UPDATED/PRICE(S) REALIZED FOR:It's time for another coinguy1 "which coin would you rather have

coinguy1 · June 29, 2004 10:21AM

I do not currently own and have never owned either of these coins. I will reveal their grades and comment on them after you folks have had time to reply. If you know (or learn of) their grades, please keep it to yourself

Thanks.

COIN #1

COIN #2

Russ · June 29, 2004 10:25AM

I'll take #2 hands down. It looks the way a coin this old should look. It has character. I don't care what the grades are.

Russ, NCNE

JrGMan2004 · June 29, 2004 10:26AM

I'll go for #2. Wish the pictures were bigger to get a better idea of grade, but... #1 looks like it has nice details, but looks dipped, and possibly cleaned to me, while #2 has more wear, it has some nice original toning that works gorgeous. My stand on pretty much any bust coin, is that I will take a circulated coin with original toning over a dipped out UNC any day of the week.

marcmoish · June 29, 2004 10:26AM

#2 looks much much nicer, and "original" than #1 - too many marks and chatter on that one - #2 looks like it's got great preservation and eye appeal to boot.

Marc

rkfish · June 29, 2004 10:30AM

#2

kamehameha00 · June 29, 2004 10:35AM

#2, #1 looks dipped or cleaned.

mgoodm3 · June 29, 2004 10:37AM

#2 looks nicer. I like nice natural looking toning.

Oldnewbie · June 29, 2004 10:39AM

#2 It just looks natural to me.

Eric

BigE · June 29, 2004 10:44AM

Looks like the same coin to me, but I like the "dirty" one----------BigE

CarlWohlforth · June 29, 2004 10:46AM

I agree. I wouldn't buy #1. The second one looks really nice to me. The first one looks way dipped out.

jcping · June 29, 2004 10:47AM

Coin 1 has been badly dipped but it could be in PCGS holder

If true, coin 1 has higher grade than coin 2 has.

I will keep coin 2 for myself. If I buy and sell, I will consider coin 1.

roadrunner · June 29, 2004 11:03AM

I hope these aren't the same coin making us all look foolish. I hate the look on #1.

#2 all the way.

roadrunner

Craton · June 29, 2004 11:15AM

<< I'll take #2 hands down. It looks the way a coin this old should look. It has character. I don't care what the grades are.

Russ, NCNE >>

Ditto........ except my name isn't Russ

Coinosaurus · June 29, 2004 11:16AM

I'm with Roadrunner. I think Feldoni is trying to trick us by showing the same coin

As for the coins, #1 is fugly to me (my apologies if the anyone on the board actually owns it) and I would much rather have a lower grade one in choice condition.

pursuitofliberty · June 29, 2004 11:24AM

#2 here too ...

CalGold · June 29, 2004 11:39AM

I will jump on the coin #2 bandwagon too. BUT it has probably been dipped too and retoned, and the toning might even be a deceptive AT job and could be hiding marks we can't see in the scans.

Side note, how come all of you "original" guys who are always so "unimpressed" by "dipped out" coins have been praising all of the dipped and retoned coins in the Oliver Jung sale?

CG

DHeath · June 29, 2004 11:39AM

To my amateur eye, whoever dipped/cleaned #1 revealed far too much. I dislike the discoloration on the cheek, and the stain at 7:00 obverse. The sterile look also really highlights the slide marks and scratches. Coin #2 has a nice look, with traces of luster and little if any wear. It looks like a softer strike, but a far nicer coin. It would be my choice.

Mark, while you're commenting, I have to ask you about the difference in the shape of the tip of the top right feathers on the reverse. The first coin appears to have a squared tip, while the second one has a pointed tip. Is either an attributed reverse die?

Compa · June 29, 2004 11:45AM

I'm sure they are the same coin. But I like the look of #2 much better.

I assume that #2 is the AT version of the over dipped #1. Very real looking

Cladiator · June 29, 2004 11:48AM

#2 - I like the look better.

Shamika · June 29, 2004 11:51AM

It looks like #2 by a landslide. It certainly has my vote.

ldhair · June 29, 2004 11:59AM

I like #2 as well but it looks like someone messed with it long ago and it's starting to tone again.

Can't say I would put money on either coin from the images.

TheLiberator · June 29, 2004 11:59AM

#2. I'm not a tone-freak but I like the original looking color. I am dying to know the story here. Have we been fooled by a nice dye job or did someone really dip out #2 to make number #1? BTW I can't grade these things for squat...

Elcontador · June 29, 2004 12:12PM

I'm with Cal Gold; it looks like coin #2 was dipped & has retoned nicely. No problem with that. The look of coin #1 does not look like a coin which is 199 years old; pass on that one, irrespective of the price & grade.

TUMUSS · June 29, 2004 12:16PM

I'll take #1 since no one else wants it.

mr1931S · June 29, 2004 12:16PM

Coin 1 appears to me to be uncirculated. If was dipped (not harshly) it doesn't matter to grading services. If they can find no wear they will grade at least MS 60. But #1 may never have been dipped and could be original. No way to really tell from the images as it's very difficult to do brilliant and lustrous silver coins justice in pictures.

Coin 2 appears to me to have circulated and would get AU 55 or 58 tops. A nice coin even though it has a bit of wear.

The eagle on Coin 1 is talking to me....

Coin 1.

Aethelred · June 29, 2004 12:20PM

Based on those photos (and you really can't tell much about toning and overall originality from photos on the internet) I would take #2. It has that original, or at least not been messed with in a while, look to it.

puff · June 29, 2004 12:21PM

I'll take # 1 & 2 ........ Because I believe it is in fact the "same" coin and someone must have taken a picture of it before, and after they dipped it........ The idjits!

stman · June 29, 2004 12:22PM

I don't like the look of either of them. #1 is nasty nasty, #2 is nasty. Next.

mr1931S · June 29, 2004 12:31PM

Not the same coin. Check out the wear or weakness in the eagle's tailfeathers on #2. If #2 was dipped that weakness or wear would obviously still be there.

#1 tailfeathers are much sharper. These are two different coins.

cohodk · June 29, 2004 1:32PM

I think it is the same coin. I dont think it is a before and after either, just different photographic methods.

OKbustchaser · June 29, 2004 1:33PM

Not the same coin. Different reverse die.
I'll take #1. Rarer variety than the second and fills a hole.

JimP

fountainheadgold · June 29, 2004 2:07PM

I will take coin one, here is my address

techeff · June 29, 2004 2:13PM

2 for tuesday.

byergo · June 29, 2004 2:14PM

#1 overdipped?

#2 cleaned and unattractively retoned?

I'd save my money for something nicer.

CarlWohlforth · June 29, 2004 2:17PM

stman: isn't one nasty better than two nasties?

More Mighty Mouse for me!

EVillageProwler · June 29, 2004 2:23PM

Loath am I to assess off images, but I'm with those who could care less about either. From the image, the second coin definately does not seem original to me.

EVP

stman · June 29, 2004 2:24PM

Carl, I guess so since you put it that way. That's why I gave them each their own nasty scale.

And I was trying to be nice.

JLW · June 29, 2004 2:32PM

#2 for sure looks more natural, like it has aged gracefully.......
Joe
P.S. Mark, have you been away? I don't hang around here as much as I used to!

Neptune · June 29, 2004 2:47PM

Can't say I would put money on either coin from the images.

Hoot · June 29, 2004 3:03PM

Only #2 is mildly interesting, and they do not appear to be the same coin by definition of minor differences, but especially patterns of wear/strike/marks. (However, it would not be the first time fooled by a pair of lousy photos.) Neither coin would garner my significant attention in terms of overall appeal.

Hoot

OKbustchaser · June 29, 2004 3:48PM

After playing with the images in Photoshop, it appears that I was mistaken

. Coin 1 is also appears to be the 4 Berry Variety. Oh well, first time for everything

JimP
Still think they are 2 separate coins though.

coinguy1 · June 30, 2004 12:26AM

Thanks for your replies, analysis and assessments.

First, let me say, that the two coins are indeed, two different coins (it is not my intention to get tricky with such threads). Each has been graded AU58 by PCGS. And, while I don't dispute the grades, I sure prefer coin #2, as most of you do. I do not think coin #2 has been dipped and re-toned but rather, has aged and acquired its patina gracefully, over a period of many years.

As I examined the two coins, one after the other in an upcoming public sale, I was struck by how much the obvious dipping and lack of originality of the first coin disturbed me - it was a combination of sadness and irritation. I also thought about how some unknowledgeable (and heck, maybe some knowledgeable) collectors would probably prefer the dipped white appearance of coin #1. That is certainly their right, but I don't want that coin in my inventory.

Another thing that struck me was, that I would not have been as bothered by the dipping and unnatural appearance, had the coin been of at least a somewhat more recent mintage (like 100 years more recent!). Generally, the older the coin/coin type, the less likely that it can be free of color and still be original/natural. A coin from 1805 simply should NOT look like that.

I will update this thread after the sale and let everyone know prices realized for the two pieces.

TheLiberator · June 30, 2004 12:52AM

<< 

Another thing that struck me was, that I would not have been as bothered by the dipping and unnatural appearance, had the coin been of at least a somewhat more recent mintage (like 100 years more recent!). Generally, the older the coin/coin type, the less likely that it can be free of color and still be original/natural. A coin from 1805 simply should NOT look like that.

. >>

I agree with what you said! There seems to be a "toning threshold" that we will tolerate: " A white coin from 1905? Ok...I can see that. A white coin from 1805? CERTAINLY dipped." Even if the 1905 coin was dipped we wouldn't have near as much a problem with it. It is very interesting how we make mental barriers about these things!

mr1931S · June 30, 2004 1:02AM

Very informative these "which coin would you rather have and why?" threads, Mark.

Next.

byergo · June 30, 2004 1:38AM

Mark,
You've forgot more about coins than I'll ever know!

I need to brush up on my skills, as I trust you are correct that coin #2 is naturally toned. For some reason it just didn't "speak to me" or look right.

It's just about universal that #1 appeals to nobody. Hopefully this prevailing attitude (and hopefully people support this position with bids in the marketplace) will prevent at least a percentage of the desecration of classic old coins. It makes me angry too.

coinguy1 · June 30, 2004 1:48AM

Byergo,

I had the advantage of being able to view the coins in person, while the images you viewed did not lend themselves to ideal or detailed examination. Also, there is the distinct possibility that my conclusion was incorrect - I assure you, there is plenty that I don't know.

elwood · June 30, 2004 2:26AM

<< I was struck by how much the obvious dipping and lack of originality of the first coin disturbed me >>

<< Each has been graded AU58 by PCGS >>

(I'm not picking on PCGS, every service is guilty of this)

Why is the first coin even certified and not bodybagged?

Mark, what did you grade the two coins?
Was the cleaned coin cleaned to get a higher grade?

coinguy1 · June 30, 2004 3:50AM

<< Why is the first coin even certified and not bodybagged? Mark, what did you grade the two coins?Was the cleaned coin cleaned to get a higher grade? >>

I believe the first coin was certified and not body-bagged because it was "dipped" rather than harshly cleaned.

I had no problem with the numerical grades that were assigned.

I have no way of knowing why the first coin was dipped - perhaps it had unsightly toning, perhaps the owner hoped it would grade higher than it did or maybe there was some other reason.

LAWMAN · June 30, 2004 4:01AM

This is a great example of buy and look at the coin and not the slab. A great example.

mdwoods · June 30, 2004 4:06AM

The first coin has a nicer strike. It does look too fresh though. I'd take the second coin.

CalGold · June 30, 2004 4:10AM

The rule of thumb would seem to be that 18th and 19th century white silver coins are dipped-out and are therefore to be shunned, unless of course they are in one’s own collection, in which case they are wonderfully preserved marvels.

CG

UPDATED/PRICE(S) REALIZED FOR:It's time for another coinguy1 "which coin would you rather have

Comments

Leave a Comment

UPDATED/PRICE(S) REALIZED FOR:It's time for another coinguy1 &quot;which coin would you rather have

Comments

Leave a Comment

UPDATED/PRICE(S) REALIZED FOR:It's time for another coinguy1 "which coin would you rather have