1799 Bust 1$ PCGS VF35. Does this coin have any upgrade potential? *Edited to add better images that
fivecents
Posts: 11,207 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
fivecents
Posts: 11,207 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
Free Trial
TD
<< <i>Looks wonderfully original and they rewarded it. Maxed out, as stated. >>
Wolf, original is not a word I would use with this coin.....
good luck
<< <i>maybe if you crack it out, dip it [again], and re-tone it with some wild colors....i am sure it they would squeeze it into an xf40 holder for you.
good luck >>
Im sure you were joking, but even then, I dont think the coin has enough "meat" on it to ever justify an EF grade.
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks wonderfully original and they rewarded it. Maxed out, as stated. >>
Wolf, original is not a word I would use with this coin..... >>
notjustme,
Perhaps you could share what you think makes this coin not original? Being a paper currency collector mainly I would like to know, as to my somewhat untrained eye the coin looks fine.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks wonderfully original and they rewarded it. Maxed out, as stated. >>
Wolf, original is not a word I would use with this coin..... >>
notjustme,
Perhaps you could share what you think makes this coin not original? Being a paper currency collector mainly I would like to know, as to my somewhat untrained eye the coin looks fine. >>
Notice the very flat appearance. There is almost zero difference in contrast between the devices and fields. Any "original" coin that is well over 200 years old, and circulated, will have some type of contrast. This coin appears to have been over dipped, and thats what causes its flat look. I dont see hairlines, so it was not harshly cleaned, but a dipped out coin can have almost as much negative eye appeal. Nothing about this coin "pops". It has decent details, but not enough to merit an upgrade.
Edited to add a picture. Here is what an original VF draped coin should look like.
Yes - the same white coloring almost across the whole coin... no change at the edge of devices, in crevices, on raised areas that would naturally occur in circulation. The only coloring is likely album toning that occured in the years after this coin was naked silver dipped out white.
The planchets are often porous, they are all open collar coins, and quality control in this era was nonexistent. A good 80% of Bust $s that are still around have been cleaned or otherwise doctored, and the grading services imo only bag the worst of them. A number of these coins are also net graded due to cleaning / damage.
Don't even think of buying a Bust $ unless you have seen quite a few of them, and have consulted with someone who knows more about this series than you do.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>But an old dip isn't even close to BB material. >>
I didnt say anything about a BB. But that coin hasnt had just "one old dip". Its washed out totally. A very unattractive piece to me anyway. The argument is whether or not it is "original", and this one is not. Still made it into PCGS plastic, but imagine submitting a Barber half with that look to it. Market grading on draped bust coins is the norm, not the exception. And that piece is a PERFECT example. You would have to search pretty hard to find a PCGS VF35 of that coin with less eye appeal.
<< <i>Here is what an original VF draped coin should look like. >>
Really?
heh. this post has more twist and turns then a
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is what an original VF draped coin should look like. >>
Really? >>
obviously you're not a golfer...
and you've never seen ''an original VF draped coin..''
<< <i>Looks maxxed out to me already. In fact, if it weren't such an early U.S. coin, it would be BB'd for cleaning. >>
9 times out of 10 this one would be hard pressed to grade 30, assuming they let the cleaning slide.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
A proper dip does not remove (all) luster. A bad over-dip, or repeated dips, will make a coin totally flat and lusterless. That coin does appear to show luster in the outer wing feathers, so I do not claim it is badly over-dipped or repeatedly dipped.
Rim toning like around the outer edge of the coin shows often occurs while a coin is in an album for years... even decades. I am not saying that makes it AT, just noting the toning often occurs while stored for years that way.
The other toning that is missing or lighter on raised devices and in unprotected field areas is the result of handling (circulation or other??) of the coin after the toning has begun.
Fivecents, I like your coin as a 25 and think the 35 holder is a gift.
here's a dollar maybe a little closer to original, pcgs has graded it VF 25, which appears conservative to me
edit to add: Gecko, the coin you post has toning removed around and notably below the eagle. Much if not all of the toning on that coin, the rim toning, appears secondary to experienced eyes. Yes the dip exposed residual luster in the wing feathers and the overall look of the coin is quite attractive, but it should not be presented as an original uncleaned coin. You will continue to receive patronizing, sarcastic, and hopefully some educational comments also, depending on folks' reaction to something that seems fairly obvious
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>It's hard enough to find a VF30 coin with any luster whatsoever, >>
VF coins don't have luster. If, somehow, they do, they look cleaned. The reverse of the piece shown certainly looks to have been dipped....albeit probably quite awhile ago.
Very few and I mean very few of these old Bust coins do I consider completely "original." And that includes some coins I own, or have owned.
Your example while it looks decent I'm not so sure I'm seeing luster. All I have is to go by the image presented. I am seeing a shine on TOP of the
clouds, feathers etc. that you mention. I'm not seeing luster in between the protected areas though. Sometimes a bit of gloss is taken as luster.
But, yes, even if it is "luster" on the coin it could certainly have been dipped/cleaned in some fashion. I'm not knocking your coin I just don't feel it's a "unmolested" example as you've stated. It has the typical rim toning and colors that I often see and what appears very light center. We
have to figure these have had a lot of time to retone from a previous boink. These days, I kinda go by terms like more original than not, original now,
more original than most etc. But I don't find your coin in this category.
I agree. There is a big difference between luster and 'shiny'. Plus, we have to keep in mind, were talking about a large coin that was made with a screw press....not tons of pressure from a steam or hydralic press. When you hammer up a Morgan with tons of pressure your going to get a lot of die flow lines in the planchet resulting in the cartwheel visual effect we know and love as luster. You don't get that from a screw press. Even looking at the uncirculated early dollars, it is clear that they have a different kind of luster and much more subdued than even uncirculated Seated Dollar coins. To state that the VF30 coin shows remaining luster, is IMO an unsupported opinion. I think it is much more likely that it is showing stripped surfaces and retoning I could definately be wrong, but that is my guess and I think it is a much more likely explanation than the coin having circulated only to be plucked out of circulation and put in an album where it developed the rim toning. How long they had coin albums anyway? Probably not till long after this thing was out of circulation. Interesting debate.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is what an original VF draped coin should look like. >>
Really? >>
He is one smart man that stman....
I also agree that this one is not original for many of the reasons given so far. It is a nice coin, but original.....no----it just isn't.
It is a nicely re-toned previously dipped coin, hence not original.
As stman also correctly stated, a lot of what is being pointed to as luster is a nice shiny piece of silver, but not a lustrous area as is referred to in numismatics. This also in my opinion based on what I see. In fact a lot of coins posted that are claiming luster are not showing luster.
Greg's coin is really nice and Bailey's coin is just freakin gorgeous. In fact, look at Bailey's UNDER-GRADED coin as a perfect example of what you and I should be chasing when looking for draped coinage.
As for the OP's coin, I agree with what has been said also.
The 1799 dollar appears to have choice VF details (VF25/VF30), but the image surely makes it look to have been manipulated and far too light for the grade and age combination. Many folks like this look, but I do not care for it all that much. The half dollar posted later also has had its surfaces stripped, but it looks as though it spent considerably more time in an album of some type post-manipulation and the resulting "look" of the coin is something that a great many collectors simply adore, though again I generally have no use for a coin like that in my own collection.
One thing to keep in mind is that terms such as "bright", "white" or "shiney" are not equivalent to "luster". Luster may be the most difficult concept for many collectors to understand and the actual luster that is seen on a coin is the result of flow lines from the minting process. As a coin progresses downward through the grading scale these flow lines are worn away and, hence, low grade coins typically do not show much, if any, luster. Overdipped coins will also lose their flow lines, or have them reduced, and this will result in "dead" surfaces that might be white, but show no luster.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>gecko109, rather than argue since today is not my day to do so (please check back another time) I really would like to see an image of the obverse.
Very few and I mean very few of these old Bust coins do I consider completely "original." And that includes some coins I own, or have owned.
Your example while it looks decent I'm not so sure I'm seeing luster. All I have is to go by the image presented. I am seeing a shine on TOP of the
clouds, feathers etc. that you mention. I'm not seeing luster in between the protected areas though. Sometimes a bit of gloss is taken as luster.
But, yes, even if it is "luster" on the coin it could certainly have been dipped/cleaned in some fashion. I'm not knocking your coin I just don't feel it's a "unmolested" example as you've stated. It has the typical rim toning and colors that I often see and what appears very light center. We
have to figure these have had a lot of time to retone from a previous boink. These days, I kinda go by terms like more original than not, original now,
more original than most etc. But I don't find your coin in this category. >>
Would it suprise you to know this coin came from Anaconda?
<< <i>Would it suprise you to know this coin came from Anaconda? >>
Nope. Unless someone in their family has owned the coin for 200 years and can speak for its whereabouts that entire time. Anaconda specializes in toned coins...you bought a pretty toned coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>Would it suprise you to know this coin came from Anaconda? >>
Nope. Unless someone in their family has owned the coin for 200 years and can speak for its whereabouts that entire time. Anaconda specializes in toned coins...you bought a pretty toned coin. >>
And likely paid a pretty penny for it.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i>gecko109, rather than argue since today is not my day to do so (please check back another time) I really would like to see an image of the obverse.
Very few and I mean very few of these old Bust coins do I consider completely "original." And that includes some coins I own, or have owned.
Your example while it looks decent I'm not so sure I'm seeing luster. All I have is to go by the image presented. I am seeing a shine on TOP of the
clouds, feathers etc. that you mention. I'm not seeing luster in between the protected areas though. Sometimes a bit of gloss is taken as luster.
But, yes, even if it is "luster" on the coin it could certainly have been dipped/cleaned in some fashion. I'm not knocking your coin I just don't feel it's a "unmolested" example as you've stated. It has the typical rim toning and colors that I often see and what appears very light center. We
have to figure these have had a lot of time to retone from a previous boink. These days, I kinda go by terms like more original than not, original now,
more original than most etc. But I don't find your coin in this category. >>
Would it suprise you to know this coin came from Anaconda? >>
I based my opinion on the coin. Where it came from matters nothing to me and does not influence me either. I gave my opinion to try and help perhaps you, and anybody reading.
Thanks for all the replies and opinions!!
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
link