1853 Gold $10 *Grade Revealed*
Bithrate
Posts: 555 ✭✭
Here you go, guys. Another recent addition - let's hear your thoughts on this one. What grade would you say NGC gave her?
The Slab (image is a bit dark):
The Slab (image is a bit dark):
0
Comments
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
I usually don't like to put pins in other people's baloons, but we do need a dose of reality here. This 1853 eagle is an NGC AU-58.
<< <i>55.... depending on what that mark is over the ten on the reverse..... Cheers, RickO >>
The mark is not a hit or a scratch.
-Paul
<< <i>The coin has too marks to be an AU-55. Overall I'd grade it EF-40, and I'd say the service probably called it an EF-45.
I usually don't like to put pins in other people's baloons, but we do need a dose of reality here. This 1853 eagle is an NGC AU-58. >>
Thanks for your take on this. Wouldn't the difference between AU and EF be based more on rub and wear than on the number of marks?
I'll try and get some better pics of this as well at some point.
<< <i>
<< <i>The coin has too marks to be an AU-55. Overall I'd grade it EF-40, and I'd say the service probably called it an EF-45.
I usually don't like to put pins in other people's baloons, but we do need a dose of reality here. This 1853 eagle is an NGC AU-58. >>
Thanks for your take on this. Wouldn't the difference between AU and EF be based more on rub and wear than on the number of marks?
I'll try and get some better pics of this as well at some point. >>
Marks matter, especially on gold because the metal is so soft. Think of grading large gold coins ($10 and $20) like you a Morgan silver dollar. The more marks, the less enthused a collector will be about it and the less he or she will be willing to pay.
Your piece has a lot of the orginal "meat" or detail left on the piece, and the surfaces are original and have been "enhanced" by dipping. But it has the typical look of an old gold coin that has spent a good deal of time in bag taking hits from other gold coins. I see traces of mint luster, maybe more than traces, but highest market grade would be AU-50, and to my eye it would be "C coin" (no CAC sticker) at that level.
EF-45 means that the coin shows a lot of detail and usually traces of mint luster in the protected areas. Other collectors here called it that, and maybe that's the right grade. It's certainly no better than that from a purely techical aspect.
<< <i>The coin has too marks to be an AU-55. Overall I'd grade it EF-40, and I'd say the service probably called it an EF-45.
I usually don't like to put pins in other people's baloons, but we do need a dose of reality here. This 1853 eagle is an NGC AU-58.
A clash on a gold coin....I'm not sure I have ever seen that before. BTW, beautiful coin.
If you are in the market for a type II gold dollar, you will clash marks galore. In my view clash marks can have a negative affect on Type II gold dollars.
<< <i>Your piece has a lot of the orginal "meat" or detail left on the piece, and the surfaces are original and have been "enhanced" by dipping. >>
How can you tell that it was dipped? Thanks.
<< <i>
<< <i>Your piece has a lot of the orginal "meat" or detail left on the piece, and the surfaces are original and have been "enhanced" by dipping. >>
How can you tell that it was dipped? Thanks. >>
I'm sorry I omitted the word "NOT." My fingers do not keep up with my brain.
The coin has not been dipped. It is not have an ugly brightness that comes from that or the "white gold" color.
keep in mind though that i think his ngc 58 is more like a 55... based on how much
luster it has left.
ngc and gold.. never did work out for me. they over grade or follow their own scale that
just does not make sense to me. pcgs does a much better job overall in my book.
<< <i>it is refreshing not to have to be the one to say EF first.... bill jones is right in my mind.
keep in mind though that i think his ngc 58 is more like a 55... based on how much
luster it has left.
ngc and gold.. never did work out for me. they over grade or follow their own scale that
just does not make sense to me. pcgs does a much better job overall in my book. >>
Well if you think my AU-58 is a 55, you would really be upset at the gold coins in MS-62 holders that were not as nice as that one, which I saw today when I was reviewing auction lots.
<< <i>
<< <i>it is refreshing not to have to be the one to say EF first.... bill jones is right in my mind.
keep in mind though that i think his ngc 58 is more like a 55... based on how much
luster it has left.
ngc and gold.. never did work out for me. they over grade or follow their own scale that
just does not make sense to me. pcgs does a much better job overall in my book. >>
Well if you think my AU-58 is a 55, you would really be upset at the gold coins in MS-62 holders that were not as nice as that one, which I saw today when I was reviewing auction lots.
I agree and disagree with Bill. I agree that his coin would probably grade in the low MS range more days than not. I disagree that the coin in the OP is original, unless I am misinterpreting a suboptimal image.
stand point but i prefer more luster. If I am judging those pics correctly and what
i think i see is slight wear.. it falls under the 55 category for me. I like a 58 to
have luster covering more of the coin's fields.
Now days I am a stickler for no wear on MS coins. Oh it can be bag marked to heck
and back and still be MS.. but without that luster and a teeny bit of wear it drops
squarely into the AU territory to me. I am also not convinced by the picture if liberty
is coated with luster or if the pic is just deceiving my eyes.
sorry to hijack the thread. i enjoy debating a gold coin's grade via pics and i realize
i can be totally wrong based on said pics.
This post has taken me up a few notches on my learning curve and I appreciate the comments and feedback that everyone has left. Please do not fee like you are hijacking the thread - this is exactly why I love reading posts on this forum.
I have a few questions:
RYK - why do you not think this coin is original? (beautiful coins in your other thread, by the way)
fc - is the whole "ngc and gold" issue a trend that you've noticed generally?
To all: the coin graded AU55 NGC. I will update the original post with the image of the slab.
Lastly, I really want to try and get some better images of the coin - will try and do that in the next couple of days.
Cheers!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I collect U.S. gold and AU55 is the proper grade. I've seen numerous dirty no motto Liberty tens that look like this coin in both PCGS and NGC AU55 slabs. The coin is definitely original and it has only slight wear and most of its original luster but it's too scuffy for an AU58 grade. In hand, this coin probably looks a lot better than what is shown in the mediocre pics. >>
They truly are mediocre pics and it does look a lot better in hand. As I mentioned, I will try and get better images of the thing soon.
Thanks for weighing in, PerryHall.