1854 $3 Princess Head & $2.5 Liberty Head Gold....grade opinions appreciated.

SUMORADA

Bought these today all opinions welcome, thanks in advance.

ModCrewman

A pair of AU55's would be my guess...very clean nice looking examples.

BillJones

The Thee Dollar gold appears to be an AU (50 to 55) to me and a fairly nice one. It appears to have few if any marks, but it is flat on the hair above Ms. Liberty's forehead and on the curls on her neck. The level of wear says to me that this piece is not an AU-58.

Having said that I get nervious when I see raw $3 gold coins because there are so many counterfeits. I go over them six ways to Sunday, and that even goes for certified pieces. The coin looks okay, but you can't be 100% sure from a photo.

The 1905 quarter eagle looks like an MS-65 to me. Once again I'm saying this from a photo. You can't grade coins like this with absolute certainty from a photo.

stealer

<< <i>The Thee Dollar gold appears to be an AU (50 to 55) to me and a fairly nice one. It appears to have few if any marks, but it is flat on the hair above Ms. Liberty's forehead and on the curls on her neck. The level of wear says to me that this piece is not an AU-58.

Having said that I get nervious when I see raw $3 gold coins because there are so many counterfeits. I go over them six ways to Sunday, and that even goes for certified pieces. The coin looks okay, but you can't be 100% sure from a photo.

The 1905 quarter eagle looks like an MS-65 to me. Once again I'm saying this from a photo. You can't grade coins like this with absolute certainty from a photo. >>


Bill, can you explain or link us to the "six ways to Sunday" for identifying fake $3?

Crusoe

$3 - AU-53
$2.5 - AU-58

I am also interested in learning what six ways to Sunday is.

coinkat

The 1854 3- its AU and likely 55 if not 58. The flatness in the high spots is the strike more than wear. Look at the fields and that is evidence that the coin is weakly struck

It might be the image or just this fear that that the coin looks better in the image than in hand which maybe why others have graded it lower

The 1905 is in the 63-64 range- I don't see 65

RichardDawkins

58, 64

tradedollarnut

61, 66

coinman23885

53
65+

oreville

AU-58
MS-65

PerryHall

55
64
Nice looking coins!

lasvegasteddy

53
63
very clean and sweet examples

Justacommeman

55
65

MJ

BillJones

<< <i>Bill, can you explain or link us to the "six ways to Sunday" for identifying fake $3? >>



You go over the entire coin with a 10X to look for any lumps of medal that are out of the ordinary (e.g. die breaks). There is a defference between real die breaks and marks that might be on the copy dies that a counterfeiter uses. Because of the low mintages for most $3 gold coins, die breaks are unusual. You also look at the letters and devices to make sure that they are crisp and sharp. The so-called "fatty letters" that are not sharp like mint made products are a sign of trouble. Finally you look at the position of every device on the coin. Since the dies for these coins were hubbed in the 19th century way, the position of the letters in "United States of American" and "Liberty" on the obverse should be in exactly the same spots with the same spacing. For example if you look at "Liberty" the letters are not evenly spaced. The "LIBER" are more widely spaced than "RTY." The space between "IB" and "ER" are the widest. The "S" in "STATES" seems low. Since these features are standarzied on the coin, any differences are a red flag. In other words you need to learn about the appearance of a real coin from the U.S. mint.

I don't agree that the flat spots in the hair on this 1854 $3 are due to strike. The flat spot is too extensive, and it looks to me that the mint frost has been broken as well. Here is a PCGS graded MS-63, 1854 Three Dollar gold piece you can use as a comparitive piece. With my 10X this piece does show all of the hair detail, although it does not show in my photo.

steveben

i'm going with au58 on the 3 and ms64 on the 2.5. nice looking coins! but, i am only 98.5% sure that 3 is real. there's always that nagging doubt in the back of my mind on 3 dollar pieces. i can't find any reason judging by the photos that it wouldn't be legit...but i'd like to see those initials on the neck a little better. it's curious too that yours doesn't seem to exhibit some of the doubling that usually is present on this year usually on the nose and/or neckline. also, the strike appears to be very nice but there's a little bit missing near the leaves on the wreath between 7 and 8. if there weren't so many counterfeits, i wouldn't be even saying these things. like i said, though, i think it's totally legit from what i can tell. it could be that this one just got hammered very nicely, which is good!

BigMoose

Excellent dissertation, Bill. I think the 1854 will get market graded as a 58, as the fields look very choice. I think the 1905 is a 66.

stealer

Thanks Bill!! Easily one of the most helpful posters on this forum

njcoincrank

I guess I am the lone ranger here thinking that at least one if not both of them have been painted (that is they are doctored).

njcc

ps but then again I've always said you can't really just a coin by a photo

BillJones

<< <i>I guess I am the lone ranger here thinking that at least one if not both of them have been painted (that is they are doctored).

njcc

ps but then again I've always said you can't really just a coin by a photo >>



If the 1905 quarter eagle has been “painted” the guy who did it needs to patent his process. That coin looks pretty solid to me. The fields on the Three Dollar gold MIGHT be too smooth. We are working with a photo so anything is possible, but from where I stand the coin looks okay … FROM THE PHOTO.

HoledandCreative

I am in the 58, 64 crowd.

Kove

<< <i>I guess I am the lone ranger here thinking that at least one if not both of them have been painted (that is they are doctored).

njcc

ps but then again I've always said you can't really just a coin by a photo >>



This was my first reaction, as well.

There's a milky, almost waxy opaqueness to some areas of the coins, which I interpret to be a skillfully applied substance "turning." However, it could be totally innocuous and be a result of the method of photography. No one could be sure from these photos. There's A LOT of messed-with gold out there, and I would get a second in-hand opinion from an expert.

My own experience has been that every time I have seen this opaqueness in photos it has turned out to be doctored gold when I received the coin. I hope I am wrong in this case, but the OP said all opinions are welcome.

MikeInFL

<< <i>

<< <i>I guess I am the lone ranger here thinking that at least one if not both of them have been painted (that is they are doctored).

njcc

ps but then again I've always said you can't really just a coin by a photo >>



This was my first reaction, as well.

There's a milky, almost waxy opaqueness to some areas of the coins, which I interpret to be a skillfully applied substance "turning." However, it could be totally innocuous and be a result of the method of photography. No one could be sure from these photos. There's A LOT of messed-with gold out there, and I would get a second in-hand opinion from an expert.

My own experience has been that every time I have seen this opaqueness in photos it has turned out to be doctored gold when I received the coin. I hope I am wrong in this case, but the OP said all opinions are welcome. >>



That was my first reaction as well. However, after looking at the photos, it appears to be the way the photos are taken.

58, 65 are my guesses.

darktone

I too question if both have been worked on and am not convinced the three dollar is real.