Gold $1 - Weak strike or wear??

Manorcourtman · June 17, 2011 2:38AM

Is this 1851-O Gold dollar showing wear or strike weakness in your opinion? Do the New Orleans issues come weakly struck?? What would you grade it?

Staircoins · June 17, 2011 2:43AM

I'm not a specialist on these, but looks like weak strike to me.

Edit: What's going on at 11:00 on the reverse? Is that damage (possibly ex-jewelry?) or a planchet flaw?

Manorcourtman · June 17, 2011 2:52AM

It's in a graded NGC holder......

TheBigB · June 17, 2011 2:55AM

I am not familiar with the series, maybe AU50. Looks like wear to me.

Windycity · June 17, 2011 2:59AM

Looks like wear to me... likely AU50 if not "cleaned"

Buffalode · June 17, 2011 3:02AM

No expert on these either but it looks like wear to me and I would say XF45.

Staircoins · June 17, 2011 3:16AM

I've just spent some time on HA.com looking at 1851-O gold dollars, and it looks like these typically come with the hair details fairly decently struck up. So I'm going to revise my answer and say that this looks like wear after all.

I'll call the coin AU details, possibly damaged as I'm still not fond of the gouge on the reverse.

JamesM · June 17, 2011 3:23AM

its funny I would have guessed this was fake.

PerryHall · June 17, 2011 3:42AM

Both weak strike and wear. Looks AU55. Also, New Orleans mint gold is frequently weakly struck.

ranshdow · June 17, 2011 4:00AM

its funny I would have guessed this was fake.

I would have guessed fake too. It has the look of a cast counterfeit to me with some contemporary "circulation polishing" to the fields.

Ambro? Liefgold? Opinions?

PerryHall · June 17, 2011 4:09AM

<< <i>its funny I would have guessed this was fake.

I would have guessed fake too. It has the look of a cast counterfeit to me with some contemporary "circulation polishing" to the fields.

Ambro? Liefgold? Opinions? >>

Not fake. Late die state with a lot of die erosion. Not that unusual.

MedalCollector · June 17, 2011 4:45AM

Yeah, what is that mark above STATES on the reverse?

pmh1nic · June 17, 2011 4:50AM

<< <i>Both weak strike and wear. Looks AU55. Also, New Orleans mint gold is frequently weakly struck. >>

Agree.

The coin looks like it has a decent amount of luster, more then I would expect from a coin with a significant amount of missing detail at the high points if the missing detail was all a matter of wear.

derryb · June 17, 2011 5:45AM

wear and weak strike, mostly wear

roadrunner · June 17, 2011 5:48AM

Nearly all the unprotected obverse and reverse field luster is gone. Hence....mainly wear, and plenty of it.
55 or 58

roadrunner

IrishMikey · June 17, 2011 6:01AM

Definitely looks like wear to me -- AU-55.

liefgold · June 17, 2011 11:17AM

I believe that it is weakly struck on the obverse hairlines, which is not uncommon on this date. It is difficult to tell about luster from photos but I could see that coin as a 61 or 62.

CaptHenway · June 17, 2011 11:31AM

IMHO:
Genuine.
Decent strike for the series.
Some honest wear.
Right on the border between EF-45 and AU-50, but think it would probably AU-50 because of the decent luster IF that is a strike through up around 11:30 and not damage.
TD

messydesk · June 17, 2011 11:34AM

Here's one in a 20 year old ANACS holder graded 55. A little more detail than yours. The Garrett/Guth book doesn't mention strike on this issue. The picture show a fully struck coin except for the 2nd L in DOLLAR.

BillJones · June 17, 2011 11:54AM

Weak strike or wear? It's probably a bit of both. The coin probably did not have the hair detail on the highest curls from the get-go, but the photo makes that area look dull, which says "wear." And, yes, O-mint gold dollars can be poorly struck, but I've seen some very well struck exceptions.

Gold $1 - Weak strike or wear??

Comments

Leave a Comment