Options
Does this coin look like a MS65?
seateddime
Posts: 6,169 ✭✭✭
I seldom check PM's but do check emails often jason@seated.org
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
0
Comments
Bruce
<< <i>It's impossible to tell from the images.
Bruce >>
-Paul
I believe I would want to see it before I handed over 34 grand.
NO sticker.
and no 65 either
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>does not look original at all.
NO sticker.
and no 65 either >>
Agreed. The luster is really off.
-Paul
No way that is a GEM!
NO
brian
JJ
The hit on the cheek to me is a non-issue and considered alone might limit the coin to 66. More concerned with the chatter in the right obv field which is the only concern.
Has the look of a freshly minted dime and therefore won't appeal to purists who want original skin. Technically to me a 64++ but I can see
why it's in a 65 holder. I remember seeing the Norweb 1858-0 dime which had a number of obvious scattered hits all over Miss Liberty. I graded that coin MS64- because of that.
It graded MS65 at NGC because it had good luster and orig surfaces. It eventually crossed as well. This 1844 has far less marks. I know if I owned this 1844 in a MS64 holder I'd always be thinking why it couldn't be a 65.
It's not like these grow on trees. And the MS62-65's of most better date early seated dimes (1840-1849) tend to be pretty dullish and ugly. Gem 1840's dimes just aren't around with full mint luster and zero rub. This one has luster to spare and is an 1844....not a more common 41,42,43,45. The other dates are all quite tough in gem. The chatter in the right obv field has slightly disturbed the overall flow. The flat part of the rim is a little smooth and shows some handling and lack of obvious luster which only indicates the coin is not a superb gem.
Regardless, both services have graded dozens of MS65 stars obv dimes (1840-1859) that are no better than this one. You want a perfect, hands down, no one-would-ever-question gem?....then pay up for the 1844 in PCGS MS66. I doubt the other MS65's out there are any better than this one. Interesting that of the 4 MS65's, 3 of those are PCGS. Would have expected it to be the other way around.
roadrunner
<< <i>Images look fine to me. Nothing you can't see here.
The hit on the cheek to me is a non-issue. More concerned with the chatter in the right obv field which is the only concern.
Has the look of a freshly minted dime and therefore won't appeal to purists who want original skin. Technically to me a 64++ but I can see
why it's in a 65 holder. I remember seeing the Norweb 1858-0 dime which had a number of obvious scattered hits all over Miss Liberty. I graded that coin MS64- because of that.
It graded MS65 at NGC because it had good luster and orig surfaces. It eventually crossed as well. This 1844 has far less marks. I know if I owned this 1844 in a MS64 holder I'd always be thinking why it couldn't be a 65.
It's not like these grow on trees. And the MS62-65's of most better date early seated dimes (1840-1849) tend to be pretty dullish and ugly. Gem 1840's dimes just aren't around with full mint luster and zero rub. This one has luster to spare and is an 1844....not a more common 41,42,43,45. The other dates are all quite tough in gem. The chatter is the right obv field has slightly disturbed the overall flow. Regardless, both services have graded dozens of MS65 stars obv dimes that are no better than this one. You want a perfect, hands down, no one-would-ever-question gem?....then pay up for the PCGS MS66.
roadrunner >>
I defer to this guy, as he really knows this series... but for my own tastes, I don't think I would feel very satisfied owning a coin that was that old but looked that new... it has definitely been 'conserved.'
>>>My Collection
Fwiw a number of seated dimes in the hoard years of 1857-1859 do come almost pure white. They are only 15 yrs later than the 1844. And most fully original early seated dimes come with fairly thick toning that mutes the luster a shade...as well as often resulting in one grade less at the TPG's. If your early seated dime doesn't have fairly thick toning more than likely it was dipped long ago and has since retoned. Most gem 1840's dimes have made MS65 either of two ways: they are superb MS66's with thick toning that were net graded to 65, or they were dipped to help showcase the luster. Of course the dipped coins will show many more marks and chatter than the original ones do. Would sure have loved to see what the 1844 looked like before conservation. Wouldn't have been surprised if the coin were a steely deep blue or dark brown.
roadrunner
Edited to add that I just bought Lot 5968, the 1787 New Jersey Maris 42-c
Our hosts most certainly reward white and blazing 19th century type coins that have been dipped. In fact these coins will usually receive higher grades than average toned original coins with muted luster. The exception is a point bump when those toned coins have beautiful color. What doesn't get rewarded are coins that have been dipped multiple times in their lives and have washed out mint luster. The 1844 dime does not have washed out luster. The fact that so many formerly toned 19th century coins are now white clearly supports that blazing white luster trumps average toned original coins. NCS didn't come about because everyone is enthralled with dusky original 19th century coins. My preference too is to buy 66 coins in 65 holders. But I almost never find them. As shorecoll suggested earlier, one usually needs to start looking at MS66 holders for "all-there, no questions" gem seated coins. And if one is particularly fussy, then starting with MS67 holders. This 1844 dime would have graded 64 twenty years ago because of the scuffs and chatter in that right obv field....possibly even 63 on a tougher day. While I personally still like those early standards, it's not market reality any more. While this coin is not worth $34K to me, apparently at least 2 people thought otherwise.
roadrunner
<< <i>It's a really nice coin, but no MS-65 IMO. There is the mark on the cheek, and couple of marks in the field. The kicker though is that it has been dipped. Usually you don't get an MS-65 from our hosts for dipped silver coins. >>
What? Bill, did you really write that? I see plenty of dipped PCGS MS65 (and 66 and 67) silver coins, and would guess that most people who attend shows and auctions, have, as well.
Edited to add: And as a matter of fact, i believe that the PCGS MS68+ 1901-S Barber Quarter has been dipped, and here is a PCGS MS68 No Drapery Quarter, which looks to have been dipped:
See here
One of the all-time coolest seated type coins in existence. 100% luster - absolutely no trace of high point rub - nicely struck for a ND...esp the centers - and nearly mark free.
roadrunner
<< <i>Geez Mark, that white MS68 1838 nd quarter is even CAC'd.
One of the all-time coolest seated type coins in existence.
roadrunner >>
I agree, but I wish it weren't dipped-white.
But don't worry Mark. In another 20-50 yrs both of these quarters will be toned again. But then, new owners will debate whether they need to be dipped yet again to remove the unsightly brownish mottled toning.
roadrunner
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003