Does a mint state 1856 Silver $1 with obv. fully struck exist?

Comet

After twenty years I have yet to find one. FMV in MS 63 is $9,340 for this coin. If you could find one fully struck in this grade, I feel it would be the greatest bargain in the entire U.S. series of coins.

RELLA

Comet,

Welcome to the boards. I think you're talking about one of the most underrated Seated Dollars in general, not just in nice (63+) MS. I've owned three XF-AU examples, and none of them were better than average strike. I'd write more but have to run right now.

RELLA

EVillageProwler

Hi Comet,

$9K for a true MS63 is a bargain. The coin is a supreme rarity in true UNC, with an estimated actual pop in UNC of ~ a dozen or very slightly more. And, yes, I have seen one that is pretty well struck. Too bad that I saw that well after I obtained my UNC specimen -- which is flat at the head area.

Imagine that an 1854 in AU is ~ $4K, and that coin is more available in circ than the 1856. In MS, the 1854 is hardly a type coin. But, compared to the 1856, it is quite available. Moreover, there is a small handful of ChMS 1854 specimens. There is no mini-hoard for the 1856.

As a trivia question, list the 1853-1857 dates in descending order of rarity in true UNC.

EVP

Comet

Thank you EVP for the info. The '56 with the full strike that you mentioned would be a tremendous acquisition. I wonder if it resides in the formidable but secretive PCGS 'Arizona' registry set? Perhaps one day...

Comet

Answer to EVP trivia question: '53, '57, '54, '56, '55.

tradedollarnut

My shot at the trivia question:

55, 56, 54, 53, 57.

The 1855 is horridly rare ( the rumor of a hoard of 50 scruffy uncs not withstanding) and the 1857 is dirt common in comparison to the others. The middle three are just guesses.

EVillageProwler

Comet's answer is correct, but in the wrong order. The '57 is hardly rare in UNC by the stds of Seated Dollars, but it isn't as common as the '53 either (not to say that the '53 is anywhere like a '47 or even a type).

As for that fully struck specimen, it could be Arizona's, but I doubt it. Why? Because I monitor it and when there's a change it shows that it's been UPDATED. And, the well struck '56 specimen came after I last saw the Arizona collection have any movement whatsoever.

BTW, you should go across the street and look at another high grade Seated Dollar set. There are pictures and descriptions too. Dunno which set is better, but I am more familiar with the owner of the set registered across the street as well as his coins. (I have no idea who Arizona is...)

EVP

EVillageProwler

BTW, who can answer the trivia question for PROOF specimens?



EVP

Comet

Pardon me. The descending order of rarity would be '55, '56, '54, '57, '53. Although the '53 in choice mint state is arguably rarer than the '57 & '54.

EVillageProwler

And, Comet, I must thank you for discussing my favorite series in U.S. coinage...

I started a thread about this across the street. You may find it interesting: LET'S DISCUSS SEATED DOLLARS.

If you ever want to discuss this stuff, feel free to email or PM me.

EVP

EVillageProwler

Although the '53 in choice mint state is arguably rarer than the '57 & '54

Yes, I would agree with that. Many people don't realize that in GEM or near GEM, the '57 is pretty close to being a type coin, surpassed only by the '60-O due to the Chimney hoard. And, there's a small quantity of (near) GEM '54's as well.

Most people dislike Seated Dollars because they say that it is overrated compared to the Seated Quarters and Dimes. Well, there are a lot more ChMS+specimens of the lesser denominations than of the dollars. Most people don't appreciate the dollars for their condition rarity status. And, try finding original, eye appealing specimens in *any* grade -- circ, UNC or proof!!!

EVP

Comet

EVP. We ARE indeed kindred spirits when it comes to the greatest underated series of U.S. coinage. Finding a true mint state specimen (even a '60-O) is a joy to behold.

Comet

Proof seated dollars are not my forte, but, gulp! here goes. DESCENDING order of rarity: '53, '54, '55, '56, '57. How'd I do 'proofessor'?

EVillageProwler

The "proofessor" says: NOPE. Please try again, and you missed something critical! One of the dates is obvious as to its position in the ranking.

EVP

Comet

EVP. I just returned from across at NGC street. The '45 is a condition census coin from the PCGS 'Linda' collection. Although the reverse is somewhat softly struck, what beautiful frost it displays - fantastic coin. The star coin in my opinion is the '72-S. This recognized rarity has got a lot going for it. Strike!, Luster!, Originality!, Prooflike!, How much do you want for it?!!

EVillageProwler

I have no idea how much Linda's Daddy would want for the '72-S. I highly doubt that he'd sell it for any conceivable amount of money!

BTW, any true UNC '72-S is condition census... And, that coin is very nice and, while not the finest (the Eliasberg specimen is a near GEM), it is awfully darn close. Likewise, any true UNC '45 is condition census!

EVP

roadrunner

While I like the # of rare dates in the smaller denoms, seated dollars are "massive" coins with a unique look and feel. Any date in nice condition is a neat coin. Compared to the run that the bust dollars just took, you have to agree that the seated dollars are now very underpriced in comparison. While the quarters and half dollars are routinely overgraded as to MS condition, the dollars are even more overgraded as a rule. That makes a real honest UNC better date piece all that much more desireable.

roadrunner

Comet

Ok, I will try harder this time. Descending order of proof seated dollar rarity - '53, '55, '54, '57, '56. Any closer to reality?

EVillageProwler

That makes a real honest UNC better date piece all that much more desireable.

Amen, brother!

All my comments about pops and condition census are for true, honest UNC specimens. The services are filthy dishonest when it comes to grade-flation for this series. There is an 1845 dollar that is dark and unappealing. It used to be grade AU58, then got re-toned and re-graded as MS62.

The Pittman 1870-CC specimen was a slider. Years later, it got re-toned (dark and ugly) and is now graded MS63 by PCGS.

Be very careful when buying UNC Seated Dollars. Buy only for eye appeal, and not for the slabbed grade. Otherwise, you'll be easily parted from your money!

EVP

EVillageProwler

Ok, I will try harder this time. Descending order of proof seated dollar rarity - '53, '55, '54, '57, '56. Any closer to reality?

I believe that you are correct, based on estimates. I know for a fact that there is NO "original" 1853 proof specimens. All specimens are thus considered novodels; if memory serves, Wallace Lee (Bowers, 1/99) had a specimen struck in silver and I think one also struck in copper. Like an idiot, I didn't chase them!

EVP

tradedollarnut

A few years back, when I had pretty much completed my trade dollar sets, I figured that Seated Dollars were the natural collection to turn to next. I went to the ANA show planning on buying up a few nice specimens to get started. There was even a seated dollar collection in the auction.

After viewing the certified coins in the auction and wandering the bourse floor looking for nice examples, I tabled my plans. None were very eye appealing to me. Since then I have learned that the majority of nice specimens are locked up in collections and rarely come available. What a challenging series!

I did get to view the Jimmy Hayes 1866 that Legend bought a few years back. They resubmitted it once (no luck) and then sold it. The new owner got it upgraded to MS67. Very nice coin, indeed!

EVillageProwler

The new owner got it upgraded to MS67.

I was fairly exasperated when he told me that he did that. Moreover, I did not forsee that the coin would go cheap at the Sotheby's 11/99 auction. Otherwise, I would have been in the game as well.

EVP

Comet

Your knowledge of seated dollars is impressive EVP. I hope that this thread opens the eyes to others about this series in which Duncan D. Lee described as 'the most challenging and intriguing of all U.S. coins'. I would have to agree.

EVillageProwler

Thanks. I've learned a lot from Duncan. He is probably the most knowledgeable about this series...

Who the heck are you? Wanna turn on your PM ability?

EVP

michael

yes!!!! len babin had one fully struck


sincerely michael

originalisbest

You guys know the heck out of your Seated Dollars. My one and only example is a 1872-S, NGC AU-50. One day I'll probably get a '60-O just to have a no motto to go with it, and probably it will be one of the hoard coins - but I feel this way I'll have a great UNC that would cost me so much more via most any other date in the series, along with a great story.

EVillageProwler

Comet: I just PM'ed you.

Originalisbest: I would suggest getting an 1859 specimen. It's better value. No one cares about a hoard date. You'll have a hard time selling it...

EVP

originalisbest

Hmmm - advice taken. After all, I'm not about to get a full ser put together, so I certainly wouldn't want my one "special" type coin to be looked upon as "oh, not ANOTHER one."

Thanks for the words of wisdom.

EVillageProwler

Orig:

In super-duper eye appealing slider grades, the following are also good value: 1843, '46, '49. They are considered common dates (not TYPE, just common), but are unexpectedly much rarer in true UNC. If you don't want them, please be sure to let me know.

EVP

originalisbest

I will keep my eyes peeled.

EVillageProwler

Or, buy an 1842 in MS63. That date normally comes extremely flashy, with die polished fields that impart a mild cameo effect. It is also generally well struck, and is priced in the low to mid $2K range. There is a big price jump to MS64 because there are no known GEM specimens.

EVP

originalisbest

Please stop giving me all these great ideas, I feel myself "virtually" running out of money!

But seriously, I appreciate the advice in negotiating what for me would certainly be a major purchase coin-wise. As long as we're talking about it, I know Dave Bowers has written about Seateds from time to time and often said, when a nice one was offered, he especially liked buying a nice 1840. Any thoughts about the initial year of mintage?

RELLA

<< <i>they say that it is overrated compared to the Seated Quarters and Dimes >>



EVP,

You weren't thinking about my comment from a few weeks ago when you wrote this, were you?

RELLA

P.S. I have to boogie again but will reply to your PM tomorrow.

EVillageProwler

Any thoughts about the initial year of mintage?

QDB is very high on that date, perhaps more so than I. I am loath to contradict him on such matters, and in this case I am generally in agreement with him. I find this date to be very hard to find in true UNC or even in very nice near UNC.

Where I disagree with him is on the pricing. He seems to feel that this date is a must have, whereas I feel that the entire series is loaded with ``must have'' dates that are much less appreciated than the 1840.

Still, if you find a nice 1840, then I suggest that you buy it. Even if the grade is EF! (Remember: buy the coin, not the holder. This advice is more important for this series than for many other series!)

EVP

EVillageProwler

Roger,

My comment about the dollars relative to the quarters and dimes is because Jim O'Donnell nags at me constantly about how obsessed I am with dollars (Bust as well as Seated), and loves to show me his rare Seated dimes and quarters.

After a while, my eyes just glaze over...

EVP

originalisbest

Advice absorbed, EVP. Thanks much.

EVillageProwler

Advice absorbed, EVP. Thanks much.

No prob. Good luck. You know how to contact me if necessary!

EVP