Sorry, Oreville, I meant your questions, not Bear. I got your posts mixed up.
The Stephanie on the left is my current wife. The Stephanie on the right is my future wife. Grades are high in this set. There has been no tooling, or altered surfaces. An occaisional soap and water dip, but that's it. Steph #2 appears to have AT hair, but that's OK. I like it.
I think you have good questions, but, if everyone else is like me, they have all ran out of this thread after gouging their eyes with a sharp rusted item.
If this thread were a fish, I would have thrown it back.
Stick a fork in it.
Any other cliches to signify that enough is enough ??
There coming to take me away ha ha, there coming to take me away ...
"I noticed the subtlety of saying "settled." Scared of a real fight?"
The job of an attorney is generally speaking, to execute the instructions of the client after the client has been informed of what the client needs to know.
Several years ago i stopped trying cases so that i could devote my efforts to managing the firm
First....isn't it rather funny that i got slammed for owning a white coin?
Ok.....here are your answers:
(1) Could you both discuss the positives of such 1815 quarter in significant detail................
I think joconnor broke his wrist. At least he's too busy to come in here and post more.
Quite rare, better date for the series, well struck, very few surface distractions, well centered, no planchet flaws. Many coin lovers prefer white coins. It is white.
(2) Could you both discuss the negatives of such 1815 quarter in significant detail...............
Luster is flat to satiny. Although it is possible that the coin is original, it is my opinion that that is highly unlikely. Probably has been conserved. How NCS or whomever does it is not known to me.
(3) Could you both discuss the neutral aspects of such 1815 quarter in significant detail..........
Hmmmm....i think aspects are either positive or negative.
(4) How much of your above visual examination of the above coin was based on in person examination of the coin versus examination of the pictures of the coin, etc.
I own the coin.
(5) What is the history of this coin.....
I really don't know other than it sold in public auction twice in the past few years, both times for around 10-12,000.
(6)what did it look like before it was "conserved"..........
I do not know.
(7) What is the pop count of this coin both PCGS and NGC in grades below, same and better than this coin.......
pcgs - 76 graded for all grades, one in 65 with one higher, in 66
ngc - 48 graded for all grades, three in 65 with 4 higher, 3 in 66 with one in 67
(8) What is the price history and price comparables, etc........
pricing history-- off hand, like i said, sold twice in the past several years for around 10-12K
grey sheet - $18,000
PCGS price guide - $21,000
(9) What is the price details for a similar type coin...........
No gem 1815 quarters were auctioned off in 2001 or 2000, according to Krause's Auction Prices Realized.
That was a nicely detailed response to Oreville's questions concerning the "gem" 1815 25c. (I put "gem" in quotes not to provoke you, but to remind the audience that it's the condition of the coin that is in question.)
It was also a fair-minded response. I agree with you that there is quite a market for white coins -- even in the Bust series. I can't understand that, but that's more a matter of personal preference than anything else.
I stand behind my opinion of the coin -- that it's not up to my definition of a "gem" specimen -- but I'm really the only one who has to listen to my opinion.
Aside from the debate of this coin's technical grade, I'd say that it is a valuable specimen. If this coin were in a 63 holder, then folks would say that this is super PQ and we'd be heaping praise on the coin. If it were in a 64 holder, then we'd all be gushing about how rare this coin is. Because this coin is in a 65 holder, well, we all know what happened...
So, looking past the holder (and the asking price), I'd say: NICE COIN; CONGRATS ON YOUR ACQUISITION.
Anaconda: Thank you for the information. Now this is what I was hoping for in this thread! You answered the question straight on.
I am sure Joe has specific areas about this coin he could comment on as I would like to learn. Joe is very good in this area as well.
How this thread got off the track must have been due to a full moon??
I do have a comment....a satiny luster is not necessarily a negative...it could be considered neutral in my opinion only because half of the collectors considers it a small negative and the other half considers it a small positive. Now a flat luster is more of a negative only if it correlates to some of the original skin being removed.
I would also consider a very ordinary looking toning a neutral. The strike could be acceptable but not great for instance so possibly another neutral attribute.
Now what about other attributes.....strike? Strong...weak in certain areas as the pics were hard to tell??
Once again thanks, Anaconda.
P.S. When I was 8 years old and baking soda cleaned my 1955 quarter to purty it up I took it to a dealer in New York in 1961 and he commented "my that is a mighty clean looking quarter but we like our quarters looking dirty!!"
That dealer was Mr. Stack (Harvey??) , of Stacks. He did not have the heart to tell me I ruined that quarter. How did I remember that? Unbelievable but I had forgotten until two months ago when I found that 1955 quarter which has sinced toned to an ugly yellow/golden color.
Adrian, it is funny that you got slammed for owning a white coin. Usually you are caught asking outrageous prices for ordinary coins that are wildly toned. Now you pop up with a classic in white? Funny stuff.
There is a collector group that demands white coins because they want an example that looks like it did seconds after it came off the press. This would of course preclude toning in their opinion. If you like toning which will automatically convey the age and beauty of a coin, then you are not in the whitey club. Again we are back to personal preference and opinion. Share them, disagree with them, but don't stomp all over it. I am afraid that is just what Joe Connor did.
I have done such things in the past, and eventually apologized for it. Hopefully he will too. We are all human beings, and this board is full of egos regarding their love for coins.
Anaconda: Personally, I cannot evaluate your coin from a distance based merely on pics.
Obviously I cannot state if the coin looks like a 63,64,65 or 66 since I need to rotate coins before my eyes especially when it has a flat satiny luster to evaluate the "skin" of the original mint bloom.
Now back in the early 19th century didn't the screw presses prior to around that time (1820??????) create a slightly different look to the coin in that the luster was different than when the powered presses came into vogue???
Perhaps someone has dates on the mechanical presses?
I need help in this area as the 1834 dime (Lovejoy pedigree) has fantastic luster yet dimes I own prior to 1820 were much more subdued in luster.
Discussion on this point or perhaps time for a new thread?
Hey Prowler -- If my coin sold for around $11,500 in the recent Heritage auction (when something like 15 million dollars worth of coins came onto the market), then i don't feel too bad being in it at the level i'm in it at since this:
sold in the sale for $14,950.
You tell me, which do you prefer, the coin above or this coin:
I know which i prefer and i own it, namely the coin immediately above.
Hey Oreville! With regard to your question about luster on early quaters, i referred to the PCGS grading guide which essentially states that quarters from this era can come with a variety of different luster, two of which are flat and satiny.
Ever seen a 1921-S Morgan? Not the best luster. I have three in NGC MS 65 holders and the luster on those is about what it is on the 1815 quarter.
Not horrible, but it certainly could be better.
Quite frankly, i've seen so few gem quarters from that era that it's hard to say what you should expect but from my limited experience, the luster generally isn't that great.
I guess i could tell you that i also own this coin:
...and the luster is flat to satiny on that coin as well.
Here's another one that is graded mint state 66 by NGC that was offered in the Heritage sale in January, which didn't reach reserve:
It too appears to have flat to satiny luster also, however, two dimensional representations are less than ideal for evaluating coins....
So, it all boils down to what i said earlier on in this thread, which is "in matters of taste, there can be no disagreement"...
...unless of course you're joconnor who will be glad to tell you your coin is junk.
Anaconda: That last 1815 coin (NGC MS-66) is decidely inferior for sure. That much I can see. Heck it doesn't even look mint state to me????
Yes, 1921-S morgans are well known for having substandard luster. Even 1955-D quarters were not reknown for great luster. They pop up now and then indeed.
I will admit, I am pretty much a novice in bust quarters as my expertise of the era is bust dimes and am now learning bust half dimes.
I move cautiously into areas I am learning for my type set.
I must admit that Joe O Connor's 1833 half dime does look nice but was intriqued by his comment about the hairlines.
But alas, College tuition for my daughters is now my #1 priority so now I am back in the ranks of being a "young" collector once again for the next four years.
I was glad I bought Legend's 1837 PCGS MS-67 BN medium letters cent which does have awesome luster as that was my swan song purchase!!!!
ttt to make it easier to see so that posters to a new thread can ascertain the validity of a recent comment i made in the "What a person owns is a manifestation of their knowledge and taste." thread
Comments
No one likes my questions?
The Stephanie on the left is my current wife. The Stephanie on the right is my future wife. Grades are high in this set. There has been no tooling, or altered surfaces. An occaisional soap and water dip, but that's it. Steph #2 appears to have AT hair, but that's OK. I like it.
I think you have good questions, but, if everyone else is like me, they have all ran out of this thread after gouging their eyes with a sharp rusted item.
If this thread were a fish, I would have thrown it back.
Stick a fork in it.
Any other cliches to signify that enough is enough ??
There coming to take me away ha ha, there coming to take me away ...
I love Ike dollars and all other dollar series !!!
I also love Major Circulation Strike Type Sets, clad Washingtons ('65 to '98) and key date coins !!!!!
If ignorance is bliss, shouldn't we have more happy people ??
adrian
I noticed the subtlety of saying "settled." Scared of a real fight?
The job of an attorney is generally speaking, to execute the instructions of the client after the client has been informed of what the client needs to know.
Several years ago i stopped trying cases so that i could devote my efforts to managing the firm
I have tried many cases to a jury.
I am not afraid of most things.
adrian
Ok.....here are your answers:
(1) Could you both discuss the positives of such 1815 quarter in significant detail................
I think joconnor broke his wrist. At least he's too busy to come in here and post more.
Quite rare, better date for the series, well struck, very few surface distractions, well centered, no planchet flaws. Many coin lovers prefer white coins. It is white.
(2) Could you both discuss the negatives of such 1815 quarter in significant detail...............
Luster is flat to satiny. Although it is possible that the coin is original, it is my opinion that that is highly unlikely. Probably has been conserved. How NCS or whomever does it is not known to me.
(3) Could you both discuss the neutral aspects of such 1815 quarter in significant detail..........
Hmmmm....i think aspects are either positive or negative.
(4) How much of your above visual examination of the above coin was based on in person examination of the coin versus examination of the pictures of the coin, etc.
I own the coin.
(5) What is the history of this coin.....
I really don't know other than it sold in public auction twice in the past few years, both times for around 10-12,000.
(6)what did it look like before it was "conserved"..........
I do not know.
(7) What is the pop count of this coin both PCGS and NGC in grades below, same and better than this coin.......
pcgs - 76 graded for all grades, one in 65 with one higher, in 66
ngc - 48 graded for all grades, three in 65 with 4 higher, 3 in 66 with one in 67
(8) What is the price history and price comparables, etc........
pricing history-- off hand, like i said, sold twice in the past several years for around 10-12K
grey sheet - $18,000
PCGS price guide - $21,000
(9) What is the price details for a similar type coin...........
No gem 1815 quarters were auctioned off in 2001 or 2000, according to Krause's Auction Prices Realized.
adrian
That was a nicely detailed response to Oreville's questions concerning the "gem" 1815 25c. (I put "gem" in quotes not to provoke you, but to remind the audience that it's the condition of the coin that is in question.)
It was also a fair-minded response. I agree with you that there is quite a market for white coins -- even in the Bust series. I can't understand that, but that's more a matter of personal preference than anything else.
I stand behind my opinion of the coin -- that it's not up to my definition of a "gem" specimen -- but I'm really the only one who has to listen to my opinion.
Aside from the debate of this coin's technical grade, I'd say that it is a valuable specimen. If this coin were in a 63 holder, then folks would say that this is super PQ and we'd be heaping praise on the coin. If it were in a 64 holder, then we'd all be gushing about how rare this coin is. Because this coin is in a 65 holder, well, we all know what happened...
So, looking past the holder (and the asking price), I'd say: NICE COIN; CONGRATS ON YOUR ACQUISITION.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I am sure Joe has specific areas about this coin he could comment on as I would like to learn. Joe is very good in this area as well.
How this thread got off the track must have been due to a full moon??
I do have a comment....a satiny luster is not necessarily a negative...it could be considered neutral in my opinion only because half of the collectors considers it a small negative and the other half considers it a small positive. Now a flat luster is more of a negative only if it correlates to some of the original skin being removed.
I would also consider a very ordinary looking toning a neutral. The strike could be acceptable but not great for instance so possibly another neutral attribute.
Now what about other attributes.....strike? Strong...weak in certain areas as the pics were hard to tell??
Once again thanks, Anaconda.
P.S. When I was 8 years old and baking soda cleaned my 1955 quarter to purty it up I took it to a dealer in New York in 1961 and he commented "my that is a mighty clean looking quarter but we like our quarters looking dirty!!"
That dealer was Mr. Stack (Harvey??) , of Stacks. He did not have the heart to tell me I ruined that quarter. How did I remember that? Unbelievable but I had forgotten until two months
ago when I found that 1955 quarter which has sinced toned to an ugly yellow/golden color.
There is a collector group that demands white coins because they want an example that looks like it did seconds after it came off the press. This would of course preclude toning in their opinion. If you like toning which will automatically convey the age and beauty of a coin, then you are not in the whitey club. Again we are back to personal preference and opinion. Share them, disagree with them, but don't stomp all over it. I am afraid that is just what Joe Connor did.
I have done such things in the past, and eventually apologized for it. Hopefully he will too. We are all human beings, and this board is full of egos regarding their love for coins.
I liked your responses as well to the questions.
Obviously I cannot state if the coin looks like a 63,64,65 or 66 since I need to rotate coins before my eyes especially when it has a flat satiny luster to evaluate the "skin" of the original mint bloom.
Now back in the early 19th century didn't the screw presses prior to around that time (1820??????) create a slightly different look to the coin in that the luster was different than when the powered presses came into vogue???
Perhaps someone has dates on the mechanical presses?
I need help in this area as the 1834 dime (Lovejoy pedigree) has fantastic luster yet dimes I own prior to 1820 were much more subdued in luster.
Discussion on this point or perhaps time for a new thread?
sold in the sale for $14,950.
You tell me, which do you prefer, the coin above or this coin:
I know which i prefer and i own it, namely the coin immediately above.
Hey Oreville! With regard to your question about luster on early quaters, i referred to the PCGS grading guide which essentially states
that quarters from this era can come with a variety of different luster, two of which are flat and satiny.
Ever seen a 1921-S Morgan? Not the best luster. I have three in NGC MS 65 holders and the luster on those is about what it is on the 1815 quarter.
Not horrible, but it certainly could be better.
Quite frankly, i've seen so few gem quarters from that era that it's hard to say what you should expect but from my limited experience, the luster generally isn't that great.
I guess i could tell you that i also own this coin:
...and the luster is flat to satiny on that coin as well.
Here's another one that is graded mint state 66 by NGC that was offered in the Heritage sale in January, which didn't reach reserve:
It too appears to have flat to satiny luster also, however, two dimensional representations are less than ideal for evaluating coins....
So, it all boils down to what i said earlier on in this thread, which is "in matters of taste, there can be no disagreement"...
...unless of course you're joconnor who will be glad to tell you your coin is junk.
adrian
Yes, 1921-S morgans are well known for having substandard luster. Even 1955-D quarters were not reknown for great luster. They pop up now and then indeed.
I will admit, I am pretty much a novice in bust quarters as my expertise of the era is bust dimes and am now learning bust half dimes.
I move cautiously into areas I am learning for my type set.
I must admit that Joe O Connor's 1833 half dime does look nice but was intriqued by his comment about the hairlines.
But alas, College tuition for my daughters is now my #1 priority so now I am back in the ranks of being a "young" collector once again for the next four years.
I was glad I bought Legend's 1837 PCGS MS-67 BN medium letters cent which does have awesome luster as that was my swan song purchase!!!!