Home U.S. Coin Forum

In your opinion, what kept this FA2 PCGS Trade dollar from being a PO1?

braddickbraddick Posts: 23,080 ✭✭✭✭✭


peacockcoins

Comments

  • TPRCTPRC Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No idea. Looks like a 1 to me.

    Tom

  • BryceMBryceM Posts: 11,729 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 3, 2023 8:14PM

    I dunno, but it’s easily identified as to type, instead of barely identifiable.

  • SeattleSlammerSeattleSlammer Posts: 9,953 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That’s a perfect 1. The 2 really ruins it for me, too.

  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think our host clearly got this one wrong.

    Higashiyama
  • braddickbraddick Posts: 23,080 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ajaan said:
    Too much date

    @Coin Finder said:
    To much date ..

    :wink:

    peacockcoins

  • RobertScotLoverRobertScotLover Posts: 579 ✭✭✭✭

    Sorry but I just don't get collecting the worst almost unrecognizeable examples. I am old fashioned. But having fun with your coins as David Hall once said numerous times is what is important.

  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 19,679 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I can see the bottom of the date.

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 23,080 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @messydesk said:
    I can see the bottom of the date.

    Here is a 1799 PCGS PO1 dollar:

    peacockcoins

  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,932 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In my OPINION it is overgraded.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My grading skills on these low ball coins seem to be lacking. I have missed several of the GTG on lowballs. Probably because they really do not appeal to me. I know others like them, and that is fine... Certainly show they endured a lot of commerce. Cheers, RickO

  • DennisHDennisH Posts: 13,963 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like an 01 to me too.

    When in doubt, don't.
  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 19,679 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:

    @messydesk said:
    I can see the bottom of the date.

    Here is a 1799 PCGS PO1 dollar:

    Interesting, but perhaps a bit of apples and oranges here given how the two types were struck. Also, for me, such uneven wear is a sign of some underlying damage (formerly bent?). I wonder if since PO1 is more desirable than FR2 now that the OP coin was too ugly to be as desirable as the "nice" 74-CC PO1 shown and was netted up for an excess of rubber band scars.

  • Riley1955Riley1955 Posts: 136 ✭✭✭

    So what's the fascination with the P01 grade?

  • Dave99BDave99B Posts: 8,353 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would have guessed 01 as well. Fantastic example, either way!

    Dave

    Always looking for original, better date VF20-VF35 Barber quarters and halves, and a quality beer.
  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @messydesk said: "Interesting, but perhaps a bit of apples and oranges here ..."

    Fair point, but for apples and apples, here's a segment from PCGS Photograde:

    Higashiyama
  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Riley1955 asked: So what's the fascination with the P01 grade?"

    @braddick got me interested in circulated commemoratives 20 years ago. (time flies!) I find commemoratives in any circulated grade fascinating because they are so "counterintuitive". Especially for the coins that really didn't circulate (most except for the higher mintage issues), there is a surprise factor. Among other things, in putting together a set, it is simply fun to chase downgrades! From this perspective, P01 is the ultimate. For some issues, it can be very hard to find a coin that is P01 but still identifiable as to date. This is particularly true, for example, for the Columbian half. That adds to the challenge. Similar for the mint mark in some cases, like the Washington Carver half.

    Higashiyama
  • DelawareDoonsDelawareDoons Posts: 3,234 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."

  • Riley1955Riley1955 Posts: 136 ✭✭✭

    So would either one of these Morgans make the P01 grade?

    1890 O Obverse.

    1890 O Reverse

    1898 S Obverse

    1898 S Reverse

  • Riley1955Riley1955 Posts: 136 ✭✭✭

    ttt

  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 5, 2023 12:10PM

    @Riley1955 asked: So would either one of these Morgans make the P01 grade?

    No, they all suffer from environmental damage; another aspect of the chase for P01 coins is the quest for “honest wear”

    Higashiyama
  • Riley1955Riley1955 Posts: 136 ✭✭✭

    ttt> @Higashiyama said:

    @Riley1955 asked: So would either one of these Morgans make the P01 grade?

    No, they all suffer from environmental damage; another aspect of the chase for P01 coins is the quest for “honest wear”

    How is this not honest?

  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Riley1955: as I hope you noted, I put the term in quotes. There is of course no value judgment. But, unless you are new to collecting, I assume you are aware that coins with environmental damage will typically not be slabbed, or will have the damage noted and will be less desirable to collectors. As many others have said, we are all free to collect whatever we may choose.

    Higashiyama
  • Riley1955Riley1955 Posts: 136 ✭✭✭

    I am new and just trying to absorb as much as I can. Thanks for your input.

  • MartinMartin Posts: 832 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick the answer is simple grade inflation😂
    Seriously I’d re submit if you really want it a poor 1 holder. But the coin speaks for itself

    Martin

  • HoledandCreativeHoledandCreative Posts: 2,758 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Worn too much, no mintmark in sight? OR the eyes of the graders? Easy PO1, imo.

  • ajaanajaan Posts: 17,103 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:

    @ajaan said:
    Too much date

    @Coin Finder said:
    To much date ..

    :wink:

    Let me change my answer to Grading inconsistency.


    DPOTD-3
    'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'

    CU #3245 B.N.A. #428


    Don
  • shishshish Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That’s a perfect 1.

    Liberty Seated and Trade Dollar Specialist
  • 1madman1madman Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭✭✭

    On the original fair-2 coin in this thread, price guide is $125. And for a poor-1 coin, price guide is $100.

    If you submit the coin under the guarantee service level to get it downgraded to a poor-1, PCGS should actually pay you the $25 difference, you’ll get the coin back in the poor-1 holder, and the submission would be no charge. Much better than cracking the coin out, and paying for getting it graded again.

    I haven’t heard results of anyone doing it this way to get a poor-1 coin “made”, but I’d be intrigued to hear the results if you submit it this way.

  • messydeskmessydesk Posts: 19,679 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 6, 2023 8:06AM

    @Higashiyama said:
    @messydesk said: "Interesting, but perhaps a bit of apples and oranges here ..."

    Fair point, but for apples and apples, here's a segment from PCGS Photograde:

    So it would seem that the wear on the OP coin is at least what is shown in Photograde. If you are actively collecting at that end of the grading scale, could you comment as to whether there's merit to the possibility of the problems causing the coin to be netted to a lesser value grade (FR2) rather than being put in a details holder? Market grading, and all that.

  • davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,835 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If the grade does not fit, you must crack and resubmit.

  • privatecoinprivatecoin Posts: 3,178 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Definitely send to CAC.

    Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc

  • logger7logger7 Posts: 8,069 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Could try reconsideration, do they charge for an increase in value with if it goes poor? Also could try NGC marking the crossover only at poor 1.

  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @messydesk asked: If you are actively collecting at that end of the grading scale, could you comment as to whether there's merit to the possibility of the problems causing the coin to be netted to a lesser value grade (FR2) rather than being put in a details holder? Market grading, and all that.

    My experience is limited to commemoratives, so others are in a better position to comment. In the commem realm, problems bordering on damage seem to be slightly more accepted on super low end (P01-AG03) coins than on other coins, but I’m not aware of net grading. (I did receive a no grade on a highly circulated BTW that had a moderate gash that our host described as “tooling” . Pretty rigid standards even for low ball coins!)

    Higashiyama
  • mr1931Smr1931S Posts: 5,962 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 6, 2023 2:13PM

    Already enough PO-01's graded to meet the low demand for a relatively common date.

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein

  • lermishlermish Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @mr1931S said:
    Already enough PO-01's graded to meet the low demand for a relatively common date.

    There are two currently graded PO01 with our host. Out of the business strike T$'s 18 issues, this is the 10th most common with 405 straight graded examples at PCGS. For comparison's sake, for the 1878 (reverse of 78 Only) 7-tail feather Morgan in DMPL there are 633 examples at PCGS.

    Demand can vary, but I wouldn't call this a relatively common date.

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 23,080 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I thought it would be an interesting update to include this PCGS graded Trade dollar.
    Now, this is what a true FR02 looks like!


    peacockcoins

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,007 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The coin appears to have been over-graded (by a factor of 100% on the grading scale).
    It might have received a grade bump for its exceptional eye-appeal.
    😉

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

  • dsessomdsessom Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm clueless how it wasn't graded 01. I do recognize than some collectors covet the PO01 grade, and for that reason, they carry a premium. Anyway, it looks like an 01 to my eyes.

  • davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,835 ✭✭✭✭✭

    grade inflation and awesome obverse toning - you could always crack and pay again :)

  • OAKSTAROAKSTAR Posts: 5,793 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick- Without seeing the other posts, my first thought was to much meat on the date.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )

  • roadrunnerroadrunner Posts: 28,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 17, 2023 12:49PM

    OP's coin is a PQ example of a PO-1.0 as it shows considerably less detail than the PCGS PO-01 example. Would probably have to call OP's a PO-0.8 or something. Normally, you shouldn't have obvious outer stars poking through to get a PO-01 grade. The featured PCGS example has most of the stars on the right obv showing. I wouldn't expect readable outer legends on the reverse side either. Again, the PCGS example shows outer legends. Now that coin might be the borderline definition of a PO-01.9 in which case the OP's example might fall into the PO-01.1 to PO-01.5 range.

    Boldness of the date should play no role in PO-01 vs higher grades. The stars and legends play a bigger role. In my mind a PO-01 with a bold date and/or mint mark is the best possible combination. (see photo). Now there could be 2 factors influencing the grade......the obverse carbon streaking might be considered negative eye appeal by PCGS. And were we absolutely sure this is not an 1873-s or 1873-cc trade dollar? Because if that potential does exist, then calling it an 1873-P is not quite correct. I would think you have to be sure.....hence there's importance to the mint mark area being visible.

    So I go side with Ajaan who chalked this one up to "inconsistency." And even if the price guide suggests that the FR-02 is worth $25 more....that's probably not correct. The lowest ball (PO-01) is almost always the higher priced low grade example.

    Barbarous Relic No More, LSCC -GoldSeek--shadow stats--SafeHaven--321gold

Leave a Comment

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