Options
Guess the grade on this double eagle....GRADE POSTED
erwindoc
Posts: 4,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
Been looking at the liberty head double eagle series lately and trying to learn more. This particular coin has me confused as to the grade. Please offer your opinion on it and explain why. Just posting the obverse. Ill post the grade later on.
1
Comments
Hard to give a grade without seeing the reverse but the obverse looks 63ish
62+ shot 63, I suck at grading but the cheek’s super baggy and I’m not sure about the left field from the photos.
Always buying nice toned coins! Searching for a low grade 1873 Arrows DDO Dime and 1842-O Small Date Quarter.
I'm at 62, only because the marks on the portrait are quite distracting. (Disclaimer: I never grade gold correctly).
If the source of your confusion is the dark high points, leading you to an AU grade.....(first, you could be right)….I think they are quite forgiving on gold, and considering the full luster in the fields, would let this one slide.
(Which is part of the reason I never get gold correct).
Not the best photo I ever took, but the absence of marks is correct.
The white guys gave it a 62.
I’ll go with 63+
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
63
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
gonna guess 64, but not an attractive one
63, but might pass for a 64. TPG seem lenient with MS liberty $20s.
Indian Head $10 Gold Date Set Album
62
62 my eye goes to the cheek and it looks kind of baggy.
62
63 at first glance, but going with 62 after looking a bit more.
AlmostOver 100 successful deals on this forum spanning well over 10 years now, feel free to ask for references!MS61
MS61 PCGS
55 but could be a 61
Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone
63
63-
62, could be in a 63 holder.
I'll go with 62
63
Thanks for all the guesses. This one graded by our hosts as 64+ and CAC. I guess I am not alone in trying to figure out why it graded so high. From the images alone, I would put it at 62, like most of you!
That's one of the turnoffs with the large gold coins for me - they tend to have a lot of marks,
even in the higher grades.
I wanted a 1907 No Motto saint for quite awhile - a dealer friend had gotten his back, MS64 with the shield label included, and it was very baggy, and 'bright'.....I have a 1927 OGH in 64 with barely any marks and rich orange gold color that was much more eye appealing. If the 07 looked comparable, I would have bought that one in a heartbeat.
Late again... however, I would have said 62... surprised at the 64+...but pictures vs. in hand can be misleading. Cheers, RickO
I've been a collector for about 65 years. I bought my first $20 lib about 60 years ago when gold was peggged at $35/oz. It may be a wishful memory, but what was a gem or near gem 30 years ago was a much cleaner coin than this IMO. I've seen the same thing with Morgans. If I were to guess I would say that too much leeway is given today because of the size and weight of the larger coins. (I can't imagine a 1904 in this condition graded above a 62). Of course, photos can mislead both ways.
That's way higher than I would have guessed. I really think it's in the 60/61 range to my eye.
Must have crazy luster
I would've said 62 and no higher than 63.
Very surprised at the 64+ grade.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Solid 62, outside shot at a 63. Congrats!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Would've guessed decent 63. 64+ is a surprise.
Try the British grading system where this would likely have come out as an EF at best...I agree with the sentiment that the grading on large gold seems to be unto itself, and that is the nicest that can be said.
Well, just Love coins, period.
That doesn’t look like a 64+ to me either but grading from a picture can be challenging. Here’s a 61 that I have for comparison.
I would say that the with "full slab" photo, which is approximately actual coin sized on my monitor....It looks pretty sweet! The luster is apparent, and the darker shades on the portrait pretty much fade away. (Though, I suspect it's actually the same photo...just smaller).
The hazards of grading from dinner plate sized images....
I see a beautiful piece here. I’m pretty sure when imaging the lights were set at the top of the coin so it magnifies the blemishes.
Great looking coin 👌🏻
my first thought was a commercial MS63 so the assigned grade tells me it must be a real luster bomb.
My thought was 62. Indeed it must have good luster and decent fields...
My YouTube Channel
I'm surprised at the grade and the cac sticker considering how tough they can be on these.
All about the luster
Latin American Collection
Looks 64 to me.
CN eBay
All of my collection is in a safe deposit box!
The reverse must be a 66 if they graded it 64+
When you play GTG both the obverse and reverse must be shown, it says that in the rules
I don’t think that’s the case, at all. The obverse receives far more weight than the reverse. And if, for example, the graders graded the obverse 63 or less, I don’t think the coin would receive a 64+, no matter how nice it’s reverse.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
07 is probably the worst year for saints.
The dies weren't as nice as the later motto dies.
She has a frown on her face that they changed with the motto dies.
All 07 are graded ONE COMPLETE grade higher than what it should be. (08 NM also higher but maybe 1/2-2/3)
The blind eagle looks terrible.
Probably the #1 CAC cracker year because 90% of beaned 07's should upgrade.
if you can find one)
(free money tip from RFA
Mine is a typical 65+ that looks like a 64+
Take a look at Hansen's 67 (looks like 65+ maybe 66)
Hansen 67
My Saint Set
I would also have guessed 62.
Thanks for info and tips, ReadyAimFire.
Yours is certainly a very nice one, but I agree, with those obverse marks,
65+ seems a little generous.
I was in the 62 camp also. Some graders prefer clean fields vs clean cheek IMHO. For a 64 the double eagle should have a real good clean cheek. For me.
100% Positive BST transactions
When you make a blanket statement, such as “All 07 are graded ONE COMPLETE grade higher than what it should be..”, whatever credibility you have, takes a hit.
And while not quite as overdone, ditto for “Probably the #1 CAC cracker year because 90% of beaned 07's should upgrade”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sounds like you just volunteered to find one that isn't
Good luck
Maybe the lowest CAC percentage of all time.
Here's a coin facts link fer pictures of all the ones in sets. (I'm trying to help you out
)
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1907-20-saint/images/9141
My Saint Set
A while ago, a dealer friend educated me about the tolerance for bag marks (especially on the cheek) in grading $20 Libs. Boosibri is right: It's all about the luster, which the OP's coin looks to have in spades.
I hate bag marks, so it took me a long time to find an example for my gold type set. Ended up with this 65+:
There are 3s Type of 1908 DE. Type 1 uses the same hubs as 1907 and suffers from all the same problems, except detail is a bit better overall because the mints knew more about handling the split collar and planchets.