Heritage tonight: "The 1870-CC Liberty double eagle is listed among the 100 Greatest U.S. Coins."
Goldbully
Posts: 17,690 ✭✭✭✭✭
Tonight's example sold at auction.
Thought this coin would be of interest to those of us $20 Liberty gold lovers.
Your thoughts?
1870-CC Liberty Double Eagle, AU Details
First-Year, Low-Mintage Issue
Rarest Type Two Twenty
Mintage: 3,789
1
Comments
Strong money for a rare bird!
Congrats to the consignor and the high bidder!!
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
From HA - "The noted rim filing seems limited to some minor beveling on the rims, as the reeding on the edges seems undisturbed in the areas visible in the NGC holder."
I'm trying to visualize exactly what this means. Did a coin doctor round off the tops and bottoms of the rims all the way around the coin to try and hide rim damage?
I am not seeing the rim filing or whatever it is but the AU details should be XF.
Where are the "never buy problem coins" people?
I'm putting together a 1871 year set in honor of my grandparents' birth year. Thank goodness this is the wrong year.
I was thinking the same thing, but from Bowers' handy reference I see that the obverse is flatly struck with poor details compared to the rev. Either way, one of the great rarities among DE's.
Interestingly, SB sold an 1871CC cleaned AU details for 96,000; I see that Northern Nev Coin has an AU53 for sale at 90,000.
This is 2024 not 1970. Many formerly XF coins are now AU.
1970 when everything was either VG, XF or UNC?
A weak strike also doesn't count as wear. Not that any of that matters for this coin.
You should take your own advice. An uneducated opinion: The important side (you know) is NOT AU anything. There is some weakness compaired to the sharpness of the reverse. The reverse is AU and and was considered AU back then.
PS to the other member, I looks like the obverse rim at 12 OC has been repaired.
My advice to not confuse strike with wear? Yes, I did that...
You can see the weakness in the recesses
AFAIK, Strike weakness on a coin is not found in a recess part of a design. I see weakness on the relief parts of the design along with too much wear for MY AU on the most important side. I don't grade coins technically (probably the coin's actual grade). I think the rarity of the coin plus its commercial value gave it a bump from a common date.
I agree. With an honest AU coin it should retain luster nearly everywhere and certainly around the stars. This coin has no luster anyplace but the most hidden little pockets of the design and that is not because of strike. This is why I said XF.
Strike weakness is everywhere. The reason I point you to the recesses is that wear will occur on the high points first. Weakness is more pronounced on high points but also visible on lower points.
This issue is of course graded on an unbelievably loose grading curve, just look at the issues that got no problem grades, and has cac even given a thumbs up on any of them? Anacs often gives two negatives on problem coins, but NGC and PCGS just do the worst on details coins. This one looks cleaned.
I would never spend so much for a date and mint mark, let alone a "problem coin." I would prefer a more common date in gem condition. However, there is room for everyone to buy what they like in this hobby.
I agree. It's just interesting that people jumped all over the thread where someone was asking how to value a problem coin. In this case, because it's a rare, expensive coin, no one mentioned it.
With all due respect (Just this time). I think you may be incorrect about where signs of weakness manifest on a struck coin. Otherwise, every grading instructor or dealer who I learned from over the decades told me a lie.
Perhaps some member who may now be confused could start a poll: Where do you find signs of weakness on a coin? On the relief details (what's left of them) or in the recesses? I'm not going to do it to prove a point because I'm not confused.
The problem is, a coin as this usually turns out to be a better performer over the years than a common coin in much better condition. I'll bet most non-numismatists would prefer the common gem though.
Respectfully, all the time, you can't simply strike a coin weakly at the highest points. The weakness is most obvious there because the lower striking pressure does not allow filing of the die at the higher points. You sell see a lower evidence of weakness as you head down towards the surface of the coin, but it's there. It is also less likely to be confused with wear.
In case you are open to actually doing some reading or just looking at the pictures.
https://www.error-ref.com/weak_strikesinsufficientrampressure/
More pictures
https://minterrordatabase.com/edu/weak_strike.html
Thats a lot of dollars for a problem coin. Strong pass. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Would the eye appeal be neutral or something else on this coin?
Thanks for the link. DISCLAIMER: Error Ref is written by famous and well known/regarded error experts. I refer to it often and will never be up to their level of expertise. One day I shall be finished reading it in its entirety. I highly recommend it; however, I never considered that I needed to read about weak strikes.
So, I'm guessing this link must be where you got your info. I'll read it later, just because of this initial statement: "A weak strike results from two proximate causes, inadequate ram pressure or insufficient die approximation (excessive minimum die clearance). Right away they left out #3 - the condition and tolerance of the planchet which I suspect/hope is mentioned in the section on planchets.
Anyway, thanks for your continued participation. I've been on CU too long and need a break to clear my brain.
ROTFL until I vomit. Let's stick to weakly struck coins (common) like the CC gold - NOT MINT ERRORS which are numismatic aberrations! Would you show your students images of three legged dogs to prove they can walk?
The eye appeal would be hard to get excited about but not horrible when considering how rare it is imho.
It looks like it was (hopefully) professionally conserved. Coins with this much wear are never residue free without a little help. Personally, I like this look since I'd rather look at gold than residue.
They are weakly struck so you can see the depth progression. It's just more pictures