Opinions and guess the grade on this Charlotte gold dollar *Grade Revealed*
liefgold
Posts: 1,690 ✭✭✭✭✭
This date and mint are known as having the poorest quality strikings and defective planchets of the entire gold dollar series. This makes the issue tough to grade. I think this one is an exception and is pretty well defined. Tough to tell from photos I know. I included a couple different lighting shots.
Opinions and grade?
liefgold
4
Comments
58
I like your avatar.
58 too.
I am in the 58 group too. Nice coin with a touch of circulation or rough handling
That is a lovely old Charlotte gold coin.... 58 seems reasonable.... Cheers, RickO
I see 58 too.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
AU58 and I like it!
My YouTube Channel
61 but this is like reading a smile on a dog.
These coins were very poorly made, and that makes it hard to grade them. The piece appears to be an AU-58 although I'm not sure what is going on at 2k on the obverse. It's probably nothing but the usual fugly Charlotte Mint planchet.
Yes, that is a planchet defect.
Grade revealed later tonight.
Likely AU, but difficult to tell in reconciling the two pairs of photos.
Beat up AU w/lamination. Very nearly MS but very bad surfaces = AU-53, laminated. I should not be shocked if this is in a 61 slab.
All the chatter and such make me think AU 55 but I don't know anything about the series.
ok ill with au 55.
61
This coin is graded AU55 and has pretty good detail and some luster. It seems to show some wear but this Charlotte issue was very poorly made and difficult to grade.
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
Very nice coin Mr. Commem! One of of the best strikes and level of detail I have seen of this issue. And no planchet problems I can see!
I think mine may have a little more definition in the dentils, but mine does have that planchet defect at 2 o'clock.
I'll say it got a 62
I know just how consistently poor the ‘57-C planchets are found and don’t get me started about the strike. Planchet defect aside, I’m going to stretch for MS-61. You found a very nice coin for the date.
The first photo set is a 58. The second set is a 62.
I like all the cool reverse die cracks.
Thanks to all for the grades and comments. Time to reveal the grade.
Regardless of the grade I believe this is the best strike on a 57-C I have seen, and I have looked at many. There are only 4 MS graded PCGS coins for this issue, with the highest being one 62. I have seen 3 of those and would choose mine over any of them. Granted this is a very tough date to grade but I think PCGS really missed it. I would agree with most of the guesses that were 58 to 61. But not:
No Way that coin is a '45. I presumed the "scratch" from "N" to under Liberty's chin, then to throat area is on the holder, based on 1st obverse pic.
Ouch. Tough grade.
Yes, that is on the holder.
I could live with a 58 or even 55, if you downgrade for the planchet defect. But there is really no wear on the coin. This is really a case of "buying the coin not the holder".
Dang! I wish I could find an “XF” like that when I’m in the market!
My YouTube Channel
Geez !!!
Submit it for a bean.
For all you young'ins this coin is a poster child for an XF-45 coin long ago. IMO, it was net graded as it sure has enough detail to be TODAY's AU. It must really be beat up in hand.
I am so pleased it was not graded MS-60 or 61 as I would have guessed with the "standards" (AU's = low MS) of the present time.
You obviously know very little about this date and mint.
Wow... I was going to say 61! But now you can drag this coin out when someone tries to sell you a 45, and say... nah... THIS is a 45! ;-)
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Re-submit or send to CAC and give JA a call...I'm guessing its net graded...
That's a curious grade. I wonder what (if anything) we're missing.
I think that this piece was net graded because of the planchette defect and the many fine lines on the surface. Some of those lines may have been in the planchette when it was struck. They were not effaced from the surface because the dies were not properly gapped in the coin press.
Crudely made coins like this require grading by the surfaces, which can be inconsistent and controversial. I have an 1857-C gold dollar graded EF-45 that has some mint luster. It might seem like an AU-50 to some, but it has too many mint related issues. The grading services tend to err on the side of caution with these coins.
Yes, you are correct, I'm very sure that you are much more knowledgeable about the coins struck at our Branch Mints than I.
Perhaps that's because I have not engorged myself on the Koolaid of the commercial coin market! One of my favorites is grape flavored: "They come this way."
I have more "quotes" for the other flavors but I'm going to save them for later (unless you are Doug Winter) when any other "Ex-Perts" on our Branch Mint coins leave a comment as this.
When I was shopping for a Type III gold dollar for my Charlotte gold type set, I knew that there were only two choices, the 1857-C or the 1859-C. In its last years, the Charlotte Mint had a policy of producing quarter eagles during the even numbered years and gold dollars on the odd number years. Both the 1857-C and the 1859-C gold dollars were very poorly made. The 1857-C is the cheaper and more common coin, so I gravitated toward that one.
After looking at some coins, I saw that I could buy a Choice EF-45 for a couple thousand dollars or pay two or three times more for an AU-55 or 58. When I looked at what I got for the extra thousands of dollars, I came to the conclusion that it was not worth the difference. Hence this coin is in my set. My competition for this piece in the auction was a well-known dealer who specializes in southern gold, so I figured I did okay.
@liefgold
Here is the thing. As a uninformed numismatist on Charlotte Mint gold, I
can post a few things with 100% certainty.
At one point in time, ALL OF THEM were FULL MINT STATE (often weak). These little dollars you all collect did not drop off the press with: Hairlines; Gouges; Scratches; Impact Damage; Rim Nicks; Altered Surfaces; Repairs; and Bent or Damaged Surfaces.
Nice coin Bill. I came to the very same conclusion on this date and the 1855-C, another poorly produced issue. As I said before, this and several other C and D mint coins often have their prices determined more on the overall look than just the assigned grade.
All quite true, but unless you are one of those expert graders who can tell the difference between poorly struck and wear, one could say that the vast majority, if not all of these coins, were "struck in AU." These is especially true of the 1855-C, which is Type II gold dollar. I don't think that either of the two major services has graded an 1855-C gold dollar in any grade higher than MS-62. With grade-flation that might be ready for a change, but for the most part these coins never had the "meat" or the "look" that would allow them to grade any higher.
if you really look at the surfaces and mint luster on many of these coins, the grading services have tended to be fairly conservative. I have an 1855-D gold dollar that has enough luster and totally original surfaces to be an AU-50, but it's graded EF-45. If it had been an 1855-P dollar, I imagine that it would make AU fairly easily.
That coin is a lock upgrade, especially with the major competitor to PCGS. As DW commented a long time, many of those branch mint issues were undergraded and when resubmitted went up, some quite a bit.
No, I don't think that it is "a lock upgrade" with the planchett issue on the obverse. If it were to come back with "planchett defect" marked on it, you would be in for a lower selling price, even if the grade were a bit higher.
The rule of thumb is, mint errors often enhance the value of modern coins. For older coins, it's usually a negative.
Really cool piece.
Very true Bill. Getting a "planchet defect' designation would likely mean a tougher sale and lower price. My opinion is that the planchet on mine is much less "damaged" than 99% of the ones that have been slabbed of this date. But that is no guarantee that this one will be straight graded. It very well may have been "net graded" to XF45 by a grader not familiar with the planchets of this date.
If I ever do decide to sell, this is probably one to resubmit under the "grade review" tier.
Great thread. Interesting points brought up.
My YouTube Channel
As you may know, I look at these coins using a stereo microscope (7X) and florescent light. While I'm not an expert at anything I can think of, I've never had a problem distinguishing a weakly struck coin from a worn one once I learned the difference.
For all the reasons you have cited, grading Branch Mint gold dollars is made difficult. Besides being graded much differently than a Philadelphia issue (adding more subjectivity), once a grader needs to assign a value due to their rarity and popularity - GAME OVER; and it is all a game left to folks much more important and knowledgeable than I.
I like the one posted by mrcommem the best of the group that are pictured in this thread. Seems 45 is harsh on the subject coin. It looks well within the AU spectrum and I suppose we could then argue where it best fits. It is a nice coin too
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Unfortunately while Planchet Flaws may be the nature of the beast for early C gold....they are a knock against the coin's grade...even resulting in a no grade if serious enough...and what may be acceptable on early copper is not on mid 19th century gold...
I wonder if arguments break out in the grading room when these funky Charlotte and Dahlonega coins come in.
Never ever saw an argument EVER on one of these. That's what a finalizer is for. LOL.
Now I have personally argued the PL/DMPL line many times, all to no avail.
As most of you must know, that's why a better date DMPL (same reflectivity as required) is not given the DMPL grade it deserves because of the price jump if graded DMPL. It's a "value" thing that adds to the confusion and subjectivity, It also guarantees the exclusivity required to grade expensive coins will be maintained.
IMO, that's too bad and the knowledge needed to put a value on a coin (said to determine its commercial grade) cannot be taught in a grading seminar.