1957 Canada dollar 1 Waterline

Pokermandude

Found this among a large group of dollars, the picture in the Charlton guide I have doesn't show any remnants of the other lines for their exemplar. But the few pictures I've found online (none certified with the variety attributed to it) look just like mine. This is the 1 WL variety, is it not?

Also, does PCGS attribute this variety without extra charge/paperwork/etc? I'm putting together my very first submission so I am a total noob at this part of the process.

coinkat

Based on the image, I would not think this is a one water line example. There seems to be enough of the other lines remaining to the point that it would not get the designation.

Pokermandude

That's what I thought initially, but I did come across this one in a PCGS holder with attribution that appears to have the same remnants:

Heritage

Jinx86

With that auctioned price I'd sent it in if it had the possibillity of coming back with the designation.

olmanjon

In the 2011 edition of The book of Canadian coins and varieties by Charest-there is a picture of all of the water lines. Yours is the one water line. The picture clearly shows little parts of the other water lines.
Olmanjon

coinkat

MS65 Canadian Dollars that are graded are tough- even the 1957 regular lines in 65 will fetch decent money

syl

The 2013, just to come out, Charlton Canadian coin guide will have all the nickel dollar varieties in the back, but this is the year for silver dollars, so I think they will all be there. Get one when they hit the street.

Dabigkahuna

PCGS has a coin number for the "1 WL" and I don't remember there being any extra fee for the variety.

Of the few I've seen, I think your looks to be a 1 WL.

I sold my set a few years back. Always threatening start again.

Pokermandude

<< <i>The 2013, just to come out, Charlton Canadian coin guide will have all the nickel dollar varieties in the back, but this is the year for silver dollars, so I think they will all be there. Get one when they hit the street. >>



Will do, thanks for the heads up. The dollar varieties are definitely the section I'd be most interested in.



<< <i>MS65 Canadian Dollars that are graded are tough- even the 1957 regular lines in 65 will fetch decent money >>



Indeed, MS65 Canadian dollars are tough to come by. I think mine is a solid 64, the marks in the pics arent as bad in hand, and the lustre is excellent. Still worth a good amount (trends at $600) with this variety. Strangely, in MS63 and below there is almost no premium on this variety.

Kinda poor pics, as I changed my setup recently to be more photogenic for toned and copper coins.

mrpotatoheadd

Having never sent any in for grading, I don't know about Canadian dollars but if a Mexican 8 reales minted in the middle of the 1800's looked like that, it would be lucky to get a MS62 grade.

Just sayin'...

Pokermandude

My 2nd picture is extremely unflattering for sure. I'll retake pics at some point. It's minimum MS63, and I think it'd go MS64. Problem is, a 63 isn't worth slabbing.

Pokermandude

Better pics:

coinkat

I have submitted Canadian Dollars to PCGS including 2 1957 single water line of which one graded a 64 and the other 62. The Elizabeth II Dollars prior to 1967 are held to a very high standard. Based on the images, your example is nice but is likely 63 at the high end and 62 is possible.

Best wishes with the submission and post 1956 World coins are lower and secure plus is not required

1960NYGiants

Judging from the photos, your coin looks MS63.

Syl - Bill in Burl stated that the 2013 Charlton will have the dollar varieties. True - the nickel dollars of 1968 thru 1987.

The 66th edition, 2012, has the silver dollar varieties. Page 320 list 3 different rev die varieties. Rev 001 is the FWL - full water lines. Rev 002 is the SWL - single water line and the photo matches your coin. Rev 003 is also a SWL - but it has a die scratch extending downward from near the bow of the canoe. Check the vertical line on your coin. Is it raised?

Pokermandude

Thanks for the responses. The more critically I look at it under magnification, I think you guys are right on the grade. 63/63+, probably too many light marks to get it into 64 plastic.

I've been staring at the apparent die gouge from every angle I can, and I think that it is raised. I'd describe it's shape as a carrot. It's triangular, with two very small lines at the top of it. Doesn't appear to me to be a contact mark.

Here's the best pics I can get of it. The light is from various angles, but I haven't rotated them at all.

syl

Although I don't collect bright and shiny's, and certainly not silver dollars, I think that I am pretty good at technical grading by the book. I do know that, from what I have seen at shows and along the bourse, TPG's are getting much more liberal in their grading. Call it grading creep or a tendency to want to please their prime customers, whichever, but a 63 or 64 is not what it once was. In my eyes, the coin in question would not get much higher than a 60 or 61 ... there are just too many marks, no matter how shallow they appear to be. An uncirculated coin is just that .. uncirculated and the coin that I think is being referred to certainly did circulate.

I collect coins, not only for enjoyment, but for the history surrounding them. For me, a coin had to have been slapped across the bar to pay for a drink, or jingled in a pocket along with other change, or tumbled along with similar coins in a wooden cash register drawer in the town's only General Store. I know that my coins were held in someone's hands in the year struck on the reverse and then went on an indescribable journey to end up in my albums. I have no problem grading my XF+'s or AU's that make up my collections, but I think that those numbers that start with a "6" have been somewhat inflated in the past few years.

Pokermandude

Grading has definitely changed (loosened) over time, even over the relatively few years I've been serious about collecting.

YQQ

Coinkat,
are you saying this coin would grade a 63?
well, last time I checked, MS stands for MINT STATE, meaning like out from the mint....
perhaps you would like to have another closer look and ask yourself wher all the circulation marks are coming from??????
these are NOT bag marks...
ICCS would not grade that coin better than AU55!!!!!! and neither would I.
but, I gues that does not matter....., as I always buy the coin... NOT the packaging...

1960NYGiants

Pokermandude - wrong area. The die mark is not on the canoe but near the canoe on the main water line (near the bottom 2 denticles in the 1st photo posted). Sorry for not being specific in my previous post.


YQQ - Coinkat graded it 62-63. I graded it 63 because I have seen examples with that baggy look in 63 holders. They also had booming lustre or very clean reverses. I do not see rub on the high points of this coin (QE II shoulder or the shoulders of the travellers).

Is it worth sending in? IMHO, no, because it is a relatively common coin with little premium over the standard coin ($45 vs. $35). If it had a shot at 64 or higher then yes.

Pokermandude

This piece is definitely not AU. Lustre is off the charts, the reverse is quite clean. It has a number of contact marks for sure but I've seen some pretty chewed up dollars in 63 or better top tier plastic.

Thanks NYG, here's some pics of what I think you're referring to. I think part of it is raised, the longer line appears to just be a mark though? I can't really tell. I'm not used to squinting through a loupe for varieties.

coinkat

We are grading an image of the coin

I see an MS example here- best possible day is 63 and 62 is possible as I wrote in my post. My opinion would remain unchanged until I see the coin in hand.

I think we have a difference of opinion as to the marks- I see these as bag marks and/or the way these dollars were handled by the Mint and Banks etc. These marks do not look to be from circulation in the traditional sense of what is implied by the term.

LochNESS

Somebody commented that SWL meant "single water line" but I was under the impression it meant "standard water lines" as in, more than one and not an Arnprior variety ... and yes I consulted a book on Canadian coins once I received my PCGS SWL dollar back from submission ... and since there is a debate over the grade of our OP's dollar, here is mine for comparison (click to see the cert and photo)

I'll dig it out and snap a closer-up image ASAP.

YQQ

lochNess,
looking at your coin here, to me it does NOT look like a SWL.
However it sure looks like a ARNprior type.
a SWL is just that, one single line... nothing else! and yours is not that.

LochNESS

Hilarious! When it first came back to me, I thought they'd made a mistake by undervaluing the coin as "standard" water lines (when it should've been "arnprior") but now it turns out they overvalued the coin as a "single" water line! LOL

edited to add: I think the reason I was confused about SWL is because for 1950, there doesn't seem to be an SWL variety, only Arnprior and regular (standard) 3 water lines. Well, and the extremely rare 4 water lines matte proof but basically just two varieties. I only see 1957 as having an SWL variety. Guess PCGS just goofed.