Talk about a gorgeous Isabella in 64. (Teletrade)

DHeath · August 23, 2004 8:07AM

Not my coin, and I'm not bidding, but who says 64 isn't the sweet spot.

I really like the look of this girl. Maybe a dipper, but it appears to have loads of luster and satin fields. Pretty coin.

link

fivecents · August 23, 2004 8:23AM

Very Beautiful.

Looks like an undergraded MS65 to me.

lordmarcovan · August 23, 2004 8:24AM

That's a sweetheart, for sure.

coynclecter · August 23, 2004 8:27AM

What a gem, they must have made a mistake, We've been told NGC holders don't have nice coins in them.

jdimmick · August 23, 2004 8:30AM

Doesnt seem to be to popular a coin to me, as I have a really nice PCGS-63 with loads of luster that I cant even sell. Not a single person even asked about it at the show this week. Now its on e-bay with a BIN at just above bid and no takers at all??

jim

coynclecter · August 23, 2004 10:46AM

The coin is popular but the price on the MS63 rose from 530 to 700 in a few months. I think the prices have reached resistance. I sold my MS63 about 3 months ago and was shocked when they took the BIN at 700.
You might also be encountering competition with that MS64 at 700 that has no bidders at the moment. Your is a pretty coin, you might have done better to have a pic with more light. It does look like dark toning which might scare off a few.

If it gets no bids, Ill be glad to negotiate.

DHeath · August 23, 2004 10:58AM

Coyn, it's not mine. I just really liked the look for a 64.

Iwog · August 23, 2004 11:02AM

Yeah right, no bids? I think it just got over $1200.

coynclecter · August 23, 2004 11:47AM

Oh sorry guys, i was talking about jdimmicks piece on EBAY. Id pay 700 in a heartbeat for the onw on Teletrade. 1200 might be a little steep.

keets · August 23, 2004 1:04PM

hey Don

it looks dipped with weak luster balanced out with minimal contacts and a nice strike. though i don't yet own an Isabella, i think i've looked at hundreds. they are plagued with mishandling problems which results in field chatter and contacts, especially on the central reverse. some also seem to suffer from a less than full strike. i would say the majority of the white coins we see have been dipped poorly and much of the toned population is the result of retoning after a dip.

ironically, i think that leads to market grading since the overall number of nice, undipped coins in Mint State isn't real high for a low mintage issue. i probably saw 15-20 examples at the ANA Show. they were unimpressive at best and hairlined/overdipped at worst.

al h.

Iwog · August 23, 2004 2:39PM

Very funny. Your example of "weak luster" is probably the sharpest luster I've ever seen on an Isabella in my life. In fact I defy you to provide any photograph from any source, Heritage or otherwise, with better hot and cold areas than this coin has.

Most of the coins you call "undipped original" are surface damaged dogs that can only be sold toned because there is nothing attractive underneath.

mrcommem · August 23, 2004 2:49PM

mrcommem · August 23, 2004 2:59PM

I picked up this Isabella a while back from Heritage. It is in a NGC holder graded ms65. I am thinking about crossing it so I could use it in my registry. It has a small nick on the cheek which my keep the nitpickers at PCGS from crossing it. The reverse is nick free with a great strike.

Strat · August 23, 2004 4:17PM

Beautiful toned commem, mrcommem. Best of luck in getting it crossed.

USAROK · August 23, 2004 4:24PM

<< I picked up this Isabella a while back from Heritage. It is in a NGC holder graded ms65. I am thinking about crossing it so I could use it in my registry. It has a small nick on the cheek which my keep the nitpickers at PCGS from crossing it. The reverse is nick free with a great strike. >>

Wow! That is a real beauty. Sure hope it will cross for you.

keets · August 23, 2004 10:48PM

hey Iwog

it's OK to have differing opinions, but please don't put words in my mouth or assume that you've looked at the coins i'm describing in my reply. it looks dipped with weak luster is what i said about the linked coin, with "looks" being the operative word. evidentally you and i interpret the TeleTrade picture differently.

thanks for the intimidating challenge, but i'll pass since i don't have anything i'm trying to prove to you or anyone else. opinions, always opinions!!!!

oh yeah, take a look a few replies up for one of your described coins---"undipped original" are surface damaged dogs that can only be sold toned because there is nothing attractive underneath. i'll close out by saying that i've looked at enough of these online and in-hand to be confident in my analysis for me.

you have a nice day now Iwog.

al h.

coinguy1 · August 23, 2004 11:12PM

<< it looks dipped with weak luster >>

I'm definitely with Keets on this one.

Iwog · August 24, 2004 12:32AM

Keets, there's really nothing to debate here. Anyone who would describe that coin as having "weak" luster doesn't know what luster is. I suggest you check out the excellent ANA video on authentication and grading if you want to see examples of luster, hot and cold areas, and overdipping.

And for the record, I don't put words in your mouth. I know the coins that you would consider to be undipped original and I know that without exception, they are probably surface damaged. Of course I could be wrong, so if you'd like you can post a few examples and I'll be glad to explain how I know this.......

There's a very good reason why most toned coins look ugly after they are dipped, and it has nothing to do with the fact the coin was cleaned. Anyone who dips an untoned proof or blast white Morgan dollar can see how obvious this is.

BillJones · August 24, 2004 12:42AM

It's been dipped, and in a few months or years it might be growning toning or black spots. I like this original piece from my collection much better, which is in a PCGS MS-64 holder.

Iwog · August 24, 2004 1:11AM

That's another myth that is almost never true, that a dipped coin will retone badly or aquire spots. Below is a coin I personally dipped nearly 10 years ago and is still problem free. In fact, it aquired a very light edge tone about a year after I submitted it and hasn't changed since. The punchline is that when I take it around the bourse, most people accept it as undipped.

ziggy29 · August 24, 2004 1:14AM

There's dipped and then there's *dipped*. A careful dipping done by an expert can look quite original and strip off very little luster. Then there are the dull, dead-looking gray coins which are devoid of luster, the ones that have dipped halfway to Hades and back.

IMO, the former are still very desirable coins. The latter fall into the same category as cleaned and artifically toned examples.

BillJones · August 24, 2004 1:41AM

If dipping is done properly it should not result in extreme, ugly retoning. BUT a lot of it is not done properly. Quite often it's hard to tell when the coin is in the slab if it has a residue on it that will cause the coin to look profoundly ugly in a few months.

You are right Iwog. If the dipping solution is properly neutralized after dipping there is not problem. But it's been my experience that improper dipping is far more common than properly executed dipping.

DHeath · August 24, 2004 1:48AM

Interesting thread all. It points to our differing tastes. All MS-64's are a compromise of one sort or another. Looking at the Isabella in the auction, I believe if it were sizzling luster, the coin would be extremely expensive. I mentioned the dip in the initial post because I believe that's what limited the grade, but it's fun to hear everyone's read of the coin.

BillJones · August 24, 2004 1:59AM

No, quite often Isabella quarters that look like that piece are the type of coins that one can buy at discount prices at the shows. Isabella quarters don't look like that when they are orginal.

mgoodm3 · August 24, 2004 2:05AM

bit too white for me. I like a little light toning.

BillJones · August 24, 2004 2:11AM

<< bit too white for me. I like a little light toning. >>

Bingo!

That's the way a lot of commemortive collectors feel about Isabella quarter. It needs to look a little old.

keets · August 24, 2004 3:00AM

hey Iwog

what's up with the directing of your terse replies to me for expressing an opinion?? consider some of the other replies before and after mine. if you have a chip on your shoulder or a problem with my participation here, give a PM and we'll work it out. as it is, go ahead and tangle with DHeath Maybe a dipper, but it appears to have loads of luster and satin fields. Pretty coin, coinguy1 I'm definitely with Keets on this one or BillJones Isabella quarters don't look like that when they are orginal, all three replied in the same vein as me.

unless, of course, it doesn't have anything to do with my comment.

Keets, there's really nothing to debate here. it's so nice to know some of us are open to the opinions of others and don't like to put wods into each others mouths.

al h.

Iwog · August 24, 2004 6:52AM

I'll explain it this way. Saying this coin has weak luster is so absolutely abusrd, that it MUST be the result of an agenda or simply total ignorance of what luster is.

Too harsh? Now you've got new coin collectors who see a blast white gorgeous 1893 coin, and think something is wrong with it because it's dipped (probably) and with impaired luster. (not a snowball's chance in hell) That's not even counting the total butchering of the word "original" to described coins which can be quite accurately described as "corroded by atmospheric sulfur compounds."

coinguy1 · August 24, 2004 7:54AM

Iwog, based upon the images (which is all we have to go by) a number of us, myself included, think the coin has weak/subdued luster resulting from a dipping.

It is extremely rude, not to mention unfair and inappropriate for you to berate someone, simply because his opinion is different from yours.

Acting in such a manner and like you know it all and others don't know anything, wont sway those who disagree with you. It will more likely cause others to tune you out instead.

IrishMike · August 24, 2004 8:01AM

Well if nothing else we got to see two gorgeous Isabellas and one that might have been dipped but looks attractive too. Thanks for posting them.

LUCKOFTHEIRISH · August 24, 2004 8:08AM

Nick on the cheek or not that coins is a MS-68 for sure. You just can't see the nick.

stujoe · August 24, 2004 9:35AM

I much prefer the two (toned) pieces shown in this thread. That quarter in the auction just doesn't appeal to me. Maybe if it was a 1993 coin instead of an 1893, I might feel different.

coinfreak499 · August 24, 2004 9:40AM

<< What a gem, they must have made a mistake, We've been toldNGC holders don't have nice coins in them

<< 
everyones been bashing NGC! I like NGC whats wrong with it?

Iwog · August 24, 2004 9:57AM

Coinguy, you're WAY out of line. Apparently you and Keets have decided to invent your own definition of coin luster (although I can't possibly imagine what that definition might be since neither one of you has offered a shred of information on how you determined it was poor) and UTTERLY IGNORE the ANA definition of luster which includes "Hot and cold areas visible in the reflected light of the coin as it is rotated"

Now hot and cold (light and dark) areas aren't subjective, they are measurable.....even in a photograph. Although the antique look of Mrcommem's coin might be desirable, it has no mint luster left because the cartwheel is totally gone. If dipped, this coin would be considered overdipped and unmarketable. Bill's coin has considerable luster left because you can SEE the light and dark areas of the cartwheel. The teletrade coin has the sharpest mint luster of all because the contrast is the highest.

I wasn't kidding when I recommended you rent the ANA video. This is all explained very clearly.

DHeath · August 24, 2004 10:25AM

That quarter in the auction just doesn't appeal to me

Stujoe, that's a reasonable observation. Some dippers really turn me off, and some don't. I love the color on MrCommem's coin (especially the jewels in the crown

), and Bill's coin is a natural beauty. What I find appealing about the auction coin is that it looks like a 66 that got put in a 64 holder because of the dip. There are plenty of 63's in 64 holders because of their toning. Bill may be right. The auction coin might look terrible in 20 years, or it might retone gracefully. Like I said earlier, every coin is a compromise. This one looks pretty good to me for a 4.

7summits · August 24, 2004 10:42AM

Hard for me to tell if the NGC Isabella is dipped - I'm lacking in experience in that area.
What can the members offer about my Isabella? Comments, please!

stujoe · August 24, 2004 11:03AM

<< What I find appealing about the auction coin is that it looks like a 66 that got put in a 64 holder because of the dip. >>

I agree. I don't know enough about them to comment on strike or luster but the surfaces stuck out to me as very mark free. And we are, of course, judging it from a picture, which might be making it look more dipped than it actually appears in person.

BillJones · August 24, 2004 11:28PM

<< Hard for me to tell if the NGC Isabella is dipped - I'm lacking in experience in that area.
What can the members offer about my Isabella? Comments, please! >>

It's hard to say from the scan, because I think that the colors are a little distorted, but not to hurt your feelings, I don't care for the coin. It has been dipped or cleaned, and the blueish color that you see in the fields and around some of the letters is a reaction from the solution. The coin is worth a few hundred dollars as an Isabella quarter. Lower grade commemoratives seem to be pretty hot right now if the Gray Sheet is a fair indicator. Still I'm not sure that the coin would get into a PCGS or NGC holder.

Sorry to be the bearer of less than great news. And maybe because of the scan, I might not be seeing the right stuff here. The coin has Mint State detail which is a plus, but I can't tell about the luster form the scan.

CarlWohlforth · August 25, 2004 1:18AM

"Hot and cold areas visible in the reflected light of the coin as it is rotated"

We are not seeing the coin as it is rotated. It is possible to produce images with bright and less bright areas because of lighting rather than luster. Sometimes when looking at photos of coins with great luster there is a sharper border between the hot and cold area. I'd have to agree that the TT coin doesn't seem booming with luster.

Mr Commem's coin doesn't show any luster in that photo. We are not seeing that coin as it is rotated either. I wouldn't be surprised to learn it has good luster. Often photographers much choose between capturing luster or color.

I'm trying to say that it would be hard to get everybody to agree on the degree of luster judging only by that photo. I'm sure we would be much closer in our opinions if we were in the same room with the coins in hand.

fivecents · August 25, 2004 1:47AM

7summits.....Your Isabella looks undipped to me.

SethChandler · August 25, 2004 2:06AM

Looks like an NCSed piece of junk, a dime a dozen. IMHO.

Seth

Talk about a gorgeous Isabella in 64. (Teletrade)

Comments

Leave a Comment