Calling all Charlotte Gold Experts (New Photos)
cameron12x
Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭
1838-C Quarter Eagle
The first quarter eagle struck at the Charlotte mint.
Mintage is a scant 7,880 and some say less than 100 specimens survive today in all grades (others place the number between 150 and 200).
Mint mark located on the obverse above the date for two years (1838, 1839).
Is there a "rarity index" for a coin such as this? What affect would heavy cleaning and light damage have on the specimen's value? (It appears to be about EF-40/45 in the photos).
The first quarter eagle struck at the Charlotte mint.
Mintage is a scant 7,880 and some say less than 100 specimens survive today in all grades (others place the number between 150 and 200).
Mint mark located on the obverse above the date for two years (1838, 1839).
Is there a "rarity index" for a coin such as this? What affect would heavy cleaning and light damage have on the specimen's value? (It appears to be about EF-40/45 in the photos).
0
Comments
R4 = 76-200 known, "Very Scarce"
The coin will find its own value at a auction. There is only one (pic below) pcgs genuine in the Heritage archives. This one sold for $2,300 about 1/2 of the same problem free would have.
I think you did fine if you were the winner of that auction.
<< <i>It's in the midle of the pack of Charlotte q.e. in term of survival rate and more common in hi grade than 75% of the dates. >>
So, that means it's a bit tougher to find in lower grades (such as this one).
One presumes that is because this was the first year of issue at the Charlotte mint, and perhaps these first coins were hoarded and kept out of circulation for that reason?
Where is the best place to appraise/buy/sell Charlotte gold?
Auction houses or a early gold dealer like Douglas Winter.
Values fall off swiftly for old gold, especially old southern gold that is low tier and damaged. Specialists in this type of coinage usually can, and will, pay premium for coins with high loupe/eye appeal....but the gennie holder and the biig mark under the chin....it will always have a buyer, dont get me wrong...but the values cannot stand side by side with a graded coin.
Youd be best putting this into an NGC holder. The reason is that the NGC registry allows half the point value on its coins, in a problem ngc holder, in the registry. PCGS only allows ratinng at a PO01 grade. So...any specialist wanting this coin at a fair price, and to fill a registry slot...it carries more value in the ngc slab.
advice? reslab, sell for more than you got in it...and buy a better coin without a big mark on the obverse. eye/loupe appeal is all that matters.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
I'm certain that there are many reasons why I shouldn't have bought this coin. It was indeed a rather spontaneous auction/bidding process for me to obtain this newp.
The coin does fulfill certain interests for me:
1. It's Charlotte gold (my first ever).
2. It's the first year of issue from that mint.
3. It has the mint mark on the obverse.
4. It has mintage under 10,000 pieces.
5. It's fairly scarce (R4), probably less than 150 survivors.
6. It's price didn't break the bank for this type of issue.
Whether it survives my own personal eye appeal test won't happen until I have the coin in hand, can look at it at arm's length, and also photograph it.
I'll have some concerns about it until I have it in hand (likely this weekend). The seller says he will honor his return policy.
As for net grading and valuation, the seller claims it's an EF-40/45, but with the cleaning and the ding that would likely bring it down to VF territory (and perhaps lower?).
I could be wrong (need it in hand), but I can't see a subjective net grade going lower than F-15. Any other thoughts about a subjective net grade and valuation?
Net grade? I usually don't use net grades, but a PCGS VF 20 sold for $4600 in 2006, so maybe a XFdetails VG net grade?
<< <i>I would estimate closer to 200 than 80 on the R-4 scale, quite a few have been graded and there are even more cleaned/damaged examples. As previously mentioned, very hard to find problem free in VF-XF grades. I think the price was good (for the buyer!), it would have been bid higher at Heritage. Hard to say how it looks until you receive it, as hairlines can be hidden on images. A graded AU would be 8K and up. I own PCGS AU50 and will be selling it in a couple years as I am now only collecting half eagles, but it is a nice coin.
Net grade? I usually don't use net grades, but a PCGS VF 20 sold for $4600 in 2006, so maybe a XFdetails VG net grade?
I personally think it will net in the F15-VF25 range. But I need to get it in hand first and post some photos in order to be sure.
I'll also need to get some additional feedback from others...
<< <i>I don't think you did bad at all, i'll be interested to see it in hand when we get the chance to meet up again
I'll definitely let you know when I'm back in Cincinnati Mark, and if you're back up this way give me a holler...
regards,
'dude
<< <i>Pop numbers aside, (you have to take into consideration that they are highly inflated due to resubmissions)... finding an original, undamaged '38-C in VF-lower AU is a daunting challenge. Those that do exist are kept in tightly held collections... (I'm still looking for my example). I've seen a fairly healthy number of upper "AU-55/58" coins, but many of them are washed out, over dipped coins that appear more fitting for entombment in genuine holders because of their "enhancements". Granted, the date was tucked away, due to its first year of issue status; however, there wasn't a whole lot of folks who could afford to just set aside $2.50 in gold to save as a family heirloom (and mintmarked gold wasn't saved by collectors for numismatic purposes back then). That said, if the coin looks as decent as it does in the pics, I'd say you did very well for less than $1700. The dig doesn't bother me too bad. Looks like there's a corresponding area of planchet "bulge" on the reverse... between the eagle's beak and left (facing) wing, from the hit on the obverse... hard to say if it lines up exactly, but it appears to be some disturbance there.
regards,
'dude >>
CharlotteDude--thanks bunches for all of the great information; very interesting and much appreciated!
I'm thinking that for a nearly matching "twin," albeit from a different branch mint, that a '39-D quarter eagle may eventually appear on my radar screen.
How difficult are those to find in similar condition, hopefully mostly problem-free?
Is there a Dahlonega gold expert in the house?
<< <i>That said, if the coin looks as decent as it does in the pics, I'd say you did very well for less than $1700. >>
One thing that confounds me is pricing for Charlotte gold. It appears to be all over the map at the Heritage website.
For VF-20:
PCGS Price Guide: $2,000
Numismedia PCGS (nmp): $2,200
Numismedia NGC (nmn): $2,200
Numismedia Wholesale: $2,350
Numismedia Retail: $2,940
Coin World: $1,850
Coin World values are usually inflated, but they are the lowest in this case? PCGS pricing is usually the highest, but it's not in this case? What gives?
What other guides could one use other than the Heritage historical auction prices to use as a basis for approximate valuation?
The lighting in the original photos is a bit too bright, but do these look like the same coin?
Any thoughts on cleaning, damage, and an ultimate grade for the coin in my photos? Thanks!
<< <i>It looks like a nice, original coin. I like it. >>
Thanks... I am leaning towards liking it too, but have some questions.
Where did the dig below the chin go? It's hard to imagine lighting could make that much difference?
Thoughts on a grade?
Is it the same coin? Do the pcgs cert numbers match the ones in auction photos?
I'm not sure if I like the new photos more or less than the originals.
I'm leaning towards liking it more, except that there doesn't appear to be as much detail as I originally thought on the reverse?
<< <i>With the coin in hand what do you think she grades?? >>
This is my first-ever Charlotte gold, and I could be off a little, but I'd guess around VF-35 or so.
I'm still waiting for more Charlotte gold experts to chime in.
With the new picture, I would give it a solid 35, perhaps a 40. I would sticker and Plus it at a 35.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Is that the same coin? What happened to the dig near the 3rd star in the Ebay pic?
With the new picture, I would give it a solid 35, perhaps a 40. I would sticker and Plus it at a 35.
That's the $1625 question... where did both of those digs go!?!
Neither mark is visible on the coin, but there appears to be a hint of a scratch in my photo in the slab where that dig near the 3rd star appears in the original photo. Maybe that explains it?
Not to be naive, but what does "sticker and plus" mean?
IIRC, "sticker and plus" means Longacre likes it.
I like.
<< <i>Sometimes, a very thin scratch will be very visible with lighting from one angle, but totally invisible at all other angles.
I like. >>
I agree, but why is the "real" dig/scratch on the right side of the obverse between stars 13/14 NOT showing up in the original photos?
I like the coin in hand, but the weirdness with the missing digs/scratches is "coinfounding" to me.
Although I'm no Charlotte expert, I'd almost be willing to give it XF details (as RYK does). (Doug Winter says that the obverse frequently appears to be a full grade better than the reverse.)
Personally, I'd like to see some dirt in the eagle's wings an the shield, which suggests the coin has been cleaned at one point. Pehaps it has hairlines from a (hopefully old) cleaning.
On the whole, a nice pickup!
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>Different lighting can reveal different digs and scratches just as much as it can hide other digs and scratches. (Which is why you rotate the coin under a single light source to grade it.)
Although I'm no Charlotte expert, I'd almost be willing to give it XF details (as RYK does). (Doug Winter says that the obverse frequently appears to be a full grade better than the reverse.)
Personally, I'd like to see some dirt in the eagle's wings an the shield, which suggests the coin has been cleaned at one point. Pehaps it has hairlines from a (hopefully old) cleaning.
On the whole, a nice pickup! >>
Thanks for the comments and insight... I do believe the obverse is definitely better in this example.
I believe the coin was probably cleaned long ago, but the appearance in hand is pleasing.
I personally think it's a small stretch for XF details, but I agree that it's darn close. But I'm certainly not a Charlotte expert; that's why I'm looking for all feedback possible.
The more I learn about this series, the more I believe the market for it resembles fine art.
<< <i>Pop numbers aside, (you have to take into consideration that they are highly inflated due to resubmissions)... finding an original, undamaged '38-C in VF-lower AU is a daunting challenge. Those that do exist are kept in tightly held collections... (I'm still looking for my example). I've seen a fairly healthy number of upper "AU-55/58" coins, but many of them are washed out, over dipped coins that appear more fitting for entombment in genuine holders because of their "enhancements". Granted, the date was tucked away, due to its first year of issue status; however, there wasn't a whole lot of folks who could afford to just set aside $2.50 in gold to save as a family heirloom (and mintmarked gold wasn't saved by collectors for numismatic purposes back then). That said, if the coin looks as decent as it does in the pics, I'd say you did very well for less than $1700. The dig doesn't bother me too bad. Looks like there's a corresponding area of planchet "bulge" on the reverse... between the eagle's beak and left (facing) wing, from the hit on the obverse... hard to say if it lines up exactly, but it appears to be some disturbance there. >>
It looks like my specimen may have been struck about the same time as this one at Heritage.
That could explain the (planchet void?) on the cheek, the stuff going on with the rim at 11:00--12:00 on the obverse, and the die break at 10:00 and weak overall strike on the reverse?
Either that, or they were both used as jewelry at some point, due to the "hit" on the cheek? (maybe not a planchet void afterall?)
After more than a dozen tries looking for them under magnification and natural light with my inexperienced eyes, I have finally "found" the two scratches/marks which appeared so obvious in the seller's photographs. The original photographs make them look at least a thousand times (3 orders of magnitude) worse than what they really are. I mean, you really have to look very, very, very hard to find them, and only with a very, very, very small specific angle of light coming from a single point source of light. This is not a knock on the seller, but talk about presenting a coin in the worst possible light? The original photos may have turned some bidders away. The long mark which didn't show up in the original photos (but does in mine) between stars 13/14 is far more visible when observing under natural light. That said, it's still not bad at all (to my eyes).
I originally complained about the apparent weak strike on the reverse, but it's now my understanding thanks to folks here (DaveG) that this is common on Charlotte issues.
The only remaining question for me revolves around the depression in the cheek area on the obverse and some of the uneven wear on the shield on the reverse. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, it looks almost identical to a specimen auctioned at Heritage about five years ago. Is it a planchet void? Or a depression caused because both coins were used as jewelry at some point? I don't know, and would love to hear feedback from anyone who might have an opinion on it. What kind of damage/wear does jewelry mounting typically do?
Even if previously mounted/worn as jewelry, I believe that this coin will be a keeper for me...
I wish I knew you were interested in the '39-D a couple months ago... I sold this one at the Baltimore show in March. It's in (or at least WAS in) a 1st generation PCGS VF-35 holder...
regards,
'dude
I think that ultimately I may assemble a small '39 quarter eagle type set with examples from Charlotte, Dahlonega, and New Orleans.
Thanks for all of your insight; much appreciated!
<< <i>Hmmm, now i really wanna see it in hand.
And you shall!
Hard to have a meaningful opinion about the coin based on the images when the images are (obviously) so unreliable.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Visit my son's caringbridge page @ Runner's Caringbridge Page
"To Give Anything Less than Your Best, Is to Sacrifice the Gift" - Steve Prefontaine
The coloration and luster border on the decent side imo. This coin has way too much luster to be a VF....at least not by today's loose standards. Sure, in the 1970's this could have been a VF, just like most of today's unc 60-63 bust halves would have been AU's.
I don't see it any worse than XF45 details and even an AU50 would not surprise me assuming it was not bagged for cleaning. I've seen enough lousy struck CC gold in unimagineably high holders to know that you almost have to grade the coin by the fields, rims, cheek, and overall luster...while ignoring most details. Hence focus on the best struck areas...not the worst. Friends of mine have bought some early CC gold as VF's and ultimately got them graded AU55 or 58....because they had considerable luster. Even if bagged for problematic surfaces the coin imo still seems to have enough appeal and detail to be worth XF money. It's a coin one has to see up close to assess the overall originality of the surfaces to come to an accurate market value.
One lesson I learned a while back is that almost anything is possible with earlier CC gold. I think TPG's give more strike leeway here than in any other area. Think of it as an 1861 Scott restrike half dollar or other territorial gold coins where strike is often just tossed out the window.
roadrunner
<< <i>I will call it a 40, but unfortunately cannot give it a Plus or a sticker.
Give it a 39 and a Plus than.
<< <i>I sort of like it too.
The coloration and luster border on the decent side imo. This coin has way too much luster to be a VF....at least not by today's loose standards. Sure, in the 1970's this could have been a VF, just like most of today's unc 60-63 bust halves would have been AU's.
I don't see it any worse than XF45 details and even an AU50 would not surprise me assuming it was not bagged for cleaning. I've seen enough lousy struck CC gold in unimagineably high holders to know that you almost have to grade the coin by the fields, rims, cheek, and overall luster...while ignoring most details. Hence focus on the best struck areas...not the worst. Friends of mine have bought some early CC gold as VF's and ultimately got them graded AU55 or 58....because they had considerable luster. Even if bagged for problematic surfaces the coin imo still seems to have enough appeal and detail to be worth XF money. It's a coin one has to see up close to assess the overall originality of the surfaces to come to an accurate market value.
One lesson I learned a while back is that almost anything is possible with earlier CC gold. I think TPG's give more strike leeway here than in any other area. Think of it as an 1861 Scott restrike half dollar or other territorial gold coins where strike is often just tossed out the window.
roadrunner >>
Thanks for your insight!
From my limited experience with early gold I believe your comments are on the mark. So, (C)arson (C)ity gold shares some the same grading dynamics as (C)harlotte gold?
BTW--no one at a local show I attended on Sunday could definitely point out any "damage" on the piece in hand. I wish that PCGS could explicitly identify "what" the damage is on coins which earn a "98 distinction."
<< <i>I had the opportunity to see Jeff and this coin on Sunday. It really is a nice pretty coin in hand. The original pictures did not do it justice at all. He did very well picking this one up. A coin to be proud to own! >>
Thanks Bill... I'm proud enough to use the piece as my Avatar! Good to see you at the show!
One other thought, the magnification of the scratches in the original picture used in the auction is mostly likely a series of cooincidences where the scratch is magnified by an angle and imperfection in the plastic, magnifing the scratch many times. The internet can be very useful, but there is nothing like seeing the coin in person. I think you were lucky in that your pictures would have made the coin go for a lot more money in the auction IMHO.
Great pickup !!
My mistake. I rarely ever type Charlotte or C, so being a seated guy my mind was fixated on the "C" and then typed "CC." No, CC gold doesn't as a rule have the kind of chronic strike problems that Charlotte gold does. My bad.
roadrunner
<< <i>I am only guessing (as we all are who have only seen pictures) but my thought it the rim issue at 12 o'clock is what held the coin back from being graded something other than 98. My thought is ex-jewelry, but again without holding the coin, the best we can do is speculate. >>
Indeed. I believe the rim issue you are seeing is because it's a late die state? I believe that what we're seeing on the rim is mint-made, as mine exhibits the same rim issue and planchet void on the cheek as this example at Heritage.
The detective work continues!