Another poorly produced Charlotte gold dollar

liefgoldliefgold Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭

A few weeks ago I posted a GTG on a 1857-C gold dollar that many feel is one of the worst looking coins made by this mint, due to poor planchets and weak strikes. This time I have what most believe is the "worst of the worst" as far as production problems and overall look. The 1855-C gold dollar. No GTG on this one, this is a cleaned AU example, as noted on the holder. I really don't care for cleaned coins, and this is the only one in my collection (at least in the opinion of PCGS and NGC).
I made an exception on this coin because I think this is the most well stuck and best looking example of this date I have seen. The coin is too bright from a cleaning but is about as good looking as this one gets. Compare it to others on HA or elsewhere to see what I mean.
Tell me what you think!



liefgold

Comments

  • chumleychumley Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭✭

    wonder if the minting process or equipment improved that much from the 1850s to say 1878 when morgans started?

  • SmudgeSmudge Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Charlotte mint had serious issues, especially with gold dollars. Lots of MD on that one too. But it is Southern gold so I gotta like it.

  • cheezhedcheezhed Posts: 4,298 ✭✭✭

    I really like that one!

    Many happy BST transactions
  • SmudgeSmudge Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cheezhed said:
    I really like that one!

    +1

  • Timbuk3Timbuk3 Posts: 8,355 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice, I like it too !!! :)

    Timbuk3
  • liefgoldliefgold Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭

    Very nice Mr. Commem. !
    Yours is the full date variety which has a better reverse but weaker obverse. Mine is the other variety, which is weak in the date but stronger on the obverse.

    liefgold
  • rickoricko Posts: 61,695 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, they have their problems, but still, southern gold.... and I like them. ;) Cheers, RickO

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 25,553 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Very nice coin, MrCommem!

    Thank you all for voting!
  • liefgoldliefgold Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭

    @BillJones said:
    Here's the one in my collection, which is in an EF-45 holder. This one coin issue where spending a boat load of extra money dones not get you that much more coin. Therefore, my advice is to find something in an EF holder that looks have way decent and go from there.

    Very good advice , Bill. I wish I could find an EF that looks like that one, but most do not.

    liefgold
  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 5,996 ✭✭✭✭✭

    All dies came from Philadelphia, so problems at branch mints would likely be related to press use and maintenance and/or planchet production.

  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 18,121 ✭✭✭✭✭

    for what it is i still like it as well.

  • jonrunsjonruns Posts: 742 ✭✭✭✭

    This one went unsold at the SB ANA auction...the Reverse looked much better...

  • ashelandasheland Posts: 10,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @mrcommem said:
    I haven't seen a 55-c gold dollar that has even close to good eye appeal. Most have poor planchets, terribly weak strikes, and sometimes foreign mint-made contaminants. This is the best I could find without spending a fortune. This coin grades PCGS AU53. It does have a full date and all the devices are present.


    I like!

  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 26,374 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RogerB said:
    All dies came from Philadelphia, so problems at branch mints would likely be related to press use and maintenance and/or planchet production.

    From what I have read, the Philadelphia Mint didn’t also send their best dies to the branches, and I have also learned that the dies needed basining before they could be placed into service. Add to that, less that stellar personnel who didn’t get the gap right in the press, often allowed the dies to clash, and did not keep a sharp lookout for struck throughs and the like, and have the ingredients for an inferior product. You can see all of that going on with the 1855-C gold dollars.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible.
  • ashelandasheland Posts: 10,687 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @mrcommem said:
    Here is the whole collection of Charlotte Gold Dollars (minus the 49 open wreath). All are graded AU53 to AU58. Note the 55, 57, and 59 issues are some of the worst produced coins from any U. S. mint.

    Exceptional!!

  • KkathylKkathyl Posts: 2,465 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Well if your going to break your rules about cleaned coins. That is certainly the one to do it with. Great pick. Congratulations

  • SmudgeSmudge Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @RogerB said:
    I've never seen any evidence that defective dies were deliberately sent to any branch mint. Also, dies were basined at Philadelphia prior to final hardening. The only exception was San Francisco Mint where they cut and hardened their own dies. (Hardening and tempering could change the radius (basin) slightly, but it was not something that was quantitatively controllable, so results would have been random.)

    I'm not sure if a good elemental analysis has been performed on pieces similar to the one the OP posted. The Annual Assay Commission records do not reveal anything out of line with the other mints or US law. However, a very small amount of iron could create major problems in gold alloy.

    So it may have been an issue with the quality of the planchets?
    Spell check tried to make me say plan assets.

  • @Smudge said:

    @cheezhed said:
    I really like that one!

    +1

    +2

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 5,996 ✭✭✭✭✭

    RE: "So it may have been an issue with the quality of the planchets?"

    That's far more likely than anything else. Might have involved the quality of refining, poor alloys, faulty annealing, inconsistent press setup, etc., etc.

    Defective dies issued by the Philadelphia Mint are possibly the least likely cause of branch mint coin quality. Notice also that New Orleans coins tend to be better and either C or D.

  • ms70ms70 Posts: 10,215 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Rusted reverse die?

Sign In or Register to comment.