My new 1877-S Trade Dollar

WingedLiberty1957

Thank you Phil Arnold at PCGS TrueView for the great photography work.

The grade just came back today at XF40.



One more slot checked off from my Type Set Collection ...
"Color of Money" Complete Coin Design Set

Unknown

This content has been removed.

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>Nice coin. Out of curiosity, why do you think it paid off? At $350 plus grading/trueview/shipping, you're into it for what? $390 or so? XF40's only go for about $250-$300? Granted this has a bit more eye appeal than your typical XF40. >>



I am a color/eye appeal collector -- and this is a very eye appealing coin right up my alley.

kaz

Looks nice. Getting a raw trade dollar off eBay, even a common date, into pcgs plastic is a challenge and a roll of the dice. Glad that worked out.

sparky64

<< <i>I am a color/eye appeal collector -- and this is a very eye appealing coin right up my alley. >>


I agree with the eye appeal.
Congratulations.

GRANDAM

I like it

GrandAm

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Wabbit2313

You are correct when you say the gamble paid off. You got paid what most gamblers do, a loss!

I personally think you must be in that at $425-$450, which buys you an AU-55 all day long. If your happy, that's all that matters right!

WingedLiberty1957

Well I love it! And I am the only one that matters!!

In any case, I don't collect coins to make money -- I collect out of a love of the hobby.

lkeigwin

I like it! Reminds me of my 45 I bought on BST for $250.
Lance.

3keepSECRETif2rDEAD

<< <i>Well I love it! And I am the only one that matters!!

In any case, I don't collect coins to make money -- I collect out of a love of the hobby. >>



AMEN

Erik

WingedLiberty1957

lkeigwin, I love the look of yours !!! Beautiful.

I went on CoinFacts and captured all the 1877-S Trade Dollars graded from XF45 to AU55 ... and I like my lower graded XF40 more.
But to each their own.

123cents

Looks really great! Nice toning!

Wabbit2313

Those are the ugliest bunch of trade dollars I have ever seen in my life. Yours certainly has a nicer look.

I take it back, I would rather lose 200 bucks than have a nasty trade dollar from the ones you posted!

lkeigwin

<< <i>Those are the ugliest bunch of trade dollars I have ever seen in my life. Yours certainly has a nicer look.

I take it back, I would rather lose 200 bucks than have a nasty trade dollar from the ones you posted! >>

Wabbit2313

<< <i>

<< <i>Those are the ugliest bunch of trade dollars I have ever seen in my life. Yours certainly has a nicer look.

I take it back, I would rather lose 200 bucks than have a nasty trade dollar from the ones you posted! >>

>>



That didn't come out right! I am complimenting his beautiful coin!

robec

I love your new Trade Dollar.

Besides the great eye appeal, when comparing it against the higher graded examples posted from CoinFacts, yours might be undergraded by a few points.

AnkurJ

Very nice but are those hairlines on the obverse left field as prominent in hand?

OldIndianNutKase

<<Well I love it! And I am the only one that matters!!

In any case, I don't collect coins to make money -- I collect out of a love of the hobby.
>>

WL, VERY nice coin. I may see slight signs of wear, but with the toning it may not be. Great toning is not a significant grading factor with PCGS or NGC, but it does happen to be a very significant factor affecting the price. TPG grading standards are intended to reflect market acceptability for the assigned grade and one can rely on the assigned grade as a faithful reflection of the assigned value. This does not happen with nicely toned coins. Toning should be valued in a manner that reflects the market value of the coin. At this moment greatly toned examples command a very significant premium (i.e.50-100%) over CoinFacts valuation. I even see superb toners with asking prices 300% of CoinFacts suggested price.

PCGS CoinFacts is very much in the dark on evaluation of toning as part of grade criteria. Just because PCGS is not in tune with the market does not mean that you are not. You made a great purchase.

OINK

DDR

WingedLiberty,

That is a beautiful coin, which I would be proud to own.

Goldbully

Beautiful coin, WL....any idea why it only graded a 40? Looks 45 to 50 to me.

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>Very nice but are those hairlines on the obverse left field as prominent in hand? >>

Some light hairlines visible left of Miss Liberty at some viewing angles but not harsh enough to prevent grading. What I liked about this one is the color.

This was the sellers blurb ...
"This 1877-S US Trade Dollar grades AU+ (in my opinion) with bold details and only light even wear. This coin has no heavy or problem marks or hits ... just some tiny nicks, ticks, chatter, and a few hairline marks. It is an album toned coin with some nice sky blue tones in the fields. It is a coin with nice eye appeal!"

After seeing the coin in hand, I was thinking this would grade around AU50 to maybe AU53 -- but it's always a roll of the dice getting any raw coin graded by PCGS. So I was very pleased when it got a problem free grade even if it was only at the XF40 level and not at the AU50/53 level.

This image below was a shot captured by the seller ... numismatist R.P.Holder.



There is little difference in PCGS Price Guide between XF40 ($300) and AU55 ($400); so to me, the grade didn't matter that much. I think most of the value is in the color and the overall look.

I bought this for $350 (+ free shipping). Then paid PCGS $58 ($20 for Secure Plus Economy Grading so it could be sniffed for chemicals, $8 PCGS handling fee, $19.95 for postage, and $10 for the TrueView photo). So I am in about $410 on this. Yes, I realize that's $110 over the PCGS Guide Price, but I didn't care! The only Trade Dollars that I've seen for sale that I liked more were into the $1000 to $5000 range. Most Trade Dollars that I've seen for sale are pretty ugly (for some reason). And I've been looking for a nice-looking cheaper example for my colorfully-toned Type Set for nearly 3 years.

This Trade Dollar (shown below) I thought was stunning. But $15,000 was way out of my budget ...



So this much cheaper one that I found on eBay (shown below) got me 80% of the way there (in terms of overall look) but was 37x cheaper vs. the $15,000 beauty posted above.
Sometimes in a budget constrained world, we need to make trade-offs like this!

TennesseeDave

I like it a lot. It looks a lot better than most XF-40's & from what I have seen Trade $'s with color are not very common. No matter what gets posted here, someone will come along and make negative comments about it.I would not pay any attention to that. You like it and thats what matters. Enjoy it!!!!

crypto79

All trade dollars are cool and that is a cool one fore sure. The reason for the 40 grade is based on the complete lack of original mint surfaces not any specific wear or lack of there. There is also probably a little net in there because the attractive parts look like retoning over an old light cleaning. Any shimmer you see is most likely a result of the toning and skin and not frost/flow lines.

For a grade range that often comes ugly as the coin facts pointed out, that one has a very pleasing look, well done.

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>All trade dollars are cool and that is a cool one fore sure. The reason for the 40 grade is based on the complete lack of original mint surfaces not any specific wear or lack of there. There is also probably a little net in there because the attractive parts look like retoning over an old light cleaning. Any shimmer you see is most likely a result of the toning and skin and not frost/flow lines. For a grade range that often comes ugly as the coin facts pointed out, that one has a very pleasing look, well done. >>



I have heard the "net grading" hypothesis before. Is this a theory or fact? Does PCGS really net grade coins? I have seen net graded currency before but usually "net grade" along with the specific problem is written on the label.

This PCGS AU55 has a lot more hairlines (IMHO) than mine and looks completely blasted out (over dipped) -- and not very appealing. Talk about lack of original mint surfaces ... LOL.


And I am at a loss for words on this AU50, but maybe I don't really fully understand grading, or how to grade Trades when chopmarked, I will fully admit that. I am just a novice collector.


One of these days, I have to sign up for the PCGS Grading course, and learn how the professionals do it.

crypto79

Don't think of it as net grading but more of a total coin concept. Some attributes are weighted differently depending on how the total package adds up. Your coin has the detail of an AU, surfaces of a retoned XF but is attractive and makes the cut for a grade but at the lower level. The examples you posted are one offs and not the standards and one should try not to comparison grade. If anything use photograde instead of coinfacts. Even that said, I bet that au55 is flashy and naturally lustrous in hand and the hairlines are only apparent at certain angles not to mention unnaturally white which a section of the market still prefers (not a great coin never the less).

Chop mark grading is even more of an art/swag and in the decade or so they have done it the standards have changed but typically they grade on the undamaged parts and the surface quality but I will be the first to admit the amount of variance (to the standards) in holders is greater than the general population. That coin you posted looks like they used lib's head and the skin around the stars.

ricko

WingedLiberty.... I totally agree with your statement

<< <i>Well I love it! And I am the only one that matters!!

In any case, I don't collect coins to make money -- I collect out of a love of the hobby.
>>



That is what coin collecting is all about. Yes, it is also a business.... but not for some of us. Cheers, RickO

WingedLiberty1957

Crypto, It's interesting to read this and I admit I am still learning.

One of these days, I will take a coin grading class.

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i> That is what coin collecting is all about. Yes, it is also a business.... but not for some of us. Cheers, RickO >>



Yep, it's more like Vegas, where you decide in advance how much you can afford to lose to feed your passion.

I've made more money on bullion than rare coins over the years.
In some ways, I think of my bullion profits as funding my rare coin hobby losses.

If you collect what you love, and you enjoy it, you can't go wrong (as long as you dont spend more than you can afford to lose!)

crypto79

<< <i>Crypto, It's interesting to read this and I admit I am still learning.

One of these days, I will take a coin grading class. >>





One of the ways I like to guess PCGS's standard is by estimating to % of original mint surface skin (note original as made not original as in color or unmolested)
AU-58=95%+
AU-55=70-95% (beginning of field rub)
AU-53=50-70% (beginning of high point loss)
AU-50= often a net grade (luster of xf but no wear/ or an ugly higher AU)
Xf45 =15-49% luster with rub
Xf40= only traces of mint surface left
Vf35 and below is mostly off detail remaining.

These are ball parks and Note "net" grading can shift a coin up or down if there is another attribute that is disproportionally good or bad. Such as a coin with strong attractive luster making au55 even if it has high point loss or an au58 getting AU55 for being darkly toned or having hairlines or too many contact marks.

Also this isn't NGC standard, IMO they focus more on classic technical grading and put less weight on luster and frost. Also CAC's standard is more in line with PCGS than NGC.

EVillageProwler

WL1957,

To add onto what Crypto said... Grading is done by humans, with variation. Whether you think PCGS is #1 or other, remember that they (all services) make mistakes. Not saying that your coin or the AU55 got a mistake grade, but it is possible. It's important to look at a large sampling of coins, and their pricing, to learn what is solid for the grade.

For example, if an EF typically sells for 300, and you see a spread of sales for EF in a short time period sell for between 175 and 425, then you can get a feel for what might be low, typical, and high of the EF for that series.

High might be attributed to a rare die attribute, or PL-ish, or fantastic color, etc. Low might have other issues, like a scratch, mottled or dark toning, rim bump, etc. Signs of secondary toning is also a negative, even in my world of raw Anglo-Saxon hammered pennies (obviously, because original or "original" patina is prized over non-original).

EVP

WingedLiberty1957

<< <i>One of the ways I like to guess PCGS's standard is by estimating to % of original mint surface skin (note original as made not original as in color or unmolested)
AU-58=95%+
AU-55=70-95% (beginning of field rub)
AU-53=50-70% (beginning of high point loss)
AU-50= often a net grade (luster of xf but no wear/ or an ugly higher AU)
Xf45 =15-49% luster with rub
Xf40= only traces of mint surface left
Vf35 and below is mostly off detail remaining.

These are ball parks and Note "net" grading can shift a coin up or down if there is another attribute that is disproportionally good or bad. Such as a coin with strong attractive luster making au55 even if it has high point loss or an au58 getting AU55 for being darkly toned or having hairlines or too many contact marks.

Also this isn't NGC standard, IMO they focus more on classic technical grading and put less weight on luster and frost. Also CAC's standard is more in line with PCGS than NGC. >>



Well this is an interesting take using the "original mint surface skin" as a guide.
Is this noted as "friction" in the official guidelines below?

crypto79

Friction is what takes the mint "skin" off although toning and processing can do it too. A Common misconception is that rub first shows up on the high points but most AU coins I have ever seen had field friction in the open areas first. The mint frost and flow lines and or PL luster is the first stuff to go before actual design details.

Wabbit2313

<< <i> No matter what gets posted here, someone will come along and make negative comments about it.I would not pay any attention to that. >>




Keep in mind he changed not only the title but his original post, making some of these comments now out of context with his original thoughts.