Very strange look to it, assuming photos are accurate.
Might be a good pocket piece candidate, as it could look nice as a mid-VF, which
is about where I might value it. Others will think differently I'm sure.
In another thread, we discuss problem coins/large cent pricing in TPG holders.
In general prices have been fairly strong, but I think that whitish appearance will be a real
turnoff to collectors of eac coins.
@291fifth said:
Net VG8. It would be OK for a budget type set coin.
That sounds harsh to me.
This is not the time to be generous when it comes to problem coins.
I wasn't advocating being generous, but rather, not being harsh. I believe that a fair net grade would be Fine, if not Very Fine.
This illustrates one of the problems of dealing in "problem" coins. There is no real grading scale for them. It is the wild west of grading as existed before the slab era.
@291fifth said:
This illustrates one of the problems of dealing in "problem" coins. There is no real grading scale for them. It is the wild west of grading as existed before the slab era.
You can't have a grading scale for problem coins unless you can get everybody to agree on how the different problems coins are susceptible to should be ranked. Some people are okay with rim dings but hate hairlines. Others can't stand dings but are willing to put up with hairlines. How do you get those two to agree on a net grade for a coin with hairlines? Or rim dings? Spoiler alert- you don't.
For the reason described above, I believe net grades are mostly useless. My suggestion (FWIW) would be, ignoring the problem, to grade the coin as best you can and then describe the problem. This, of course, is if the goal is to let others know what the coin looks like. If you're trying to use the grade for something else (like pricing, maybe), then it's every man for himself. Again, IMO and FWIW.
This illustrates one of the problems of dealing in "problem" coins. There is no real grading scale for them. It is the wild west of grading as existed before the slab era.
EAC experts applying EAC grading standards disagree among each other....how do we mere mortals hope contend?
I do know dealers that make a good living focusing on early US 'problem' coins....if you can buy them cheap enough, (or better yet, get them on consignment from the major dealers that get them in as part of the side dreck that comes in via estates), there is usually someone willing to buy them. And the profit margins can be good, because there is no guide for pricing them.
I'd say VF at least. That's a better coin than any straight-graded VG or Fine I've ever looked at. Since I got back into collecting in 2004 I have NEVER seen a Classic Head cent as nice as that available for $175 or anywhere close to it. If anybody wants to sell me any, I'll take three at that price. Keep in mind not all "problem coins" are the same -- corrosion or pitting on this type of cent is a pretty normal thing. It's not as though it's been harshly cleaned or graffitied or something.
Thers so little actual wear on the coin, the AU grade is supported. Really the OP pictures are such it’s difficult to make any judgement on the surfaces and color, which really will tell the story. ......out of the slab, a wipe of nose oil,, probably look really nice. Again, I think value would increase in an envelope.
@291fifth said:
Net VG8. It would be OK for a budget type set coin.
That sounds harsh to me.
This is not the time to be generous when it comes to problem coins.
I wasn't advocating being generous, but rather, not being harsh. I believe that a fair net grade would be Fine, if not Very Fine.
This illustrates one of the problems of dealing in "problem" coins. There is no real grading scale for them. It is the wild west of grading as existed before the slab era.
Coin looks like it would break if dropped. Probably bring a lot on the Bay, AU details, very heavily encrusted. Or sell quickly for VF money. No returns. Jmo. 8-)
Probably a low end VF grade although it would not be a substitute for a VF in my opinion.
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. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
As a net grade, given the fact that it is damaged, I really agree with the AU Details assigned on the slab. With damage, much 'opinion' comes into play when asking others for their 'opinion'. Cheers, RickO
@BillJones said:
Probably a low end VF grade although it would not be a substitute for a VF in my opinion.
I purchased this as a net low end VF, from an EAC member who was assisting with liquidating the Rod Burress (past EAC prez) estate. Probably 'brushed', not sure if it would straight grade or not, but I like the eye appeal and felt the price very fair:
I like that 1812 cent for the low end VF grade. If I were continuing to collect a one a year set of large cents, which I am not, I would be very interested in that coin.
Don't ask me about grading for early copper coins from the TPGs. My collection got hammered when I submitted it, and then I saw the same coins, after I sold them, in straight grade holders.
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. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
then I saw the same coins, after I sold them, in straight grade holders.
That's frustrating.
I bought my '93 Wreath cent in a genny holder at FUN two years ago. The dealers had just gotten it back and complained about tight grading, but didn't want to resubmit, just blow it out and move on. I had done a double take when looking at it, as I'd seen worse coins straight graded and priced substantially higher, so I bought it pretty quickly.
I'm also surprised at the number of large cents in OGHs that would likely genny if resubmitted today, or should.
I would not give it a net grade. The PCGS description works good enough for me.
My goal in selling it would be get somewhere between cost and AU50 money. Where that exact point is between me and what can negotiate with buyer. This kind of material handle cost plus.
Generally the people who buy this material are looking crack it out and put in their albums.
I'd rather have a nice PCGS VF20 than the 1st 1812 in the thread, but I'd rather have that AU details coin than an average PCGS F12. So I'd probably, personally, Net it to Fine 16 or 17. 😊
Smittys
Posts: 9,871 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Very strange look to it, assuming photos are accurate.
Might be a good pocket piece candidate, as it could look nice as a mid-VF, which
is about where I might value it. Others will think differently I'm sure.
In another thread, we discuss problem coins/large cent pricing in TPG holders.
In general prices have been fairly strong, but I think that whitish appearance will be a real
turnoff to collectors of eac coins.
Net VG8. It would be OK for a budget type set coin.
$175 net
Value would increase in a raw state.
This example brought $660:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents/1812-1c-large-date-s-288-b-3-r2-corrosion-ngc-details-au-ngc-census-1-5-pcgs-population-3-6-au50/a/1279-7029.s
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That sounds harsh to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is not the time to be generous when it comes to problem coins.
I wasn't advocating being generous, but rather, not being harsh. I believe that a fair net grade would be Fine, if not Very Fine.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This illustrates one of the problems of dealing in "problem" coins. There is no real grading scale for them. It is the wild west of grading as existed before the slab era.
You can't have a grading scale for problem coins unless you can get everybody to agree on how the different problems coins are susceptible to should be ranked. Some people are okay with rim dings but hate hairlines. Others can't stand dings but are willing to put up with hairlines. How do you get those two to agree on a net grade for a coin with hairlines? Or rim dings? Spoiler alert- you don't.
For the reason described above, I believe net grades are mostly useless. My suggestion (FWIW) would be, ignoring the problem, to grade the coin as best you can and then describe the problem. This, of course, is if the goal is to let others know what the coin looks like. If you're trying to use the grade for something else (like pricing, maybe), then it's every man for himself. Again, IMO and FWIW.
This illustrates one of the problems of dealing in "problem" coins. There is no real grading scale for them. It is the wild west of grading as existed before the slab era.
EAC experts applying EAC grading standards disagree among each other....how do we mere mortals hope contend?
I do know dealers that make a good living focusing on early US 'problem' coins....if you can buy them cheap enough, (or better yet, get them on consignment from the major dealers that get them in as part of the side dreck that comes in via estates), there is usually someone willing to buy them. And the profit margins can be good, because there is no guide for pricing them.
Given the wear on the leaves and rim, I agree with Fine. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, Ricko, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, Jzyskowski1, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich
I understand. I was putting a personal valuation. I should have clarified that.
I'd say VF at least. That's a better coin than any straight-graded VG or Fine I've ever looked at. Since I got back into collecting in 2004 I have NEVER seen a Classic Head cent as nice as that available for $175 or anywhere close to it. If anybody wants to sell me any, I'll take three at that price. Keep in mind not all "problem coins" are the same -- corrosion or pitting on this type of cent is a pretty normal thing. It's not as though it's been harshly cleaned or graffitied or something.
Thers so little actual wear on the coin, the AU grade is supported. Really the OP pictures are such it’s difficult to make any judgement on the surfaces and color, which really will tell the story. ......out of the slab, a wipe of nose oil,, probably look really nice. Again, I think value would increase in an envelope.
It's not that bad as it looks dried out but not porous.
There's a lot of straight graded early copper that's not original surfaced I'd care to own less than this.
Could probably use a "Blue Ribbon coin conditioner" treatment, it looks very dry.
I think it's worth VF money.
Which is why it's so much fun!
Au details..... VF- 20 Net
Coin looks like it would break if dropped. Probably bring a lot on the Bay, AU details, very heavily encrusted. Or sell quickly for VF money. No returns. Jmo. 8-)
Probably a low end VF grade although it would not be a substitute for a VF in my opinion.
As a net grade, given the fact that it is damaged, I really agree with the AU Details assigned on the slab. With damage, much 'opinion' comes into play when asking others for their 'opinion'. Cheers, RickO
I purchased this as a net low end VF, from an EAC member who was assisting with liquidating the Rod Burress (past EAC prez) estate. Probably 'brushed', not sure if it would straight grade or not, but I like the eye appeal and felt the price very fair:
I like that 1812 cent for the low end VF grade. If I were continuing to collect a one a year set of large cents, which I am not, I would be very interested in that coin.
Don't ask me about grading for early copper coins from the TPGs. My collection got hammered when I submitted it, and then I saw the same coins, after I sold them, in straight grade holders.
then I saw the same coins, after I sold them, in straight grade holders.
That's frustrating.
I bought my '93 Wreath cent in a genny holder at FUN two years ago. The dealers had just gotten it back and complained about tight grading, but didn't want to resubmit, just blow it out and move on. I had done a double take when looking at it, as I'd seen worse coins straight graded and priced substantially higher, so I bought it pretty quickly.
I'm also surprised at the number of large cents in OGHs that would likely genny if resubmitted today, or should.
I would not give it a net grade. The PCGS description works good enough for me.
My goal in selling it would be get somewhere between cost and AU50 money. Where that exact point is between me and what can negotiate with buyer. This kind of material handle cost plus.
Generally the people who buy this material are looking crack it out and put in their albums.
Pocket piece then resubmit!
peacockcoins
I'd rather have a nice PCGS VF20 than the 1st 1812 in the thread, but I'd rather have that AU details coin than an average PCGS F12. So I'd probably, personally, Net it to Fine 16 or 17. 😊
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
My God, What did old time collectors DO? .....without a slab label to do the thinking for them?
Many of them did just fine. Many others fell far short of that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.