exemplary. The prices realized were moderate to strong for these overall, considering that several have characteristics that are causes for concern.

The following is a list of dates, with NGC grades in parentheses, and corresponding prices realized: 1810 (MS-65) $10,925, 1812 (MS-66) $14,950, 1814 (66) $15,625, 1815/2 (61) $19,550, 1817 (65) $10,925, 1817/3 (64) $17,250, 1819/8 (66), $16,100, first 1822 ($12,650, second 1822 (66) $10,925, 1828 (66) $12,650, 1830 (66) $9200, and 1834 (66) $11,500.

The 1815/2 is a scarce date and one of the keys to the series of Capped Bust Half Dollars. The one in this sale is NGC graded “MS-61.” Jim McGuigan suggests that this coin has “questionable toning.” Although I just glanced at this coin very quickly, I did not conclude that the toning was artificial. Even if the toning on this coin is not entirely natural, most collectors and dealers would probably accept this coin as being natural enough. It may have naturally retoned after a moderate to heavy cleaning. It is gradable, in my view.

Coins of the 1815/2 date that grade above MS-60 are subject to tremendous demand.Indeed, the PCGS CoinFacts site estimates that just a dozen 1815/2 halves grade MS-60 or higher. I suspect that there might be a few more than twelve. Nevertheless, the 1815/2 is scarce in all grades and is an important condition rarity in MS-60 and higher grades.

Even IF the 1815/2 in this auction merits a grade of MS-60 rather than MS-61, it would still be an extremely important coin. I reiterate that the MS-61 grade is probably fair, in accordance with widely accepted grading criteria. Even a MS-62 grade would not be ridiculous.

On July 31, 2008, when rare U.S. coin markets were peaking overall, Heritage auctioned a different NGC graded MS-61 1815/2 half for $18,400 and auctioned that exact same coin again in August 2010 for $12,650. This one brought more, $19,550. It may be true that this one is superior to the 1815/2 that was auctioned in 2008 and 2010. Generally, though, the $19,550 result for this specific 1815/2 is a fair to strong price.

The PCGS certified ‘Proof-64’ 1826 half in this auction did not sell, perhaps for three reasons. First, it has become stale by appearing in at least four auctions since 2005. Second, it exhibits a series of serious horizontal scratches near the numerals 1826, which cause some potential buyers to wonder about the assigned 64 grade. Third, even if its grade is held to be a solid 64, the reserve was just too high. A bid of more than $73,000 would have been needed to buy this 1826 half. Such an aggressive reserve discourages some bidders, possibly including people who might have been willing to pay $73,000 or more if the coin was unreserved.

This 1826 is very attractive and it is educational in the sense that it has powerful Proof characteristics. There are Capped Bust halves that are certified as Proofs yet might not be Proofs. This is not one of them. This half dollar is, indisputably, a Proof from the 1820s, and is very important as such.

VI. 1823 ‘Broken 3’ Half Dollar

The star of the Capped Bust Half Dollars in this sale is an 1823 half of the ‘Broken 3’ variety, which is distinct from the ‘Patched 3’ 1823 and from the ‘Ugly 3’! None of these should be confused with the 1823 issue that has normal numerals.

The unusual numeral ‘3’ varieties are all scarcer than the regular 1823 half with normal numerals. The ‘Broken 3’ coins, though, bring a higher premium than the ‘Patched 3’ or the ‘Ugly 3.’ The ‘Broken 3’ name refers to the fact that the top half of the 3 is mis-aligned with the bottom half and leans to the right. It seems to be disjointed.

The ‘Patched 3’ is characterized by additional metal where the top half and the bottom half meet and elsewhere. The ‘Ugly 3’ is mis-shaped, though not to a startling extent. On the die employed to strike 1823 ‘Ugly 3’ halves, in areas adjacent to the numeral 3,‘ die metal is missing and hot metal from the planchet (prepared blank) flowed into areas about the numeral ‘3’ while each coin was being struck. Improper punching of the numeral ‘3’ into the respective dies may have caused or contributed to all three of these unusual numeral ‘3’ varieties.

In my opinion, one 1823 is sufficient for a set of Capped Bust Half Dollars. Most collectors feel otherwise and find themselves compelled to include four 1823s in their respective sets. Coins with noticeable differences in numerals sometimes attain the status of ‘distinct dates.’ I just do not find the differences among the numeral threes in these cases to be especially important. I suggest that it makes sense for only collectors of die varieties to be concerned about them.

The one in this auction is certainly one of the finest known 1823 ‘Broken 3’ halves. Indeed, Downey says that the “1823 ‘Broken 3’ NGC MS 66 was more interesting” than the NGC graded MS-66 1809 that I already discussed. “It may be tied with the Overton Plate coin for finest known,” Sheridan declares. The “Overton Plate coin” is the 1823 ‘Broken 3’ coin that is pictured in the Overton reference book on die varieties of half dollars.

This 1823 ‘Broken 3’ is NGC certified “MS-66*,” including a star that is awarded by NGC graders to coins that they maintain have superior eye appeal. Furthermore, it is CAC approved. In my view, its grade is in the high end of the MS-66 range. Indeed, it is an especially appealing coin overall. John Albanese exclaims that it is “gorgeous.”

For some reason, the Numismedia retail guide value of $44,380 did not appear on the online listing for this coin on the Heritage website. Though it is strong, I did not find the price realized of $51,750 to be surprising. Albanese did. John states that this “price is very strong.”

If it is possible, then it may be very difficult to find another 1823 ‘Broken 3’ half that truly grades MS-65 or higher. In the minds of many collectors, this issue has the status of a distinct ‘date.’ After all, a numeral in the ‘date’ is different. While I am not convinced that it should have the status of a distinct ‘date,’ I find the ‘Broken 3’ variety to be much more important than the ‘with bars’ variety of 1809 halves that each include a few irregular bar devices on the edge in addition to the typical lettering.

I emphasize that it is not my intention here to cover all the pre-1840 halves in the Platinum Night session of Jan. 4. I selected some that are particularly newsworthy based upon consideration of their rarity, popularity, unusual characteristics, and/or strength of price realized.

©2012 Greg Reynolds

by Ross W. Bailey, From The E-Gobrecht – 2012 Volume 8, Issue 1
The Electronic Newsletter of the LIBERTY SEATED COLLECTORS CLUB

This article distills the lessons gleaned from my ten years of experience as an active buyer and collector of rare coins on eBay. Over that period of time, I’ve made many mistakes, and you, the reader, will benefit from this by hopefully avoiding making these same mistakes. My goal is to help you have a better buying experience on eBay, by buying as many coins as possible that are genuine, original and worth the prices paid. Also, although the target environment is eBay, these strategies can be easily adapted to other auction venues – Heritage, Stack’s-Bowers, etc.

Some Expertise

I am assuming that you know how to use the eBay search facility to locate listings of coins that are of interest, that you know how to track these listings using the “Watch this Item” facility within “My eBay,” that you are familiar with the mechanics of bidding, and that you have at least some rudimentary ability to grade the types of coins that are of interest to you. However, if you need any help with any of these features, contact me thru the E-Gobrecht editor and I will try to help you out.

Terms of Art

One term used to describe a rare coin is that it is “Original.” In U.S. numismatics, “original” means that the coin has not been cleaned, tooled, re engraved or messed with in any way, and that any departure of the coin from its mint state has happened naturally, in the form of circulation wear and toning. Buying a coin that is original and problem free should always be your goal.

Conversely, in European numismatics, and occasionally in the U.S., the term “Original” is used as a synonym for “Authentic.” I always use “original” in the U.S. sense. To convey authenticity, I use either “authentic” or “genuine.” When you come across an eBay listing of a coin that is described as original, it is important to understand which meaning applies. Sometimes, but not always, the seller’s meaning is clear from the context. If it isn’t clear, you can ask him.

Why Original?

Why is it important to stick to original coins when at all possible? Because the rare coin market says they are worth more. They are the only coins that PCGS and NGC will grade and encapsulate
.
All other things being equal, an original coin is simply worth more than one that has been cleaned or has some other problem. PCGS (Professional Coin Grading Service) will encapsulate a coin that is genuine but not original. However, they won’t grade it. NGC will only encapsulate it under their NCS service. ANACS will grade a coin that is not original, and will assign it a “Details” grade.

Getting Started

So let’s assume you have located an eBay listing of a coin that you are interested in. How should you approach it? First, you want to know if the coin is original and problem free. If the coin has been certified by PCGS or NGC, you know it was the grading service’s opinion that the coin is original. That counts for a lot.

If the coin was graded by ANACS (not a details grade), you know that ANACS thought the coin is original. This counts for something, but less than if the coin was graded by PCGS or NGC, as I have seen too many ANACS graded coins that have been cleaned.

But suppose the coin is raw. How do you tell if it is original, assuming the seller says nothing about originality in the item description? Unfortunately, even with a very good photograph under natural light, it is unlikely you will be able to tell if the coin is completely original and problem free. So your first step should be – ask the seller! The way I like to ask the question is as follows: “Has this coin been cleaned or had anything else done to it that would prevent it from being certified by PCGS or NGC?”

I ask the question this way regardless of whether or not I intend to get the coin certified. Note that what you are asking for is an opinion, not a guarantee that the coin will slab. How the seller responds to this question has a very important bearing on whether I will bid on the coin or not. Here are some of the responses I have gotten in the past.

1. I have no idea, I’m not an expert.
2. I didn’t clean it. I don’t know what happened to it before I bought it.
3. It may have been cleaned, I’m not sure.
4. It’s been cleaned. PCGS won’t certify it.
5. It hasn’t been cleaned and doesn’t have any problems. It should certify.

If the seller states point blank that the coin has been cleaned or has some other problem, I move on and look for another coin. You might be surprised how many sellers know about a coin’s problems, won’t mention them in the auction listing, but will cheerfully disclose the problems when asked. If the seller says the coin hasn’t been cleaned and will certify, I make my plans to bid, however I seldom get this response.

You will often get responses #1, #2, or #3 above, because many sellers are not professional numismatists, and simply don’t know what to look for to determine originality. Characteristics of cleaned coins include (1) the coin has a washed out, pasty look; (2) the coin is below AU in grade but is “white”, i.e. has no tone; (3) the coin has odd, unnatural looking tone (also a characteristic of artificial toning); (4) the coin has hairlines, indicating a cleaning. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell from a typical auction listing photograph whether or not a coin has any of these characteristics, which is why it is so important to have a return privilege.

Return Privilege and Photos

In U.S. numismatics, many if not most professional coin dealers offer an unconditional return privilege of from 3 to 30 days when they sell on eBay. (Sometimes, a return is not offered on coins that are certified.) The theory behind the return option is that, even with a photograph, you can’t really tell what a coin looks like until you get it in your hand.

For this reason, when I buy coins on eBay, I usually try to avoid coins where the seller does not offer a return privilege. Only when I am relatively certain about exactly what I am buying (for example the coin is certified), do I depart from this rule.

Having a return privilege is a powerful way to control your risk. When offered, a return option limits your risk to a round trip of shipping expenses. It allows you to bid in situations where you wouldn’t dream of bidding without it.

Have you ever seen a listing of a coin with a photograph that was so bad that it was like having no photograph at all? Your initial reaction might be not to bid, but if a return option is offered, and the coin seems from the description to be just what you are looking for, go ahead and bid. You are likely to win it for a lot less than if it had a good photograph, because a bad photo inhibits other bidders. The converse of this principle is also true. That is, when the coin’s photo is really good, showing all of the detail and the natural color of the coin, then bidding is likely to be very heavy. I sometimes find myself avoiding these listings simply because the bid price gets too high.

As far as the number of days for the return option, even one day is long enough for me in most instances, because I usually know within a few minutes of receiving a coin whether I want it or not. In those instances in which I decide to return a coin, as a courtesy I notify the seller immediately by email of my intent, and I put the coin back in the mail the same day I receive it.

Getting Coins Certified

I get most of the raw coins I buy certified by PCGS, or occasionally by NGC. Although I would like sellers to guarantee that their coins will certify, few sellers are willing to do so. However, if the return period on the coin is 30 days, that is long enough for me to submit the coin to PCGS under the “regular” service, receive it back from PCGS, and, if it doesn’t certify, return it to the seller.

This issue is most important to me when we are talking about very expensive, raw coins. In this case, when the return period stated in the listing is less than 30 days, I try to negotiate with the seller (before I bid) an extension of the return period to 30 days.

Also, I’ve found it best to be completely up front about what I am doing. That is, I tell the seller that I plan to submit the coin for certification, and return it if it doesn’t certify. I also tell the seller that my return is contingent on the coin grading or not grading, not on the numerical grade that PCGS assigns.

In other words, if PCGS grades it, I keep it, regardless of whether it comes back, for example, a VF35 or an XF40. I do this because I feel that the major risk is of the coin not grading at all, much more than the risk of getting a grade other than what I expected. I find that sellers are more apt to go along with me if the contingency is constructed this way.

Besides cleaning, there are other things that will prevent PCGS from grading a coin, for example artificial toning, rim bruises, scratches or any other type of damage. These problems are usually obvious from a decent photo, unless they are very minor. And if they are very minor, PCGS may go ahead and grade the coin.

Other problems include re-engraving (where someone tried to reestablish detail that had been lost from circulation wear), and tooling, usually performed in an attempt to “fix” a scratch or other problem. These latter two problems I find very difficult to identify. But fortunately, my experience has been that they don’t occur all that often.

Bidding – the Hidden Reserve

One of the more irritating things that sellers do is to place a secret reserve on a coin’s listing, with the opening bid some lower amount. Instead of a reserve of $500, you would think that they could simply make $500 the opening bid amount. The theory is that allowing bidders to bid below the reserve stimulates bidding activity. My suspicion is that just the reverse is true, that is, I believe that hidden reserves tend to inhibit bidding.

There is however a simple solution, which can actually turn this situation to your advantage. That is to simply ask the seller what the reserve amount is. My experience is that 80% to 90% of the time, sellers will respond to an email by disclosing the reserve amount. This is particularly true if the listing has run for a while with little or no bidding.

Once armed with the reserve amount, you can plan your bidding strategy. If the reserve amount seems to be reasonable, you can bid it. If it seems to be too high, you can plan to let the listing end, and then, if no one has won the coin, you can make the seller an offer at some price below the reserve amount.

In the latter situation, I will typically make the offer (using “Ask the Seller a Question”) a few minutes before the listing ends, due to the fact that eBay makes it difficult to contact the seller for an expired listing. If the seller likes your offer, it is simple enough for him to re list the coin with a “Buy it Now” at your price.

Bidding – to Snipe or not to Snipe

There are at least three schools of thought when it comes to bidding strategy.

The first is a “one-bid” strategy, and it is to bid as early as possible with the absolute highest amount you are willing to bid for the coin, and then to sit back and wait for the auction to end.

The second strategy is to bid early and low, then if you are outbid, bid a little more, and if you are outbid again, bid a little more, etc., etc. I find this to be a common strategy with novice bidders (i.e. low feedback score).

The third, also a one-bid strategy, is to bid the highest amount you are willing to go a few seconds before the listing ends. This strategy is referred to as “Sniping.” After ten years of experience, I can state unequivocally that sniping is the best strategy, because it affords you the maximum chance to win the coin, and at the lowest possible price.

The key aspect of sniping is that because your bid is made with only a few seconds left on the listing, nobody has a chance to bid in reaction to your bid. Thus sniping protects you against bidders employing bidding strategy number two. If you bid at any time other than a few seconds before the auction ends, bidder number two will see your bid and decide he can go a little higher, which can only have two possible results, both of them negative. Either you will be outbid, or else you will not be outbid, but will end up paying a higher price for the coin.

Conversely, sniping prevents bidder number two from reacting to you because he has no time in which to do it. Sniping also protects you against some of the bidders employing strategy number one. That bidder thought he was bidding his highest possible bid, and expected his bid to prevail. When he sees your bid, however, he decides he can go a little higher. Again, the key to sniping is that it prevents anyone from reacting to your bid by bidding again.

Bidding -

What Price to Offer or How High to Bid There is no hard and fast rule about how high to bid or offer for a rare coin. Part of the answer is very personal (How badly do you want it?). But even if you desperately want a particular coin for your collection, and you are willing to pay some premium, you still want to know that you haven’t paid substantially too much.

For U.S. coins, there are retail pricing guides that provide some guidance. These include the Red Book, PCGS Price Guide, and Numismedia. The only price guide I am aware of for World coins is Krause, but I find Krause’s prices to be out-of-date most of the time and therefore of limited use.

For U.S. coins there is a good bidding strategy that relies on the pricing guides. This is to use the guides to determine what a coin is worth, and then bid 10 to 20 percent above this value. You can feel better about this strategy if you try to limit it to coins which you feel for some reason (e.g. outstanding toning, pedigree) are worth a premium over retail.

The reason this strategy works is that there are a substantial number of bidders out there who adhere to the price guides pretty strictly, and won’t bid above them. So by going 10 to 20 percent above the retail price, you eliminate a lot of the bidding competition.

You will notice that I refer to retail pricing guides and have not mentioned wholesale guides like Greysheet. My experience has been that most bidders use retail guides, and not wholesale guides, to base their bidding strategy. Consequently, if you base your bidding on Greysheet, you will likely be outbid most of the time.

For gauging how high to bid for world coins, I am afraid there is no substitute for experience. I rely on Krause not to decide how much to bid but to establish a ballpark or an order of magnitude, i.e. is this a $300 coin or a $3,000 coin. To decide how much to bid on Russian rubles, I rely on my years of experience, and auction records. I also rely on one dealer and three or four other collectors for advice, all of whom know much more about rubles than I do.

Avoiding Counterfeit Coins

Although there is no absolutely foolproof way of avoiding bogus coins, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself. First, in the case of coins sold within the U.S., the Hobby Protection Act requires any non-genuine coin to be stamped “Copy” on either the obverse or reverse. In my ten years of collecting and bidding on eBay, I have only been stuck with one counterfeit U.S. coin that I know of, a bust dollar, and I didn’t know it was counterfeit for five years after I bought it. When it came time for me to sell it, ANACS gave me the bad news.

Since I had bought the coin from a reputable U.S. dealer, and since virtually all reputable U.S. dealers offer a lifetime guarantee of authenticity, I was able to recoup my purchase price from the dealer from whom I bought it. However, I lost all of the profit from the increase in price that the coin would have generated had it been genuine, which was thousands of dollars.

The key to avoiding most counterfeits is to always consider the source. Thus, there is a dealer from China selling Russian rubles (which I collect). He has recently listed five 18th century rubles, all of them rare issues worth thousands, each with an opening bid price of $49.95, each offered with no reserve. Red flag? Of course, this is an easy one. Think to yourself, “where could he have gotten them?”

There is no good answer. Even without the knowledge that there is a flood of well made counterfeit coins emanating from China, this is an easy one to detect. I’ve gotten to the point that I simply will not bid on any coins listed by sellers located in China. It simply isn’t worth the risk. Thus my key for avoiding counterfeits is to try to avoid high-risk sellers. This is because I don’t have the skill to detect a well made counterfeit coin after I have it in hand. That’s the job of the grading services. I know you can weigh it and do other things, but I prefer to rely on a strategy that keeps you from buying likely counterfeits (consider the source), rather than a strategy that detects counterfeits after you have already purchased them.

Despite the strategy of “consider the source,” there may come a time that you purchase a coin whose authenticity is in question. This happened to me a couple of years ago when I purchased a ruble for about $900 from a seller in Romania. I should have simply not bid on the coin because I was somewhat suspicious concerning authenticity, but it was a date I really wanted, so I bid anyway, and won the coin.

However, before I bid I contacted the seller and told him that if I won the coin, I would be submitting it to PCGS and would be returning it if it turned out to be a fake, and without his agreement to accept these terms I would not bid. Of course the seller assured me that the coin was genuine (based on what?). PCGS however, ruled the coin was counterfeit, so I returned it, and thus limited my loss to two round trips of shipping expenses – not a small amount, but nowhere near $900.

Then there is the seller in Germany selling on the German eBay web site, www.ebay.de. He sells rubles which he claims he found in his garage, so he knows nothing about them and therefore cannot guarantee their authenticity. What a story!

Of course I believe he knows darn well his coins are bogus, and tries to prey on buyers who will buy his coins in the hopes that they are genuine. It is a cardinal rule that I will not bid on or buy a coin from a seller who will not guarantee authenticity.

Negotiating the Price

Whenever a seller lists a coin that I want with an opening bid amount or a reserve that is substantially above the market price, I see an opportunity for negotiation. When I see this situation, I expect the coin not to sell during the auction process. Some-times I will wait until the listing has almost run out of time (See Bidding – the Hidden Reserve above), or sometimes I will send an immediate email to the seller, which states “If this coin does not sell, I would like to offer X for it”.

Both the substance of my lowball offer, and the fact that the offer is made early in the listing sends a message to the seller, without stating it explicitly, that I consider his Opening bid price/Reserve price/Buy-it-now price to be way too high for the market, and that he shouldn’t expect to realize much more than I am offering. Of course someone may still bid and make me look a little silly, but more often than not no one bids, and the negotiation begins.

In this situation, you should never be afraid to make a lowball offer for fear of insulting the seller. And it is this initial offer that is critical to a successful negotiation. Likewise, the seller’s initial response to your offer will tell you pretty clearly if you have gauged the situation correctly, and whether or not the negotiation is going anywhere. If the seller responds with a counter-offer that is only a token amount below his initial price, then either he has not given up on getting a huge profit, or else he paid way too much for the coin himself, and is now stuck. (There is a third possibility, namely that you do not have as firm a grip on the market as you had thought.) Whatever, the negotiation is now over.

If on the other hand, the seller counters with a price that is substantially below his initial price, you have basically won the negotiation. It is now only a matter of either accepting the counter offer, or countering yourself to try to get the price even lower. I just completed a negotiation for a ruble being offered by a seller in Luxembourg for a buy-it-now price of $650. My sense was that this coin was worth somewhere in the $300-$400 range, so I made an offer of $325, exactly half of asking price. The seller countered $440, I countered $350, the seller countered $415, I countered $375 (my last offer, since eBay for some curious reason will not allow you to make more than three offers), the seller countered $390, and I accepted. That’s 40% below the initial buy-it now price.

by Louis Golino for CoinWeek

Late last year the 25th anniversary American silver eagle sets that were released at the end of November dominated the modern U.S. coin market.

There was literally a frenzy of interest in these sets. Thousands of opened, unopened, and graded sets traded on e-Bay and elsewhere, and for a while prices were rising almost daily, as is the usual pattern following the sell-out of a hot Mint item.

Interest in the sets remains high, and many were bought and sold at the recent FUN show held in early January in Florida, but the frenzy seems to have cooled a little bit, as collectors turn to other issues and prices begin to stabilize.

Price performance

Graded sets, especially those with a perfect MS/PF-70 grade for each of the five coins in the set, have been eagerly sought by collectors. But as I suggested would happen last fall, prices for 70 sets have fallen dramatically from what they were bringing when the sets were first released.

Raw sets have been bringing approximately $750, but many retail coin dealers charge $850-$1,000. I have noticed that many sell out quickly of their stock of sets.

Sets graded MS/PF-69 are now trading at the same levels, or just above, what raw sets bring. Not long ago they sold for a premium of a couple hundred dollars over a raw set.

Prices for 70 sets vary quite a bit. NGC sets sell for $1100-1300 on e-Bay, while PCGS sets are bringing $1400-1500 typically.

With all the sets being graded it will be interesting to see how many fresh, original raw sets remain in several years.

Prices for the 2006 20th anniversary sets recently saw a nice bump. I suspect this is because newer collectors who bought the 25th anniversary sets found out about the earlier sets and decided to get them too.

With more buyers and the same supply of sets (250,000 total but with no estimates of how many raw sets remain), prices went higher. Raw sets are now fetching close to $500, whereas before the release of the 25th anniversary sets they could be had for $400 or less.

I predict that unopened 25th anniversary sets, which are eligible for submission to the grading services, will be remain a hot commodity, and prices for them may eventually reach almost the same level as 70 sets. An unopened box of five sets recently sold for $4600, or $920 per set.

The Mint and grading companies

Meanwhile, tempers remain flared among many collectors, especially towards the Mint, but also to a lesser degree towards the leading third party grading companies, especially because of their requirement to ship the entire unopened box and then pay a special fee to have it returned.

Because so many sets are getting 70 designations values for 70 sets and singles have dropped significantly from initial levels.

On the other hand, since we can not check the quality of unopened sets prior to submission to the grading companies, it is a real gamble to submit them in hopes of getting the top grade. If one receives 69′s or less, it is hardly worth the considerable expense and trouble of sending them in.

Another important point is that the percentage of sets that have been graded 70 by NGC vastly exceeds those graded 70 by PCGS even though retail prices are not always different for the two.* For example, at Modern Coin Mart (http://www.moderncoinmart.com) the NGC and PCGS sets both sell for $1450. Eventually, prices for PCGS 70 sets should be much higher than NGC sets.

The U.S. Mint continues to be the subject of almost constant criticism from collectors who were unable to order a set from the Mint, or who did, but who feel the Mint botched the release of these sets.

There is a broad consensus that a household limit of five was too high for a set that appealed to so many collectors. Views are more diverse on whether more sets should have been made. But I think we should also give the Mint credit for producing a beautiful set that should perform well in the coming years.

2012-S

A major development that emerged from the recently released U.S. Mint Annual Report for 2011 is that the Mint is considering releasing another San Francisco burnished coin, a 2012-S eagle. The report says the Mint officials look forward to expanding the burnished eagle “S” series this year.

Some collectors were upset by this news because it means only one coin, the 2011 reverse proof, is now unique to this set. Moreover, if there are more “S” mint coins, and since there was a reverse proof in 2006, no coin in the set would be totally unique.

But first of all, it is not a done deal that the Mint will issue more “S”mint eagles. And second, what really matters is the mintage levels rather than the uniqueness of coins, at least in my view.

Since the mintage of the 2011-S remains at 100K it will still be the lowest mintage non-proof silver eagle issued. Unless the Mint issues something later with a lower mintage, this coin will remain a major key.

I would recommend holding on to any sets you own for the long haul if you can, and don’t worry if they start an S mint series. If there is a 2012-S, it will undoubtedly sell several hundred thousand. Besides, who knows what they will do for the 30th anniversary, though I doubt it will have a mintage lower than 100K after all the flack about the 25th anniversary sets.

One key factor that should help support higher prices for the 25th anniversary sets is the fact that so few people own the entire mintage. The Mint has indicated that the average order was for 3.7 sets. Factors in the dealers and e-Bay entrepreneurs who managed to get far more than 3.7 sets, and this means that something like 20,000, or more likely even fewer people, own all 100,000 sets.

A significant number of them appear to be owned by collectors who plan to hold on to their sets for the long haul, even if they bought multiples, and an ever-expanding number of silver eagle collectors, should mean higher price levels in the coming years.

Finally, there is the issue of possible new varieties and error coins from this set, which I will address in a separate article soon.

*To illustrate the point I examined the population information on the PCGS and NGC web sites for two of the coins in the 25th anniversary sets. At NGC 72% of the 2011-W coins received MS-70, whereas at PCGS only 54% were given the top grade. For the 2011 bullion coin, the NGC number was 70%, and the PCGS figure was 52%. The figures vary from coin to coin in the set, but the pattern is there. It is clear that PCGS gave out the top grade much less often than NGC.

Louis Golino is a coin collector and numismatic writer, whose articles on coins have appeared in Coin World, Numismatic News, and a number of different coin web sites. His column for CoinWeek, “The Coin Analyst,” covers U.S. and world coins and precious metals. He collects U.S. and European coins and is a member of the ANA, PCGS, NGC, and CAC. He has also worked for the U.S. Library of Congress and has been a syndicated columnist and news analyst on international affairs for a wide variety of newspapers and web sites.

News and Analysis on scarce coins, markets, and the collecting community #91

A Weekly CoinWeek Column by Greg Reynolds

At the FUN Convention in Orlando, Heritage auctioned around $55 million worth of coins. In addition to a special section devoted to Dr. Duckor’s Saint Gaudens Double Eagles, lead offerings were organized in two Platinum Night sessions, gold coins on Thursday, Jan. 5 and U.S. coins of copper, nickel and silver on Wed., Jan. 4. I have already devoted columns to each of the two coins that sold for $1.38 million, the Eliasberg-Atwater-Jung 1793 Chain Cent and the Garrett-Jacobson 1829 ‘Large Date’ Half Eagle. (As usual, clickable links are in blue.) The topic here is quarters that were offered in the Jan. 4th Platinum Night session. A variety of rarities sold.

Yes, I realize that this auction will not be forever remembered as a landmark offering of quarters. Nevertheless, some of the quarters included are terrific and others are fair examples of relatively expensive quarters that are found in the marketplace. Several of the quarters that I discuss are rarities in absolute terms and almost all are condition rarities.

Quarters are extremely popular among coin collectors and learning about relatively expensive quarters often results in a greater understanding of the quarters that thousands of collectors can afford to buy. Indeed, more than 400,000 people collect U.S. quarter dollars. I trust that many are interested in reading about rarities that they will never buy and may never even have a chance to see. When I was collecting Barber Quarters, I enjoyed reading about Draped Bust and Capped Bust Quarters.

Unfortunately, I just did not have time to view and research all the important coins in an auction that totaled $55 million! I apologize for omitting Standing Liberty Quarters. Draped Bust, Capped Bust, Liberty Seated and Barber Quarters in the first Platinum Night session are covered herein.

I. 1796 Quarters

Quarters featured a Draped Bust obverse (front) design and a so-called ‘Small Eagle’ reverse (back) design in 1796 only. These are among the most famous and popular of all U.S. coins. There were three 1796 quarters in this Platinum Night session. The best of which was one of the stars of the whole auction.

It is one of only five 1796 quarters that is PCGS graded “MS-64.” Like many 1796 quarters, it is semi-prooflike, with appealing reflective surfaces. The natural, mild gray-blue toning is attractive. The devices are lighter in color than the fields and are soothing. The obverse (front of the coin) is sharply struck for a 1796 quarter.

This coin is attractive to very attractive overall and has minimal abrasions. Its grade, in my view, is in the middle to high end of the 64 range. I doubt that any experts were surprised that this coin has a sticker of approval from the CAC.

John Albanese declares that it is a “beautiful, original prooflike coin.” John is the founder and president of the CAC.

Laura Sperber was the successful bidder for this coin, which realized $253,000. Albanese finds this to be “a very strong” price. In my view, it is very strong to extremely strong.

“Given the present market, $253,000 is perfectly acceptable,” David McCarthy suggests. “This the best 1796 quarter that I have seen in two years or more,” McCarthy asserts. David is the senior associate at the Kagin’s firm.

John Brush is even less surprised by the result than is McCarthy and is even more enthusiastic about the coin than I am. “A gorgeous piece that is very high end for the grade,” declares Brush, “arguably the nicest PCGS MS-64 [1796 quarter] you would be able to find. The auction price should not be such a surprise as the coin was truly a monster,” Brush exclaims. He is vice president of David Lawrence Rare Coins.

For a “MS-64” 1796 quarter, the Numismedia.com guide value of “$143,000” may be a little low. I really expected this coin to sell for an amount between $190,000 and $215,000.

In terms of price guides, the PCGS graded “MS-63” 1796 would seem to have brought a weak price in this sale. Experts who carefully examined this coin, however, would not regard the $97,750 price as weak. It is not an impressive coin.

David McCarthy states that “the color on the coin looked unusual. This coin didn’t look desirable to me.” I also had a negative reaction to this coin’s color. I certainly did not grade it as “MS-63.” For this specific coin, the $97,750 price is very strong.

The third 1796 quarter is not gradable. There are many other non-gradable 1796 quarters that I find to be more desirable than this one. The surfaces on this coin are upsetting. It was authenticated and encapsulated by experts at the NGC who determined that it has been “repaired” and “whizzed.” Furthermore, I detected other issues. It is said to have the “details” of a “Very Fine” grade 1796 quarter. The price realized of $14,950 was moderately strong, as it is not unusual for a Very Fine “details” coin to bring a price commensurate with a Good-06 to Very Good-08 coin that is gradable.

McCarthy’s interpretation is different from my own. He finds that this not gradable 1796 quarter is “not that bad” and that “$14,950 is reasonable. [This 1796 quarter has] a lot of detail, though it clearly had some work done, [including that] the drapery was re-engraved. It is okay for what it is,” David finds. “It has the details of a VF-35 or better. There is a lot of meat and detail for under twenty grand on a 1796 quarter. We are penalizing ‘problem coins’ a lot more now than was done in the past,” McCarthy adds.

It is true that a problem-free Very Fine-35 grade 1796 quarter would have a retail value above $40,000. Someone might be very happy paying $14,950 for this one.

II. 1804 Quarters

Quarters dating from 1804 to 1807 have a Draped Bust obverse (front) along with a Heraldic Eagle reverse (back) design, which is sometimes called the ‘Large Eagle’ design. Though not nearly as famous or nearly as rare as 1804 dollars, and of a different species, 1804 quarters are rare and famous. Indeed, 1804 quarters are strongly desired by collectors.

Three 1804 quarters were offered in the first Platinum Night session. The first is NGC graded ‘Very Fine-30.’ I did not spend a lot of time viewing this coin, just a few seconds. It is probably okay. The price realized of $14,950 is fair to strong.

The second is NGC graded “AU-50.” It did not sell. A bid of around $40,000 would have been required to buy it. While in terms of price guides or past auction records, $40,000 might seem to be a low level for this coin, experts who have seen the coin might figure that this coin is not even worth $40,000. It has ‘issues,’ in my view.

The third 1804 quarter is one of the stars of this auction. The Pittman 1804 is especially famous and important. John J. Pittman formed an epic collection, which was auctioned by the firm of David Akers from 1997 to 1999. In 2012, the Pittman 1804 sold for $149,500, which John Albanese regards as a “very strong” price.

The Pittman 1804 is attractive plus and its toning is definitely natural. Furthermore, this quarter has very few contact marks. If it did not exhibit some moderate friction on the highpoints, it would grade MS-63 or MS-64.

The Pittman 1804“was one of the coins that I liked best in the sale,” McCarthy remarks. “That coin was original and charming. I was [bidding] more than $125,000 for it. I was not surprised that it brought what it brought. You just do not see coins that look like this very often,” David exclaims.

III. ‘Large’ Capped Bust Quarters

Capped Bust Quarters, with the Latin phrase ‘E. Pluribus Unum’ on the reverse, were struck from 1815 until 1828. This phrase is not easy to translate. I suggest ‘From Many Emerged One,’ and that it was a tribute to the independence, unification and growth of the United States. The first type of Capped Bust Quarters was struck from 1815 to 1828, and this type is often referred to as ‘Large Size’ or as ‘Large Diameter.’

In this Platinum Night session, there were two 1818 quarters with normal numerals. The Eliasberg 1818/5 overdate quarter was in this auction as well. It did not sell because the reserve was unreasonable. The Eliasberg 1818/5 is an excellent coin.

The first 1818, with normal numerals, is NGC graded “MS-65.” This is a coin issue for which PCGS certified and/or CAC approved coins tend to be worth considerably more than NGC graded coins without CAC stickers. Even so, I really like this specific coin.

I have seen this coin at least four times in four different years, assuming that the pedigree listing by the Heritage cataloguer is accurate. Unfortunately, I do not have immediate access to my copy of the catalogue for ANR’s auction of Oliver Jung’s type set on July 23, 2004. In any event, I do remember seeing this exact same coin in August 2011, shortly before Heritage auctioned it for $14,950 in Chicago. I liked it a lot then, too. It is a very attractive coin.

Light hairlines are present on the surfaces, though are hard to see. One short medium abrasion is not a really big deal, though it is a little annoying. All the imperfections are consistent with a 65 grade.

The toning on this NGC graded MS-65 1818 is natural and is very appealing. The gray inner fields are nicely balanced by green outer fields. Patches of orange-russet and touches of blue blend in well. If this coin was ever dipped, it was many decades ago.

At $16,100, this coin realized more than other NGC graded “MS-65” 1818 quarters in past auctions. A year ago, Heritage auctioned a different one for $15,525.

The next lot sold on Jan. 4, 2012 was a PCGS graded “MS-65“ 1818 with a CAC sticker. It brought $33,350, a very strong price.

This PCGS graded 1818 may have the surface quality of a 66 grade quarter. It is not quite very attractive and certainly does not have the eye appeal that most experts would associate with a 66 grade Capped Bust Quarter. I would hope that it does not upgrade, though my guess is that s few serious bidders were probably thinking that it might upgrade.

The greenish tones are appealing as is the underlying luster. This PCGS graded 1818 brought more than the PCGS retail guide value of $32,000 and more than relevant auction prices in the near past. It is (or was) in a pre-1990 PCGS holder and may be fresh. A coin is ‘fresh’ if it has not been publicly offered, notably in the mainstream of the coin business, for more than five years.

The 1820 quarter in this sale is noteworthy. It is PCGS graded “MS-65” and has a CAC sticker. Further, it is one of the highest certified 1820 ‘Large 0’ quarters. The zero is literally large and this variety tends to have the status of a distinct ‘date.’

This 1820 quarter did not sell. There were no bids above $37,375, so the reserve was effectively at least this high. The corresponding value in the PCGS price guide is $35,000. The NGC Coin Explorer values a “MS-65” grade 1820, with a ‘Small 0’ or a ‘Large 0,’ at $34,380. Was the reserve for this coin unreasonable?

“I really like the coin a lot,” John Albanese says. “I know it was dipped, but it was a really nice coin. The reserve just a little too high,” John adds.

Although I am a strong supporter of the CAC and I usually agree with Albanese, I feel compelled to dissent in this case. This coin has a few significant hairlines here and there, which I find to be annoying. More importantly, this coin was substantially dipped (immersed in an acidic solution) not long ago and has a very awkward appearance. While it merits a MS-65 grade in terms of the grading criteria employed by the PCGS or the NGC, I really do not like it. Please see my three part series on appreciating naturally toned coins (part 1; part 3). This 1820 may become more desirable after it naturally retones to a considerable extent.

The 1821 quarter in this auction is not fresh, though it is an appealing, naturally toned coin. I have seen it in two or three previous auctions, in recent years. While it is NGC graded “MS-67,” my guess is that experts at the PCGS would not grade it as MS-67, and I doubt that the CAC would approve it. Even so, it is a pristine gem coin and a very important ‘Large Size’ Capped Bust Quarter.

The NGC Coin Explorer and Numismedia.com value an 1821 at “$89,380” in “MS-67” grade and at “46,150” in MS-66 grade. This coin sold for $40,250 at this auction.

While $40,250 may seem to be a weak price to a collector who followed the auction from home, the result is not weak and makes sense, in my view. Despite the fact that the holder indicates a “MS-67” grade, this coin really grades “MS-66” and the auction result is in accordance with the underlying reality. If it were certified as grading “MS-66,” I would be enthusiastic about the coin and its holder.

Matt Kleinsteuber asserts that this 1821 is “a gorgeous, original type coin and a wholesome value.” Matt is the lead grader and trader for NFC coins. I agree that this coin scores extremely high in the category of originality and is an excellent value at $40,250.

IV. ‘Smaller’ Capped Bust Quarters

I prefer not to refer to the second type of Capped Bust Quarters as being ‘small.’ The diameter was just slightly reduced to approximately the diameter of currently produced quarters. From 1831 to 1838, quarters feature a noticeably different Capped Bust obverse design and a reverse design that does NOT include this Latin phrase, E. Pluribus Unum, which is sometimes called a ‘motto.’ Clearly, the quarters of 1821 to 1828 and those of 1831 to 1838 are two different design types.

The 1831 quarter in this auction is PCGS graded MS-65 and has a CAC sticker. Albanese remembers this coin. “It has been dipped. If you like bright Washington Quarters, you would like this coin, a blazer. This is a good choice for someone insisting on bright white coins,” John points out. In my opinion, it looks awkward.

It certainly brought a strong price, $25,300. This exact same coin realized $24,150 at the Heritage Platinum Night event during the Summer 2008 ANA Convention, when markets for rare U.S. coins, in general, peaked. Since 2009, there has been increased interest in rare gold coins and demand for many rare silver coins has lagged. The fact that this coin realized a higher price in 2012 than it did at the peak of a long and tremendous boom in rare coin markets is curious.

The next coin, an 1838 Capped Bust Quarter, was auctioned twice in 2006, for $13,800 and $19,500 respectively, according to Heritage cataloguers. It sold for $32,200 on Jan. 4, 2012, which is a very strong price.

Like the 1831 in this auction, the 1838 quarter is PCGS graded MS-65 and has a CAC sticker. I am much fonder of the 1838 than of the 1831. In my view, this 1838 is attractive to very attractive, is technically strong with minimal abrasions, and has pleasantly, naturally toned. Its grade is in the middle of the 65 range.

John Albanese declares that the 1838 is a “very tough date in gem. This is one of the better 1838 quarters that I have ever seen. [It is] ten times rarer than an 1831 in MS-65 and higher grades,” Albanese notes.

V. Liberty Seated Quarters

Liberty Seated Quarters were minted from 1838 to 1891. There are a few subtypes. There were six Liberty Seated Quarters in this Platinum Night session. In contrast, there were eleven Liberty Seated Dimes and more than twenty Liberty Seated Half Dollars in this auction session.

The 1843-O quarter in this session is newsworthy because it features a ‘Large O’ mintmark. The ‘O’ for New Orleans is much larger on a small percentage of 1843-O quarters. Some collectors are willing to pay a substantial premium for a large ‘O.’ In the minds of most collectors, however, the ‘Large O’ variety does not have the status of a distinct date. The 1854 ‘Huge O’ issue is much different, as the ‘Huge O’ was hand engraved rather than punched into the die. Generally, mintmarks were punched into dies.

A PCGS graded “AU-53” 1843-O with a regular ‘O’ would be worth less than $1500. This coin sold for $8,050!

This is an extremely strong price. The $8050 result seems to include more than a $6500 premium for a variety that is not widely discussed and is ignored by most collectors of Liberty Seated Quarters. It is unlikely that anyone honed in on this specific coin for other reasons. It does not have great surfaces. Is the $8050 result an auction record for a circulated 1843-O quarter?

The 1853 Arrows & Rays quarter that is PCGS certified “Proof-63” really requires a separate discussion. It sold for $39,750, an amount that is higher than I expected it to bring.

The 1854 quarter in this sale is, indisputably, a Proof, though it is just not an exciting coin. It is PCGS certified ‘Proof-64.’

McCarthy refers to it as “a reasonably attractive coin.” I thought that it just barely makes a 64 grade, perhaps it merits a grade of 64.2. The $13,800 result was unsurprising.

I did not take the time to closely inspect the 1858 that is NGC certified ‘Proof-66’ and has a CAC sticker. John Albanese regards the $12,650 result as a fair market price.

There were two 1859-S quarters in this auction, each of which is PCGS graded “AU-50.” The 1859-S is one of the key dates in the series of Liberty Seated Quarters, especially of the ‘No Motto’ type.

The first 1859-S is vastly superior to the second. The first did not sell. My impression is that a bid of at least $18,400 (=$16,000+15%) would have been required to acquire it. The second sold for $16,100, an extremely strong price, given the nature of this specific coin. It would have made more sense, in my view, to pay $18,400 or a little more for the first rather than $16,100 for the second 1859-S.

VI. Barber Quarters

This auction contained a small, though important, group of condition rarities of better-date Barber Quarters. An 1896-O is PCGS graded ‘MS-66’ and has a CAC sticker. It brought $17,250, less than the $20,700 that the Eliasberg-Duckor 1896-O realized on July 31, 2009 in Los Angeles. If my memory serves fairly, the Eliasberg-Duckor 1896-O is a much better coin. The consignor was lucky that this 1896-O realized $17,250.

John Brush disagrees and he is very enthusiastic about this 1896-O. “Only two CAC [approved MS-66 1896-O quarters] are known with one MS-67 higher,” Brush emphasizes. “We [at DLRC] were an underbidder on this coin and thought it was extremely nice. The date is under-rated compared to other pieces as they just don’t come available in auction or privately. We thought that this coin sold reasonably for the quality that it represented,” Brush maintains.

In contrast, Albanese regards the $17,250 result as a fair market price, neither strong nor weak. It is a greater amount than I expected this 1896-O to bring.

The 1896-S is scarcer than the 1896-O. Indeed, the 1896-S is one of the three key dates in the series of Barber Quarters. The 1896-S in this sale is one of nine that is PCGS graded MS-65 and it is one of only two CAC approved MS-65 grade 1896-S quarters.

This 1896-S brought $47,437.50. Albanese reports that the CAC bid or would have bid around “$46,000” for this coin. Brush likewise reveals that DLRC was “an underbidder on this piece and thought that the coin was quite nice. We think that gem Barbers are great coins, especially with the CAC sticker,” Brush states.

As for the 1900-O in this auction, I disagree with the certified “MS-67” grade. The $15,525 result is very strong for this specific coin. If it were a more impressive coin, it would have sold for much more.

My favorite Barber Quarter in this auction is the 1905-O. It is PCGS graded MS-66 and is CAC approved. It is very attractive plus, with really neat natural toning. Indeed, the colorful appearance of the reverse is terrific.

John Brush reveals that DLRC “bought this” 1905-O. “With only four certified by CAC in this grade, and none higher, this date seems to be a good value in the series and we were excited to actually win this item. We have not tried to place the coin, but we like buying O-mint Barber Quarters in near finest known grades in the series, especially with CAC stickers,” Brush explains.

Also, Brush asserts that the “overall attractiveness” this 1905-O quarter is “not evident online.” I very much agree. Connoisseurs of Barber coinage would really enjoy tilting this coin under a light. It is enticing. The $8625 price is weak.

Brush and Kleinsteuber both like the 1906-O that is NGC graded “MS-68.” It sold for $14,950. “The coin was nicely original and in hindsight, I wish we had bid more on the piece,” Brush says. Matt Kleinsteuber emphasizes the aesthetic characteristics of this coin, “absolute pristine surfaces, [with] amazing hues of green and russet-red, a wonderful coin.”

I, too, very much like the toning on this 1906-O. In my view, however, its grade is just MS-67. The $14,950 result is moderate to strong.

The 1913-S is scarcer than the 1896-S. The 1901-S, the 1913-S and the 1896-S are the three keys to the series of Barber Quarters.

The 1913-S in this sale is exemplary. It is very attractive, with mellow natural toning. Further, it has minimal abrasions. The price realized of $25,300 is almost strong.

I did not see the Proof 1915 quarter in this first Platinum Night session. It is PCGS certified ‘Proof-67 Cameo’ and CAC approved. Matt clearly remembers it, “monster color, just beautiful!” This 1915 went for $16,100, a very strong price.

The assortment of scarce and rare classic quarters in this auction is memorable. I enjoyed viewing and writing about them. Next, I will cover half dollars that sold in this Platinum Night session.

©2012 Greg Reynolds

by Louis Golino for CoinWeek

This article discusses world coins from 2011 that I believe are the best of the year either because they are significant and interesting issues, or because I think they will appreciate in value over time.

It includes numismatic releases and collectible bullion coins with limited mintages. All were issued last year, but some are dated 2012. Australia and some other countries put the following year on coins issued during the last quarter.

Almost all are silver coins, and the lunar dragon releases dominate this survey because they largely dominated the modern world coin scene in the past year.

The selection of coins is also based on in part on the past price performance of similar coins, or coins in the same series. Past performance with coins, as with stocks or anything else, is no guarantee of future performance.

These kind of coins are purchased primarily because the buyer likes the design, or the coin has some other personal significance or resonance for them.

But many also have solid worldwide demand and very low mintages and therefore may increase in value separate from their metal content.

1.) Year of the Dragon releases: Perth Mint coins

The number and variety of dragon-themed 2012 coins is remarkable. It is the “largest annual coin program on the planet” as explained in an excellent recent survey that appeared in Numismaster .

The coins were issued by many countries, particularly in Asia and a number of Commonwealth countries, to mark the 12th and most popular sign of the Chinese Lunar calendar, the dragon. The Chinese Lunar season begins in February.

These various dragon coins have been so popular worldwide that bullion producers have even released a number of dragon-themed silver and gold bars and rounds to cash in on “dragon-mania”.

The coins issued by the Perth Mint in Western Australia have attracted the most interest of all the 2012 dragon coins because of a combination of attractive designs, low mintages, and Perth’s reputation for excellence.

The limited edition sets of proof silver dragons, the dragon lunar type set, and the rectangular colored dragon set elicited the most interest. These sets sold out in hours between September and December 2011.

Prices have moderated after peaking following the sell-outs, as almost always happens with limited issue modern coins – American and foreign.

But they still sell for substantial premiums over issue price, and as those sets change hands from speculators to collectors, prices should eventually go even higher given the limited supply.

American collectors tend to focus so intensely on U.S. coins that I think we can lose sight of what appeals to people in other countries.

Foreign collectors, as John Winkelmann of Talisman Coins explained in my interview with him last year, are much more interested in world coins than Americans are, although the number of world collectors in the U.S. is growing.

Jeff Garrett recently wrote a commentary for NGC in which he predicted that world coins will become more popular and more valuable this year.

The U.S. market for Perth Mint coins is strong. Just be careful to shop around and study e-Bay closing prices over time to get a sense of the real value of an item before purchasing it for an inflated retail price.

For example, a couple months ago I was able to purchase a gilded Perth dragon issued in 2000 and graded MS-69 by NGC (with a very low population) for less than $200 even though the same coin retails for $500 at several major dealers.

The 2012 one ounce silver bullion dragon, limited to 300,000, currently sells for about $90-100. If one looks at the performance of earlier Perth dragon releases from 2000, I think the 2012 bullion coin is worth purchasing.

In addition, the one ounce gold bullion dragon, limited to 30,000 pieces, which sells for about a $300 premium over the gold price also has good long-term potential. There are smaller gold dragons in the same design as well as two ounce and larger coins.

The 2 ounce silver proof Dragon, which was only released as part of a 1,000-edition set, is my favorite coin from the vast Perth 2012 dragon line-up. It is a truly scarce coin with sold demand. It is a larger diameter than most two ounce coins.

Once in a while an NGC-slabbed example is offered on e-Bay, but this does not happen often, and I know of only one U.S. dealer who has carried this coin; John Maben’s Modern Coin Mart.

2.) Other dragon releases

In addition, there are some beautiful and very low mintage dragon issues from other countries. Rather than list them all, I will highlight a couple that readers may not be aware of and which I find to be interesting coins.

France released an attractive lunar coin that has an intricate depiction of a dragon on the obverse, and an image of famous French fable writer Jean de La Fontaine on the reverse, and a mintage of 10,000. The coin is available in the U.S. from Royal Scandinavian Mint .

The Mint of Finland produced what is one of the more unusual dragon releases for the country of Fiji.

Many smaller countries have European mints produce their coins for them. Poland made a color pad dragon for the Asian-Pacific island nation of Niue.

The Fiji release is the Yin and Yang dragon, which uses color pad printing, and consists of two pieces that fit together and which are reversible. It is a very popular coin, but only 4,000 are available, which has already driven prices from about $135 to a current retail value of $200.

Finland also made a filigree dragon for Fiji. It is a very elegant coin also limited to 4,000 pieces.

3.) Canadian Wildlife Series

This is a new bullion series modeled on the highly successful half ounce wolf coin released in 2006 and featuring animals that live in Canada. Each coin is limited to 1,000,000 pieces, and with worldwide demand most dealers regularly sell out of their relatively limited supply of these coins.

The coins released so far include the grizzly, wolf, and cougar. The first two already carry a premium and sell for about $50 each. The cougar, the most recent issue, is still available for about the same price as an American silver eagle (2011 mintage of almost 40 million), making it an excellent way to purchase silver.

4.) Kookaburras

The Kookaburra is the national animal of Australia. Each year since 1990 the Perth Mint has issued one, two, and ten ounce and one kilo bullion coins depicting kookaburras.

The one ounce coins are limited to 500,000 and carry a premium over silver content. Retail prices for the coins vary a lot depending on the dealer.

From what I have seen the ten ounce coins seem to carry the highest retail premiums for past releases. Even the 2012 ten ounce coin is hard to find and usually sells for a relatively high premium over melt value compared to other large bullion coins.

6.) Italian commemoratives

The Italian Mint issues very attractive 10 euro proof silver coins that are issued in limited numbers. They are among the harder to find world issues. Their level of artistic achievement is extraordinary.

The two from 2011 I would highlight are a coin honoring Amerigo Vespucci, the Italian explorer for whom the American continent is named, and a coin marking the 500th anniversary of the birth of famous Italian painter and architect, Giorgio Vasari, who also founded the field of art history.

The Vasari coin is probably the most attractive world coin issued in 2011, in my view. It is also available from Royal Scandinavian Mint. This coin is part of a series honoring Italian artists.

7.) Silver Britannia

Finally, another well-designed bullion coin to consider is the 2012 silver Britannia from Great Britain. It is the latest in series that started in 1998. It is limited to 100,000 coins, but can be obtained for under $40. Some earlier issues sell for several multiples of that price.

Louis Golino is a coin collector and numismatic writer, whose articles on coins have appeared in Coin World, Numismatic News, and a number of different coin web sites. His column for CoinWeek, “The Coin Analyst,” covers U.S. and world coins and precious metals. He collects U.S. and European coins and is a member of the ANA, PCGS, NGC, and CAC. He has also worked for the U.S. Library of Congress and has been a syndicated columnist and news analyst on international affairs for a wide variety of newspapers and web sites.

Former ANA collections manager Wyatt Yeager entered a guilty plea yesterday in Federal District Court in Wilmington, DE, to the theft of approximately 300 historically significant coins and other numismatic objects, valued at $984,740, from the American Numismatic Association Money Museum, ANA President Tom Hallenbeck has announced. This case is being prosecuted by David L. Hall, Assistant United States Attorney.

According to documents, Yeager, 33, from California was the museum’s collections manager for only three months from January through March 2007. He has been charged with one felony count: Theft of Major Artwork, a violation of Title 18, United States, Section 668. Along with his guilty plea, Yeager faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine and three years supervised release following any term of imprisonment. Yeager is due to be sentenced April 24th.

ANA President Tom Hallenbeck indicated that the majority of the stolen items are world coins, although some high-profile U.S. items such as a 1795 Half Eagle and an 1836 Gobrecht Dollar were also among the coins Yeager has admitted stealing.

Hallenbeck said a full list if the items stolen is posted on the ANA website and that to date, 32 of the stolen coins had been recovered.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Yeager sold several coins in auctions, including one in Baltimore in May 2007, one in St. Louis in July 2007, and one in Melbourne, Australia, in July 2007. One of the coins sold at the Australia auction was an extremely rare 1813 “Holey” Dollar. It sold for $155,755. In addition a significant number of coins were sold at auction in Germany.

The theft was discovered by museum officials in October 2007 and was the subject of an extensive FBI investigation after museum staff confirmed the missing items. The museum staff worked with authorities during the investigation and played a critical role in helping to uncover vital evidence in the case.

In October of 2010 the ANA retained Robert Wittman, Inc., a security and recovery consulting firm that specializes in recovering stolen art and collectibles, to investigate and recover the stolen coins. Robert K. Wittman, the company’s founder and chief investigator, was the founder of the FBI’s National Art Crime Team.

The theft was kept confidential so as not to compromise the ongoing investigation, during which Yeager relocated to Ireland.

“Many of the stolen items were desirable and historically significant,” Hallenbeck said. “The ANA maintains theft insurance for its numismatic collections, but no amount of insurance can adequately replace these coins – or the loss of trust or sense of helplessness that we all feel following such a theft.”

“This is a terrible loss for the ANA, the hobby and for coin collectors everywhere,” Hallenbeck said. “Prosecution of this crime has been pursued in accordance with the law. The ANA is continuing this investigation and will diligently pursue the recovery of the stolen items.”

About the Museum

The ANA’s Edward C. Rochette Money Museum, which opened in Colorado Springs in 1967, is the nation’s largest museum dedicated exclusively to numismatics. Its collection of 275,000 numismatic objects includes money from its earliest uses 2,600 years ago to individual coins worth millions of dollars and modern issues, as well as paper money, coins, tokens and medals from throughout the world.

The American Numismatic Association is a nonprofit congressionally chartered organization dedicated to educating and encouraging people to study and collect money and related items. The ANA helps its 28,000 members and the public discover and explore the world of money through its vast array of programs including its education and outreach programs, museum, library, publications, conventions and seminars. For more information about the ANA, visit www.money.org.