Guess the Grade on this 1800 Half Eagle!

AnkurJ

Whatcha think??
She is slabbed.



AJ

Placid

Rev looks better than the obv. I will guess 55.

Colorfulcoins

That's what I would guess too....nice coin.

RYK

55 here

MidLifeCrisis

My first thought was 45...my final answer is AU50.

But I'll be the first to admit that's a SWAG.

AnkurJ

Swag?

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>Swag? >>


Scientific Wild-A** Guess

AnkurJ

LOL Gottcha!

robkool

AU55...

PerryHall

XF45+

lordmarcovan

53

(Downgraded slightly for the drool stains I left on it.)

7Jaguars

Don't use English grading on that with all of those hits, but will go 45 in my book with them giving it a 53.

AnkurJ

I will reveal the actual grade tonight.

Barndog

genuine

PerryHall

<< <i>genuine >>



Why do you think it didn't grade?

earlyAurum

The reverse looks odd. In my amateur opinion it looks inverted. No, I am not trying to be funny.

PerryHall

<< <i>The reverse looks odd. In my amateur opinion it looks inverted. No, I am not trying to be funny. >>



Huh? Inverted?

ricko

40... Looks pretty banged up.... I would still take it though Cheers, RickO

AnkurJ

<< <i>genuine >>



Why do you think that?

LanLord

<< <i>The reverse looks odd. In my amateur opinion it looks inverted. No, I am not trying to be funny. >>

That happens to me all the time. Some digi pics do that when the angle of light is different than your eye expected. I'm guessing that the reverse was shot upside down and then rotated with photoshop (or some other editing tool). It makes the shadows come from the opposite direction as the obverse image and the eye/brain interpret the image as being incuse.

123cents

Looks like a possible cleaning. I will guess genuine.

kaz

AU-53 (Sweet!)

Nysoto

Variety is BD-4 intermediate die stage with clashing, before cud forms over NIT. There is wear on the high points such as the flat spot on drapery lines (compare to BD plate coin). I would grade EF-45 because of the wear, but would not be surprised to see AU50-55 from the TPG's as the previous dipping/light cleaning made the luster more apparent.

jdillane

The obverse looks 45ish and the reverse looks 50. Plenty of bag marks, moderate wear and doesn't look like original skin.

I think she's holdered 45 but I tend to think that a gtg on a coin like this will provide an element of surprise when the answer is revealed.

ChrisRx

45

pursuitofliberty

I am going to guess that it is at least a 45 ... and no more than a 53 ...

so a 50 from me

earlyAurum

<< <i>That happens to me all the time. Some digi pics do that when the angle of light is different than your eye expected. I'm guessing that the reverse was shot upside down and then rotated with photoshop (or some other editing tool). It makes the shadows come from the opposite direction as the obverse image and the eye/brain interpret the image as being incuse. >>



Thanks for the explanation. If I look at the look away from the image and then come back and refocuse, I see it as normal.

DennisH

AU50

Mesquite

Ihave to agree with those already posted; mid- to low-50s.

AnkurJ

And the actual "grade" is:

MidLifeCrisis

So much for my SWAG.

Placid

Only damage I can think of would be its bent enough not to sit flat.
If its tooled,good job as I see nothing that jumps out.

AnkurJ

<< <i>So much for my SWAG. >>



Well, I might try to cross it to NGC to see if she grades. Or if you start a grading company, you can put it in a AU 50 slab for me

AnkurJ

<< <i>Only damage I can think of would be its bent enough not to sit flat.
If its tooled,good job as I see nothing that jumps out. >>



Heritage said that PCGS may have considered the 2-3 small hits in the right field as damage. Or the scratches above the date. I have to say though, I have seen MUCH worse in graded PCGS holders.

lkeigwin

Ankur, you have the coin in hand. What do you think is wrong? I would never have guessed damage or tooling.

Were you...ahem...miffed?
Lance.

edited to say "Oops...our posts crossed". Never mind.

Oh...and that's a damned shame. It can't be hits...there's nothing fatal. Must be the scratches above the date. I'd wager it grades at NGC. Go for it.

jmj3esq

Im so tired of these no grades. Its AU50 in my book.

Baley

Nice coin. The first T in STATES looks tooled though.

AnkurJ

I do see something, but it kind of looks like some scratches or the T is flattened. Here is a close up:

Baley

thanks for the closeup. looks like the dentils over the T were repaired, too. still, neato!

123cents

<< <i>thanks for the closeup. looks like the dentils over the T were repaired, too. still, neato! >>




I agree. Very nice early gold!

AnkurJ

So after all that we know, is the Genuine grade accurate or would NGC or PCGS give it a proper grade if I resubmit it a few times?

Baley

you could resubmit until the cows come home... it won't holder as problem free.

AnkurJ

Maybe I should just crack it out and make it a pocket piece.

But out of curiosity, if you send NGC a PCGS coin in a Genuine holder, what are the odds they will slab it with a grade? The best bet would probably be to crack it out no?

Barndog

now I can reveal my reason for saying GENUINE (asked by PerryHall and the OP):

I had not seen the Heritage auction.

Instead, I know that Ankur uses leverage to obtain coins that are often prohibitively expensive if they are in problem-free PCGS or NGC holders. His leverage is that he finds coins that the TPGs say have problems, but when one views the coins the problems are often not glaring or too unappealing. Thus, he gets what he sees to be nice coins at relative bargain prices. Some people don't like such coins, but Ankur finds them appealing for his tastes and wallet. He gets some cool types for his collection and saves money in the process (enabling him to add more coins to his collection). So my guess of "genuine" was not an assessment of the coin, it was an assessment of the collector once I saw the coin type.

RYK

There are plenty of worthwhile coins that are no-grades at PCGS. I had two early $5s in NGC holders that PCGS would not cross at any grade due to minuscule "damage". They are nice, original coins. Frankly, if you had dipped off the patina on one, the subtle scratch would probably be less obvious.

Nysoto

Baley nailed it. The dentils were re-engraved through NIT, they are square and chiseled in shape without the rounded inside end that dentils had in 1806. The cud HAD formed and was evidently thought of as damage some time ago, the cud tooled away with fake dentils engraved. The dentils do not match on this coin Heritage 1800 BD-4

I agree there are some borderline coins in genuine holders that may be acceptable. I bid on the same type early $5 in an ANACS problem holder at Heritage that was original-looking with no major hits, thought I might be able pick it up for $3 to $4K, but is was bid to almost $6K! It was soon put in a PCGS AU53 holder on CCE for a quick profit. I did find an 1800 $5 at Stack's with a small reverse dig that kept it out of a graded slab, it is deeply toned with much originality. Will post a pic of it later.

Edit - The coin had dentils re-engraved in two places on the reverse, above NIT and also above ST in STATES. It was once a late state double cud example, what a shame.
1800 BD-4 double cud example

AnkurJ

How did PCGS grade it with the denticles added? It really seems that they are very forgiving with early type.

Placid

This is why I dont like codes that are used for more than one reason.
If the reason the coin was given the code is not obvious then the buyer or seller may not know what to look for.
Heritage told you they thought it was damage for the hits but it turns out its tooling of the denticles

AnkurJ

I guess PCGS doesnt have acode for tooling?

Placid

<< <i>I guess PCGS doesnt have acode for tooling? >>


Its code 98 damage in the code chart.
I dont see a seperate one.
When you run the cert number at pcgs it shows Genuine (98 - Damage or Tooling)

AnkurJ

Gottcha. I would have gone for something else if Heritage mentioned the coin was tooled.
Oh well.