Did 1875 era Double Eagles have strike issues?

bushmaster8

~20 yrs ago a fellow at work asked me to take a look at a group of 20's he had aquired shortly after gold was re-legalized.

Moe had just enuff numi-savy to ask the dealer for better dates.

I picked out two that looked solidly UNC , a 23-D and 1910, & NGC graded them 63 and 64. We sold the 1910 for thousands and he was pleased!

But I always find myself recalling the 1875 he had. It was gloriously attractive, with the best luster of the whole group. And the fields were just superb.

Only thing was the high point of the portrait showed what I interpreted as a a patch of wear. I thought it was unusual and unfortunate, because otherwise the coin was a pristine GEM!

In the intervening years I have learned a lot about coins, but am still not too knowledgeable about double eagles.

Whenever I think about that coin, I wonder if maybe what I thought was wear was not wear.

So my burning question is: Did 20's from that era show striking deficiency on the high point of the cheek?

CaptHenway

They were generally softly struck from mushy dies. Uncs usually look like sliders.
TD

PerryHall

<< <i>They were generally softly struck from mushy dies. Uncs usually look like sliders.
TD >>



Disagree. Compared to the Types 1 and 3, the Type 2 master hub had much less and softer details. Even well struck coins will look "softly struck" when in actuality it's the design causing this look and not the strike.

RWB

One of mint director Linderman’s complaints about William Barber’s work as engraver was his inability to reduce the relief of the double eagle and trade dollar. After much angst, Barber finally succeeded in reducing the double eagle’s relief on new hubs dated 1877. Pieces prior to 1877 commonly show weakness on the high points of the obverse portrait. Relief of the Trade dollar was never reduced, even after Linderman had outside engraver Anthony Paquet work on it.

oreville

Actually the weakness in the 1870-1876 type II Liberties could be seen in the hair of Liberty. The cheek is not the high point but the hair curls and the area around LIBERTY is.

The softness in the appearance of the hair gave Miss Liberty an abstract look which was quite similar to the abstract look that George Washington had on our US quarter in the 1980's.

William Barber succeeded in creating not only a lower relief head of Liberty in 1877 but tilted her head forward and created that spaghetti hair look in Miss Liberty. Furthermore, the date size was reduced by 1878 creating a very different and (in my opinion) a very inferior look. Furthermore as the 1880's went on the head of Liberty began to SHRINK as well!

The US Mint by 1990 was successful in doing the same, creating the spaahetti hair on George Washington we have learned to despise. The spaghetti hair detail hides the fact that the relief of George Washington was lowered dramatically.

Then in 1999 we got our statehood quarters which dramatically SHRUNK the head of George. The same has happened with our Lincoln cents and Kennedy half dollars. Who says history does not repeat itself?

oreville

Here is a picture of kwmorgan's 1875-S $20 Liberty he posted a while back.

While it is graded AU-58 and had hardly any imperfections or wear there is almost no detail in the hair. This was the state of the dies as it existed in 1875. A collector not being knowledgeable about these coins might at first glance think this coin was graded less than Fine condition!!!

BloodMan

I prefer the obverse design of the Type 2 to the Type 3 for many of the same reasons Oreville mentioned, especially the “spaghetti” hair appearance.

It can be difficult to distinguish between uncirculated examples and those with minor wear at the highest points, ie, hair and coronet. The example below has very nice fields, few abrasion and appears to have slight wear, however, considering the boldness in LIBERTY and the definition of the coronet, I am not entirely sure. NGC graded it AU.

ProofArtworkonCircs

What is meant by gold being re-legalised? It is my understanding that holding US gold coins as part of a coin collection was always legal.
There were limits on the number of quarter eagles of each date and mint that you could hold. This I never understood. Quarter eagles were an obsolete denomination after 1929. THe thought has occurred to me that the writer of the regulations got it all backwards.

oreville

Bloodman: Your 1876 $20 coin looks like it has hardly any wear but the luster seems to be slightly diminished. The luster looks stronger around the stars than in the rest of the obverse.

Also the reverse seem to have discoloration in the center which seems to be indicative of an AU graded coin. Also the lettering of the reverse looks like they have very slight luster loss.

Last thing, look at the tip of Liberty's nose and the tip of her head (hair above her forehead) for possible slight wear.

One other thing, the head of Liberty is the same for type I and type II's although the type I's were struck from better dies.
The dates of the type I's were much smaller than in the type II's.