Poll: Should this Dahlonega $5 be graded by PCGS/NGC?

RYK

No cheating!

And why/why not?

BillJones

I guess there must be a trick here somewhere.

The coin looks like an AU-58 that usually ends up in an MS-62 or 63 holder. According to Akers, this date is almost always weakly struck in the centers and the stars don't have their radial lines. This coin is struck like a Philadelphia coin, so it the mint mark bogus?

Yea, I'd send it in to see what I'm missing from this picture. If it's real it would be a superior strike for this issue.

coinguy1

From the images, (which I'm guessing make the coin look darker than it actually is) there appears to be cleaning/wiping, most conspicuously in the left obverse field (horizontal lines). If the dark color is somewhat true to life, it's probably the result of fairly heavy cleaning.

However, there is no way for me to tell without examining the coin in person, whether the cleaning is harsh enough to "award" the coin a (not so coveted)"no-grade".

I'm going to guess that the coin was (net) graded, but feel that (due to the ambiguity of the images) there can be no "right" or "wrong" answer to the question posed by RYK in this thread. That said, if the coin was net-graded, I'd like to be given credit for a "right" answer, and if it was no-graded, I don't want to receive "credit" for a "wrong" answer.

atarian

theres something about this coin that just doesnt sit right with me. im thinking that its a counterfeit. No i wouldnt send it out.

BillJones

Mark if you have seen some of the Dahlonega mint stuff that has made into holders from NGC and PCGS, whatever cleaning that been done to this should be "no problem." I've seen pieces that look like they'd be done with a Brillo pad, with loads of scraches and bright yellow-white gold to prove it. Yet they were in EF holders.

When you see grading like that you can understand why many Charlotte and Dahlonega collectors consider the POP reports useless for C and D gold.

FatMan

It's the real deal alright. By today's standards it is MS condition and processed. I'm guessing if holdered its in a NGC holder. Coinguy1 hit the nail on the head. Clearly wiped (looks like from this image a brillo pad was used). If I collected MS/AU58 I would not want this one in my collection.

Added info: In the Dahlonega series, there is a general understanding that the great majority have been cleaned at one point in time, so it is not unusual to find a D-mint with what would be considered a harsh cleaning by other standards in a top tier holder. Most die hard Dahlonega collectors are in constant search for the few remaining truly orignial coins. Unfortunately the TPGs are at odds with us on this as they constantly reward the dealers who dip, strip, resubmit. It is becoming more and more common to find similar examples to this in the higher graded slabs.

RYK

The coin is in an NGC-61 holder. I came across it while doing some research on a 58-D $5 PCGS MS-61 that is currently on the market. My obervation is that Dahlonega gold often gets a "free pass" for cleaning by NGC and PCGS. This coin has obvious and distracting hairlines, which for me, supercede any qualities of eye appeal that may otherwise be present (strike, luster, marks, etc.). In short, I would not be interested in it for my collection at any price. I wonder (aloud, here) who would buy a coin like that. Not surprisingly, the PCGS coin also has some hairlines but they are considerably less apparent (I have seen the PCGS coin in person).

jcping

Based on the picture, it is over-dipped and possibly whizzed. Body Bag it.

FatMan

Now that I cheated and found the coin in the auction archives, I have one additional comment. These high grade Dahlonega are even more likely to get a pass when graded as a collection for auction. This coin was part of the Ashland City collection and as mentioned above in an NGC holder. In fairness to NGC, the following year at the FUN show heritage auctioned the Green Pond collection which was submitted to PCGS prior the auction. There were at least 4 MS/AU58 coins in that collection that were given a huge pass in my opinion. So it is not only NGC, however, I do find many more processed (conserved, NCS'd, cleaned, whatever you want to call it) in NGC holders.

Good example RYK

tjkillian

It appears to be a super well-struck coin. Just because some idiot wiped it in the late 1860's does not mean it is not a nice coin.

Tom

BillJones

<< <i>The coin is in an NGC-61 holder. I came across it while doing some research on a 58-D $5 PCGS MS-61 that is currently on the market. My obervation is that Dahlonega gold often gets a "free pass" for cleaning by NGC and PCGS. This coin has obvious and distracting hairlines, which for me, supercede any qualities of eye appeal that may otherwise be present (strike, luster, marks, etc.). In short, I would not be interested in it for my collection at any price. I wonder (aloud, here) who would buy a coin like that. Not surprisingly, the PCGS coin also has some hairlines but they are considerably less apparent (I have seen the PCGS coin in person). >>



If you get too fussy when it comes to Charlotte and Dahlonega gold, you won't buy anything, unless you are multimillionaire or you darn lucky. Even if you are multimillionaire you might have to put up with some defects unless you are willing to wait your turn to own the perfect piece for many years.

I have two stories. The first was of two 1848-D quarter eagles that a Massachusetts dealer had in stock at the same time. The first was a SEGS MS-63, which was priced at $ 5,000.00. The second was a PCGS MS-63 that was priced at $ 20,000.00. If I had had the $5 grand I’d have bought the SEGS coin for my collection in a second. It had a great look, which at all but ONE ANGLE was equal to the $20 PCSG coin. If you looked at it from a certain angle you could see some brush marks, but they were so minor that it didn’t bother me at all, especially at a $15,000 difference.

The second story concerns the two coins in my collection. My 1838-C has a minor punch mark in the obverse field and a minor rim nick on the reverse. My 1843-D has been lightly cleaned. Do I wish that they were perfect? Sure but if I had passed on them I’d own nothing today because the price of both coins now exceeds my collector budget. (The 1838-C is in a PCGS AU-55 holder; the 1843-D in in a PCGS AU-58 holder.) I bought both coins raw.

You can wish for perfect, but if you get too exacting you can end up with nothing.

RYK

You can wish for perfect, but if you get too exacting you can end up with nothing.

Bill, I see your points. I am neither a multimillionaire, so I guess I am lucky. I have one Dahlonega coin that has the looks of a coin that has been processed, it is an 1856-D $5 that was in the Bass collection that was likely dipped for PVC residue:



It is in a 58 holder.

The way that a collector can get around settling for a grossly hairlined specimen, like the coin I posted at the beginning of this thread, is to buy circulated coins. Other than the 56-D (above), all of my coins have an "original look". Are they all 100% original (no soap and water, no light dip 50 years ago, etc.)? Probably not, but they have the naked eye look of a coin that is original and IMO are more attractive than better graded examples that are very unoriginal.



Bill, as always, I like your coins.

BillJones

The 1856-D is OK.

BUT

I REALLY like the 1851-D with the right gold toning.

I don't know why it is that so many new collectors like the look of the 1856-D, but you see a lot early gold coins that have been washed out like that, and they seem to sell. They are not horrible, but I'd sooner have one that has been left alone.

And Yes I could see paying AU for the coin at the top of this string, but I'd never pay Mint State money for it.