UPDATED/PRICE(S) REALIZED FOR:It's time for another coinguy1 "which coin would you rather have

coinguy1

I do not currently own and have never owned either of these coins. I will reveal their grades and comment on them after you folks have had time to reply. If you know (or learn of) their grades, please keep it to yourself Thanks.

COIN #1





COIN #2

Russ

I'll take #2 hands down. It looks the way a coin this old should look. It has character. I don't care what the grades are.

Russ, NCNE

JrGMan2004

I'll go for #2. Wish the pictures were bigger to get a better idea of grade, but... #1 looks like it has nice details, but looks dipped, and possibly cleaned to me, while #2 has more wear, it has some nice original toning that works gorgeous. My stand on pretty much any bust coin, is that I will take a circulated coin with original toning over a dipped out UNC any day of the week.

marcmoish

#2 looks much much nicer, and "original" than #1 - too many marks and chatter on that one - #2 looks like it's got great preservation and eye appeal to boot.



Marc

rkfish

#2

kamehameha00

#2, #1 looks dipped or cleaned.

mgoodm3

#2 looks nicer. I like nice natural looking toning.

Oldnewbie

#2 It just looks natural to me.

Eric

BigE

Looks like the same coin to me, but I like the "dirty" one----------BigE

CarlWohlforth

I agree. I wouldn't buy #1. The second one looks really nice to me. The first one looks way dipped out.

jcping

Coin 1 has been badly dipped but it could be in PCGS holder
If true, coin 1 has higher grade than coin 2 has.

I will keep coin 2 for myself. If I buy and sell, I will consider coin 1.

roadrunner

I hope these aren't the same coin making us all look foolish. I hate the look on #1.

#2 all the way.

roadrunner

Craton

<< <i>I'll take #2 hands down. It looks the way a coin this old should look. It has character. I don't care what the grades are.

Russ, NCNE >>



Ditto........ except my name isn't Russ

Coinosaurus

I'm with Roadrunner. I think Feldoni is trying to trick us by showing the same coin

As for the coins, #1 is fugly to me (my apologies if the anyone on the board actually owns it) and I would much rather have a lower grade one in choice condition.

pursuitofliberty

#2 here too ...

CalGold

I will jump on the coin #2 bandwagon too. BUT it has probably been dipped too and retoned, and the toning might even be a deceptive AT job and could be hiding marks we can't see in the scans.

Side note, how come all of you "original" guys who are always so "unimpressed" by "dipped out" coins have been praising all of the dipped and retoned coins in the Oliver Jung sale?

CG

DHeath

To my amateur eye, whoever dipped/cleaned #1 revealed far too much. I dislike the discoloration on the cheek, and the stain at 7:00 obverse. The sterile look also really highlights the slide marks and scratches. Coin #2 has a nice look, with traces of luster and little if any wear. It looks like a softer strike, but a far nicer coin. It would be my choice.

Mark, while you're commenting, I have to ask you about the difference in the shape of the tip of the top right feathers on the reverse. The first coin appears to have a squared tip, while the second one has a pointed tip. Is either an attributed reverse die?

Compa

I'm sure they are the same coin. But I like the look of #2 much better.

I assume that #2 is the AT version of the over dipped #1. Very real looking

Cladiator

#2 - I like the look better.

Shamika

It looks like #2 by a landslide. It certainly has my vote.

ldhair

I like #2 as well but it looks like someone messed with it long ago and it's starting to tone again.

Can't say I would put money on either coin from the images.

TheLiberator

#2. I'm not a tone-freak but I like the original looking color. I am dying to know the story here. Have we been fooled by a nice dye job or did someone really dip out #2 to make number #1? BTW I can't grade these things for squat...

Elcontador

I'm with Cal Gold; it looks like coin #2 was dipped & has retoned nicely. No problem with that. The look of coin #1 does not look like a coin which is 199 years old; pass on that one, irrespective of the price & grade.

TUMUSS

I'll take #1 since no one else wants it.

mr1931S

Coin 1 appears to me to be uncirculated. If was dipped (not harshly) it doesn't matter to grading services. If they can find no wear they will grade at least MS 60. But #1 may never have been dipped and could be original. No way to really tell from the images as it's very difficult to do brilliant and lustrous silver coins justice in pictures.

Coin 2 appears to me to have circulated and would get AU 55 or 58 tops. A nice coin even though it has a bit of wear.

The eagle on Coin 1 is talking to me....

Coin 1.

Aethelred

Based on those photos (and you really can't tell much about toning and overall originality from photos on the internet) I would take #2. It has that original, or at least not been messed with in a while, look to it.

puff

I'll take # 1 & 2 ........ Because I believe it is in fact the "same" coin and someone must have taken a picture of it before, and after they dipped it........ The idjits!

stman

I don't like the look of either of them. #1 is nasty nasty, #2 is nasty. Next.

mr1931S

Not the same coin. Check out the wear or weakness in the eagle's tailfeathers on #2. If #2 was dipped that weakness or wear would obviously still be there.

#1 tailfeathers are much sharper. These are two different coins.

cohodk

I think it is the same coin. I dont think it is a before and after either, just different photographic methods.

OKbustchaser

Not the same coin. Different reverse die.
I'll take #1. Rarer variety than the second and fills a hole.

JimP

fountainheadgold

I will take coin one, here is my address

techeff

2 for tuesday.

byergo

#1 overdipped?

#2 cleaned and unattractively retoned?

I'd save my money for something nicer.

CarlWohlforth

stman: isn't one nasty better than two nasties?

More Mighty Mouse for me!

EVillageProwler

Loath am I to assess off images, but I'm with those who could care less about either. From the image, the second coin definately does not seem original to me.

EVP

stman

Carl, I guess so since you put it that way. That's why I gave them each their own nasty scale. And I was trying to be nice.

JLW

#2 for sure looks more natural, like it has aged gracefully.......
Joe
P.S. Mark, have you been away? I don't hang around here as much as I used to!

Neptune

Can't say I would put money on either coin from the images.

Hoot

Only #2 is mildly interesting, and they do not appear to be the same coin by definition of minor differences, but especially patterns of wear/strike/marks. (However, it would not be the first time fooled by a pair of lousy photos.) Neither coin would garner my significant attention in terms of overall appeal.

Hoot

OKbustchaser

After playing with the images in Photoshop, it appears that I was mistaken. Coin 1 is also appears to be the 4 Berry Variety. Oh well, first time for everything

JimP
Still think they are 2 separate coins though.

coinguy1

Thanks for your replies, analysis and assessments.

First, let me say, that the two coins are indeed, two different coins (it is not my intention to get tricky with such threads). Each has been graded AU58 by PCGS. And, while I don't dispute the grades, I sure prefer coin #2, as most of you do. I do not think coin #2 has been dipped and re-toned but rather, has aged and acquired its patina gracefully, over a period of many years.

As I examined the two coins, one after the other in an upcoming public sale, I was struck by how much the obvious dipping and lack of originality of the first coin disturbed me - it was a combination of sadness and irritation. I also thought about how some unknowledgeable (and heck, maybe some knowledgeable) collectors would probably prefer the dipped white appearance of coin #1. That is certainly their right, but I don't want that coin in my inventory.

Another thing that struck me was, that I would not have been as bothered by the dipping and unnatural appearance, had the coin been of at least a somewhat more recent mintage (like 100 years more recent!). Generally, the older the coin/coin type, the less likely that it can be free of color and still be original/natural. A coin from 1805 simply should NOT look like that.

I will update this thread after the sale and let everyone know prices realized for the two pieces.

TheLiberator

<< <i>

Another thing that struck me was, that I would not have been as bothered by the dipping and unnatural appearance, had the coin been of at least a somewhat more recent mintage (like 100 years more recent!). Generally, the older the coin/coin type, the less likely that it can be free of color and still be original/natural. A coin from 1805 simply should NOT look like that.

. >>



I agree with what you said! There seems to be a "toning threshold" that we will tolerate: " A white coin from 1905? Ok...I can see that. A white coin from 1805? CERTAINLY dipped." Even if the 1905 coin was dipped we wouldn't have near as much a problem with it. It is very interesting how we make mental barriers about these things!

mr1931S

Very informative these "which coin would you rather have and why?" threads, Mark.

Next.

byergo

Mark,
You've forgot more about coins than I'll ever know!

I need to brush up on my skills, as I trust you are correct that coin #2 is naturally toned. For some reason it just didn't "speak to me" or look right.

It's just about universal that #1 appeals to nobody. Hopefully this prevailing attitude (and hopefully people support this position with bids in the marketplace) will prevent at least a percentage of the desecration of classic old coins. It makes me angry too.

coinguy1

Byergo,

I had the advantage of being able to view the coins in person, while the images you viewed did not lend themselves to ideal or detailed examination. Also, there is the distinct possibility that my conclusion was incorrect - I assure you, there is plenty that I don't know.

elwood

<< <i> I was struck by how much the obvious dipping and lack of originality of the first coin disturbed me >>





<< <i>Each has been graded AU58 by PCGS >>

(I'm not picking on PCGS, every service is guilty of this)

Why is the first coin even certified and not bodybagged?

Mark, what did you grade the two coins?
Was the cleaned coin cleaned to get a higher grade?

coinguy1

<< <i>Why is the first coin even certified and not bodybagged? Mark, what did you grade the two coins?Was the cleaned coin cleaned to get a higher grade? >>

I believe the first coin was certified and not body-bagged because it was "dipped" rather than harshly cleaned.

I had no problem with the numerical grades that were assigned.

I have no way of knowing why the first coin was dipped - perhaps it had unsightly toning, perhaps the owner hoped it would grade higher than it did or maybe there was some other reason.

LAWMAN

This is a great example of buy and look at the coin and not the slab. A great example.

mdwoods

The first coin has a nicer strike. It does look too fresh though. I'd take the second coin.

CalGold

The rule of thumb would seem to be that 18th and 19th century white silver coins are dipped-out and are therefore to be shunned, unless of course they are in one’s own collection, in which case they are wonderfully preserved marvels.

CG