Home U.S. Coin Forum

NEWPS! (That is actually real this time lol)

CalifornianKingCalifornianKing Posts: 1,258 ✭✭✭✭
edited December 24, 2020 4:18PM in U.S. Coin Forum

Won this bad boy at GC last week, cost 265 shipped with fees and all that. Which seems to be a good price. I've been looking for a nice attractive seated quarter for several months now for my basic US coins type set. This one is decently well struck (especially for a pre-civil war/civil war coin).

Comments

  • TomBTomB Posts: 20,266 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "Pre-Civil War"?

    Well, I guess if we knew what date in 1861 it was struck, we could make that determination. Otherwise, I think this would likely fall under "Civil War date".

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • CalifornianKingCalifornianKing Posts: 1,258 ✭✭✭✭

    @TomB said:
    "Pre-Civil War"?

    Well, I guess if we knew what date in 1861 it was struck, we could make that determination. Otherwise, I think this would likely fall under "Civil War date".

    My bad. Edited it. It kinda is a pre-civil war since It MAY have been struck before..

  • airplanenutairplanenut Posts: 21,756 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    JK Coin Photography - eBay Consignments | High Quality Photos | LOW Prices | 20% of Consignment Proceeds Go to Pancreatic Cancer Research
  • mirabelamirabela Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 24, 2020 4:55PM

    Could be it was dipped at some point, but it has a pleasant overall look IMO. It has a great strike and lots of remaining frost. It's considerably nicer than any of the seated quarters in my set.

    mirabela
  • kazkaz Posts: 9,004 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice coin for your type set. All the details, plenty of frost, and a civil war date.

  • scotty4449scotty4449 Posts: 662 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I love it, nice pick up!

  • CalifornianKingCalifornianKing Posts: 1,258 ✭✭✭✭

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    Most likely dipped, but I don't personally care if it was dipped as long as there are no noticeable effects, I believe the term is market acceptable. unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Excellent advice offered in this thread. Of course, we have all been new to coin collecting at some point. We have all made mistakes. The value of this forum lies in the advice given by experienced (even expert) members. Every day here should be a learning experience - whether it is appraising the quality/condition of coins, values, varieties, errors or other aspects of the hobby. Cheers, RickO

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,056 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 25, 2020 7:48AM

    @airplanenut said:

    @winesteven said:

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    While there’s no doubt that the majority of knowledgeable collectors/numismatists prefer coins that are fully original, there’s a large silent group that prefers their coins look like the mint intended when they were struck. Obviously the major TPG’s will holder these as long as the dipping does not remove much of the coins original luster. Matter of fact, many of the coins in my digital Dansco 7070 have been gently dipped at some point, and every single one merits a CAC. As we know, CAC is very particular about surface issues. Quite often bidding on these kind of coins at auction brings out significant numbers of active bidders. I think we can all agree that there are truly original coins with unattractive toning. Dealers selling these always tell me that it just proves originality! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

    @CalifornianKing said:

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    Most likely dipped, but I don't personally care if it was dipped as long as there are no noticeable effects, I believe the term is market acceptable. unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped

    I have a few thoughts here. First, my read from the photos is that the lustre appears impaired and the coin is not one where you can't tell it's been dipped. Second, as I mentioned in the thread on the gold coin, a few of the recent purchases you've shown off have been problem coins, and you've mentioned you're young, somewhat new, and learning (all fine). If this is the collection that you want to build, then have at it. On the other hand, I can say without question that my collection has greatly benefitted from people pointing out--starting when I was a teenage--how a coin could be better and encouraging me to seek out those coins. There are numerous pieces in my collection which by date and grade are common, yet I may have spent 1-3 years before buying the the one I have.

    As @winesteven noted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's fine. But if you're ever planning to sell, someone else has to become the beholder. I understand that dipped coins fall along an eye appeal spectrum. While in general they aren't my cup of tea, there are certainly ones that are much better than others. Your point about market acceptability is right and wrong. Yes, it means the coin gets in a holder, but no, it doesn't mean the coin is nice. To follow that, I agree that unattractive toning is just that, even if it's market acceptable. MA doesn't imply attractive. I do think your saying "unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped" is a non sequitur. I didn't say that you should get a coin with ugly toning (I'd dislike that, too). My point is just that if you take some time, opportunities will arise to get really nice examples... you just have to be patient. Your posts often reference getting good deals in terms of price. For any grade, there's a wide spectrum of quality, and depending on the specific coin, a "good price" may or may not be a good deal.

    I like that you're enthusiastic and I don't desire to diminish that. I simply think there is value in patience, and even if that means you don't get as many coins right away, over time you'll look at the collection you've built and be grateful you took your time in selecting each piece. Absolutely buy the coins you like, but be sure you understand all the options that are out there, and don't feel the need to rush a purchase. I used to do that, and I've sold just about everything acquired in that manner.

    Exceptionally well said, Jeremy. You have become wise, well beyond your years.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • mirabelamirabela Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Lots of great insight in this thread -- one of the things it invites is some reflection on what kind of set one is trying to build. What kind of look are you after? What does it mean for a coin to be "your kind of coin?" With the understanding that one man's ceiling is another's floor, one of the things we all have to figure out is what attributes are most important for us within the range of what we can access. I wholeheartedly support the notion that every one of us would do well to be exceptionally choosy and picky, within that range. And Jeremy and Mark are two of the people most worth listening to around here, year after year.

    mirabela
  • spacehaydukespacehayduke Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

    While I think there is sound advice provided in this thread, I caution the evaluation of the surfaces and how that affects the 'quality' of this coin. My experience is that GC images can sometimes make surfaces look worse than they really are. In hand, this coin might really shine. This is the problem with about 95% of the images on line - lacking the careful photographing necessary to really evaluate the surfaces. This is why CAC has become important - someone who is hard on surfaces has seen and like the coin if it has the bean. Now, CAC is very hard on mostly white 19th century coins. I have a couple I love, JA did not. That does not make them bad coins. Just sayin'.

    Best, SH


    Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
    Everyman Bust Quarters
    Early Quarters
    CAC Capped Bust Quarters
    CAC Barber Quarters
  • CalifornianKingCalifornianKing Posts: 1,258 ✭✭✭✭

    @airplanenut said:

    @winesteven said:

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    While there’s no doubt that the majority of knowledgeable collectors/numismatists prefer coins that are fully original, there’s a large silent group that prefers their coins look like the mint intended when they were struck. Obviously the major TPG’s will holder these as long as the dipping does not remove much of the coins original luster. Matter of fact, many of the coins in my digital Dansco 7070 have been gently dipped at some point, and every single one merits a CAC. As we know, CAC is very particular about surface issues. Quite often bidding on these kind of coins at auction brings out significant numbers of active bidders. I think we can all agree that there are truly original coins with unattractive toning. Dealers selling these always tell me that it just proves originality! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

    @CalifornianKing said:

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    Most likely dipped, but I don't personally care if it was dipped as long as there are no noticeable effects, I believe the term is market acceptable. unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped

    I have a few thoughts here. First, my read from the photos is that the lustre appears impaired and the coin is not one where you can't tell it's been dipped. Second, as I mentioned in the thread on the gold coin, a few of the recent purchases you've shown off have been problem coins, and you've mentioned you're young, somewhat new, and learning (all fine). If this is the collection that you want to build, then have at it. On the other hand, I can say without question that my collection has greatly benefitted from people pointing out--starting when I was a teenage--how a coin could be better and encouraging me to seek out those coins. There are numerous pieces in my collection which by date and grade are common, yet I may have spent 1-3 years before buying the the one I have.

    As @winesteven noted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's fine. But if you're ever planning to sell, someone else has to become the beholder. I understand that dipped coins fall along an eye appeal spectrum. While in general they aren't my cup of tea, there are certainly ones that are much better than others. Your point about market acceptability is right and wrong. Yes, it means the coin gets in a holder, but no, it doesn't mean the coin is nice. To follow that, I agree that unattractive toning is just that, even if it's market acceptable. MA doesn't imply attractive. I do think your saying "unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped" is a non sequitur. I didn't say that you should get a coin with ugly toning (I'd dislike that, too). My point is just that if you take some time, opportunities will arise to get really nice examples... you just have to be patient. Your posts often reference getting good deals in terms of price. For any grade, there's a wide spectrum of quality, and depending on the specific coin, a "good price" may or may not be a good deal.

    I like that you're enthusiastic and I don't desire to diminish that. I simply think there is value in patience, and even if that means you don't get as many coins right away, over time you'll look at the collection you've built and be grateful you took your time in selecting each piece. Absolutely buy the coins you like, but be sure you understand all the options that are out there, and don't feel the need to rush a purchase. I used to do that, and I've sold just about everything acquired in that manner.

    Thank you for your good advice. It is true I do need to pick coins better, I am going to be going to a in-person coin show (my 2nd one ever!!!) do you have any advice on how to tell if a coin has been dipped (especially graded ones).

  • CoinJunkieCoinJunkie Posts: 8,772 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CalifornianKing said:
    Thank you for your good advice. It is true I do need to pick coins better, I am going to be going to a in-person coin show (my 2nd one ever!!!) do you have any advice on how to tell if a coin has been dipped (especially graded ones).

    19th century (and earlier) silver coins that display no toning have almost certainly been dipped. When they do display toning, they may have been dipped (usually some time ago), but then subsequently retoned. There have been many threads here over the years discussing and debating original vs. retoned silver coins. You might want to search "retoned" and/or "original" as a starting point.

  • airplanenutairplanenut Posts: 21,756 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CalifornianKing said:

    @airplanenut said:

    @winesteven said:

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    While there’s no doubt that the majority of knowledgeable collectors/numismatists prefer coins that are fully original, there’s a large silent group that prefers their coins look like the mint intended when they were struck. Obviously the major TPG’s will holder these as long as the dipping does not remove much of the coins original luster. Matter of fact, many of the coins in my digital Dansco 7070 have been gently dipped at some point, and every single one merits a CAC. As we know, CAC is very particular about surface issues. Quite often bidding on these kind of coins at auction brings out significant numbers of active bidders. I think we can all agree that there are truly original coins with unattractive toning. Dealers selling these always tell me that it just proves originality! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

    @CalifornianKing said:

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    Most likely dipped, but I don't personally care if it was dipped as long as there are no noticeable effects, I believe the term is market acceptable. unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped

    I have a few thoughts here. First, my read from the photos is that the lustre appears impaired and the coin is not one where you can't tell it's been dipped. Second, as I mentioned in the thread on the gold coin, a few of the recent purchases you've shown off have been problem coins, and you've mentioned you're young, somewhat new, and learning (all fine). If this is the collection that you want to build, then have at it. On the other hand, I can say without question that my collection has greatly benefitted from people pointing out--starting when I was a teenage--how a coin could be better and encouraging me to seek out those coins. There are numerous pieces in my collection which by date and grade are common, yet I may have spent 1-3 years before buying the the one I have.

    As @winesteven noted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's fine. But if you're ever planning to sell, someone else has to become the beholder. I understand that dipped coins fall along an eye appeal spectrum. While in general they aren't my cup of tea, there are certainly ones that are much better than others. Your point about market acceptability is right and wrong. Yes, it means the coin gets in a holder, but no, it doesn't mean the coin is nice. To follow that, I agree that unattractive toning is just that, even if it's market acceptable. MA doesn't imply attractive. I do think your saying "unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped" is a non sequitur. I didn't say that you should get a coin with ugly toning (I'd dislike that, too). My point is just that if you take some time, opportunities will arise to get really nice examples... you just have to be patient. Your posts often reference getting good deals in terms of price. For any grade, there's a wide spectrum of quality, and depending on the specific coin, a "good price" may or may not be a good deal.

    I like that you're enthusiastic and I don't desire to diminish that. I simply think there is value in patience, and even if that means you don't get as many coins right away, over time you'll look at the collection you've built and be grateful you took your time in selecting each piece. Absolutely buy the coins you like, but be sure you understand all the options that are out there, and don't feel the need to rush a purchase. I used to do that, and I've sold just about everything acquired in that manner.

    Thank you for your good advice. It is true I do need to pick coins better, I am going to be going to a in-person coin show (my 2nd one ever!!!) do you have any advice on how to tell if a coin has been dipped (especially graded ones).

    Some of it will just come with time and seeing lots of coins. Look at lots of coins (you can do it online, too, though it's not quite the same) and see if you can get a feel for what natural lustre looks like. First, consider that most higher grade 100+ year-old coins shouldn't be white naturally (all the more so for coins with wear). Yes, some may have been put away, but for the most part, coins of that era will at least develop a thin skin, which can often be creamy or light gold, if not heavier toning. Morgan dollars can be an exception to the rule (though they can develop a frosty skin) because so many were protected in the middle of bags and put in vaults for decades.

    Some of the knowledge will come from seeing toned coins, even if they aren't as appealing (or better yet, if they are). Outside of coins with thick toning that mutes lustre, the lustre generally displays itself the same way whether the coin is toned or not. If you use coins with some level of toning as a baseline to understand how the lustre should appear, it may help you determine when the lustre on an untoned coin is off in some way. That's what I saw on the coin in this thread. It's not just that the coin is mostly untoned, but you can see some surface granularity and a bit of an odd iterplay between the frosty areas and the more lit areas, and even some parts of the coin that appear to have more of a sheen than a band of lustre. Usually lustre will rotate around one or two points as you move the coin in the light (there can be coins with a more satiny finish that may break the rule, but that's getting into the details). All said, that tells me the lustre is impaired, because that's not how it should look.

    A lot of this is hard to describe just in text, and that's where looking at a lot of coins comes in. CAC didn't exist when I was starting out, and while no company is perfect, there's a better chance that an untoned/lightly toned coin in their holder is original or at most very mildly dipped.

    If you're at a show, the best advice I can give is don't feel the need to buy something. I used to leave a show disappointed if I didn't get a coin or two, and that often led me to buy something that was later regrettable. Now I can fly across the country to attend a major show, buy nothing, and still be satisfied. Yes, there's a big social aspect and I like seeing friends, but hey, I'd still like to pick something up, but I'd rather keep my money if I can't find something that meets my standards.

    If I can give a few examples on the topic of surface quality...

    This Morgan has a very light, frosty skin. It's strong enough that you can see it in the photos and it smooths out the lustre just a bit. As I mentioned, Morgans can be blast white without being dipped, but this is the look of a more original white coin for many other series that weren't just thrown in the vault.

    Here's another piece, this one with a bit more toning, but you can see the defined bands of lustre. It's not quite the same as your coin because it's uncirculated (if AU, you would expect lustre breaks in the fields, particularly in front of the bust), but you can see that the lustre has a consistent look throughout.


    Here's one more, and it's a coin I really love and must have bought in 2004 or so. It's illustrative of a few things. First, again see the consistent lustre. Second, while I really like the peripheral toning, you can see that the "white" part of the coin is slightly off-white. That's that skin again. If the white of the coin were blast white, there'd be a good chance the coin was dipped and then toned. With that skin, you can see that the coin toned over time, it's just part of it didn't pick up strong color. Just the same, find a coin like this without the bold color, and it's still probably going to be a nice example of an original Walker.


    JK Coin Photography - eBay Consignments | High Quality Photos | LOW Prices | 20% of Consignment Proceeds Go to Pancreatic Cancer Research
  • CoinJunkieCoinJunkie Posts: 8,772 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here's a great example of "original skin":

    Same date and grade (AU58), but appears (to me) to have been dipped and retoned. Note the lighter centers and then toning toward the rims, usually from sitting in an album for a long time:

  • CalifornianKingCalifornianKing Posts: 1,258 ✭✭✭✭

    @airplanenut said:

    @CalifornianKing said:

    @airplanenut said:

    @winesteven said:

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    While there’s no doubt that the majority of knowledgeable collectors/numismatists prefer coins that are fully original, there’s a large silent group that prefers their coins look like the mint intended when they were struck. Obviously the major TPG’s will holder these as long as the dipping does not remove much of the coins original luster. Matter of fact, many of the coins in my digital Dansco 7070 have been gently dipped at some point, and every single one merits a CAC. As we know, CAC is very particular about surface issues. Quite often bidding on these kind of coins at auction brings out significant numbers of active bidders. I think we can all agree that there are truly original coins with unattractive toning. Dealers selling these always tell me that it just proves originality! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

    @CalifornianKing said:

    @airplanenut said:
    Nice strike and details, but while it could be the photos, my hunch is that the surfaces on that coin are not fully original.

    Most likely dipped, but I don't personally care if it was dipped as long as there are no noticeable effects, I believe the term is market acceptable. unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped

    I have a few thoughts here. First, my read from the photos is that the lustre appears impaired and the coin is not one where you can't tell it's been dipped. Second, as I mentioned in the thread on the gold coin, a few of the recent purchases you've shown off have been problem coins, and you've mentioned you're young, somewhat new, and learning (all fine). If this is the collection that you want to build, then have at it. On the other hand, I can say without question that my collection has greatly benefitted from people pointing out--starting when I was a teenage--how a coin could be better and encouraging me to seek out those coins. There are numerous pieces in my collection which by date and grade are common, yet I may have spent 1-3 years before buying the the one I have.

    As @winesteven noted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's fine. But if you're ever planning to sell, someone else has to become the beholder. I understand that dipped coins fall along an eye appeal spectrum. While in general they aren't my cup of tea, there are certainly ones that are much better than others. Your point about market acceptability is right and wrong. Yes, it means the coin gets in a holder, but no, it doesn't mean the coin is nice. To follow that, I agree that unattractive toning is just that, even if it's market acceptable. MA doesn't imply attractive. I do think your saying "unattractive toning > dipped coin that you can't tell has been dipped" is a non sequitur. I didn't say that you should get a coin with ugly toning (I'd dislike that, too). My point is just that if you take some time, opportunities will arise to get really nice examples... you just have to be patient. Your posts often reference getting good deals in terms of price. For any grade, there's a wide spectrum of quality, and depending on the specific coin, a "good price" may or may not be a good deal.

    I like that you're enthusiastic and I don't desire to diminish that. I simply think there is value in patience, and even if that means you don't get as many coins right away, over time you'll look at the collection you've built and be grateful you took your time in selecting each piece. Absolutely buy the coins you like, but be sure you understand all the options that are out there, and don't feel the need to rush a purchase. I used to do that, and I've sold just about everything acquired in that manner.

    Thank you for your good advice. It is true I do need to pick coins better, I am going to be going to a in-person coin show (my 2nd one ever!!!) do you have any advice on how to tell if a coin has been dipped (especially graded ones).

    Some of it will just come with time and seeing lots of coins. Look at lots of coins (you can do it online, too, though it's not quite the same) and see if you can get a feel for what natural lustre looks like. First, consider that most higher grade 100+ year-old coins shouldn't be white naturally (all the more so for coins with wear). Yes, some may have been put away, but for the most part, coins of that era will at least develop a thin skin, which can often be creamy or light gold, if not heavier toning. Morgan dollars can be an exception to the rule (though they can develop a frosty skin) because so many were protected in the middle of bags and put in vaults for decades.

    Some of the knowledge will come from seeing toned coins, even if they aren't as appealing (or better yet, if they are). Outside of coins with thick toning that mutes lustre, the lustre generally displays itself the same way whether the coin is toned or not. If you use coins with some level of toning as a baseline to understand how the lustre should appear, it may help you determine when the lustre on an untoned coin is off in some way. That's what I saw on the coin in this thread. It's not just that the coin is mostly untoned, but you can see some surface granularity and a bit of an odd iterplay between the frosty areas and the more lit areas, and even some parts of the coin that appear to have more of a sheen than a band of lustre. Usually lustre will rotate around one or two points as you move the coin in the light (there can be coins with a more satiny finish that may break the rule, but that's getting into the details). All said, that tells me the lustre is impaired, because that's not how it should look.

    A lot of this is hard to describe just in text, and that's where looking at a lot of coins comes in. CAC didn't exist when I was starting out, and while no company is perfect, there's a better chance that an untoned/lightly toned coin in their holder is original or at most very mildly dipped.

    If you're at a show, the best advice I can give is don't feel the need to buy something. I used to leave a show disappointed if I didn't get a coin or two, and that often led me to buy something that was later regrettable. Now I can fly across the country to attend a major show, buy nothing, and still be satisfied. Yes, there's a big social aspect and I like seeing friends, but hey, I'd still like to pick something up, but I'd rather keep my money if I can't find something that meets my standards.

    If I can give a few examples on the topic of surface quality...

    This Morgan has a very light, frosty skin. It's strong enough that you can see it in the photos and it smooths out the lustre just a bit. As I mentioned, Morgans can be blast white without being dipped, but this is the look of a more original white coin for many other series that weren't just thrown in the vault.

    Here's another piece, this one with a bit more toning, but you can see the defined bands of lustre. It's not quite the same as your coin because it's uncirculated (if AU, you would expect lustre breaks in the fields, particularly in front of the bust), but you can see that the lustre has a consistent look throughout.


    Here's one more, and it's a coin I really love and must have bought in 2004 or so. It's illustrative of a few things. First, again see the consistent lustre. Second, while I really like the peripheral toning, you can see that the "white" part of the coin is slightly off-white. That's that skin again. If the white of the coin were blast white, there'd be a good chance the coin was dipped and then toned. With that skin, you can see that the coin toned over time, it's just part of it didn't pick up strong color. Just the same, find a coin like this without the bold color, and it's still probably going to be a nice example of an original Walker.


    Thank you so much for your advice and help!!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file