@DocBenjamin said:
Recall TDN resubmitting Dollars that he thought were over graded.
So Dan, do you keep it in the current holder or send the piece in for reconsideration?
I’ve cracked some big boy coins, but I still don’t have the cojones to crack this one . It would stay in that NGC holder until a PCGS employee is the one cracking it.
I wonder if the graders were drunk when they evaluated that coin? It’s well known that alcohol is the number one cause of over-rating beavers.
I had zero confidence in guessing a grade for this coin and I still have zero confidence in grading these coins. As you said, who the heck actually knows what the baseline is? I guess it really just comes down to eye appeal on coins like this when ascribing value. No matter what, it’s awesome.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
I was only off by 25! The one thing I got right is these are graded on a curve. The grade on the slab is of less importance for something as special as this.
It seems safe to say you are well inside the condition census and that the coin is unmessed-with is a big plus.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I didn't guess a grade because in my opinion these coins should be evaluated on their surface preservation rather than level of detail present. It might appear that these are two of the same thing, but they are not and there was really no way to tell what was going on with the surfaces in the images provided.
Dan I think it's very impressive that you not only have a passion for coins but feel so strong about the history. Spending this kind of money certainly proves it.
Keep it up and you'll have one heck of a collection.
Maybe you already do. From what I have seen so far your on the right track.
My opinion may not mean much nonetheless I enjoy your threads and seeing your stuff.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
@DocBenjamin said:
Recall TDN resubmitting Dollars that he thought were over graded.
So Dan, do you keep it in the current holder or send the piece in for reconsideration?
I’ve cracked some big boy coins, but I still don’t have the cojones to crack this one . It would stay in that NGC holder until a PCGS employee is the one cracking it.
Do you think cac would “details” the coin? I honestly feel it would be a coin flip odds with them grading it (or not).
@BillJones said:
I have never shopped for one of these. Going by the pieces in The Red Book, it looks like they got a lot of circulation add wear and were not well struck.
Even if the dies were not very good, I don't see any mint surface on this piece.
I looked a "Coin Facts." They have an MS-62 displayed, and it has quite a bit of detail. Their "EF-45" is way over graded if it started out looking like the MS-62.
So, I think we have "the slab grade" and the real grade situation.
The slab grade is probably EF-40.
My grade would be Fine to VF.
Rarity should not lower grading standards, but we all know that it does.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I think a big problem with territorials is that very people really know how to grade them. The coins in general are poorly struck with defective planchettes and uncirculated or AU ones often look like train wrecks. DW once said there are only a handful of people in the world who know how to grade them and none of them work for TPSs.
@TomB said:
I didn't guess a grade because in my opinion these coins should be evaluated on their surface preservation rather than level of detail present. It might appear that these are two of the same thing, but they are not and there was really no way to tell what was going on with the surfaces in the images provided.
Tom, you’re exactly right. I actually had that exact thought in my head and wanted to add that as a “disclaimer”, so to speak, in one of my most recent comments. My memory lets me down often, thank goodness you’re here. 😅
Because surface preservation is so critical for pioneer,I always try to include videos in my posts when possible. Sadly, that was a rushed video and for some reason Vimeo made the quality worse. It’s too bad the forum software can’t just let us insert vids into the post.
@DocBenjamin said:
Recall TDN resubmitting Dollars that he thought were over graded.
So Dan, do you keep it in the current holder or send the piece in for reconsideration?
I’ve cracked some big boy coins, but I still don’t have the cojones to crack this one . It would stay in that NGC holder until a PCGS employee is the one cracking it.
Do you think cac would “details” the coin? I honestly feel it would be a coin flip odds with them grading it (or not).
No, I think if it was sent raw to CAC it would probably end up in a 40 holder. I’ve showed the coin to several experts within my circle and no one can find a defect, cleaning, or any type of manipulation that John wouldn’t like. It’s one of those coins I believe he would like as 40, but he’d probably sticker it in a 45 holder. Keep in mind, this coin was an “au50” before CAC even opened, so this is a good example of a good original coin that the graders felt generous with at the time and they gave it a little smooch.
Sometimes I wonder if the discussion in the grading room went like this:
“Well, I like it as a 45, but did you see that ugly coin we put in a 45 holder last month? This is much nicer, so I guess we should put it in a 50 holder.”
@skier07 said:
I think a big problem with territorials is that very people really know how to grade them. The coins in general are poorly struck with defective planchettes and uncirculated or AU ones often look like train wrecks. DW once said there are only a handful of people in the world who know how to grade them and none of them work for TPSs.
Would it be a smart start by sending the coin in the current holder to cac and see if it will sticker as a 50? Reason I say that is because you could then automatically get it crossed to a cacg 50 holder. If it fails the sticker as a NGC 50, then go the pcgs route and try to sticker it in that plastic
@1madman said:
Would it be a smart start by sending the coin in the current holder to cac and see if it will sticker as a 50? Reason I say that is because you could then automatically get it crossed to a cacg 50 holder. If it fails the sticker as a NGC 50, then go the pcgs route and try to sticker it in that plastic
I wouldn't even waste the time or money, its so plainly overgraded that I know for a fact JA wouldn't sticker it as an AU. If it was a 45/50 liner i would send it, but its a 40/45 liner. Its got some residual luster, but its not mint luster, it's weird beaver luster.
@1madman said:
Would it be a smart start by sending the coin in the current holder to cac and see if it will sticker as a 50? Reason I say that is because you could then automatically get it crossed to a cacg 50 holder. If it fails the sticker as a NGC 50, then go the pcgs route and try to sticker it in that plastic
I wouldn't even waste the time or money, its so plainly overgraded that I know for a fact JA wouldn't sticker it as an AU. If it was a 45/50 liner i would send it, but its a 40/45 liner. Its got some residual luster, but its not mint luster, it's weird beaver luster.
Absolutely awesome thread Dan, with super info (& a great read as well)! Some of the posts are educational too; this was an issue I knew nothing about & feel like I got a free reward in that regard. Look forward to hooking up in Tampa!
Ken
@1madman said:
Would it be a smart start by sending the coin in the current holder to cac and see if it will sticker as a 50? Reason I say that is because you could then automatically get it crossed to a cacg 50 holder. If it fails the sticker as a NGC 50, then go the pcgs route and try to sticker it in that plastic
I wouldn't even waste the time or money, its so plainly overgraded that I know for a fact JA wouldn't sticker it as an AU. If it was a 45/50 liner i would send it, but its a 40/45 liner. Its got some residual luster, but its not mint luster, it's weird beaver luster.
@oreville said:
I still did not see the posted grade.
Here’s the reveal post:
“Ok, quite a wide variety of guesses here...let us dive in.
The coin is currently graded AU-50 by NGC, and it has been for about the last 20 years, give or take. My source tells me that he thought he remembered the coin as a PCGS 45 prior to that, but at some point, it was upgraded to its white-pronged coffin.
Now here's the fun part- I would not accept AU-50 as a "correct" answer, despite what the label says. I don't think I've ever said this about any purchase of mine, let alone an expensive purchase, at the end of an arduous search for this elusive piece of Gold Rush history. This coin is patently overgraded, and quite frankly it doesnt even have a claim to AU.
Truthfully, we dont really know how these pieces looked right after they were struck, as far as I know there's just two uncirculated examples. The top pop MS62 can be seen on coinfacts, and we can see that the piece displays some typical weakness on the reverse lettering, and in the center of the rims closest to the ends of the beaver. That softeness is caused by the layout of the design in which the beaver is a fairly prominent with not much clearance to the rims. As a result, most of the metal flows to try to fill out the beaver, and the rims end up weakly defined. If any of them were struck with insufficient force, even if it was only slightly insufficient, it would probably look alot like this coin, but with better surfaces and more luster.
Of the 6,000 pieces struck, less than 1% of them survive today. The Oregonian settlers were desperate for a practical medium of exchange at this point in time, so much so that in 1843, the provisional government passed legislation that made wheat into legal tender. Privately issued "Wheat receipts" began to circulate as unnofficial cash, and later on, they used flint arrowheads as quasi coinage. Given the context of such a desperate need for practical coinage, it's no surprise that this gold "Beaver-Money" saw such extensive circulation. Later on, many coins met their fate in the crucible, since the higher-than-normal intrinsic value of these coins encouraged widespread melting. It's also important to recognize that the gold used in the production of the beaver money was pure and not alloyed, which explains why they are so soft, and often come with deep cuts and abrasions.
I had been on the lookout for a wholesome beaver for the past several years, and if one took so much as 5-10 minutes to look through auction archives and familiarize themself with the issue, then would they understand that this is an outstanding example in comparison to whats out there. These coins often had planchet defects upon striking, this coin has a small one on the reverse under "5D". The color is a natural green-gold hue, with rosey tinges in the peripheries. The wear is even and balanced, and there arent any unsettling abrasions that catch the eye. Here's a link to a Heritage sale in 2005 where this coin sold for 70k, and what's important to note is that the dirt around the devices was there at that time and it hasnt changed. Original dirt is a great indicator of originality, but Pioneer is a frequently manipulated series and some pieces have been artifically caked with dirt in recent years.
I'd say that my grade for this coin is 43. I see it as a very solid technical 40, but I would give it an "originality bump" to 45 due to the pleasing surfaces and lack of distractions. It's not so much about "rarity points" as it is recognizing and appreciating the circumstances in which they were created, and trying not to be overly critical as if it were a regular issue U.S. coin. If you guessed 35, I totally understand that and if you were being strictly technical with no clemency for the methods of manufacture, that would probably be the right grade. That said, PCGS doesn't use strict technical grading and based on whats already out there in similar grades, this coin deserves to be in an XF holder. There's a reasonable argument to be made that it is maxed at 40, but when I look at the coins at that grade level in coinfacts, I much prefer the appearance of this one. One of the problems with Pioneer is that the grading services were so inconsistent overtime. For a while everything was undergraded, but at the same time problem coins were holdered as problem free. Pioneer gold is a minefield, and many coins, straight graded and otherwise, have been worked on, repaired, and mutilated in a number of ways. I fell in love with this piece because there's no real problem. It's honest, original, and it tells one hell of a story.
Many of you nailed it, and I especially appreciate the added commentary from @coinkat, @crypto, @cladiador, and @mfeld. Overall, I am pleasantly surprised with the results from this one and I expected worse. Admittedly, I didn't take these photos and I'm not a huge fan of the way Noah shot the coin. I don't have it in my possession at the moment, but when I get to photograph it I'll post more pictures here. Im going to add some more photos of some similarly graded coins, and some in lower grades just for fun.
My long term goal for this coin is actually to DOWNcross it to a PCGS 45 holder eventually. I suspect that the coin has a great shot at CAC approval in an XF grade, but I would never even bother sending it in as an AU50. This one will be with me for a while, and I'm truly grateful to be it's steward.
@BillJones said:
I have never shopped for one of these. Going by the pieces in The Red Book, it looks like they got a lot of circulation add wear and were not well struck.
Even if the dies were not very good, I don't see any mint surface on this piece.
I looked a "Coin Facts." They have an MS-62 displayed, and it has quite a bit of detail. Their "EF-45" is way over graded if it started out looking like the MS-62.
So, I think we have "the slab grade" and the real grade situation.
The slab grade is probably EF-40.
My grade would be Fine to VF.
Rarity should not lower grading standards, but we all know that it does.
I assume you can see where I’m going with this. I don’t mind if my coin is only a VF, the number on the holder means nothing to me…but PCGS uses the grades in essence to assign a value to a coin, and putting this coin in a VF holder wouldn’t be fair because of what’s already out there. The spectrum has to be sensible, or the system doesn’t work.
It's a coin where you could argue that third party grading becomes a minor point outside of noting if a coin has been plugged or messed with in some way. I tried to find Dan's coin in old auction records because I enjoy researching the history of specific coins. While searching, it was interesting to see the grades assigned to various pieces through time. There was then, and still is, a struggle to define how to grade these coins. From what I saw, auction results in the past were quite strong regardless.
I would imagine there wouldn't be a huge difference between one of these coins listed raw vs. slabbed today. The coin itself becomes more important than any assigned grade when you have a soft, pure gold coin that was generally poorly struck and has limited survivors that are almost all circulated in some way.
@skier07 said:
I think a big problem with territorials is that very people really know how to grade them. The coins in general are poorly struck with defective planchettes and uncirculated or AU ones often look like train wrecks. DW once said there are only a handful of people in the world who know how to grade them and none of them work for TPSs.
I feel better about my early VF25 prediction. Coin bumped to 30 when I viewed it on the phone and the much smaller image softened the surface imperfections. Carr produces tokens and went vf35.
Yesterday while waiting for the reveal, I checked the Heritage archives and put them in order by grade. Feld's 40-45 (and then Dan's call made sense then, at least in regard to this issue.
Really a great thread as many opinions were valid.
@BillJones said:
I have never shopped for one of these. Going by the pieces in The Red Book, it looks like they got a lot of circulation add wear and were not well struck.
Even if the dies were not very good, I don't see any mint surface on this piece.
I looked a "Coin Facts." They have an MS-62 displayed, and it has quite a bit of detail. Their "EF-45" is way over graded if it started out looking like the MS-62.
So, I think we have "the slab grade" and the real grade situation.
The slab grade is probably EF-40.
My grade would be Fine to VF.
Rarity should not lower grading standards, but we all know that it does.
I assume you can see where I’m going with this. I don’t mind if my coin is only a VF, the number on the holder means nothing to me…but PCGS uses the grades in essence to assign a value to a coin, and putting this coin in a VF holder wouldn’t be fair because of what’s already out there. The spectrum has to be sensible, or the system doesn’t work.
Less? (bah-dump-dump)
But seriously, folks, I am not trying to get into a piffing contest here. I did look at the various auction examples cited, and I did disagree with the grading on several of them. IMHO several of them received rarity points.
I disagree with the now common practice of awarding rarity points when grading. I would cite as an example the Garrett 1804 Silver Dollar, which was personally graded by Q.David Bowers before the sale as an EF-40. After the sale the buyer, Sam Colavita (sp?), sent it in to ANACS and we graded it as an EF-40. I personally did not think that it was a single point over a 40, but as de facto Final Grader I had no problem with standing behind that grade. It is now in a PF-55 holder. I concur with the Proof designation, which we did not think was important back then, but not the number.
I have had knowledgeable people in Numismatics tell me that the Price must set the grade of a coin. I most emphatically disagree. I would grade a Mint State 1893-S Dollar the same way I would grade a Mint State 1881-S Dollar, and let the marketplace determine the price. That was not our job.
I lived in the Chicago area during the Michael Jordan Era. He may (or may not) have been the greatest basketball player of all time, but that did not make him 7 feet tall. He was 6' 6" when playing, as measured by the same yardstick used on every other player in the game.
Stepping off my soapbox now,
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway I totally respect your viewpoint and if things had been done that way for the last 40 years we wouldn't have this issue. But now that the cat's out of the bag, do you propose penalizing a coin like this knowing that not every other coin is coming in to get downgraded? If there was one overgraded outlier that would be one thing but it's basically the entire type.
It's an unfortunate situation but calling Dan's coin a VF in the marketplace is extremely punitive compared to the other VFs that are out there.
I agree with you that the practice of awarding rarity points is sometimes taken too far. In the case of 93-S VS 81-s morgan, its extremely clear that they are graded differently, but they are both part of the same series....
In the case of Pioneer Gold, issues that were crudely manufactured with poorly made planchets and dilapidated equipment, I would argue that XF-40 is a solid technical grade for this coin, even according to the ANA standards.
EF-40 (Also Extremely Fine-40) – Has only slight wear but more extensive than the preceding (EF-45), still with excellent overall sharpness. Traces of mint luster may still show. All design elements show clearly.
And PCGS' interpretation:
"All design elements still show, but high points now worn flat. Little to no luster remains."
As far as I'm concerned, the OP coin meets those criteria. NGC's grade of 50 was when rarity points were applied, but I think the coin deserves a technical 40 as a minimum, but should be in a 45 holder if we're market grading.
Now let’s move to a more important question. When are you getting your hands on an Oregon 10?
That one will be around the same time that I get my Baldwin $10, Templeton Reid $10, or Kellogg $50…. I wouldn’t stay up too late waiting for that thread to be posted .
Now let’s move to a more important question. When are you getting your hands on an Oregon 10?
That one will be around the same time that I get my Baldwin $10, Templeton Reid $10, or Kellogg $50…. I wouldn’t stay up too late waiting for that thread to be posted .
What about Dubosq, Schultz and Pacific Company? Are those three on the list?
Now let’s move to a more important question. When are you getting your hands on an Oregon 10?
That one will be around the same time that I get my Baldwin $10, Templeton Reid $10, or Kellogg $50…. I wouldn’t stay up too late waiting for that thread to be posted .
What about Dubosq, Schultz and Pacific Company? Are those three on the list?
For a coin like that all you really need is authentication, and affirmation that the coin has not been significantly "manipulated".
So the actual grade number is not that important. Future buyers can bid accordingly based on what they see in the photos and be fairly confident on what they are bidding on without an in-person examination.
@dcarr said:
For a coin like that all you really need is authentication, and affirmation that the coin has not been significantly "manipulated".
So the actual grade number is not that important. Future buyers can bid accordingly based on what they see in the photos and be fairly confident on what they are bidding on without an in-person examination.
But where would one get that type of affirmation without an in-person evaluation?
@dcarr said:
For a coin like that all you really need is authentication, and affirmation that the coin has not been significantly "manipulated".
So the actual grade number is not that important. Future buyers can bid accordingly based on what they see in the photos and be fairly confident on what they are bidding on without an in-person examination.
But where would one get that type of affirmation without an in-person evaluation?
.
My point is, the present holder provides that, regardless of the assigned number.
In other words ...
Buyers of a coin such as this will want to grade it themselves anyway, and they will assign their own ranking to it compared to other examples (if any). And if it is already authenticated with a problem-free "straight grade", they can do that grading and ranking from photos.
I just looked at Coinfacts and other examples. The 45 looked similar so that was my guess. I know very little about these, but I figured it would get me in the ballpark.
@dcarr said:
For a coin like that all you really need is authentication, and affirmation that the coin has not been significantly "manipulated".
So the actual grade number is not that important. Future buyers can bid accordingly based on what they see in the photos and be fairly confident on what they are bidding on without an in-person examination.
But where would one get that type of affirmation without an in-person evaluation?
.
My point is, the present holder provides that, regardless of the assigned number.
In other words ...
Buyers of a coin such as this will want to grade it themselves anyway, and they will assign their own ranking to it compared to other examples (if any). And if it is already authenticated with a problem-free "straight grade", they can do that grading and ranking from photos.
.
I fully agree with the sentiment of your comment, and the reason I asked that question was so I was clear on what you meant. For the purpose of posterity, however, want to just add a caveat-
"For a coin like that all you really need is authentication, and affirmation that the coin has not been significantly "manipulated"."
A straight grade does not provide affirmation that the coin has not been seriously manipulated. Moreso than any other series, there are a substantial number of coins that have been egregiously manipulated living in straight graded holders, OGH era being the worst (for pcgs anyway, NGC is a crapshoot). Buyers need to be wary of worked surfaces, filed rims, and repairs. I just said this in another thread, but a great number of pioneer coins would not holder again if they were cracked out and sent in today.
There was a period of time where they would grade EVERYTHING, and they would call out nothing. These days, its the complete opposite. Even advanced collectors should be wary buying any of these coins without an in hand evaluation or a blessing from someone like @mfeld (if HA) or similar, unless they're buying from a trusted source. CAC definitely helps, but limiting yourself to CAC makes many of the issues impossible to collect, and there are quite a few problem free coins that fail to sticker, coins that don't deserve to be condemned.
Comments
I’ve cracked some big boy coins, but I still don’t have the cojones to crack this one
. It would stay in that NGC holder until a PCGS employee is the one cracking it.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Yes, he sounded like he knows these better than most and you gotta love it when the veterans weigh in.
Exactly the reason why I guess 55
Same here. I have no clue on the grade and did not even know Oregon pioneer gold even existed.
I wonder if the graders were drunk when they evaluated that coin? It’s well known that alcohol is the number one cause of over-rating beavers.
I had zero confidence in guessing a grade for this coin and I still have zero confidence in grading these coins. As you said, who the heck actually knows what the baseline is? I guess it really just comes down to eye appeal on coins like this when ascribing value. No matter what, it’s awesome.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
I was only off by 25! The one thing I got right is these are graded on a curve. The grade on the slab is of less importance for something as special as this.
It seems safe to say you are well inside the condition census and that the coin is unmessed-with is a big plus.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I didn't guess a grade because in my opinion these coins should be evaluated on their surface preservation rather than level of detail present. It might appear that these are two of the same thing, but they are not and there was really no way to tell what was going on with the surfaces in the images provided.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Thanks for sharing and offering insight on Pioneer Gold.
GTG threads can be educational at several levels when the thought process is shared with the grading opinion offered.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Dan I think it's very impressive that you not only have a passion for coins but feel so strong about the history. Spending this kind of money certainly proves it.
Keep it up and you'll have one heck of a collection.
Maybe you already do. From what I have seen so far your on the right track.
My opinion may not mean much nonetheless I enjoy your threads and seeing your stuff.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
Do you think cac would “details” the coin? I honestly feel it would be a coin flip odds with them grading it (or not).
(Written Sunday morning)
Bill, you and I think too much alike.
TD
I think a big problem with territorials is that very people really know how to grade them. The coins in general are poorly struck with defective planchettes and uncirculated or AU ones often look like train wrecks. DW once said there are only a handful of people in the world who know how to grade them and none of them work for TPSs.
Tom, you’re exactly right. I actually had that exact thought in my head and wanted to add that as a “disclaimer”, so to speak, in one of my most recent comments. My memory lets me down often, thank goodness you’re here. 😅
Because surface preservation is so critical for pioneer,I always try to include videos in my posts when possible. Sadly, that was a rushed video and for some reason Vimeo made the quality worse. It’s too bad the forum software can’t just let us insert vids into the post.
.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
No, I think if it was sent raw to CAC it would probably end up in a 40 holder. I’ve showed the coin to several experts within my circle and no one can find a defect, cleaning, or any type of manipulation that John wouldn’t like. It’s one of those coins I believe he would like as 40, but he’d probably sticker it in a 45 holder. Keep in mind, this coin was an “au50” before CAC even opened, so this is a good example of a good original coin that the graders felt generous with at the time and they gave it a little smooch.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Sometimes I wonder if the discussion in the grading room went like this:
“Well, I like it as a 45, but did you see that ugly coin we put in a 45 holder last month? This is much nicer, so I guess we should put it in a 50 holder.”
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Ditto Colonials IMO.
Would it be a smart start by sending the coin in the current holder to cac and see if it will sticker as a 50? Reason I say that is because you could then automatically get it crossed to a cacg 50 holder. If it fails the sticker as a NGC 50, then go the pcgs route and try to sticker it in that plastic
Some more information and a good write up on Oregon Exchange Company gold coins can be found on page 60 of the April-May 2000 Rare Coin Review #134.
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/561745?page=61
I wouldn't even waste the time or money, its so plainly overgraded that I know for a fact JA wouldn't sticker it as an AU. If it was a 45/50 liner i would send it, but its a 40/45 liner. Its got some residual luster, but its not mint luster, it's weird beaver luster.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
That's the best kind of luster.
Hands down , the phrase of the month.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
Absolutely awesome thread Dan, with super info (& a great read as well)! Some of the posts are educational too; this was an issue I knew nothing about & feel like I got a free reward in that regard. Look forward to hooking up in Tampa!
Ken
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Remarkable that dies still survive in the holdings of the Oregon Historical Society
Antibiotics will typically clear that up
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I still did not see the posted grade.
Here’s the reveal post:
“Ok, quite a wide variety of guesses here...let us dive in.
The coin is currently graded AU-50 by NGC, and it has been for about the last 20 years, give or take. My source tells me that he thought he remembered the coin as a PCGS 45 prior to that, but at some point, it was upgraded to its white-pronged coffin.
Now here's the fun part- I would not accept AU-50 as a "correct" answer, despite what the label says. I don't think I've ever said this about any purchase of mine, let alone an expensive purchase, at the end of an arduous search for this elusive piece of Gold Rush history. This coin is patently overgraded, and quite frankly it doesnt even have a claim to AU.
Truthfully, we dont really know how these pieces looked right after they were struck, as far as I know there's just two uncirculated examples. The top pop MS62 can be seen on coinfacts, and we can see that the piece displays some typical weakness on the reverse lettering, and in the center of the rims closest to the ends of the beaver. That softeness is caused by the layout of the design in which the beaver is a fairly prominent with not much clearance to the rims. As a result, most of the metal flows to try to fill out the beaver, and the rims end up weakly defined. If any of them were struck with insufficient force, even if it was only slightly insufficient, it would probably look alot like this coin, but with better surfaces and more luster.
Of the 6,000 pieces struck, less than 1% of them survive today. The Oregonian settlers were desperate for a practical medium of exchange at this point in time, so much so that in 1843, the provisional government passed legislation that made wheat into legal tender. Privately issued "Wheat receipts" began to circulate as unnofficial cash, and later on, they used flint arrowheads as quasi coinage. Given the context of such a desperate need for practical coinage, it's no surprise that this gold "Beaver-Money" saw such extensive circulation. Later on, many coins met their fate in the crucible, since the higher-than-normal intrinsic value of these coins encouraged widespread melting. It's also important to recognize that the gold used in the production of the beaver money was pure and not alloyed, which explains why they are so soft, and often come with deep cuts and abrasions.
I had been on the lookout for a wholesome beaver for the past several years, and if one took so much as 5-10 minutes to look through auction archives and familiarize themself with the issue, then would they understand that this is an outstanding example in comparison to whats out there. These coins often had planchet defects upon striking, this coin has a small one on the reverse under "5D". The color is a natural green-gold hue, with rosey tinges in the peripheries. The wear is even and balanced, and there arent any unsettling abrasions that catch the eye. Here's a link to a Heritage sale in 2005 where this coin sold for 70k, and what's important to note is that the dirt around the devices was there at that time and it hasnt changed. Original dirt is a great indicator of originality, but Pioneer is a frequently manipulated series and some pieces have been artifically caked with dirt in recent years.
I'd say that my grade for this coin is 43. I see it as a very solid technical 40, but I would give it an "originality bump" to 45 due to the pleasing surfaces and lack of distractions. It's not so much about "rarity points" as it is recognizing and appreciating the circumstances in which they were created, and trying not to be overly critical as if it were a regular issue U.S. coin. If you guessed 35, I totally understand that and if you were being strictly technical with no clemency for the methods of manufacture, that would probably be the right grade. That said, PCGS doesn't use strict technical grading and based on whats already out there in similar grades, this coin deserves to be in an XF holder. There's a reasonable argument to be made that it is maxed at 40, but when I look at the coins at that grade level in coinfacts, I much prefer the appearance of this one. One of the problems with Pioneer is that the grading services were so inconsistent overtime. For a while everything was undergraded, but at the same time problem coins were holdered as problem free. Pioneer gold is a minefield, and many coins, straight graded and otherwise, have been worked on, repaired, and mutilated in a number of ways. I fell in love with this piece because there's no real problem. It's honest, original, and it tells one hell of a story.
Many of you nailed it, and I especially appreciate the added commentary from @coinkat, @crypto, @cladiador, and @mfeld. Overall, I am pleasantly surprised with the results from this one and I expected worse. Admittedly, I didn't take these photos and I'm not a huge fan of the way Noah shot the coin. I don't have it in my possession at the moment, but when I get to photograph it I'll post more pictures here. Im going to add some more photos of some similarly graded coins, and some in lower grades just for fun.
My long term goal for this coin is actually to DOWNcross it to a PCGS 45 holder eventually. I suspect that the coin has a great shot at CAC approval in an XF grade, but I would never even bother sending it in as an AU50. This one will be with me for a while, and I'm truly grateful to be it's steward.
P62 (Top Pop)
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-NKUG0/1849-oregon-exchange-company-5-k-1-rarity-5-ms-62-pcgs
N53
https://coins.ha.com/itm/territorial-gold/territorial-and-fractional-gold/1849-5-oregon-exchange-co-five-dollar-au53-ngc-k-1-r5-pcgs-10288-/a/1344-4122.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
N50 ( The Present Coin)
https://coins.ha.com/itm/territorial-gold/1849-5-oregon-exchange-co-five-dollar-au50-ngc-k-1-r6-oregon-pioneers-were-among-the-first-to-hear-of-the-discovery-o/a/372-9207.s?hdnJumpToLot=1&x=0&y=0
N45 CAC
https://coins.ha.com/itm/territorial-gold/territorial-and-fractional-gold/1849-5-oregon-exchange-co-five-dollar-xf45-ngc-k-1-r6-cac-pcgs-10288-/a/1341-4506.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#
P40
https://coins.ha.com/itm/a/1271-5215.s
P25
https://coins.ha.com/itm/territorial-gold/1849-5-oregon-exchange-co-five-dollar-vf25-pcgs-k-1-r5/a/1218-3316.s?lotPosition=7&ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Auction-Archive-ArchiveSearchResults-012417
P15 CAC
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-18C4U7/1849-oregon-exchange-company-5-k-1-rarity-5-fine-15-pcgs-cac-cmq
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook“
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
50 on the NGC holder. 43 on the analysis.
I understand why you old school guys would see the coin as a VF, if you're grading it how you would grade U.S. Gold.
My question for either of you would be this-
Lets say, theoretically that my coin was a VF 25/30 or something. I could accept that, but then what would you grade these?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/territorial-gold/1849-5-oregon-exchange-co-five-dollar-vf25-ngc-k-1-r5-pcgs-10288-/a/1188-5956.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
You might say you don't see those as VF, and in your opinion they should be VG/F......
but then what would you grade this coin?
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-18C4U7/1849-oregon-exchange-company-5-k-1-rarity-5-fine-15-pcgs-cac-cmq
Perhaps you both would grade that coin as FR/G....but then what does that make this coin?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/territorial-gold/1849-5-oregon-exchange-co-five-dollar-fair-2-pcgs-cac-k-1-r5/a/1184-4649.s
I assume you can see where I’m going with this. I don’t mind if my coin is only a VF, the number on the holder means nothing to me…but PCGS uses the grades in essence to assign a value to a coin, and putting this coin in a VF holder wouldn’t be fair because of what’s already out there. The spectrum has to be sensible, or the system doesn’t work.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
It's a coin where you could argue that third party grading becomes a minor point outside of noting if a coin has been plugged or messed with in some way. I tried to find Dan's coin in old auction records because I enjoy researching the history of specific coins. While searching, it was interesting to see the grades assigned to various pieces through time. There was then, and still is, a struggle to define how to grade these coins. From what I saw, auction results in the past were quite strong regardless.
I would imagine there wouldn't be a huge difference between one of these coins listed raw vs. slabbed today. The coin itself becomes more important than any assigned grade when you have a soft, pure gold coin that was generally poorly struck and has limited survivors that are almost all circulated in some way.
I feel better about my early VF25 prediction. Coin bumped to 30 when I viewed it on the phone and the much smaller image softened the surface imperfections. Carr produces tokens and went vf35.
Yesterday while waiting for the reveal, I checked the Heritage archives and put them in order by grade. Feld's 40-45 (and then Dan's call made sense then, at least in regard to this issue.
Really a great thread as many opinions were valid.
Smithsonian Example:
https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/nmah_1102305
Thats a nice one, I'd say AU58.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Less? (bah-dump-dump)
But seriously, folks, I am not trying to get into a piffing contest here. I did look at the various auction examples cited, and I did disagree with the grading on several of them. IMHO several of them received rarity points.
I disagree with the now common practice of awarding rarity points when grading. I would cite as an example the Garrett 1804 Silver Dollar, which was personally graded by Q.David Bowers before the sale as an EF-40. After the sale the buyer, Sam Colavita (sp?), sent it in to ANACS and we graded it as an EF-40. I personally did not think that it was a single point over a 40, but as de facto Final Grader I had no problem with standing behind that grade. It is now in a PF-55 holder. I concur with the Proof designation, which we did not think was important back then, but not the number.
I have had knowledgeable people in Numismatics tell me that the Price must set the grade of a coin. I most emphatically disagree. I would grade a Mint State 1893-S Dollar the same way I would grade a Mint State 1881-S Dollar, and let the marketplace determine the price. That was not our job.
I lived in the Chicago area during the Michael Jordan Era. He may (or may not) have been the greatest basketball player of all time, but that did not make him 7 feet tall. He was 6' 6" when playing, as measured by the same yardstick used on every other player in the game.
Stepping off my soapbox now,
@CaptHenway I totally respect your viewpoint and if things had been done that way for the last 40 years we wouldn't have this issue. But now that the cat's out of the bag, do you propose penalizing a coin like this knowing that not every other coin is coming in to get downgraded? If there was one overgraded outlier that would be one thing but it's basically the entire type.
It's an unfortunate situation but calling Dan's coin a VF in the marketplace is extremely punitive compared to the other VFs that are out there.
I’d say 66 based on what we’ve learned. Just look at the hair on that beaver! Then come back down to earth a little for the chunked rim shot, 64.
Thanks for the response, @CaptHenway.
I agree with you that the practice of awarding rarity points is sometimes taken too far. In the case of 93-S VS 81-s morgan, its extremely clear that they are graded differently, but they are both part of the same series....
In the case of Pioneer Gold, issues that were crudely manufactured with poorly made planchets and dilapidated equipment, I would argue that XF-40 is a solid technical grade for this coin, even according to the ANA standards.
EF-40 (Also Extremely Fine-40) – Has only slight wear but more extensive than the preceding (EF-45), still with excellent overall sharpness. Traces of mint luster may still show. All design elements show clearly.
And PCGS' interpretation:
"All design elements still show, but high points now worn flat. Little to no luster remains."
As far as I'm concerned, the OP coin meets those criteria. NGC's grade of 50 was when rarity points were applied, but I think the coin deserves a technical 40 as a minimum, but should be in a 45 holder if we're market grading.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Great coin, great thread.
Now let’s move to a more important question. When are you getting your hands on an Oregon 10?
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
MJ is definitely the best. No reason not to take a position there.
That one will be around the same time that I get my Baldwin $10, Templeton Reid $10, or Kellogg $50…. I wouldn’t stay up too late waiting for that thread to be posted
.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
What about Dubosq, Schultz and Pacific Company? Are those three on the list?
Johnny, they're all on the list pal 😂.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
For a coin like that all you really need is authentication, and affirmation that the coin has not been significantly "manipulated".
So the actual grade number is not that important. Future buyers can bid accordingly based on what they see in the photos and be fairly confident on what they are bidding on without an in-person examination.
But where would one get that type of affirmation without an in-person evaluation?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
.
My point is, the present holder provides that, regardless of the assigned number.
In other words ...
Buyers of a coin such as this will want to grade it themselves anyway, and they will assign their own ranking to it compared to other examples (if any). And if it is already authenticated with a problem-free "straight grade", they can do that grading and ranking from photos.
.
Rarity points… seems that there should be some obvious limitations.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I just looked at Coinfacts and other examples. The 45 looked similar so that was my guess. I know very little about these, but I figured it would get me in the ballpark.
I fully agree with the sentiment of your comment, and the reason I asked that question was so I was clear on what you meant. For the purpose of posterity, however, want to just add a caveat-
"For a coin like that all you really need is authentication, and affirmation that the coin has not been significantly "manipulated"."
A straight grade does not provide affirmation that the coin has not been seriously manipulated. Moreso than any other series, there are a substantial number of coins that have been egregiously manipulated living in straight graded holders, OGH era being the worst (for pcgs anyway, NGC is a crapshoot). Buyers need to be wary of worked surfaces, filed rims, and repairs. I just said this in another thread, but a great number of pioneer coins would not holder again if they were cracked out and sent in today.
There was a period of time where they would grade EVERYTHING, and they would call out nothing. These days, its the complete opposite. Even advanced collectors should be wary buying any of these coins without an in hand evaluation or a blessing from someone like @mfeld (if HA) or similar, unless they're buying from a trusted source. CAC definitely helps, but limiting yourself to CAC makes many of the issues impossible to collect, and there are quite a few problem free coins that fail to sticker, coins that don't deserve to be condemned.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
This is a great thread! 👍
My YouTube Channel