1846P half eagle - small date variety - PCGS ?? - take a peek
fc
Posts: 12,793 ✭✭✭
1846P Mintage of 395,942.
The finest known example is a lowly MS62 (
) graded at PCGS.
If you care to know, the finest known large date is a MS63.
Interesting to note that PCGS's price guide is not accurate for this.
I had to grab it from coinfacts which appears to be rather well
maintained.
The variety "small date" has nothing to do with the size of the
date but with the spacing! Talk about confusing.
One can tell a small date apart from a large date by the spacing
of the 1 and 8 closer together, while the 4 and 6 are slightly
spaced apart.
The large date can be identified by the 1 and 8 having the gap,
while the 4 and 6 are "more evenly" spaced.
PCGS has graded 90 examples as finer, with 34 marked with the
grade XF45. The pops for the small date are a bit more interesting.
PCGS, as of late, who knows when they started keeping
track of small versus large, considers it pretty darn hard to come by.
If you search Heritage's archives for "1846 small date" you see 11
coins appear.
(1) 40 (1) 45 (3) 55 (1) 58 (1) 62
One has to wonder how many small dates are sitting in regular
slabs like mine. It is not marked as a small date and was auctioned
off as a large date. Heritage's mistake. Old slab.
Coinguy1 actually viewed the coin for me for free. I have never
asked a dealer to do this so he took me under his wing to explain
how things are done. His summary can be explained in one word.
"pass" ;-). Well this was after i put my max bid in weeks before the
auction ended. So lets see if he was right and I will begin to learn
how to trust a dealer to guide my purchases through their vast
experience.
PCGS considers this an XF45 because it has a great strike with
little physical wear, but the luster is lacking. It has a few hits
that are hard to see, one by the date and one on the reverse
by the T in STATES. Overall, sorta marky, but that is normal for
the grade. Turning the coin in the light in my hand, the luster
does show around the stars, by the date, liberty is surounded
by it.
Coinguy1 said, "Overall, I don't like the coin - it is a bit too
light in color to be original, I believe due to a light cleaning, and
it had chatter on each side. None of the marks were particularly
bad, but there were several on each side."
My question after all this is, is wear on an XF45 coin always
considered cleaning? Cleaning is such a vague term.
Think about the time frame for a bit. Gold fever will soon spread
throughout the USA. The biggest migration of US citizens is about
to take place. Wouldn't you take hard currency with you on your
trip? A nice mix of gold and silver coins for the long hard journey.
Hey, what you call cleaning, i call romantic wear ;-)
There is also a die crack from the bottom arrow going through
the C in AMERICA.
The finest known example is a lowly MS62 (
) graded at PCGS.If you care to know, the finest known large date is a MS63.
Interesting to note that PCGS's price guide is not accurate for this.
I had to grab it from coinfacts which appears to be rather well
maintained.
The variety "small date" has nothing to do with the size of the
date but with the spacing! Talk about confusing.
One can tell a small date apart from a large date by the spacing
of the 1 and 8 closer together, while the 4 and 6 are slightly
spaced apart.
The large date can be identified by the 1 and 8 having the gap,
while the 4 and 6 are "more evenly" spaced.
PCGS has graded 90 examples as finer, with 34 marked with the
grade XF45. The pops for the small date are a bit more interesting.
PCGS, as of late, who knows when they started keeping
track of small versus large, considers it pretty darn hard to come by.
If you search Heritage's archives for "1846 small date" you see 11
coins appear.
(1) 40 (1) 45 (3) 55 (1) 58 (1) 62
One has to wonder how many small dates are sitting in regular
slabs like mine. It is not marked as a small date and was auctioned
off as a large date. Heritage's mistake. Old slab.
Coinguy1 actually viewed the coin for me for free. I have never
asked a dealer to do this so he took me under his wing to explain
how things are done. His summary can be explained in one word.
"pass" ;-). Well this was after i put my max bid in weeks before the
auction ended. So lets see if he was right and I will begin to learn
how to trust a dealer to guide my purchases through their vast
experience.
PCGS considers this an XF45 because it has a great strike with
little physical wear, but the luster is lacking. It has a few hits
that are hard to see, one by the date and one on the reverse
by the T in STATES. Overall, sorta marky, but that is normal for
the grade. Turning the coin in the light in my hand, the luster
does show around the stars, by the date, liberty is surounded
by it.
Coinguy1 said, "Overall, I don't like the coin - it is a bit too
light in color to be original, I believe due to a light cleaning, and
it had chatter on each side. None of the marks were particularly
bad, but there were several on each side."
My question after all this is, is wear on an XF45 coin always
considered cleaning? Cleaning is such a vague term.
Think about the time frame for a bit. Gold fever will soon spread
throughout the USA. The biggest migration of US citizens is about
to take place. Wouldn't you take hard currency with you on your
trip? A nice mix of gold and silver coins for the long hard journey.
Hey, what you call cleaning, i call romantic wear ;-)
There is also a die crack from the bottom arrow going through
the C in AMERICA.
0
Comments
Either way, it doesn't look all that offensive from here. For what it's worth, you consulted a guy whom I fully trust to guide a person who asks toward the very nicest examples of whatever they're after. Does that mean that the coins he passes on are without worth? Not really; it just means there are nicer ones out there somewhere. I don't know the particulars of this coin, and I don't know what you paid -- there are lots more things than that, that I don't know, LOL -- but it doesn't look all that bad.
Cleaning... I guess what distinguishes cleaning from wear for me, effectively, is something like organization in marks. In other words, if a coin has a bunch of random hairlines, that's pocket wear. If it has lots of them in parallel groupings, that suggests something different. If the coin is bright in all the places that aren't sheltered by devices or legends, ditto. I think you are on to a worthwhile point in that cleaning and wear can't always be told apart -- but often they can. Do you have the coin in hand yet? It will be interesting and informative (to me at least) to hear your thoughts when you see it up close.
Can you tell I'm on vacation this week?
MD
Yea, the timing of it all was odd. The learning experience might
be even more beneficial in the long run though.
Either way, it doesn't look all that offensive from here.
It isnt. There are examples that are better, but I did not wish
to pay more than 700-1200 for one. As soon as this coin hits
AU it becomes quite tough. MS, well, you will spend thousands.
I have nicer XF45s though, so Coinguy1's advice is fitting in a way
luster wise. Wear wise it is ok, and so are the marks.
and I don't know what you paid
put it this way, i think i changed the PCGS price guide up a bit.
it has sold once before on heritage back in 2002. I almost doubled
that.
FYI, it does not show what everyone here considers whizzing,
wiping, etc of that type of cleaning. It looks like it has circulated
though and probably dipped? the shield on the reverse shows more
dirt than the rest of the coin...
warm for me ok?
but seriously, i need someone at these darn coin auctions before
i spend more than 500 on a single coin. so give me some time here
ok?
otherwise it shall sink into nothingness soon.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire