1926 sesquicentennial gold
steveben
Posts: 4,595 ✭✭✭✭✭
here's a new piece i am excited about. i need a better camera! i can't capture a good image no matter how hard i try. i know it's a lousy photo set, but care to guess the grade based on what you can see?
what's hard to capture is some sweet burnt orange luster.
what's hard to capture is some sweet burnt orange luster.
0
Comments
<< <i>I'm gonna say it's a MS63 based on the pics. >>
63/64
My camera has amplified every flaw, but here is the piece from my collection, which is a MS-64. The most often seen flaw I see in this issue is copper spots. Well over half of the Sesqui $2.50 gold pieces I’ve seen have them. Some of the examples of this coin that I've seen have a wonderful sunrise affect behind Independence Hall on the reverse.
Do copper spots actually affect the grade? I thought they were considered a sign of originality. (I could see how a collector would reject a coin with spots in bad places on aesthetic grounds, of course)
<< <i>Some nice looking pieces. My guess is MS 64.
Do copper spots actually affect the grade? I thought they were considered a sign of originality. (I could see how a collector would reject a coin with spots in bad places on aesthetic grounds, of course) >>
Copper spots do not lower the grade unless they are REALLY ugly. One of the exceptions I've seen has been the SS Central America 1857-S $20 gold pieces that have gone bad in the holder after they were "curated." Some of those coins are really bad.
As for a few light spots I've seen some collectors and dealers refuse to buy or lower their buying prices on gold coins with very light spotting. To me that is just plain silly. And one thing you should remember is that some dealers claim that they have never seen a counterfeit U.S. gold coin that had copper spots.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I swear I need to send mine in for secure plus. I've thought it could plus or even upgrade to 65 for a long time. Since I "made" it, I know it hasn't been resubmitted ever and I think it is a 64+ with a shot at 65 from the all the other 64 pics I've looked at. One of these days I will resubmit it.
<< <i>From the strike I'd say a 63 since my 64 seems a bit stronger. Nice coin though.
I swear I need to send mine in for secure plus. I've thought it could plus or even upgrade to 65 for a long time. Since I "made" it, I know it hasn't been resubmitted ever and I think it is a 64+ with a shot at 65 from the all the other 64 pics I've looked at. One of these days I will resubmit it. >>
Getting a Sesqui $2.50 in an MS-65 holder is hard becasue there is a big jump between MS-64 and 65 (from $1,075 to $2,900 on the Gray Sheet). Given that these coins were struck in low relief, finding a pretty one is tough. The services do not give out the MS-65 grade on these coins like candy.
I'm trying to find a nice Sesqui half to go with it, but I haven't seen one I like yet.
first of all, i need a better camera for macro photos because these photos just don't do the coin justice.
second, you guys are good. you know the grades inside and out it seems.
finally, it must be a really hard jump from 64 to 65 with this coin.
<< <i>here's the holder for it:
first of all, i need a better camera for macro photos because these photos just don't do the coin justice.
second, you guys are good. you know the grades inside and out it seems.
finally, it must be a really hard jump from 64 to 65 with this coin. >>
I think one of your photographing difficulties is that your light source is too bright or you need to set the exposure level on your camera lower. That way you might get more of the coin's detail. When you have too much light you don't the shadows and the detail of the coin is washed out.
I tried to improve you picture with some of my software, but I could not bring up much more detail.