Which 1795 $5 Draped Bust Gold do you prefer?
TopographicOceans
Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭✭
I was looking at the CoinFacts (because it's now free 
) and was looking at the 1795 Draped Bust Gold Small Eagles.
) and was looking at the 1795 Draped Bust Gold Small Eagles.These are great coins and I'd like to own one, especially one of these quality.
There are 3 photos, MS63+, MS64+ and MS65
Without taking the technical grade into consideration, and only on eye appeal alone, which one do you prefer?
I'm partial to toned gold, so I like the MS63+.
MS63+
MS64+
MS65
0
Comments
–John Adams, 1826
I'm partial to toned gold, so I like the MS63+.
Me too.
I like them in the order 1, 3, 2.
I prefer the richly detailed die pair of the first coin, the MS63+; the other two coins are from a different die pair that I find less appealing,
partly because of the crowding of the right 5 stars but also the centering dot on the eagle's breast.
For surface quality/color, I'd have to see them in hand, but probably prefer the look of the 3rd coin, the MS65, although, again,
it's like choosing among Sports Illustrated or Victoria's Secret models, can't go wrong
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
The 63 does look nice, but the dark spot near the stars past liberty is distracting.
The 64+ looks nice, and is probably the best of the three coins, despite the coloration. Maybe dipped? Hard to tell from a photograph, but the color doesn't look completely natural either.
Bottom line is that all three are amazing coins, but all three seem to have some drawbacks too.
Having examined the #3 coin (D. Brent Pogue Collection specimen) in hand, I found it to be truly superb. Very attractively toned and very well struck -- the seeming "weakness" of strike noted in the image is due to the reflectivity of the prooflike surfaces, which masks some of the definition.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
#1 one has great breast feathers on the eagle, which is unusual, and the strike is really strong overall. I'd like to see the toning on #3 on #1, and then you would have a "perfect coin."
I agree with Bill.
That said, If I got to take one coin home, it would be #3.
The 64+ looks nice, and is probably the best of the three coins, despite the coloration. Maybe dipped? Hard to tell from a photograph, but the color doesn't look completely natural either.
i disagree. the luster looks undisturbed on this example. if it were a silver coin, i'd tend to agree with you.
The 64+ looks nice, and is probably the best of the three coins, despite the coloration. Maybe dipped? Hard to tell from a photograph, but the color doesn't look completely natural either.
i disagree. the luster looks undisturbed on this example. if it were a silver coin, i'd tend to agree with you.
Silver does develop toning, whereas pure gold does not. That being said the early gold coins contained 8.3% copper which DOES tone -- just as seen in the #1 and #3 coins above. So, I highly suspect that #2 coin to have been lightly dipped at one time.
As far as the luster is concerned, luster can survive a single dipping. Even lightly dipped silver coins can appear (in a photo) to have undisturbed luster.
Latin American Collection