$2.5 Gold 1856S S.S. Central America PCGS 67!!!!!!Plus an 1857S $20 in Pcgs MS66!!!!!!
vrtech99
Posts: 553
WOW!!!!!! up on Teletrade!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
Comments
Jim
That one is pretty and also shows all the coins from shipwrecks do not grade low or impaired.
<< <i>I used to get upset that the grading services graded coins this high that have obviously been cleaned-curated or what ever the heck you want to call it but I have come to realize 95% of all classic coins in these high grades have been messed with in some way. mike >>
I have to disagree, this kind of thing really pisses me off. People should be buying these coins because of there great history, to say, "I got this coin off the S.S Central America, isn't it just amazing?" Now all the coins I see that look so great naturally damaged, from this shipwreck, look like junk now because they've been restored. I would rather pay good money for a nice original coin that shows it's been underwater for 100 years, thats my opinion. This coin should not grade MS-67 and if someone buys it for that reason they are a fool.
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
<< <i>
<< <i>I used to get upset that the grading services graded coins this high that have obviously been cleaned-curated or what ever the heck you want to call it but I have come to realize 95% of all classic coins in these high grades have been messed with in some way. mike >>
I have to disagree, this kind of thing really pisses me off. People should be buying these coins because of there great history, to say, "I got this coin off the S.S Central America, isn't it just amazing?" Now all the coins I see that look so great naturally damaged, from this shipwreck, look like junk now because they've been restored. I would rather pay good money for a nice original coin that shows it's been underwater for 100 years, thats my opinion. This coin should not grade MS-67 and if someone buys it for that reason they are a fool. >>
I'm somewhere in between. On one hand, the coins are clearly being improved by the conservation, and most people don't seem to think the conservation leaves them looking any different than they did when the ship went down. (And since gold is not very reactive, it's much easier to get crud off of the surfaces. With more reactive metal you'd have oxidation and corrosion in the coin.)
But on the other hand, these are, simply put, not original. They have been doctored -- yes, doctored in a way that is beneficial to the coin, doctored very carefully and professionally, doctored in a way that improves their value and all that -- but they are still doctored coins.
The problem is, what do PCGS and NGC do if they really can't detect "doctoring?" Even if they said they wouldn't slab them, they go out raw and come back slabbed. If they really can't detect a loss of original look, there's not much point in turning them away.
I think as long as they are slabbed as shipwreck coins (and thus, it's implied they have been "conserved"), the market can decide what they are worth. If most of the market will pay MS-67 money for a shipwreck MS-67 coin, then there's little for the "purist" to do but look for a non-shipwreck coin instead. And although it might not be good for folks who currently own gem gold from the 1840s to early 1860s, I think it's wonderful that many more treasures are being found for collectors to get at more reasonable prices. (Again, I admit my thinking would be different if I had a few gem-quality gold pieces from the 1850s.)
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
<< <i>Mel Fisher once brought up this small cluster of coins that were fused together from sitting on the ocean bottom for a few centuries. They were covered about with colored little seashells and small barnacles and it was real neat to see these coins in their original shipwrecked state as they were found. If I were to buy shipwrecked coins this is the way I would want to own them. To me this is more fascinating rather than looking at a cleaned coin in a piece of plastic with a label on it. >>
Depends. Is it a common, well-worn 1856 large cent with no appreciable intrinsic value or an uncirculated 1856 coin with nearly an ounce of gold in it?
For the former, I TOTALLY agree with you. For the latter? I don't want to pay $1,000 and up for a few barnacles clinging to a piece of indistinguishable metal.
Oh well, lost another one.
But Teletrade is offering free shipping for this Sunday's auction, so you're in the clear at this price range.
When the Central America coins were becoming more widely distributed, I sold a couple of pieces to other dealers. In both cases the prices for which I sold the coins and the bids at the time that I sold them were about 33% higher than they are today.
Second, one should consider the long term effects of curating these coins. Most of all of them in higher grade slabs look good just after the process is completed, but what about the long term? As someone else stated these coins contain 10% copper and that part of their composition is the wild card. I’ve seen a few of these coins that have shown signs of turning, and it would not be much fun to pay many thousands of dollars for piece that grew unattractive copper stains.
Would I like to own an 1857-S double eagle from the SS Central America? Sure! But I would like to be certain that the prices and the chemistry have settled down before I get lay out a lot of money.
The wreck contained hundreds of those !
Dont buy the coin,read the book ! "Ship of gold in the deep blue sea"
Really a pretty good read.
<< <i>Dont buy the coin >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mel Fisher once brought up this small cluster of coins that were fused together from sitting on the ocean bottom for a few centuries. They were covered about with colored little seashells and small barnacles and it was real neat to see these coins in their original shipwrecked state as they were found. If I were to buy shipwrecked coins this is the way I would want to own them. To me this is more fascinating rather than looking at a cleaned coin in a piece of plastic with a label on it. >>
Depends. Is it a common, well-worn 1856 large cent with no appreciable intrinsic value or an uncirculated 1856 coin with nearly an ounce of gold in it?
For the former, I TOTALLY agree with you. For the latter? I don't want to pay $1,000 and up for a few barnacles clinging to a piece of indistinguishable metal. >>
Well how is the 1856 coin with nearly an ounce of gold uncirculated if its been at the bottom of the ocean for 100 years plus, seems to me like thats alot of wear and tear, thats why I don't get how they can classify these at such grades, doesn't make much sense to me, like they're just trying to make money off of this and not really paying attention to whats really going on. I too would not pay $1,000 and up for barnacles on a piece either, that just seems crazy.
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
<< <i>Well how is the 1856 coin with nearly an ounce of gold uncirculated if its been at the bottom of the ocean for 100 years plus, seems to me like thats alot of wear and tear, >>
That's just it, it isn't. Unc gold coin sits on the bottom of the ocean in cold water. Nothing happens to it, nothing rubs against it, gold is almost inert so little or nothing chemically happens to it (and the low temperature greatly slows any reaction that might take place. It gets brought up and soaked in a solution to loosen or dissolve the deposits that have settled on it. Once again gold being inert it isn't affected by the solution. Now you have a coin that shows no wear and is fully lusterous. If anything it might look BETTER than an unc coin that didn't spend the time in the ocean because the outer surface of he coin MAY be of a slightly higher fineness now if some of the copper has been leached out over the years.