My latest newp, your opine is invited.

Realone · April 24, 2015 2:15AM

I really had to stretch for this one, but had to have it:
[img]http://i59.tinypic.com/rkylqv.jpg[img]

thanks Barndog or helping the technology challenged

Barndog · April 24, 2015 2:16AM

relicsncoins · April 24, 2015 2:19AM

I like it a lot. tough to grade from the small photos.

Barndog · April 24, 2015 2:21AM

<< I like it a lot. tough to grade from the small photos. >>

how about this?

oih82w8 · April 24, 2015 2:21AM

It is too small for an assessment...however not too small to see the "CC".

Spoke too soon... it appears to be a weak strike, but I would give it an XF45.

relicsncoins · April 24, 2015 2:28AM

AU50?

Flatwoods · April 24, 2015 2:30AM

Beautiful coin! Definitely not my series but I was thinking AU50.

BustHalfBrian · April 24, 2015 2:38AM

<< A weak strike for sure. However..............

>>

Must be MS. I'll guess 62+

OriginalDan · April 24, 2015 2:39AM

The grade on this coin has always puzzled me. Even factoring in the weak strike, I grade it AU53.

relicsncoins · April 24, 2015 2:42AM

How about a luster shot instead of a color shot? Luster makes wear easier to see.

sittingbull · April 24, 2015 2:51AM

au 55 with bump for eyeball

indeetlib · April 24, 2015 2:53AM

Wow, pretty wild looking coin. I don't see much wear...how about AU58+?

jughead1893 · April 24, 2015 2:53AM

asheland · April 24, 2015 2:54AM

AU55

Athena · April 24, 2015 2:57AM

I think I have seen that coin before. It's quite lustrous if I recall correctly.

dib · April 24, 2015 2:58AM

58? No clue, but I really like the coin!

coinsarefun · April 24, 2015 3:00AM

I like it very much. I saw it for sale maybe 2 years back and acted to slow and lost it.
Its a winner for sure!

291fifth · April 24, 2015 3:00AM

AU50 ... but it would not be a coin for me due to the weak strike.

The color can't mitigate the weak strike, though I suspect many others would not agree with me on this.

keyman64 · April 24, 2015 3:09AM

AU53

Looks like wear more than a weak strike and I can't see any luster whatsoever with that photo.
If that is one of those fantasy photos where the coin looks nothing like that in hand, I just don't understand.
If the coin looks nothing like that then how can we be expected to grade from it.

Congrats on the CC T$1 pick-up regardless.

joebb21 · April 24, 2015 3:11AM

53.

deltadimeman · April 24, 2015 3:19AM

Realone, I like your newp. You have a great eye for the good ones !

TopographicOceans · April 24, 2015 3:36AM

55 pretty

Broadstruck · April 24, 2015 4:08AM

Cool and looks very familiar

BIGAL2749 · April 24, 2015 4:18AM

Hard to grade accurately from pictures but appears high AU

RB1026 · April 24, 2015 4:33AM

Congrats!! LOVE the colors on this one! Excellent coin.

jerseycat101 · April 24, 2015 5:43AM

Ill guess AU58. Stunning coin.

EastonCollection · April 24, 2015 5:49AM

Nice coin but it doesn't compare to capped bust dimes!!
LOL

CoinJunkie · April 24, 2015 5:59AM

Cool coin! Did you buy that from Crypto?

MidLifeCrisis · April 24, 2015 6:02AM

<< Wow, pretty wild looking coin. I don't see much wear...how about AU58+? >>

I agree with indeetlib, and I like it!

roadrunner · April 24, 2015 6:11AM

I would like it up to no more than a 63 grade. PCGS would definitely grade this 1 MS pt lower than whatever NGC did. Don't see this being a circ coin. Some slight luster breakage in the left obv field near stars 1,2,3. The kind of original coin I like...but always seem to be in the minority considering the strike. >90% of the collecting community see this as XF/AU (maybe they're right?). The weak strike areas don't bother me too much. It's a 75-cc after all....not a 75-s. Would like to be able to buy as MS61/62 but doubt this is likely. One thing I'm not sure of is that Liberty's left knee appears to have a spot of rub/missing toning. Liberty's weak left foot coincides nicely with the eagle's weak upper wing.

The kind of coin that if it walks into your local B&M raw....you hope you can buy it as an XF or AU. If this were an 1807 or 1808 CBH, most everyone would call the weaknesses strike and not rub. Seated coins get a bad rap...

jmski52 · April 24, 2015 6:16AM

Very Nice Coin! jmski52-approved.

tradedollarnut · April 24, 2015 6:34AM

Looks 63 to me - 64 if extremely lustrous as stated

brg5658 · April 24, 2015 6:41AM

<< Looks 63 to me - 64 if extremely lustrous as stated >>

Are we looking at the same coin here? I mean, I know you're the "guru" of this series -- but that sure looks like 100% certain wear on the head, breast, and down the leg of the obverse Ms. Liberty. It's a lovely coin, but I see AU all day long -- though I know nothing of this series compared to you.

roadrunner · April 24, 2015 6:45AM

<< 

<< Looks 63 to me - 64 if extremely lustrous as stated >>

Are we looking at the same coin here? I mean, I know you're the "guru" of this series -- but that sure looks like 100% certain wear on the head, breast, and down the leg of the obverse Ms. Liberty. It's a lovely coin, but I see AU all day long -- though I know nothing of this series compared to you.

>>

Be leery of "certain" wear, especially when it only appears in isolated spots. How can only one breast be worn on Miss Liberty? When grading for wear look at the best details on the coin, not the worst. Look at the obv rim from 12 to 6 o'clock. It's wide, flat, craggy, and showing some luster. That doesn't usually happen on a circulated coin...exceptions being coins that were commonly handled by their owners hence wearing only the rims. Liberty's center drapery, arms, and right leg are nicely detailed and rounded. Wouldn't they be worn too?

jughead1893 · April 24, 2015 6:49AM

The toning seems to stop or looks a different shade where the "wear" is.why?

roadrunner · April 24, 2015 6:52AM

<< The toning seems to stop or looks a different shade where the "wear" is.why? >>

That could also be stated as that the coloration is a different shade wherever the strike quality is much different (luster and/or toning will appear different on weakly struck areas). Field toning/coloration will often change where luster depth changes significantly. The rims wear first along with the coins very highest points. Why would that wire rim from 12-1 o'clock still be left...that's as high as you can get?

On the flip side, photos can "lie." The coin can look totally different in hand. Even if the coin is a technical unc, it could be net graded down to AU58 just because of the weak strike. If 95% of market participants see the coin as an AU....that's a likely starting point for grade assignment. Eye appeal includes strike too. Realone will give us the rest of the story in the near future.

brg5658 · April 24, 2015 6:56AM

<< 

<< 

<< Looks 63 to me - 64 if extremely lustrous as stated >>

Are we looking at the same coin here? I mean, I know you're the "guru" of this series -- but that sure looks like 100% certain wear on the head, breast, and down the leg of the obverse Ms. Liberty. It's a lovely coin, but I see AU all day long -- though I know nothing of this series compared to you.

>>

Be leery of "certain" wear, especially when it only appears in isolated spots. How can only one breast be worn on Miss Liberty? When grading for wear look at the best details on the coin, not the worst. Look at the obv rim from 12 to 6 o'clock. It's wide, flat, craggy, and showing some luster. That doesn't usually happen on a circulated coin...exceptions being coins that were commonly handled by their owners hence wearing only the rims. Liberty's center drapery, arms, and right leg are nicely detailed and rounded. Wouldn't they be worn too? >>

All completely valid questions roadrunner. The pictures don't show the luster at all -- they are clearly taken to "emphasize" the purdy toning. I admit freely that I am not familiar with this series at all, but based on the wear patterns alone it doesn't look MS to me. May the plastic say "MS"? Sure, that's completely possible. I appreciate your insight as to how a coin that's truly UNC may look like this. Based on the other guess, I guess I'm not the only one who sees it this way.

tradedollarnut · April 24, 2015 6:57AM

Looking at a bigger image there's too much chatter for 64, so I will change my extremely lustrous top to 63. I still see an unc coin tho

roadrunner · April 24, 2015 7:02AM

......The pictures don't show the luster at all -- they are clearly taken to "emphasize" the purdy toning.

I would disagree. That field luster seems very apparent to me based on the toning pattern. I know there's luster buried in the feather details and around the peripherals. That's obvious. If that wasn't there then we'd have a different conclusion. The luster in the fields seems fine to me. Possibly up to 95% complete.

cheezhed · April 24, 2015 7:06AM

GORGEOUS!

keyman64 · April 24, 2015 7:11AM

Since the OP never replied, that only leads me to assume that the image posted is a fantasy photo.

For a GTG thread, it sure would be nice to have a photo of what the coin actually looks like rather some abstract false advertisement.

CharlotteDude · April 24, 2015 7:12AM

I see a very eye-appealing AU-55 coin there.

'dude

EVillageProwler · April 24, 2015 7:28AM

My first reaction when I saw this coin was also an UNC, but couldn't tell whether I liked 62 or 63 because it is hard to tell how much luster there was on this coin. When I saw others proclaiming AU-ish grades, I thought ... well, I guess I can understand why they think that. It's hard to grade from an image, especially when there are nuanced issues like strike vs wear, and how much luster.

Since this coin is very tough in 63 and the fields aren't so clean, I'll guess 62. But, a pretty coin no matter the label. Nice get, RO. Congrats.

EVP

Stuart · April 24, 2015 7:30AM

RealOne: Congrats on picking up a very colorful, attractive, eye-appealing CC Trade Dollar.

I'd guess the grade to be AU-55 based on the PCGS True View photos provided, but based on your posts I suspect that you'll reveal something different...

So what's The Rest of the Story??

RCDB · April 24, 2015 7:39AM

Very pretty coin. I have never been able to determine a weak strike as opposed to some minor wear on anything other than a Morgan. I can't see this being MS, so I'll guess a beautiful AU58.

tradedollarnut · April 24, 2015 7:40AM

<< My first reaction when I saw this coin was also an UNC, but couldn't tell whether I liked 62 or 63 because it is hard to tell how much luster there was on this coin. When I saw others proclaiming AU-ish grades, I thought ... well, I guess I can understand why they think that. It's hard to grade from an image, especially when there are nuanced issues like strike vs wear, and how much luster.

Since this coin is very tough in 63 and the fields aren't so clean....

EVP >>

Agreed. On a larger image, it looks like circulation wear in the left obverse field. The weaker high points still look unc

OriginalDan · April 24, 2015 7:45AM

Anyone know what causes this kind of neon day-glow toning? I've seen a few other coins like this and have wondered how they ended up in this state. (no, I would never try to achieve this myself, not why I'm asking)

lordmarcovan · April 24, 2015 7:49AM

Wow. Those reverse colors are wild.

Very nice!

mirabela · April 24, 2015 8:27AM

That's a winner. I have no clue about the strike characteristics of these & therefore won't venture a guess as to grade, but the appearance is obviously fantastic regardless.

My latest newp, your opine is invited.

Comments

Leave a Comment