$3 pieces

Yorkshireman

I am intrigued by $3 gold pieces, but hear they are not that popular among collectors or, at least, out of favor.
Who among you collect them?
Please give me your thoughts on the series.

EagleEye

Whats not to like? The obverse was used to make the Indian Cent, with a wardrobe change. The reverse was used for the Flying Eagle cent.

I think most collectors try and get only one example though. It is a very tough set to attempt by date.

291fifth

Always buy them slabbed. There are a lot of high quality counterfeits.

pmac

When I first got back into the hobby, I won a nice one cheaply, but someone tried to personalize it with a sharp object. Because of its uniqueness, I'm keeping it until I tire of it.

Yorkshireman

<< <i>Whats not to like? The obverse was used to make the Indian Cent, with a wardrobe change. The reverse was used for the Flying Eagle cent.

I think most collectors try and get only one example though. It is a very tough set to attempt by date. >>



Rick,
Thanks for the cool history lesson. I did not know that but it makes perfect sense.
I am looking at a better date one that would be super for my collection, but I am having trouble pulling the trigger because it is more money than I have ever spent on a single coin before.

goldbug

I'm currently putting a set in AU together (20 plus years). This is my absolute favorite coin series. Get the Doug Winter/ QDB book. Best reference out there. You will have no problems finding examples of each date if you're not very fussy, but if you desire original, mark free, with a nice strike like myself then it's another ballgame entirely. Most collectors just don't realize how difficult it is to find the top survivors in any grade level. Good luck

Bill

LindeDad

Center piece of the 12 piece gold type set.


My PCGS AU58.

Yorkshireman

Nice looking coin!

steveben

i like them. they are a good size, and the design is struck much better than the similar looking type 3 $1 design. but, i only have one. thanks cro!

Overdate

Decades ago I bought an 1870 in VF (slabbed).

I like to think of it as an 1870-S with missing mint mark.

CaptHenway

Hey Rick....run pictures of the models!
TD

Bullsitter

I like them, must have if you're a type collector. Here's an old San Francisco piece I bought a few years back, if coins could talk.

.

FullStrike

I love the $3 Gold. However I settled for an 1849 & 1889 $1 Gold - same obverse but cheaper - and smaller.

mrdq

Mine

GeorgeKellogg

I rather like "odd ball" denominations such as the $3 gold piece. I would like to own an 1854-D $3 for my Dahlonega set, but so far I haven't found one that was the right fit.

I only own one $3 piece at present, this 1871 piece that was once owned by Virgil Brand -- a resident of Chicago. With a mintage of 1,300 -- struck the year of the Great Chicago Fire -- and owned by an iconic collector of the 20th Century, I was drawn to this $3 type coin. The images are courtesy of PCGS CoinFacts.

leothelyon

Recently thought about starting a thread on this series as we picked up a 1854 PCGS AU53 piece from the CSNS show. We saw the coin valued at $1850 in a Coin World magazine we picked up free at the show. We paid only $1250. Another dealer had a AU58 priced at $1475. The mag had a MS60 at $2400. Haven't quite put my finger on it why there's such a discrepancy between the magazine and dealer's sell prices.

lordmarcovan

I recently sold my one and only "threeagle".

Easily the worst one in this thread, but despite its scary appearance, it was a nice piece on my hat for a while.

And it only cost me 160 bucks, a few years back. You can't say that about the purdier ones here.

ranshdow

I own two, both SF pieces. I really like the design and the size, but they seem expensive given the pops and the wear/strike is hard to read- the coins look far more worn than the grades would imply.

Here's one of mine. I'm surprised it's considered an XF45, frankly. PS- the date logotype on every 1857-S $3 I've seen is this shallow. I don't know how many die pairs there were.

BillJones

What's not to like is the prices. Three Dollar Gold Pieces have been expensive for a long time. Back in "the good old days" counterfeits were another BIG concern. I used to know a dealer, who has since passed on, who thought they were "ugly."

At any rate here's my three coin collection, which will probably never get larger.

1854 "Small '3 DOLLARS' type"



1854-D - The only Dahlonega mint Three Dollar Gold, which makes it a cool coin.



And an 1887, which actually a better date, although few people notice. This is my "Large '3 DOLLARS' type"

JJSingleton

<< <i>

1854-D - The only Dahlonega mint Three Dollar Gold, which makes it a cool coin.

>>

Bill, that is a great coin, and a pricey one at that. All Dahlonega Threes were minted on a single day in late July 1854. Total mintage for the day was 1120. Arguably the Dahlonega Three is the King of Southern Gold.

lordmarcovan

That 1887 is dreamy.

kaz

Has anyone ever explained (based on solid documentation) why the 3$ denomination came about? I've heard that it was so someone could buy a sheet of 3 cent stamps without change but that seems like an after the fact explanation. It's just strange, as the quarter eagles were in widespread use.

I bought this sort of grungy one years back as a type coin:

Analyst

Yorkshireman: <<I am intrigued by $3 gold pieces, but hear they are not that popular among collectors or, at least, out of favor.>>

The % of gold coin collectors who favor Threes may be greater in the future. These could be good values now.

Yorkshireman: <<Please give me your thoughts on the series.>>

I wrote six articles on truly rare gold coins that cost less than $5000 each. There are a substantial number of rare Threes that are available for less than $5000 each. For a gold coin collector who is focused on rarity and does not have a vast fortune to spend, a set of Threes may be an excellent choice.

Rare Gold Coins under $5000 each, Part 6: Three Dollar Gold Coins

luckybucks

<< <i>I recently sold my one and only "threeagle".

Easily the worst one in this thread, but despite its scary appearance, it was a nice piece on my hat for a while.

And it only cost me 160 bucks, a few years back. You can't say that about the purdier ones here.

>>



Whoever put a hole in that coin should be taken out back and flogged.

mercurydimeguy

My humble 1869 (low mintage, PL fields)...

DoubleEagle59

I'm in the process of acquiring one.

It's an 1854 and in one of those 'self-slabber' NNC, graded as an ms62.

I haven't seen it yet and will only guess that it's about an au50 and hopefully problem free.

I'll be very diligent in my examination of it and will only buy it if the price is cheap as a problem free accurately graded one.

Lakesammman

I buy them if in the correct holder.

BryceM

There's some pretty nice coins in this thread. Here's my single example which sort of found me. I see it as an AU63.

Barndog

what's wrong, Lakesammman, couldn't get one in a Regency?

Overdate

I think it would be a good idea for the Mint to discontinue $5 gold commems and begin striking $3 ones instead. If the dimensions and metal content of the classic $3 gold were retained, the metal value at today's prices would be reduced from about $300 to $180, making them more affordable for the average collector. The diameter of the coin would shrink only slightly, from 21.6 mm to 20.5 mm, which would still leave plenty of room for attractive designs.

Write your congressman!

lordmarcovan

<< <i>

<< <i>I recently sold my one and only "threeagle".

Easily the worst one in this thread, but despite its scary appearance, it was a nice piece on my hat for a while.

And it only cost me 160 bucks, a few years back. You can't say that about the purdier ones here.

>>



Whoever put a hole in that coin should be taken out back and flogged. >>

Nah- I don't fault the person who holed it 150 years ago. But I'm rather miffed at the person who saw fit to obliterate the counterstamp on the obverse, which could have been quite interesting. All in all, a much-abused coin. I sold it earlier this year, but it enjoyed front and center status on my hat for some time.

EagleEye

I wonder whats the story. Anyone care to post their "story".

I think it was given to a Confederate soldiers sweetheart to keep during the war. She put the hole in it and wore it though most of the war. It had his name and CSA on the coin. It was stolen by a Union soldier in Sherman's army in Atlanta on October 16, 1864. (150 years ago today). Not wanting a CSA soldier's name inscribed on the coin, it was chiseled off.

mrcommem

I thought I would post my $3 gold. I bought this coin from Bob Harwell back in 2000. One of the few full strike 54-D's

TPRC

And here is my single $3 gold, a proof.

coindudeonebay

<< <i>Has anyone ever explained (based on solid documentation) why the 3$ denomination came about? I've heard that it was so someone could buy a sheet of 3 cent stamps without change but that seems like an after the fact explanation. It's just strange, as the quarter eagles were in widespread use. >>

Kaz: from the man himself, RWB.

<< <i>Yes. Look in the Autumn 2013 (issue #4) of the Journal of Numismatic Research for the article "Purpose of the $3 Gold Coin" page 26. (Sorry, nothing to do with stamps.) You can borrow a copy from the ANA Library or buy from Wizard Coin Supply - both printed and electronic versions are available. >>

Yorkshireman

<< <i>And here is my single $3 gold, a proof.

>>



Thanks, TPRC, for keeping my thread alive with such a beautiful coin!
I love the look of proof gold,

EastonCollection

I love the $3 princess coins! Personally, I would only buy them in graded that are CACd. They are very attractive coins with a great amount of sex appeal to them. Proof $3 are especially attractive as well. One day I would love to put a set together of princesses but work on too many things now a days!

kaz

<< <i>

<< <i>Has anyone ever explained (based on solid documentation) why the 3$ denomination came about? I've heard that it was so someone could buy a sheet of 3 cent stamps without change but that seems like an after the fact explanation. It's just strange, as the quarter eagles were in widespread use. >>

Kaz: from the man himself, RWB.

<< <i>Yes. Look in the Autumn 2013 (issue #4) of the Journal of Numismatic Research for the article "Purpose of the $3 Gold Coin" page 26. (Sorry, nothing to do with stamps.) You can borrow a copy from the ANA Library or buy from Wizard Coin Supply - both printed and electronic versions are available. >>

>>



Thanks!

kaz

OK, so I bought the e version of the issue of the Journal of Numismatic Research containing an article on the origins of the $3 gold piece.
Based on theories of commerce at the time, it was felt that adding a $3 denomination to the existing gold coinage would greatly increase the number of transactions that could be completed with a minimum of change. This would probably have worked if the QE was eliminated and a $2 coin issued in its place, but people were used to denominations of gold that were divisible into 5 or 10 or 100 and the $3 gold piece remained an odd duck that never caught on.
Another reason for issuing a $3 coin was that a myriad of small state banks were issuing notes in 1,2,and 3 dollar denominations, sometimes with questionable backing. It was thought that a 3 dollar coin, in specie, would drive out the dubious paper bills.
Interestingly, there is no record of stamp purchases as a rationale for the creation of this coin. The Post Office was looking for large purchases of stamps by businesses and for amounts over $50 they offered a 10% discount. No place for a $3 coin there.
It seems that a couple of congressmen and some transaction theorists at the Smithsonian were the drivers behind the bill to introduce the $3 gold piece. The financial sector wasn't consulted and there was no debate to speak of when the bill passed.
Jewelers, however, were quite happy in the long run to mount these pieces as jewelry for the ladies, which is where large numbers of them wound up.

Thanks to Roger Burdette for permission to summarize/paraphrase his article, any mistakes or misinterpretations of his writing are mine!

DDR

Thanks for the update, Kaz.

I bought one several years back and agree that it is a really cool coin. I think that a complete set is out of the question for me for the time being, however.