Liberty Seated Dollars The Rare vs. the R*A*R*E

4^th National Silver Dollar Convention

Houston, Texas

November 10 – 13, 1983

Liberty Seated Dollars

The Rare vs. the R*A*R*E

Part One

By Bruce Amspacher

A Seated Dollar collector named Magoo,

Once said “Before I am through.

My Seated Dollar Set,

Will be the greatest one yet,

Though too few will be true Gem BU.”

            -Anonymous (for obvious reasons)

On a recent morning at 4 a.m., I was watching “Radar Men from the Moon” (Chapter 9) featuring Commando Cody, thumbing through a 1979 Grey Sheet (dreams die hard), and considering writing an essay on “The Fortuitous Use of Time.”  Instead, I decided it was time to finish the Liberty Seated Dollar Analysis I had promised the CDN editor months earlier.

Actually, writing an in-depth analysis of this series is quite easy.  Just write “scarce” on a few slips of paper, “rare” on a few more, “extremely rare” on ten more, and “impossible” on the remainder.  Shake well in a hat, draw one out.  Match the slip with any random date, throw in a few comments on die striations and improper striking pressure, and presto – instant expert!  Accept no phone calls except from the Pulitzer Prize Committee.

There is a commercial sponsored by DeBeers that says “all diamonds are rare.”  I’m not talking about that kind of “rare” with Gem BU Seated Dollars.  I’m talking about R*A*R*E!  If someone tells you he has seen a R*A*R*E, then he was in the right place at the right time.  If he has seen two examples of this R*A*R*E coin, he has been extremely lucky.  If he says he’s seen three or more, he has:  1) a bad memory, 2) a time machine, or 3) been lying to you about other things as well.

It is because I am so serious about numismatic scholarship that this article has had, to this point, a seeming flippancy.  There seems to be no way to adequately stress the true rarity of this great series.  By any definition, Gem BU Liberty Seated Dollars are rare.  Many dates are unknown as MS-65.  One date isn’t known in any condition.  It’s difficult to get rarer than that.

Even the term “rare by any definition” doesn’t tell the complete story.  Seated Dollar fanatics may exclude such dates as 1864 from the list of true rarities because about six MS-65/better pieces have surfaced in the past ten years.  Only six pieces in ten years and it’s not a true rarity?  Well, they have a point, because in the same ten year period there has been one or less appearance of such dates as 1845, 1846-O, 1850, 1850-O, 1855, 1859-S, 1871-CC, 1872-S, 1873-CC and others.

Seated Dollars in MS-65 are redefined, then, as rare by any definition except within the context of their own series, where rarity pales against R*A*R*I*T*Y.

Several years ago, Q. David Bowers wrote an article on the Proof-only Half Cent issues.  He made the point that the series suffered from being “too rare;” that most dealers and collectors had so little exposure to this series (and therefore so little knowledge) that the prices the coins realized when available were not commensurate with the rarity.

The “too rare” syndrome plagues the Seated Dollar series, too, in a slightly different way, and too little exposure has bred too little knowledge.  It is not the fault of numismatic research.  How is one to write of the characteristics of an MS-65 1859-S Dollar when he has never seen one and knows of no one who has?

Regardless, in order to discuss each date, the standards of MS-65 should be set, with the understanding that flexibility is the rule.  Why flexibility?  Because it would be incorrect to say an MS-65 Seated Dollar must have full claws, or 100% full head, or full stars, or “x” number of bagmarks, or a certain degree of luster – or whatever.

Today, the grade of MS-65 is based more on overall “eye appeal” than any particular set of rigid objective standards.

Strike – The strike must be sharp, with all basic detail clearly defined and all minute detail with enough definition to not spoil the eye appeal of the coin.

Surfaces – The fewer number of marks on fields and devices, the better.  No highly distracting marks.

Luster – The flashier, the better, of course, but subdued luster is a frequent occurrence on Seated Dollars (even on original pieces).  So, the “rule” is:  subdued luster OK; outright dull or washed out luster is not OK.

Toning – Attractive, original toning is OK; even desirable in some cases.  Artificially toned coins, however, have usually been toned for a reason, such as covering up hairlines or rubbing.  Avoid artificial (man-made) toning.

Eye Appeal – Totally subjective, of course, but you must “like” the coin.

These are slim guidelines, perhaps, for such a complex series, but there are no definite rules.  For instance:  can a coin that has been “dipped” still be MS-65?  If you answer, “yes,” then the argument becomes:  “How can a dipped coin have original surfaces?”  If you answer “no,” the other side of the story is:  “A dipped coin is in no way a ‘cleaned’ coin.  Properly done on the proper coin, dipping can enhance the appearance without disturbing the ‘originality’ of the appearance.”

It becomes a matter of personal preference and personal opinion.  There are some coin dips and cleaners on the market today that promise near-miracle results if the product is used.  Once cleaning liquid in particular made such remarkable claims that I finally became skeptical.  I sent a bottle to a local laboratory for scientific analysis.  Five days later I received the following letter:

Dear Sir:

We received your liquid solution for analysis three days ago this A.M.  We have completed our tests and I’m afraid we have bad news.  Your horse has diabetes.

******************************************************************

In researching this article, I consulted with several other dealers for their thoughts on this series.  I have used their expertise in previous articles, also, because I trust both their memory and their eye.

Robert Emmer expressed this obvious but important point:  “A complete Gem Set just can’t be put together, not matter how much time or money you have.  It would be like assembling a Gem set of Stars Obverse Dimes.”

The complete set has been attempted.  The most successful try known to me was by California dealer Ron Gillio, who, in 1972-73 put together a partial set for a client that contained many exceptional coins.  The “Set” was sold at the 1973 Boston ANA, traded several times, and ended up with Kansas City dealer Joe Flynn.  Flynn later sold it to Rick Howard, who eventually broke it up.

It was a memorable set; so much so that when I asked the other dealers about what Liberty Seated Dollars they remembered seeing over the years, almost every conversation started with:  “Well, first of all, there was that set that was sold at the ’73 Boston ANA…”

Memorable as it was, it was not complete and not all pieces in the collection were MS-65.  “Be sure to mention,” cautioned Bob Riethe, “that some of the coins in that set are probably remembered as being better than they actually were.  By today’s standards, there might be only a few coins we’d call MS-65.”

Another notable source of top quality Seated Dollars was the Fairfield Collection auctioned by Bowers and Ruddy in 1977.  A few other sales have produced a few other Gems, also.  And therein lies the story.

With rare exceptions, the available of MS-65/better Seated Dollar has been a matter of one here, one there – over a period of many years.

******************************************************************

Before beginning the date analysis of this series, I would like to explain the rarity and valuation scales I have used.  If some of the values I have placed on the coins seem high for the current market, I can say only come up with the coins and see what happens.  If a “value” is placed on a coin that is unknown in the grade in which it is being valued, then, of course, that value it total speculation.  Speculation is hazard, but without that “guess” there is nothing to base the value on.

The rarity ratings do not include any of the coins in the Eliasberg Collection, because I have not seen this collection.  This collection is rumored to be coming on the market very soon through public auction; it will undoubtedly change the rarity ratings (condition-wise) of many U.S. coins in the different major series.

Rarity in MS-65/better

R-10     =     unknown

R-9       =     one known

R-8       =     two or three known

R-7       =     four to six known

R-6       =     seven to twelve known

R-5       =     thirteen to 25 known

R-4       =     over 26 known

The Valuation Rating (VR) is based on a multiple of bid for that type.  “Bid” is based on the July 9, 1982 bid prices in MS-65 of $3,200 for the “No Motto” variety (1840-1865) and $3,500 for the “With Motto” variety (1866-1873).  As an example, the 1859-P has a VR of 2, or an approximate value of $6,400 in MS-65.  (2 x $3,200 = $6,400).

This system is used because, while the bid price will change, the relative value of the scarcer dates will remain basically unchanged.  “Copper wizard” Jack Beymer used a similar system in his recent CDN article on Large Cents.

******************************************************************

Note:  Before you get the idea that either I am over-reacting to the rarity of these coins or that a little “hype” is going on here, I would like to share a few comments from the other dealers.

Mike Hinkle made a list of all the MS-67 Seated Dollars he had seen in the past few years – a total of three.

Greg Holloway noted:  “At the moment, I do not own one Gem Seated Dollar.  None have been offered to me for sale in over a year.  The Seated Dollar specialist is fast becoming an extinct species.”

Others had similar comments, and these are the dealers who make a concerted effort to locate Gem pieces, and have for years.

No one has “seen them all,” of course.  But the evidence is building that a lot of people haven’t seen any.

******************************************************************

PART TWO

You might have called him an eccentric dresser.  He wore a porkpie hat adorned with a “WIN” button, a pie fort pince-nez sweatshirt and tie, cut-off designer jeans, a knee brace and thongs.  He spoke:

“I was wondering if you could tell me if this ‘cartwheel’ falls within the viable parameters of the grade of MS-65?”

He had emphasized “cartwheel” in such a way that I was sure to notice how “up” he was on the latest terminology.  I was handed a Seated Dollar with so many bagmarks on it that I had trouble discerning the obverse from the reverse – let alone any “viable parameters.”

“Well, sir,” I replied, hoping I had guessed the gender correctly, “I believe this coin is too marked up for MS-65.”  Courtesy above all, that’s me.  I started to mention that the coin might have special historical significance – perhaps it stopped a few bullets at Chancellorsville?

“I’m quite certain that if you owned the coin,” came the haughty, suddenly somewhat British-accented reply, “it would be graded at least MS-65, probably higher.”

I paused, waiting for a snappy retort to come to me.  After painful moments of silence, I handed the coin back to him with no comment.

While the scenario above may be extreme, there are similar incidents of disagreement on all aspects of numismatics.  Therefore, there are good reasons to set down standards to settle these disputes.

However, there is more to numismatic writing/scholarship/grading than just “getting it down.”  There is a need – a responsibility – to get it down right.

The problems of getting it down right are many.  Old auction catalogs are nearly worthless.  Almost any coin that is a Gem BU by today’s standards was described back then as “Proof” or (even more ambiguously) as “Semi-Proof.”  B. Max Mehl’s famous “Dunham Collection” has more grading variables than the most imaginative dealer could possibly concoct today.

Today’s auction records provide problems, too.  Sometimes a coin will appear in two different sales, once graded MS-63, and then graded MS-65.  It is frequently necessary to consult the realized price to ascertain the “grade.”  For this reason, some of the coins that have auction records in “MS-65” were deleted from the rarity ratings – not because the grading was “wrong,” but because I wasn’t certain it was right.  To say that the coin in such and such an auction was graded MS-65 but was “really” only MS-63 (or worse) is to take a stance of exaggerated self-importance and arrogance.  I might disagree with the grade, but to proclaim unequivocally that I am right and the cataloguer was wrong is usually unfair.  Not always, but usually.  The price realized will frequently reflect the true value; therefore, the true grade.

Even if someone has made a life-long study of a series he can still be uncertain.  In fact, he may have made a study of only one coin of a series and still be uncertain.

For instance, after Part One of this article appeared in the July CDN Monthly Summary, I received a letter from Bruce Lorich. Bruce (noble name, eh?) has written nearly as many words on the 1850-O Dollar as Dumas Malone has on Thomas Jefferson.  His letter, in part, stated:

“I felt you might like to know that I sent the red book plate photo of the 1850-O dollar to them, since you mention it looks pretty impressive.  The photograph belied the coin a bit.  It is the Wolfson coin which I catalogued for B&R’s sale of May 1976, lot 643.  When sold, this coin was a pleasant 63, with a tiny indentation (like a punch tap, very faint) in the right field of Liberty’s knee.  It was mostly brilliant.  It fetched a then-strong $3950.  Later it appeared in their November 1979 sale as lot 2564, and the new cataloguer knew nothing about the piece.  The owner had dipped and wiped it, making it perhaps 60+ but still fairly pleasant.  It brought only $3200 at that time.  In 1974 [one coin company] advertised a Gem but I didn’t see it.  About 1977, a collector walked into B&R with a really frosty 63-65 coin, which he wouldn’t sell.  I think perhaps it was the Atwater coin which I mentioned in my 1976 article on the 1850-O.  There is consequently a chance that one 65 coin exists, unless another emerges that has not traded publicly in decades and decades.”

Private sales records leave a researcher teetering in ambivalence, too.  I mentioned in Part One that I consulted with a dealer whose memory and eye I trusted.  Even then, several coins were recalled as “a true 65” by some and “a 60+ coin at best” by others.

Old auction records, modern auctions records, private sale records, and the personal research of individuals who are serious and responsible – all these factors were taken into account in preparing this article.  The results were enlightening, but hardly complete; far from the “last word” on Gem quality Seated Dollars.

Rather than seeing this as the challenge of numismatics, some publications see it as a major flaw.  It has been written off as “the puffery of seasoned salesman” by one paper, as “beyond comprehension” by another.  The “flaw,” I think, likes with the thinking of the editorial writers.  If dealers were really interested in “promoting” a certain area of numismatics, why not promote off-quality coins?  The off-quality coins are easily located, frequently available at large discounts from “Trends” valuations or even CDN bid, and therefore sellable at “cheap” prices.

Responsible dealers recommend Gem quality coins because they are rare and not easily located.  Seated Dollars are only one of many series of U.S. coins that are excessively rare in “condition.”  There are no “perfect” ways to define the boundaries of that ‘condition.’  Numismatic research proves there are not enough definitive answers to satisfy some collectors, dealers, or men in porkpie hats.  But I like it that way, and I think most of my contemporaries do too.  It keeps things interesting.

Now to Part two of the date by date analysis.  For explanations of the rarity and value ratings, see the July ’82 CDN Summary.

******************************************************************

The preceding article was originally published as a two-part series in the July and August, 1982 issues of “The Coin Dealer Newsletter.”