(New images added) Charlotte Half Eagle Opinions

Coins299 · November 4, 2013 11:23AM

OK, I posted this coin the other day, and while on my phone the photobucket app messed with me,and I said I would reupload it. You can find it on Tom's site, but here it is:

Any opinions?

Thanks.

BillJones · November 4, 2013 11:31AM

Larger pictures with much better detail make a huge difference. I agree with the technical grade. The obverse strike is quite weak which makes the coin look like a lower grade when the protected areas are as obvious. From these photos the coin appears to have enough luster to make EF-45 easily.

CharlotteDude · November 4, 2013 11:58AM

Weak strike on the obverse, but I'm a fan of it.

'dude

Coins299 · November 4, 2013 12:00PM

<< Weak strike on the obverse, but I'm a fan of it.

'dude >>

And reverse.

I liked the diecrack on the reverse

Coins299 · November 4, 2013 8:36PM

Any more?

djdilliodon · November 4, 2013 8:39PM

To many marks for my tastes. I tend to like a smoother look but that's just me. Still a very nice coin though!

Coins299 · November 4, 2013 8:52PM

Well, I found out the variety for anyone interested.

http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/8244

Variety 1 (formerly Variety 14-F): The 1 in the date is very close to the bust while the 0 is closer to the denticles than to the bust. The reverse is the same as seen on the 1849-C Variety 1 and 1851-C Variety 2 half eagles. On all known examples, there is a small unfinished area on the reverse in the space between the eagle’s left wing and the branch. In addition, all examples I have seen have the same reverse crack as seen on Variety 1 of the 1849-C half eagle, die state II.

Variety 1 is scarcer than Varieties 2 and 4 but can be located with patience.

Here is another example with the same die crack/variety:

http://stacksbowers.com/Auctions/AuctionLot.aspx?LotID=63983

ricko · November 4, 2013 9:41PM

I like all old gold...very nice.... Cheers, RickO

291fifth · November 4, 2013 9:59PM

My opinion: Too many marks and too much wear for a 45. I'm not sure I'd even give it a 40.

Coins299 · November 4, 2013 10:08PM

<< My opinion: Too many marks and too much wear for a 45. I'm not sure I'd even give it a 40. >>

You are confusing wear with a weak strike. Read the variety.

Placid · November 4, 2013 11:12PM

I would find another for a type or mint mark collection.
The weakness in strike would be the reason.

Coins299 · November 4, 2013 11:22PM

<< I would find another for a type or mint mark collection.
The weakness in strike would be the reason. >>

It's a known variety though, look up the type 1 1850c half eagle..

Rare, but a type.

Coins299 · November 4, 2013 11:55PM

Read this on the varieties

Varieties

Any other opinions?

291fifth · November 5, 2013 12:02AM

<< 

<< My opinion: Too many marks and too much wear for a 45. I'm not sure I'd even give it a 40. >>

You are confusing wear with a weak strike. Read the variety. >>

My grading standards view weak strikes as a negative. I deduct for weak strikes. If a variety of a coin all have weak strikes then none of them deserve to receive a high grade. This is my opinion.

My feeling is that the coin market is slowly declining and that the decline will continue into the future as the collector population ages. In declining markets grading gets more and more strict as the market shrinks and the remaining collectors get more picky.

Collectors need to be careful in their purchases and form their own grading opinions. If in doubt, it goes to the lower grade.

Boosibri · November 5, 2013 12:40AM

I would suggest that the OP refrain from posting GTG threads and opinion threads about coins which he does not own and are active in dealers inventory. This is the second such instance and in my opinion is in poor taste.

If you want an opinion on a coin before buying it, work with a trusted dealer or have some fellow collectors who you can discuss the coin with. A public discussion is inappropriate. Just my two cents.

Coins299 · November 5, 2013 12:47AM

<< I would suggest that the OP refrain from posting GTG threads and opinion threads about coins which he does not own and are active in dealers inventory. This is the second such instance and in my opinion is in poor taste.

If you want an opinion on a coin before buying it, work with a trusted dealer or have some fellow collectors who you can discuss the coin with. A public discussion is inappropriate. Just my two cents. >>

Well… on both gtg threads you posted just irrelevance. I'm just trying to learn a bit here. Sorry

Any other opinions?

Placid · November 5, 2013 12:55AM

<< 

<< I would find another for a type or mint mark collection.
The weakness in strike would be the reason. >>

It's a known variety though, look up the type 1 1850c half eagle..

Rare, but a type. >>

Not sure you understand what I mean. A type collection of say dollars would be one of every type (flowing hair,bust,ect.) of dollar minted.
Most people who collect that way go for the highest graded coin with the best strike and luster they can afford and would pick a 1881s morgan dollar in ms 67 over a 1887 donkey tail in au58.

Coins299 · November 5, 2013 1:01AM

<< 

<< 

<< I would find another for a type or mint mark collection.
The weakness in strike would be the reason. >>

It's a known variety though, look up the type 1 1850c half eagle..

Rare, but a type. >>

Not sure you understand what I mean. A type collection of say dollars would be one of every type (flowing hair,bust,ect.) of dollar minted.
Most people who collect that way go for the highest graded coin with the best strike and luster they can afford and would pick a 1881s morgan dollar in ms 67 over a 1887 donkey tail in au58. >>

I think it's very solid for the grade. Same with many gold posters here:

First thread

steveben · November 5, 2013 1:08AM

it's a nice coin. it's good that you got one with a strong mint mark. most of them are weak for this year.

my initial impression is that it's weak for an xf45. but, it's hard to say for sure without seeing it in hand. therefore, i'll certainly take pcgs and cac's word for it. judging by the pictures only, i would place it more in the 40 to 35 range. this is a good example of why one cannot grade simply by photos.

mine is variety 2 and graded au50 by pcgs. it has a green cac sticker as well.

weak strikes do take away from the grade. the charlotte mint produced some poorly struck coins and this is one reason (of many) why there aren't a lot of high grade examples.

Coins299 · November 5, 2013 1:49AM

Thanks for the opinions. I wonder how the luster is.

Coins299 · November 5, 2013 4:41AM

Here are other pictures, I added them to the front:

Coins299 · November 5, 2013 7:19AM

Also - Does anyone know if there is a population census for varieties on this coin?
Thanks.

And any last opinions would be appreciated.

Coins299 · November 5, 2013 7:47AM

This also might be interesting to some, this is a VF30 PCGS Same variety 1 (14-f)

Linky

mkman123 · November 5, 2013 8:47AM

I like the coin and if I had the disposable income, I'd get it!!

determined · November 8, 2013 3:48PM

<< On all known examples, there is a small unfinished area on the reverse in the space between the eagle’s left wing and the branch.

Here is another example with the same die crack/variety:

>>

Interesting!

CharlotteDude · November 8, 2013 11:34PM

Coin still looks good to me, particularly if you're putting together a complete set of mid-grade Charlotte $5's. If it's a type set you're going after, then I'd say you could find other C-mint dates that usually come better struck. Steveben's '50-C is a beautiful example in its own right, and is an old, dear friend of mine.

'Dude

(New images added) Charlotte Half Eagle Opinions

Comments

Leave a Comment