Vote in the POLL: Which coin do you like better?

Baley

this one's in a PCGS MS63 holder:



This one's raw:

jdimmick

I like the raw one better for overall eye-appeal, but actually, the pcgs coin may be a half a point higher grade than the raw from a technical standpoint?

darktone

Baley, I think your results are a little skewed because the othe thread is only a couple down from this one! mike

fcloud

What a pitty to take a coin like that and turn it into a body bag canidate.

SarasotaFrank

the pcgs coin is significantly better from a detail perspective, it appears the hair detail is quite different, so I can't see them being the same coin.

Now if I could just get past that thumb print . . .

FrattLaw

It's without question the same coin. But know I can see several more of the hits to the cheek. While I am surprised the print dipped off that well, it still is a MS64 coin at best.

Nice job with the dip, what did you do exactly to get rid of the print or is it just a lighting technique thing?

Michael

SarasotaFrank

<< <i>It's without question the same coin.

Michael >>



Michael:

I really think you can see notable differences in the hair to the left of the bun. Although the "B" looks the same.

jdimmick

I just now saw your other post and realize it is the same coin. The dipping of the coin makes it look more appealing, but now tends to show more clatter in the prime focal area in the center that was hid with the dull look. It should still holder at 63, but dont think you will pull a 4 just becuase of the dipping, even though it does look better.

DRUNNER

Same coin. Small hit above "V" in TRVST & just inside left rim at 8:30.

All other things considered (lighting, etc.) . . . the raw is superior. But I never can seem to understand why PCGS text states "harsh" cleaning bodybags a coin . . . yet a soft roll of MS70 on a Q-Tip can sometimes constitute a "harsh" cleaning and bodybag a coin seemingly without any evidence of cleaning at all other than lack of haze or toning . . .

fcloud

<< <i>fcloud I dont think that coin will bodybag on the contrary I think it might go 1-2 points higher. >>



Dipped coins look great for a while, then they either go back to looking the way they were over time, or the develop spot (white spots from the water, or brown from not using enough water). In any case I am just not one for cleaning coins. Many times cleaned coins become ruined coins. It rates right up there with AT!

Photos don't show every little detail either.

Dip if you want. I would have left the coin alone.

To each their own...

CarlWohlforth

I didn't like the fingerprint. I don't like the dipped out look either. It seems there was a neat skin, a patina, that is now gone along with the print.

ms70

<< <i>I didn't like the fingerprint. I don't like the dipped out look either. It seems there was a neat skin, a patina, that is now gone along with the print. >>



I feel the same way. Maybe NCS could have taken care of the fingerprint?

At the last Parsippany Show a dealer had two PCGS boxes of Peace Dollars & I thought I'd hammer out the pieces for my type set in one
shot! Unfortunately each one was screaming nuclear blast white & looked terrible- All of them were in PCGS slabs!

Peace dollars just don't seem to clean up very well for some reason.

Edited for spelling AGAIN!

DHeath

Baley,

It's a trade-off. In the holder, the coin had a nice amber glow, and post dip it looks a little more sterile. It previously had an ugly print which I didn't like.

stman

Haw, I told you that print was covering up things.

If this is indeed the same coin, yes the print is gone. Now is it gone forever is the question????

Or will it come back with a vengeance? I believe it already was dipped before you got the coin. Oh well, as long as you enjoy it and are having fun, that's the main thing.

If I don't take the big dirt nap in the next 3-10 years, please post this coin again.

mercurynut

The raw one is more appealing to the eye.

Shamika

Although I don't agree with dipping coins, I must admit the coin looks much better dipped (at least for now). I hate fingerprints.

keets

hey Baley

here's the rub---I like the gold color, and the print is nowhere near as obvious in real life as it is in the intentionally angled photo. if you had presented us with a picture of pre-post dipping shot under the same lighting conditions with no angling to dramatize anything, it would have resulted in a more objective analysis being possible. as it is, you have a picture tilted to show the print and possibly showing the detail better/worse and the second picture presumably shot straight on, although that one could be tilted this way or that way to gain a particular advantage.

i find that when i'm posting pictures, the best i can do is always photograph at the same angle (straight ahead for me), same settings and maybe adjust the lighting if there is excessive glare or more light needed to show color/luster. afer all, i'm trying to get an opinion on the coin, not my photagraphic skill. an honest representation is the best i want, not an enhanced picture to distort an opinion.

bottom line, you might have gotten better feedback with the original thread if you had shown the coin as it looked----in your own words, the print is nowhere near as obvious in real life.

al h.

Baley

Keets, the pictures were my best effort to show what the coin really looks like. When looking closely at the coin, the print was very apparent. When I said "the print is nowhere near as obvious in real life", I meant to a casual glance, like in the shot of the whole slab in the other thread.

Anyway, I did what I could in these two posts to bring out the various opinions and generate discussion, and I share bits of all of them. Part of me wanted to leave the coin as it was, in the old green holder. Part of me wanted to sell the thing and get that print out of my sight. Part of me wanted to bust it out and put it in my album as-is. And the part that won out in the end was the part that found a textbook example of a coin that needed a quick dip to be restored to it's mint-freshness, so it could be enjoyed in the years to come. It's why I bought the coin in the first place, for my Library of Coins album.

Baley

Just about 25/75 in favor of the white coin. Interesting!

Baley

so does that mean "white and raw" is better than "original and graded by pcgs"?

edit: btw, 5 months and counting and the coin still looks like pic #2

dorkkarl

i would vote they are the same coin, but difficult to say which is better. i do not believe it's a fair comparison due to different lighting.

overall, i would choose the 2d version based strictly on the digi-pic.

K S

Neptune

yes def. same coin ....... I can not deal with the thumbprints tho - have to go with the raw.

LanLord

Looks like the one with all the prints on it (PCGS) has a better strike on it, but my eye is immediately drawn to those prints.

Baley

It's the same coin

BillJones

I HATE fingerprints. That's way I don't like the certified coin.

I'd take the raw one, but it has been dipped. That doesn't bother me too much although a 100% natural one with get eye appeal would be better still.

Stuart

The one without the ugly fingerprints -- the raw coin.

It's got gorgeous mint luster and a strong strike. That's what it takes to make a gem Peace Dollar stand out from the crowd

Steve27

I would take the raw one over the slabbed one every time, those fingerprints really detract from the coin.

stujoe

Truthfully, I don't care for either stage of the coin (before or after). I would sell it and buy a different one.

aem4162

RAW!!!!!

Goober

#2 is the preferred

Tootawl

<< <i>It's the same coin >>


I was going to ask if they werer the same. I noticed the same tick above the word "TRVST" date on both photos.

Elcontador

Any coin with a fingerprint -- especially one like on this image -- is a coin I don't want, at ANY price. I saw a Bust $ in a PC 6 holder with a fingerprint. Not interested.