Yeah its going to be hard to buy another product from the USMint again after this.
I am not on top of the prices of this coin, but I figure it sold for a discount of $1,300 from the last 2 times the same coins sold on Heritage so I figure I could not have done too badly.
Looking at the previous sales it also is also is "from The Bay State Collection, Part One" and Ex "Anaconda Rare Coins" whatever that adds.
The Anaconda history should not add anything to the coin since that was part of his Heritage facilitated liquidation of inventory when he went out of business. The image they took of that coin back in August, 2008 was horrible and the closeups from June, 2008 make it look to have much less color. Typically, these coins in PF64 have hairlines, which is something I dislike, but this one might have some light chatter on the body and perhaps some spots removed with its dipping. I'd rather have light chatter on the body than copious hairlines. In truth, I prefer my Seated coinage to have more original skin, but most folks are very happy with dipped Seated coinage such as this coin.
I see some toning around the rim. The coin seems to have a nice cameo. It may have been ever so lightly dipped, but if so doesn't appear to have affected the cameo contrast. Believe it or not, some silver coins haven't tarnished much thru the years .... the same way that there are still red pennies from the 18th century. Storage conditions sometimes are ideal ... as well as good surfaced coins better protect themselves from toning. I'm simply stating, from the OP's photo, it isn't clear to me that it's been dipped. That said, I'm not saying it's been dipped, nor am I saying it hasn't been ..... I'm just not convinced it has. Based upon the photo, it certainly is market acceptable IMHO and the op should be proud to own it, unless the coin in hand shows something I'm not seeing.
Cameo contrast will not come off with a dip and the light toning on the rims is actually quite common for dipped coinage, though by no means is it diagnostic of a dipping.
The image is from the Heritage auction and the coin is without a doubt market acceptable. I understand that some silver coinage has remained remarkably free of toning through decades of storage, but that is the rare exception.
Tom, I respectfully disagree. Dipping eats away the outer silver layer ..... dipping can lessen and eliminate the contrast. It only has a contrast because of the surface created by the polished field of the die in this case. The smooth surface of the field will loose it's contrast as it's dipped long enough to remove the surface. Granted, anyone with dipping experience wouldn't dip a coin that long, but it can happen. I personally can not say for certain that this coin has been dipped, if it has, it has been so lightly as to not affect the market desireablity. I would have to have the coin in hand in this particular instance in order to give an opinion of whether or not I think, it's been dipped. What I do know is, it's a very attractive coin and the OP shouldn't think otherwise just because some people think all silver has to tarnish a certain degree. I respect your opinion Tom, I'm just stating mine.
I agree 100% with what TomB has written, and I would want to see the coin in-hand before buying it from pictures, as pictures are notoriously bad at showing hairlines, and hairlines are typically what keeps these coins from higher grades (and looking desireable).
All of the above IMHO & respectfully submitted....Mike (who hopes the coin is a stunner in-hand and the OP is happy with his purchase!)
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
TomB's analysis is perfect. All coins fall somewhere on the price/quality continuum, and there isn't any Santa Claus in numismatics (at least at Heritage).
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Dipping is not nearly so negative as many interpret it. Generally dipping is NOT considered cleaning. Some here want to expand the term "cleaned" to include dipping but I don't agree with them. Dipping is the difference between original and not original. It is not the difference between cleaned and not cleaned. Hairlines are more like "cleaned" but because so many 19th centrury proofs have them the C word is usually kept silent and the description is usually just "light hairlines".
Here is the other 1870 proof they acutioned last night which went for about $140 more than mine. I think this one does not have as nice a Cameo effect.
Comments
I am not on top of the prices of this coin, but I figure it sold for a discount of $1,300 from the last 2 times the same coins sold on Heritage so I figure I could not have done too badly.
Looking at the previous sales it also is also is "from The Bay State Collection, Part One" and Ex "Anaconda Rare Coins" whatever that adds.
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Nice looking coin ..................... I'm not convinced it's dipped.
<< <i>Nice looking coin ..................... I'm not convinced it's dipped. >>
How might it have been stored to inhibit nearly all toning for 100+ years?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Doesn't look dipped to me?????? >>
Again, I must ask, why doesn't it look dipped to you? This is a 100+ year old silver dollar with essentially no toning. How did that happen?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I see some toning around the rim. The coin seems to have a nice cameo. It may have been ever so lightly dipped, but if so doesn't appear to have affected the cameo contrast. Believe it or not, some silver coins haven't tarnished much thru the years .... the same way that there are still red pennies from the 18th century. Storage conditions sometimes are ideal ... as well as good surfaced coins better protect themselves from toning.
I'm simply stating, from the OP's photo, it isn't clear to me that it's been dipped.
That said, I'm not saying it's been dipped, nor am I saying it hasn't been ..... I'm just not convinced it has. Based upon the photo, it certainly is market acceptable IMHO and the op should be proud to own it, unless the coin in hand shows something I'm not seeing.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Again, I must ask, why doesn't it look dipped to you? This is a 100+ year old silver dollar with essentially no toning. How did that happen? >>
TomB, It's Elfin Magic!
Cameo contrast will not come off with a dip
Tom, I respectfully disagree. Dipping eats away the outer silver layer ..... dipping can lessen and eliminate the contrast. It only has a contrast because of the surface created by the polished field of the die in this case. The smooth surface of the field will loose it's contrast as it's dipped long enough to remove the surface. Granted, anyone with dipping experience wouldn't dip a coin that long, but it can happen. I personally can not say for certain that this coin has been dipped, if it has, it has been so lightly as to not affect the market desireablity. I would have to have the coin in hand in this particular instance in order to give an opinion of whether or not I think, it's been dipped. What I do know is, it's a very attractive coin and the OP shouldn't think otherwise just because some people think all silver has to tarnish a certain degree. I respect your opinion Tom, I'm just stating mine.
All of the above IMHO & respectfully submitted....Mike (who hopes the coin is a stunner in-hand and the OP is happy with his purchase!)
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Congratulations, that is sure a droolworthy beauty.
I've managed to have a couple of nice 19th century proofs, but only one CAM (NGC UCAM, actually- but that was Darkside).
Oh yeah, I had a PR63 CAM 1898 Barber half from the Benson collection, too.
But I could probably still count all the pre-1900 proofs I have had on my fingers. I really love 'em but they aren't easy on my budget.
Dipping is not nearly so negative as many interpret it. Generally dipping is NOT considered cleaning. Some here want to expand the term "cleaned" to include dipping but I don't agree with them. Dipping is the difference between original and not original. It is not the difference between cleaned and not cleaned. Hairlines are more like "cleaned" but because so many 19th centrury proofs have them the C word is usually kept silent and the description is usually just "light hairlines".
--Jerry
Cashback from Mr. Rebates