Net-grade that Trade...

berylcoin

How severe is the rim damage and reverse black spotting/staining (or any other problem) on this circulated Trade $? I'd like opinions on its "details" and "net" grade if you think it's warranted. What's acceptable in a "no problem" coin from this era?

There is no damage to the edge of the coin, just what you see in the scans (which are decent). Thanks.




Obverse
Reverse


BC

Placid

Those rim nicks are not reason for a net grade in my opinion.
I would grade it 45.

DennisH

I totally agree with Placid... the rim damage is very minor, and assuming it has a fair amount of lustre, it looks like an X40/F45.

braddick

Enough rub/wear to place it strongly in the XF40 catagory. I'd like to see a tad less wear and no rim dings to make it a full XF45.

berylcoin

Thanks for the opinions. The coin does not have much luster left, and as such I'd probably limit its grade to XF40 at most (my opinion only). I don't find the rim damage to be very severe either, but I've seen other posters on here take issue with some very small rim nicks and bumps. I was never sure if they were talking about market acceptance or personal preference--still not sure.

Although flawed, I still prefer this coin over the usual baking-soda/brillo-pad models.

Any other thoughts on this coin, or acceptability of "problems" in general?

BC

tradedollarnut

Something about the "look" of the coin strikes me as "off". Also, the zeros on the reverse don't appear to be intricate enough.

If I'm just being overly whacko, I'd call the coin a VF. The wear has gotten into the devices a bit too much for me to call it an XF.

berylcoin

The following is a series of PM's between myself and Tradedollarnut, reprinted with permission, so that others in the forum might avoid a counterfeit as well. I'd also like to thank him publicly for his help in confirming mine to be most likely genuine.

BC:

<< <i> Regarding my trade dollar, you've gone and made me curious. Do you mean "off" like possibly counterfeit? If so, I've never seen anything but the crudest of counterfeits so I wouldn't no what to look for. Could you put more of the "off-ness" into words.

Even if your just being whacko I'd like to know what your seeing. Obviously you've looked at a few (understatement) more Trade Dollars than me.

Thanks >>



TDN:

<< <i>I just couldn't say with any certainty that it's counterfeit, but the overall look of the coin was unusual to me.

For instance, some of the stars are worn and some are not - very unusual for a 78-S (they come fully struck as a rule). What kind of wear pattern would hit some stars and not others? The zeros on the reverse appear not to be ornate with thick sides, but rather thin all the way around. Of course, this could just be my eyes and the picture.

I really can't point to anything other than those two items, but my sixth sense is just telling me that the coin needs to be examined closely. Have you weighed it? Does it ring true (good silver)?

Don't get me wrong - it might be perfectly fine. Hard to tell from a picture. >>



TDN:

<< <i>I looked at it again and the stars don't look so bad. Can't tell on the zeros, tho. If it rings true and feels right, it's almost certainly ok. If you want, you could post or PM me a blowup of the 900 on the reverse and I can give you a further opinion. >>



BC:

<< <i>I've been looking at some very large scans of my coin and at the coin in hand, comparing them to the images I posted and to some 1878-S's in the heritage archives. I think most of what you're seeing is distortion from the scans. The star wear is a little more consistent than it appears in the scans. As for the zeros, they definitely have some of the thickening due to the "flattened" inner circle, but still don't look quite like the Heritage coins. I'll try to post a blow up of the 900 on the thread or PM you a link.

For various reasons I probably won't be able to ring-test it but I should be able to find a scale to weigh it.

Would you mind if I posted our Private Messages to the thread? They might help someone avoid a mistake. Thanks.
>>



TDN:

<< <i>Sure, post away. Right now there are as many fake trade dollars as real ones and it never hurts to be overly careful. >>



BC:

<< <i>Here is the blown up image of the 900.

900

Thanks again. >>



TDN:

<< <i>All is well, the zeros look just great. The small details are where counterfeits are caught, simply because they can't duplicate the intricacies.

Amazing how it can look funny in one scan, but perfect in the other! >>

berylcoin

Here is the "900":



900

BC

keoj

Berylcoin:

I'm with TDN on this.....I give it a VF (but a high VF). Details are very nice, rim wear is tolerable. What will knock this down is the wear on Miss Liberty on the obverse. The reverse is a XF-40.

Hope this helps. Like TDN, all I collect is Trade $'s.

keoj

berylcoin

It was sold as XF40, but I have it labeled as VF35. I'm glad to hear somebody agree with my grading once in a while.

BC