First Apple stock certificate awarded to Steve Jobs on sale for $195,000

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion
An Apple stock certificate thought to be the first awarded to company cofounder Steve Jobs, and later recovered from a trash heap, is being sold by an autograph and rare documents dealer for $195,000.




On sale now at Moments in Time, the certificate appears to have been issued to Jobs shortly after Apple went public in 1980, as evidenced by a 1981 date perforated into the document, reports Silicon Beat.

According to Moments in Time's Gary Zimet, the common stock certificate hung on Jobs' office wall in Cupertino, Calif., until 1985. At the time, then-CEO John Sculley -- brought in to run Apple in 1983 -- famously helped force Jobs out of the company.

As told by Zimet, shortly after the ouster in 1985, Sculley called for Jobs' office to be cleared out. The certificate on sale today was dumped in the trash along with other paraphernalia, but an industrious employee recovered the document and kept it for 31 years.

After a series of missteps that nearly bankrupted Apple, Jobs was ultimately brought back into the fold through the 1997 acquisition of NeXT. Once again at the helm of the company he cofounded, Jobs cultivated development of a series of popular products like iMac, iPhone and iPad, leading Apple to become the world's most valuable company.

In giving up the important piece of Apple lore, the unnamed employee has provided a notarized letter attesting to the document's authenticity, the publication said. Beyond the letter, there is little else to corroborate Zimet's story.

Apple artifacts, especially items linked to Jobs, often sell for sky-high prices. In 2011, a batch of documents that included an original founding document signed by Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne sold for $1.6 million. Zimet priced the stock certificate at $195,000 based in part on those previous sales.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,127member
    I'm curious - does anybody here know what this would be worth (if it were still valid) at the current stock price with the various stock splits over the years?

    ****
    Oh, split 4 times, 2, 2, 2, 7. So 56x

    So, $6300ish
    edited September 2016
  • Reply 2 of 14
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,404member
    I stopped reading at the end of Para 4. The only thought in my mind was: Sculley was a third-rate, despicable jerk with no remote concept of his brush with greatness. What a loser. The only reason he won't end up on the trash heap of history is because his name is associated with Steve Jobs. 
    edited September 2016
  • Reply 3 of 14
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,246member
    "cultivated development of a series of popular products like iMac, iPhone and iPad,


    I think you're missing one very important one in that list!


  • Reply 4 of 14
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,844moderator
    As soon as I saw the headline I thought of my brief essay on minimalism.  It applies, I think.  Recommended reading for anyone contemplating spending a couple hundred grand on a stock certificate.

    ----

    Minimalism, to me, is relieving yourself of the responsibility for things, and seeing them as they are; just another collection of atoms, in a configuration designed to perform some function.

    Take art, an oil painting from another century.  It has value as history, and it has intrinsic [practical] value.  The intrinsic value of a painting is its ability to fill a spot on your wall and provide you a nice image to look upon.  That's value that even a cheap poster can provide.  But when it's an 18th century oil painting by a renowned artist, we tend to focus more on its imaginary value; its value as a rare object, its value as a commentary on the life and culture of its time period in history.  And we pay thousands, even millions of dollars for those components of its value.  As a minimalist, I look at that rare painting, or object (sculpture, vase, classic car, etc) and I say to myself, okay, I get it, there's all this value to it beyond its practical value as decoration or, in the case of an old car, transportation.  But do I need to own it for it to have that value?  Wouldn't it have that same value in another's hands, where they have the responsibility of caring for and protecting this piece of history, and I can visit it in a museum if I need to stand in its presence?  A minimalist will likely answer No, I don't need to own it in order to appreciate it.  And so I see no value in collecting these aggregations of atoms, taking on the responsibility for their care and safe keeping.  Just knowing they are in this world, out there somewhere being preserved for future generations, that's enough for me.  I don't need to own it and take on that responsibility.

    This reminds me of an old Gallagher joke, where he talks about his enormous seashell collection, "perhaps you've seen it," he says, "I keep it on beaches all over the world."  

    There's another aspect of minimalism.  A recognition that humans, in our illogical desire to collect things, to fill our lives with possessions, are consuming the natural world, and converting it to so many landfills.  Take those seashells Gallagher left on the beaches for us to enjoy.  Do we leave them there for the enjoyment of those who next visit the beach?  No, we collect them, fill bags with them, sell and buy them in souvenir shops, to take home as a remembrance of our vacation at the beach, not satisfied merely with our memories or the selfies in our smartphones.

    And then what do we do?  We display them for a while, on a shelf or on our desk, until we acquire some other bauble to replace them, and then they go in a box, into a closet or basement or garage alongside other stuff we collected but no longer have room for.  And then the box, one day, goes to the curb, picked up and taken off to add to a landfill.  

    In geologic time scales, humanity has been industrialized for a mere blink of an eye, and in that short period we've visibly altered the globe with our endless and hungry consumption.  And almost everything that passes through our hands ends up in landfills.

    The world needs more minimalists who live lighter, who consume only what we need, who leave things mostly where we find them.  And are happier and less burdened with shifting around all those atoms.
    kamiltonfotoformat
  • Reply 5 of 14
    roakeroake Posts: 811member
    radarthekat said:
    As soon as I saw the headline I thought of my brief essay on minimalism.  It applies, I think.  Recommended reading for anyone contemplating spending a couple hundred grand on a stock certificate.

    ----

    Minimalism, to me, is relieving yourself of the responsibility for things, and seeing them as they are; just another collection of atoms, in a configuration designed to perform some function.

    Take art, an oil painting from another century.  It has value as history, and it has intrinsic [practical] value.  The intrinsic value of a painting is its ability to fill a spot on your wall and provide you a nice image to look upon.  That's value that even a cheap poster can provide.  But when it's an 18th century oil painting by a renowned artist, we tend to focus more on its imaginary value; its value as a rare object, its value as a commentary on the life and culture of its time period in history.  And we pay thousands, even millions of dollars for those components of its value.  As a minimalist, I look at that rare painting, or object (sculpture, vase, classic car, etc) and I say to myself, okay, I get it, there's all this value to it beyond its practical value as decoration or, in the case of an old car, transportation.  But do I need to own it for it to have that value?  Wouldn't it have that same value in another's hands, where they have the responsibility of caring for and protecting this piece of history, and I can visit it in a museum if I need to stand in its presence?  A minimalist will likely answer No, I don't need to own it in order to appreciate it.  And so I see no value in collecting these aggregations of atoms, taking on the responsibility for their care and safe keeping.  Just knowing they are in this world, out there somewhere being preserved for future generations, that's enough for me.  I don't need to own it and take on that responsibility.

    This reminds me of an old Gallagher joke, where he talks about his enormous seashell collection, "perhaps you've seen it," he says, "I keep it on beaches all over the world."  

    There's another aspect of minimalism.  A recognition that humans, in our illogical desire to collect things, to fill our lives with possessions, are consuming the natural world, and converting it to so many landfills.  Take those seashells Gallagher left on the beaches for us to enjoy.  Do we leave them there for the enjoyment of those who next visit the beach?  No, we collect them, fill bags with them, sell and buy them in souvenir shops, to take home as a remembrance of our vacation at the beach, not satisfied merely with our memories or the selfies in our smartphones.

    And then what do we do?  We display them for a while, on a shelf or on our desk, until we acquire some other bauble to replace them, and then they go in a box, into a closet or basement or garage alongside other stuff we collected but no longer have room for.  And then the box, one day, goes to the curb, picked up and taken off to add to a landfill.  

    In geologic time scales, humanity has been industrialized for a mere blink of an eye, and in that short period we've visibly altered the globe with our endless and hungry consumption.  And almost everything that passes through our hands ends up in landfills.

    The world needs more minimalists who live lighter, who consume only what we need, who leave things mostly where we find them.  And are happier and less burdened with shifting around all those atoms.
    Wow.  That's the minimalist quote I've seen in a while (at least regarding lengthy).  You should give me a valuable painting.  :smiley: 
  • Reply 6 of 14
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 1,034member
    mknelson said:
    I'm curious - does anybody here know what this would be worth (if it were still valid) at the current stock price with the various stock splits over the years?

    ****
    Oh, split 4 times, 2, 2, 2, 7. So 56x

    So, $6300ish
    Actually, that thing would be worth billions.  It's one certificate but it is not a single share.  The field for shares appears blank. I can't quite read all the text.  Presumably it's whatever his ownership interest in the company was.  In any event, it was not for 1 share of Apple.  If it was his ownership in the company and could still be redeemed, it would be one of the most valuable pieces of paper in the world. (It might not ever have been a valid stock certificate - maybe just a listing keepsake?)
  • Reply 7 of 14
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,844moderator
    roake said:
    As soon as I saw the headline I thought of my brief essay on minimalism.  It applies, I think.  Recommended reading for anyone contemplating spending a couple hundred grand on a stock certificate.

    ----

    Minimalism, to me, is relieving yourself of the responsibility for things, and seeing them as they are; just another collection of atoms, in a configuration designed to perform some function.

    Take art, an oil painting from another century.  It has value as history, and it has intrinsic [practical] value.  The intrinsic value of a painting is its ability to fill a spot on your wall and provide you a nice image to look upon.  That's value that even a cheap poster can provide.  But when it's an 18th century oil painting by a renowned artist, we tend to focus more on its imaginary value; its value as a rare object, its value as a commentary on the life and culture of its time period in history.  And we pay thousands, even millions of dollars for those components of its value.  As a minimalist, I look at that rare painting, or object (sculpture, vase, classic car, etc) and I say to myself, okay, I get it, there's all this value to it beyond its practical value as decoration or, in the case of an old car, transportation.  But do I need to own it for it to have that value?  Wouldn't it have that same value in another's hands, where they have the responsibility of caring for and protecting this piece of history, and I can visit it in a museum if I need to stand in its presence?  A minimalist will likely answer No, I don't need to own it in order to appreciate it.  And so I see no value in collecting these aggregations of atoms, taking on the responsibility for their care and safe keeping.  Just knowing they are in this world, out there somewhere being preserved for future generations, that's enough for me.  I don't need to own it and take on that responsibility.

    This reminds me of an old Gallagher joke, where he talks about his enormous seashell collection, "perhaps you've seen it," he says, "I keep it on beaches all over the world."  

    There's another aspect of minimalism.  A recognition that humans, in our illogical desire to collect things, to fill our lives with possessions, are consuming the natural world, and converting it to so many landfills.  Take those seashells Gallagher left on the beaches for us to enjoy.  Do we leave them there for the enjoyment of those who next visit the beach?  No, we collect them, fill bags with them, sell and buy them in souvenir shops, to take home as a remembrance of our vacation at the beach, not satisfied merely with our memories or the selfies in our smartphones.

    And then what do we do?  We display them for a while, on a shelf or on our desk, until we acquire some other bauble to replace them, and then they go in a box, into a closet or basement or garage alongside other stuff we collected but no longer have room for.  And then the box, one day, goes to the curb, picked up and taken off to add to a landfill.  

    In geologic time scales, humanity has been industrialized for a mere blink of an eye, and in that short period we've visibly altered the globe with our endless and hungry consumption.  And almost everything that passes through our hands ends up in landfills.

    The world needs more minimalists who live lighter, who consume only what we need, who leave things mostly where we find them.  And are happier and less burdened with shifting around all those atoms.
    Wow.  That's the minimalist quote I've seen in a while (at least regarding lengthy).  You should give me a valuable painting.  smiley 
    I did say essay, not quote. It's not that lengthy in the realm of essays.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    smaffeismaffei Posts: 237member
    williamh said:
    ...If it was his ownership in the company and could still be redeemed, it would be one of the most valuable pieces of paper in the world...
    Redeemed by who? Someone named "Steven P. Jobs"?!? C'mon, fess up. You thought "National Treasure" was a documentary, didn't you?
    edited September 2016
  • Reply 9 of 14
    brndnbrndn Posts: 1member
    I think it was just a listing keepsake -- not an actual, valid stock certificate. It is not numbered and doesn't indicate any shares owned.
  • Reply 10 of 14
    usersinceos1usersinceos1 Posts: 145member
    anantksundaram said:
    I stopped reading at the end of Para 4. The only thought in my mind was: Sculley was a third-rate, despicable jerk with no remote concept of his brush with greatness. What a loser. The only reason he won't end up on the trash heap of history is because his name is associated with Steve Jobs. 
    Well, he did manage to sell a lot of colored, carbonated water before Steve recruited him to Apple.  That recruitment also demonstrates that not all of Steve's decisions were wise.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,127member
    williamh said:
    mknelson said:
    I'm curious - does anybody here know what this would be worth (if it were still valid) at the current stock price with the various stock splits over the years?

    ****
    Oh, split 4 times, 2, 2, 2, 7. So 56x

    So, $6300ish
    Actually, that thing would be worth billions.  It's one certificate but it is not a single share.  The field for shares appears blank. I can't quite read all the text.  Presumably it's whatever his ownership interest in the company was.  In any event, it was not for 1 share of Apple.  If it was his ownership in the company and could still be redeemed, it would be one of the most valuable pieces of paper in the world. (It might not ever have been a valid stock certificate - maybe just a listing keepsake?)
    Oh, true! I didn't think that through.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    mcfrazierivmcfrazieriv Posts: 71member
    usersinceos1 said:
    anantksundaram said:
    I stopped reading at the end of Para 4. The only thought in my mind was: Sculley was a third-rate, despicable jerk with no remote concept of his brush with greatness. What a loser. The only reason he won't end up on the trash heap of history is because his name is associated with Steve Jobs. 
    Well, he did manage to sell a lot of colored, carbonated water before Steve recruited him to Apple.  That recruitment also demonstrates that not all of Steve's decisions were wise.
    Agree to disagree on this example of Steve fail... it was the cancer mistake that would make a better example, as he had a chance to cure it but left it to grow into a beast that ultimately killed him. His "mistake" to hire that bastard who made colored, carbonated water gave Steve his biggest gift - a reality check. Without that reality check, he wouldn't have gone out on a personal mission to change more than just electronics. During his time away from Apple, he had children, he rekindled the relationship with the one he disturbingly neglected, he bought Pixar which lead to him owning the single largest percentage of Disney, he learned how NOT to run a company with NeXT and ultimately how to win back the confidence of the company he started. Dethroning the king was what gave the king an idea of how valuable that throne was. John Sculley is a prick.
    edited September 2016
  • Reply 13 of 14
    liketheskylikethesky Posts: 35member
    williamh said:
    mknelson said:
    I'm curious - does anybody here know what this would be worth (if it were still valid) at the current stock price with the various stock splits over the years?

    ****
    Oh, split 4 times, 2, 2, 2, 7. So 56x

    So, $6300ish
    Actually, that thing would be worth billions.  It's one certificate but it is not a single share.  The field for shares appears blank. I can't quite read all the text.  Presumably it's whatever his ownership interest in the company was.  In any event, it was not for 1 share of Apple.  If it was his ownership in the company and could still be redeemed, it would be one of the most valuable pieces of paper in the world. (It might not ever have been a valid stock certificate - maybe just a listing keepsake?)
    Yes, when I met him briefly in 1983 (shameless name dropping!), he was worth around $400-$500 million--it was at Apple's Return of the Jedi showing--and according to this Forbes article at the time it was written he'd have had 73 million shares worth then about $31 billion, which today after their 2014 7-for-1 split, would be worth about $63.5 billion at $115/share. Whew!

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2011/10/06/how-much-would-steve-jobs-be-worth-today/#414b2ca97ab7
  • Reply 14 of 14
    Louisla4Louisla4 Posts: 1member
    Steve Jobs owned items being auctioned as I type...... closes tomorrow.

    http://www.juliensauctions.com/auctions/2016/icons-and-idols-hollywood/index.html

    own this shirt:



Sign In or Register to comment.