St. Louis Show - Newp Large Cent - Grade Revealed

jmski52

These photos can be improved upon, but they should do for tonight. Any guesses on the grade?

TomB

I hope it's just the lighting, but it looks recolored to me.

Mar327

AU 53

Nice clashing!

nankraut

60BRN

jmski52

Better pics?

notwilight

Technical grade 58 if there is rub, 64 if there isn't. Is Tom right about the color? I see it isn't in a holder. --Jerry

lordmarcovan

Nice. I wouldn't know about the color.

Looks 64-ish to me, unless there is some rub I overlooked in the pix.

jmski52

Tom right about the color?

I am fairly certain that the color is natural, but that's a fair question. It appears that there is original red in the most recessed areas of the devices and around them, and also it appears that the original red is still showing through the brown on the fields.

It looks original to me at 10X, but can you tell me what I would be seeing if the coin had been recolored?

lordmarcovan

I should add that the color looks just fine to me, but my opinion on the matter might not be worth doodley-squat, as I am not very good at spotting recolored copper, unless it is blatant.

TwoSides2aCoin

63 BRN
or light 92.... depending on who's loupe we're using.

Walkerguy21D

Looks like a nice 63+/64 coin to me! By EAC standards, a bit lower....tough to get anything over MS60 by EAC standards.

asheland

MS64
I like those.

kaz

Put me in the 64 camp. Great looking coin, I have no idea about color.

lkenefic

It's tough to tell with out the coin in hand, but based upon the new images, I don't think yours is recolored. If it isn't [ie: assuming it would holder] I think it would go into the MS62BR range if there's no rub evident. TPGs are notoriously hard on early copper and I think the hits on the "N" in ONE would bring it down a bit. It's comparing apples to oranges, but here is a circulated LC that I'm fairly certain has been recolored.





I hope this helps.

Leo

jmski52

The coin was sold to me as an MS(60)+, net MS(60), tied for condition census #2, N19, R-4 state a, early, Grellman numbers 3563, 3564.

I don't care as much about the attribution as I care about the eye appeal and the grade.

For me, the eye appeal and the overall condition are what I was looking for.

The grade absolutely baffles me, and I mentioned this to Tom Reynolds when I bought the coin. Under 10X, there are only 3 very light hairlines, 2 in the field and 1 on the profile. There are 5 or 6 very small contact marks on the obverse, and fewer on the reverse.

There are some die cleaning marks next to the hair (which I liked), which is characteristic of this die state.

As to any rub I am not sure but the high spots look as struck to me. It may be that the tip of the coronet and the rim on the reverse have some cabinet rub, or envelope rub, but it doesn't really look like wear - more like some loss of the oxidation layer due to friction.

Does that make sense?

Held at the right angle, the underlying red is gives the coin a nice subtle highlight and the fields are very smooth except for a small alloy defect near the eyebrow, which doesn't bother me for this coin. Anyhow, that's my newp.

Walkerguy21D

It makes sense if you see my posting/guess:


<< <i>Looks like a nice 63+/64 coin to me! By EAC standards, a bit lower....tough to get anything over MS60 by EAC standards. >>


If you bought the coin from Reynolds, as you said, he graded it by EAC standards. Rest assured that if Tom graded it MS60+ you have a damn nice coin. EVERYTHING is taken into account and 'deducted' from a base grade is how I understand it. Some true EAC'ers can give you a better explanation. By commercial standards, it would probably grade/slab as a 63 or 64. The price is the same, so the 'grade opinion' is somewhat irrelevent.
edited to add - Tom probably sold the coin in an envelope with his attribution and grade - keep this, regardless of what you do with the coin (slab it, etc.). His pedigree carries some value in the marketplace if you resell it.

notwilight

Nice. Grellman calls that variety R5-. I'm sure you paid a premium for the die variety. I tried for a couple of minutes to attribute it last night but needed bigger photos. The way you describe the color it sounds original. Tom R. probably would have told you if it was recolored anyway. As for the grade, I only mentioned 58 because some posters thought they could see rub in your small photos. I couldn't tell. Those stars full of grease often fool non-copper guys. The coin looks great (in the small photos) and I stick with 64, probably 65 at NGC. EAC guys grade notoriously tight. I believe they use MS60+ for anything from 61 to 64.5 (the old BU and Gem BU grades).

I don't see any crumbling on your coin and the die polish marks make it seem like an early die state which gives you a very nice example. The denticles are awesomely struck.

I'd welcome a coin like that into my large cent collection.

--Jerry

joecopper

A really nice coin - I trust Reynolds eye and grading and would expect that he would say it was recolored. I bought an MS60 1816 for my
exhibit from him several years ago and it looks better every time I look at it.