Which 1875-cc double-dime do you like better? - Updated

BryceM

I'd love to hear people's comments about each of these coins.

• Which has better eye appeal?
• Which has better strike?
• Which is graded higher?
• Which is more "original"
• Which one do you like better?

DisneyFan

Which has better eye appeal?  #1 - clearer date
Which has better strike? #1  - clearer LIBERTY
Which is graded higher? #1 - "less" wear on eagles chest
Which is more "original" #2 - darker toning
Which one do you like better? #2 - if lower grade, less money

For you, No Charge.

MFeld

I prefer coin number 2, due to its more original and uniform appearance.

Higashiyama

@BryceM -- great post, interesting comparison!

I also prefer # 2, due to the color and luster.

Number 1 seems to have the stronger striker, and perhaps a slightly higher grade; I assume they are both AU50ish?

BryceM

@MFeld said:
I prefer coin number 2, due to its more original and uniform appearance.

Mark, could you elaborate? Are you talking about the similarity of toning between the obverse and reverse, or the distribution of toning across and around the devices & fields? Or other?

AUandAG

You want me to decide????

nah, won't happen. Love them both!

bob

MFeld

@BryceM said:

@MFeld said:
I prefer coin number 2, due to its more original and uniform appearance.

Mark, could you elaborate? Are you talking about the similarity of toning between the obverse and reverse, or the distribution of toning across and around the devices & fields? Or other?

Bryce, I was talking primarily about the the distribution of toning across and around the devices and fields.

Here’s an additional reason I prefer coin number 2:
Even if coin number 1 is graded higher, while perfectly acceptable, the rub on Liberty’s legs distracts me more than anything I see on coin number 2.

BryceM

@MFeld

Thanks.

I'm interested to see what others have to say. I'll share my thoughts (and the grades) tonight.

Broadstruck

Neither

I really like #2 but can't get past the tiny gash on her chin/jaw and once seen it's like an eyeball magnet as that's all I see like the Tootsie Roll song. It's bad enough on this design Ms. Liberty looks like she left her dentures at home when posing for the obverse.

ricko

Number two.... better in all categories. Cheers, RickO

johnny9434

id take the second one as well. both are nice coin

Kliao

I would choose number 2 for all questions with the exception of better strike which I see the first coin being superior in terms of strike. Overall, I'll take coin #2.

Mr_Spud

I like #2 better, it just looks more appealing to me.

pursuitofliberty

Count me with the majority, based on the images I like the overall look and fabric of #2 more, although #1 certainly is no slouch

Bigbuck1975

I like the look of the 2nd coin

jesbroken

At a quick glance #2
After a longer look #2
Jim

TPRC

I'm surprised as usually I agree with the consensus. Not this one.
Which has better eye appeal? 1
Which has better strike? 1
Which is graded higher? 2
Which is more "original" 1
Which one do you like better 1

MFeld

@TPRC said:
I'm surprised as usually I agree with the consensus. Not this one.
Which has better eye appeal? 1
Which has better strike? 1
Which is graded higher? 2
Which is more "original" 1
Which one do you like better 1

Look at how coin number 1’s color around the protected areas (such as the obverse stars and date, as well as the reverse lettering) is darker than in the fields. That makes me think it’s been lightened and not as original as coin number 2.

Becky7474

I pick #2.

DelawareDoons

Which has better eye appeal? 2
Which has better strike? 1
Which is graded higher? 1
Which is more "original" 2
Which one do you like better 2

lkenefic

Fewer contact marks on #2... better surfaces and if the toning isn't too dark, I pick #2.

TPRC

@MFeld said:

@TPRC said:
I'm surprised as usually I agree with the consensus. Not this one.
Which has better eye appeal? 1
Which has better strike? 1
Which is graded higher? 2
Which is more "original" 1
Which one do you like better 1

Look at how coin number 1’s color around the protected areas (such as the obverse stars and date, as well as the reverse lettering) is darker than in the fields. That makes me think it’s been lightened and not as original as coin number 2.

Hmmm! Well, I always respect your opinion and I do see what you mean. To me, coin 2 is awfully dark, nearing terminal state. However, I downloaded and enlarged the pics hoping to see what I thought appeared to be some hairlines in the left obverse field of coin 2. I did not see any. But it turns out that in the right obverse field of coin 1, in the area you note, there do appear to be some very minor hairlines, so perhaps you are correct. I do think the rub on the leg takes coin 1 out of the MS category, while coin 2 could be unc due to its overall lustrous appearance even with the softer strike (or wear) on the eagle's breast. But the color of coin 2 is not my favorite.

MFeld

@TPRC said:

@MFeld said:

@TPRC said:
I'm surprised as usually I agree with the consensus. Not this one.
Which has better eye appeal? 1
Which has better strike? 1
Which is graded higher? 2
Which is more "original" 1
Which one do you like better 1

Look at how coin number 1’s color around the protected areas (such as the obverse stars and date, as well as the reverse lettering) is darker than in the fields. That makes me think it’s been lightened and not as original as coin number 2.

Hmmm! Well, I always respect your opinion and I do see what you mean. To me, coin 2 is awfully dark, nearing terminal state. However, I downloaded and enlarged the pics hoping to see what I thought appeared to be some hairlines in the left obverse field of coin 2. I did not see any. But it turns out that in the right obverse field of coin 1, in the area you note, there do appear to be some very minor hairlines, so perhaps you are correct. I do think the rub on the leg takes coin 1 out of the MS category, while coin 2 could be unc due to its overall lustrous appearance even with the softer strike (or wear) on the eagle's breast. But the color of coin 2 is not my favorite.

I understand about the darker color on coin 2, though I don’t mind it. I was speaking more about its apparent superior originality compared to coin 1.

oih82w8

They both look great imo. I would gladly accept the left-over.

If I had to make a choice between these two...number two would have to do.

asheland

One of these must be your 20C NEWP you mentioned earlier. Both are excellent but I’m with the majority, I like the 2nd one better although the above seems to have a better strike.

Looking, they both appear to be AU58. Both are excellent regardless of which you chose. 👍

BryceM

Very interesting comments so far.

Perhaps my photography isn't up to snuff these days.......

spyglassdesign

I like number 2 due to the toning looking more even and natural as Mark noted ... But based on ms liberty the gash on her chin is distracting so for that device I'd say #1. I'd say #1 for strike alone, it definitely looks stronger/less wear. I would guess #1 would be the higher grade overall based mainly on strike and wear, but #2 could pull it out or maybe even based on potential luster, if it's full of luster and the first is not. Based on recent experiences I'd be a little concerned with the area to the right of ms liberty and how the toning encircles the stars.

The both have their stronger parts (looks/potential luster, strike etc). Both nice coins no matter how you look at it! Congrats!

logger7

Both are superb in terms of your criteria as far as I see them.

scotty4449

I think those are both really nice. Too hard to choose!

Walkerfan

I like the first one on top.

A little better detailed and more original to me.

Smudge

Both are nice, but I like #1.

WAYNEAS

I like the appeal of #2 but would love the loser.
Wayne

Batman23

Which has better eye appeal? 1
Which has better strike? 1
Which is graded higher? 2
Which is more "original" 2
Which one do you like better? 1

kaz

1 has a better strike
2 is more original; On #1, the light areas in the right obv field and under the eagle's right wing suggest some judicious cleaning or lightening in the past.
I think #2 has better eye appeal.
I think #2 is graded higher.
I prefer #2.

JBN

Excellent one.
Bottom, top, bottom, top, top.

privatecoin

2

keyman64

I would have said 2 until I saw the face gash. Maybe keep looking for a better example?

DisneyFan

@Broadstruck said:
Neither

I really like #2 but can't get past the tiny gash on her chin/jaw and once seen it's like an eyeball magnet as that's all I see like the Tootsie Roll song. It's bad enough on this design Ms. Liberty looks like she left her dentures at home when posing for the obverse.

Actually #1 appears to have two smaller gashes on her chin.

BryceM

I appreciate everyone's comments. This has been most interesting. I will start out by saying that I recently sold coin #2 after acquiring coin #1. If you were able to see these in-hand, side by side, I think most of you would agree that #1 is the better coin. In my mind, it isn't even close...... but, I think a few folks might still prefer coin #2.

I have owned the second coin for 6 or 7 years. It showed up from a Heritage auction, sight-unseen, and unreviewed, which I did occasionally in those days. It bothered me a bit from the first time I saw it. The strike wasn't so good, luster was subdued (even for the grade), and the character of the surfaces was just a bit "off." It just seemed a bit lifeless, and I think it was probably cleaned before retoning - enough so that the luster was pretty significantly impaired. I liked the coin....... but I never loved it.

Coin #1 became available on a dealer's website a few weeks ago. I liked the overall look and the strike detail. Luster is quite good for the grade (but not demonstrated well in my photos). The dealer described it to me over the phone and I decided to take a chance. When it arrived I was quite pleased. After many years in the hobby I've learned that my initial impression when seeing a coin rarely changes the longer I own it. I've traded coins at the same grade only a handful of times in my collecting career. Usually, there isn't a compelling reason to do so. In this case, the transaction costs seemed justified.

I think both coins are technically AU with a bit of high-point wear. Both were graded MS, as is now common. The first coin was sold on Heritage around 10 years ago, in its current holder and wearing a CAC sticker. Luster on coin number one cascades nicely over the devices - no breaks on the high-points. Mark mentioned a bit of wear along Liberty's leg on the first coin. In-hand, this is actually more evident on the second coin. These days, coin #1 is one that will grade out MS the majority of the time. I think it's "originalish" and my take on the darker toning around the devices is that some toning was probably removed from exposed areas long ago from a bit of handling.

Both photos were taken by myself with identical equipment, but admittedly several years apart. I've never thought that hairlines or luster in the presence of toning could be evaluated well in a photo. I must conclude that the present comparison is an example of this. Comparing the photos to the in-hand look of the coins, I think the first coin isn't portrayed quite well enough and the second coin was made to look a bit better than it deserved. Finally, coin #2 has a few hairlines, which I'm devilishly good at hiding in my photos.

lilolme

Your comment make sense. I am not a photographer but I do know how the photo is take can have a big impact on what one sees. Your photos appear to be more what I call having a flat light or even light over the coin (although #2 does have a little hot spot). This versus one that has a more direct point of light(s). These will produce what some call hot spots or luster beams I say. The flat light gives a more detailed picture. The hot spots show the luster of the coin. I look at coins under a lamp in general and I like the hot spots because that is what I am used to seeing on a coin. Oh and hiding hairlines is not a problem and why grading proofs from photos is kind of senseless. Good thread and like the reading.

spyglassdesign

Yeah I too thought they might be high grade au because of the shield and the birds chest... Perhaps theya re just weak strike points instead?

Either way thanks for sharing! Nice coins!

MFeld

Bryce, I always appreciate your comments and your threads. Not surprisingly, this has been an interesting and thought provoking discussion. And as excellent as your imaging tends to be, this is yet, another reminder that there’s no substitute for in-hand viewing of coins.

ChangeInHistory

1, I don't necessarily like the retoning color on the second one.

asheland

Great thread and interesting update. 👍

msch1man

Great thread. This quote from @BryceM "After many years in the hobby I've learned that my initial impression when seeing a coin rarely changes the longer I own it." really rings true for me. It's easy to try to talk yourself into a coin despite a flaw of some sort that caught your eye, especially if potential acquisitions are few and far between, but it never seems to turn out well in the long run.

DisneyFan

While coin #1 is the nicer coin, I did not expect both coins to be of the same grade. I thought i could save some money if I could buy coin #2. This shows the range within a grade, even a grade of MS62.