Home› U.S. Coin Forum

Four half eagles with pictures, which do you like the most? Agree with the grades?

fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum
First let me apologize for the rough job of cropping and etc...
One of the pics I even had to rotate..

I thought about making this a guess the grade blah blah,
but I thought I would just share my thoughts.

All 4 of these coins are graded by PCGS as MS62. Approx value
is around 300-400 dollars. I like to line up pictures of coins that
all grade the same and try to figure out which is the finest among
the group.

Which is the nicest looking of the lot from the pictures below?
Do you agree with the grade of MS62 for all 4 coins?
What coin resides in a OGH?
Would an original surface designation help in this case?

imageimage

imageimage

imageimage

imageimage

Comments

  • RYKRYK Posts: 35,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
    MS-62
    My Box of 20: https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/box-20/ryks-gold-box-20/17132
  • TorinoCobra71TorinoCobra71 Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭
    The 1899 has the best eye appeal for me.

    TorinoCobra71

    image
  • RYKRYK Posts: 35,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I like the 1899 the best, and this is my reasoning:

    Assuming that the coins are photographed with the same technique, the color looks to be the most original. There is what appears to be a light grease mark on the obverse through the date on the obverse which is probably what limits the grade to 62. It does not bother me much, though. The color on both the 1892 and 1901 is way off, and the 1900, which would be my second choice, is a little more marky.
    My Box of 20: https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/box-20/ryks-gold-box-20/17132
  • mgoodm3mgoodm3 Posts: 17,497 ✭✭✭
    99 has nice skin. All but the 00 seem better than typical 62 marks-wise.
    coinimaging.com/my photography articles Check out the new macro lens testing section
  • JDelageJDelage Posts: 724 ✭✭


    << <i>I like the 1899 the best, and this is my reasoning:

    Assuming that the coins are photographed with the same technique, the color looks to be the most original. There is what appears to be a light grease mark on the obverse through the date on the obverse which is probably what limits the grade to 62. It does not bother me much, though. The color on both the 1892 and 1901 is way off, and the 1900, which would be my second choice, is a little more marky. >>



    I agree with that. I also cannot read the IGWT motto on the 1900.
    "The greatest productive force is human selfishness."
    Robert A. Heinlein
  • darktonedarktone Posts: 8,437 ✭✭✭
    For the most part all MS62 $5 libs will have signs of cleaning. The only one I can't see signs of cleaning on from the pictures is the 1900. Not to say this one has not been messed with too. A gold coin withouts it's original skin is not one that I would want in my collection.
  • BECOKABECOKA Posts: 16,961 ✭✭✭
    I think they are all between 62.1 and 62.5. Nothing that approaches the upper border. I like the coloring of the 1900 the best. The depth of hits on each seem to be similar keeping any one of the from a 63. Even though one may have more or less hits than the other the severity of the hit is similar which is why I ranged from 62.1-62.5.
  • roadrunnerroadrunner Posts: 28,324 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The 1899 appears to be the choicest to me. Original looking surfaces and no major hairline scratches or hits.

    The other 3 either have wipes, hits, or the color is off.
    1892 and 1900 are marky and hairlined. The 1900 is fairly heavily abraded overall.

    The 1899 or 1901 could be in OGH's. I give the nod to the 1899.

    roadrunner
    Barbarous Relic No More, LSCC -GoldSeek--shadow stats--SafeHaven--321gold
  • fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
    <<MS-62>>

    Wise guy eh?

    <<The 1899 has the best eye appeal for me.>>
    <<I like the 1899 the best>>
    <<99 has nice skin. All but the 00 seem better than typical 62 marks-wise.>>

    interesting.

    I think the 1892 and the 1901 look wrong. Interesting to note
    though, someone on Heritage's website has already bid the 1892
    up to 345 dollars, juice included. They staked their claim on it.
    go figure. Yes it is technically all there for the grade except
    the eye appeal to me ;-) The 1901 is AU58 at best imho.

    The 1900 has one heck of a good strike. The best of the lot.
    But I see splotchiness all over the coin. This is a relatively new
    coin and was minted in the gazillions (approx 1,4 million). You
    should expect a much much better coin than this from that date.
    Too many hits, too little luster.. pass.. BTW, it is the OGH!

    So i also like the 1899 for AU58 money. I am sure we can all
    agree on that?

    What a sorry lot of "half eagles" on the internet auction part of the
    baltimore show. (- 2006 March Palm Beach, FL Online Session (#413))
    One out of 10-20 coins will interest a savy collector on a budget.

    thanks all for posting. i may edit this as i reread it.
  • fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
    just to wrap it up with front shots of the coins from
    farther away in the slab.

    imageimage
    imageimage

    the 1900 hair sure is clean and well struck huh? too bad about
    the rest of the negative things.
  • darktonedarktone Posts: 8,437 ✭✭✭
    The 1900 looks even better in the slab color-wise. An un-messed with original skinned MS62 it looks to be- the clear winner in my opinion.
  • fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
    i will argue that the luster breaks in the 1899's fields show
    off great luster for the grade. as in, i think it is obvious to the
    eye the surfaces look ok from the pics and show lots of luster.

    are you sure the 1900, which does not easily show the luster
    breaks that should be there, really has it? It appears to
    have some quality to its surfaces that is deceptive and un-eye
    appealing to me.

    it being enough luster for the grade. it got the MS62 for the
    hammered strike.
  • MikeInFLMikeInFL Posts: 10,188 ✭✭✭✭
    The first and last coin look "off" to me.

    The middle two are the better two.

    The 1899 has the most eye appeal, however, the coin is overgraded to me. It is an AU not an MS to me.

    The 1900 looks like a solid MS coin, and wins my vote...Mike
    Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
  • MikeInFLMikeInFL Posts: 10,188 ✭✭✭✭
    Now that I see the 1900 is in an OGH, that would seal the deal for me. image
    Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
  • topstuftopstuf Posts: 14,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1899
  • darktonedarktone Posts: 8,437 ✭✭✭


    << <i>are you sure the 1900, which does not easily show the luster >>





    The 1900 is the only one with original surfaces- the others have had the luster messed with so I would call them shiny and use the term luster to describe the 1900. You see the trade off here right? The more orignial coin earned the grade because of contact marks- the others got the grade because of light cleaning.
  • fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
    The 1900 is the only one with original surfaces- the others have had the luster messed with so I would call them shiny and use the term luster to describe the 1900. You see the trade off here right? The more orignial coin earned the grade because of contact marks- the others got the grade because of light cleaning.

    first off, let me state we are arguing/debating our choices
    with pictures so any mistakes we make, who cares right?
    The fun is hearing different opinions.

    I really think it is amazing that from the picture you think the 1900
    looks lusterful! The coins you show us, from your collection, really
    show off the luster since they are so high end.

    This coin on the other hand, has a wonderful strike but is blotchy.
    Take for example the reverse of the 1900, at 5 O'clock. Can you
    explain to me why that area does not deemed that coin as messed
    with? I think it was dipped to hell and back. You should be able
    to see the luster as well as the luster breaks! This coin has a dipped
    out look.

    All in all, after thinking about it, I will pass on all 4 coins.
    For a moment I was thinking of bidding on the 1899, but never
    the 1900 ;-)

  • darktonedarktone Posts: 8,437 ✭✭✭
    Sorry, you asked for opinions so I gave you mine. I know we are just going by pictures but that's the only way we can do it on the web and that's all you gave us to go by. One more opinion- the area you called splotchy looks to be the lighting reflecting the luster in the usual cross pattern- really the only picture in the bunch that shows any luster at all.........
  • fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
    hey thanks for posting.

    i want to understand why you see that coin as so nice...

    but in the end it appears we will agree to disagree. i thought
    you might be able to convince me that the 1900 was the
    better example, and you almost did.

    i love the strike of the 1900, dislike so many marks, and
    do not trust the pictures shown to believe it has more luster
    then the 1899.

    thanks darktone for taking the time to answer.
  • darktonedarktone Posts: 8,437 ✭✭✭
    sorry FC but I have bought so many raw $5 libs from pictures and scans that detecting the cleaned ones has become easy for me.
  • fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
    i think you are being too vague with your answers.

    your last post is basically telling me you are a god, with no real
    information.

    if the 1900 is so wonderful, why has it not been upgraded yet?

    OGH remember. Heritage and the consignor are happy to have
    people bid at MS62 money instead of MS63? That is a 400 dollar
    difference sometimes.

    So using logic like that, I cannot convince myself it is the clear
    winner you think it is..

  • ebaytraderebaytrader Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭
    FROM THE PHOTOS...

    The 1892 appears to have choice eye appeal. The 1899 appears to be a cu that got through.
  • fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
    funny thing is ebaytrader,

    in hand, you very well may be right! i have to keep that in mind
    from now on.
  • HobbyistHobbyist Posts: 215
    the 99 and the double ought are the only 2 I think have the color that gold should. The 00 is more banged up but it is the only one that appears to have original luster. All you really have to decide is what flavor of issues you like in your MS62s. image For me, I think the 00 is the possibly the only one that was not graded 62 for problems as opposed to just marks. I'd pick it.
    Time sure flies when you don't know what you're doing...
    My Web Sites
  • darktonedarktone Posts: 8,437 ✭✭✭
    The 1900 will never upgrade because it has too many contact marks. The others are at the limit gradwise also because the original surface is gone. So pick what you like- an orignal coin that gets the grade from contact marks or one that gets the grade because it was lightly cleaned. There is no wrong choice or winner here- just I prefer the original surface even though it has more marks. Sorry if I come off wrong.
  • HobbyistHobbyist Posts: 215
    Do you thihnk this is along the lines of 3 Market Grades vs. 1 Technical Grade?
    Time sure flies when you don't know what you're doing...
    My Web Sites
  • intocoinsintocoins Posts: 602 ✭
    I think the 1900 is the only one that has nice luster . I also think it's not much more baggy than the 1899. I think if you take a good look at the photos you'll see that the 1900 is not a great photo. Look at the shield lines and the motto" IN GOD WE TRUST", they come of as being blurry compared to the rest of the photos. I'm no gold expert for sure , but the 1900 would be my buy if i had to choose between the four.
  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'd go with the 1899. The marks are not too bad and the surfaces appear original.

    But...

    None of the coins do much for me. Generic Uncs.
    All glory is fleeting.
  • fcfc Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭
    well i know darktone's pic and his reasoning for it.
    others have agreed with him.

    291fifth is right overall in my humble opinion and nailed it.

    these are as common dates as half eagles come more or less.
    being patient you should be able to score a superior example
    if that is what you want. Like a coin for a type set or album.

    i think i will only buy examples before 1877 for the rest of the
    year. If gold goes down dramatically, maybe I will shift back to
    the later years in the series.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...