Hey TDN ! Got your radar on ?
coindeuce
Posts: 13,473 ✭✭✭✭✭
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
2
coindeuce
Posts: 13,473 ✭✭✭✭✭
coindeuce
Posts: 13,473 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Laura told me. Love that coin...but don't need it
"don't need it" LOL.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
News release?
i love that design
Picked it from a FB post by Ben O. I think he's on S-B's staff.
Not a bad reason to attend the Denver ANA.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
Sure might make a nice duplicate to trade for something you will need at a later date.
oh wow . how many million is that?
$2M+/-
Has that ever been an obstacle?
Still have an 1804 to digest. Burp
I bought a sirloin for dinner tonight on my hamburger budget.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
Sweet sweet coin
You rich folks... and your beef. Lower class citizen such as myself makes two meals out of .49 cents per lb of chicken thigh. (chicken salad plus bones for chicken soup.)
Now we can somewhat assess my assertion that the Norweb coin is a full grade higher than the exCardinal coin
4/19- edited to correct the comment below.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
The quality of the luster in the fields and on Liberty's cheek is another factor
I was just admiring that luster.
I lingered quite awhile before reading the above.
I remember when I went back to work at Rarcoa for the second round, the check I wrote for the Norweb 1794 and 1893S dollars along with a few other coin was the first Million Dolllar check I had ever written.
Those are beautiful coins...and incredible history ... marvelous preservation. Cheers, RickO
I could use that coin, but I'm about 2M short at the moment...
My YouTube Channel
A local dealer I've know for 40 years would call that a Very Nice 58
I'd call it an outstanding beauty that's amazing to have survived in such condition. Has luster that's hard to believe was ever available on such a large coin made in such primitive conditions.
A salute to the young mint
Wow, that must have been quite the day.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
It is not only the luster...it is the lack of luster. I know that the coin is considered uncirculated; however, a purist with no horse in this race would say that there is absolutely no original surface left on the breast of the second coin.
It would be interesting to research auction records from the nineteen and twentieth century if these coins were ever auctioned before AU coins (cabinet friction, LOL) became Uncirculated. I'll bet that the PCGS coin was ALWAYS considered Uncirculated while the second coin was called AU and since that grade did not exist back then - XF!
PS. It looks like there are some really well known members here, who have worked at large firms, are well known market-makers, and collectors who can purchase million + coins. I am learning a lot on CU from you all. I have figured out the ID of several of you BUT I also know that most of the long time members probably know the ID of everyone like ricko, MsMorrisine, etc.
So I have a request...Three members know me through PM's. I don't reveal who they are and they keep quiet about me. I invite any of the "Big Guys and Girls (?)" I post with to tell me who they are in a PM. Does Laura S. post here? Laura I admire your numismatic expertize...suck, suck, bow down really low.
To give a little background:
I purchased the second coin in an ngc64 holder and had it downgraded to pcgs63+ ...which I felt was the proper grade. I asserted that since the Norweb coin was in my mind a 64+ that it was a full grade higher in quality than the ex Cardinal coin. Analyst disagreed and asserted the second coin was of higher quality.
Has Analyst ever had both coins side by side for examination ? I suppose that since Analyst has never owned either coin, he could be subjective, but images like the ones presented here make a fairly strong case for your opinion. Did he qualify his opinion with specific remarks of comparison ? Was your downgrade of the ex:Cardinal actually a crossover, or was it a raw submission to PCGS ?
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
I believe he hedged at the time that he had not recently seen the Norweb coin in hand. He was concerned about the drift marks (carbon spots) on the obverse. In my mind, that's the only reason the coin is not a gem so I already accounted for them in my grade.
Iirc, it was a downgrade crossover
The Norweb coin really looks uncirculated....which is quite a tough thing to say in today's world when it comes to graded 63/64 early bust coinage. Good luster, no apparent rub, great strike. It looks at least a grade better than the 2nd one.
I think you are being kind by saying the Norweb is only 1 point higher. At quick glance, I would go higher myself.
OMG it's unobtainable eye candy. I was expecting a T$ but this was way better. Think I'll make a mouse pad of the obverse.
Checked CAC verification...not currently it seems.
The strike on the second coin limits the grade (as does the little rim bump at 9:00 on the reverse), but look at how half of "United States" is not visible. I don't think the coin is rubbed, I think it's probably all strike.
Hard to tell the relative "lusterfulness" of each coin since the photographs are of fairly different technique.
They are both great coins.
I only ever wrote one million dollar check for Harlan, and that was just for bullion.
The strike on both coins has the typical weakness to the left of the vertical axis, likely because the anvil die was slightly canted low to the left. The dies may not have been perfectly centered in the press either, accounting for the lack of dentils on the left half of both sides of both coins.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
Having seen both coins in hand, and examining both very closely, both coins have luster across the surfaces, but the character of the luster is very different between the two.
The Norweb specimen is an earlier die state than the former Cardinal specimen, with the Cardinal specimen falling after the dies clashed and were re-lapped. The Norweb specimen was struck before that re-lapping occurred. That being said, the luster of the Norweb specimen is more satiny and a bit subdued, while the former Cardinal specimen has beaming cartwheel frosty luster.
I have received comments from astute experts of 18th Century coinages, who have seen both specimens raw, stating that the satiny luster of the Norweb specimen was due to a light cleaning sometime after its 1964 auction, to lessen the carbon spots. (The carbon spots are, indeed, less noticeable now than in the past.) Those same parties consider the Cardinal specimen to be the superior of the two.
Here are a couple photo's I took myself 14 years ago with an old-era digital camera. You can see the difference between these and the photos above; the Cardinal coin has wonderful luster and full breast feathers on the eagle.
I. I agree, they are both great coins.
Cardinal's older photo of the OP shows some luster impairment on the breast that is not present in the slab.
The second coin has some strike weakness; however, coins that at original and weakly struck STILL HAVE original "weak strike luster" on the parts of the coin without details due to strike. That coin has an obvious change of color where there is NO original luster (weak or otherwise) on the breast. It is due to abrasion not strike.
I like the cardinal coin better overall but the breat feathers go to norweb easily.
I don't have an opinion, but I am enjoying the dialogue and would love to see these two side by side one day.
Coin Rarities Online
Feeling when holding the Norweb coin: wow, omg, unbelievable - can I write a check?
Feeling when holding the other: well, it's a 1794 ....
Not sure I believe that. My own experiences over the years with weakly struck choice/gem UNC bust, seated and barber coins is that luster over weakly struck areas is essentially non-existant. If it's there, it sure isn't very visible under 5X-15X magnification. Technically, it probably "should" have "some" there. Seeing it is another story. I spent many, many hours looking at such coins trying to decipher the luster. Always coming to the same conclusion that it really wasn't visible or at all obvious. There were better places on the coin to look for clues as to rubbing....even if that meant carefully inspecting the flat edge of the coin.
And even if there's a color change over the weak spot, that could be due the fact that the depth of luster is very different and will therefore tone differently. I could have it all wrong though. These are just my own experiences over 45 years....not from a grading book.
When do I get to find out who you are?
In my experience, 95% of the time, a change of color on a coin's high points is due to loss of luster due to friction. The rest of the time it is dirt or toning.
It is hard to find any technically original coins from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries let alone find one that is 100% original with a flat strike. I know you know this but for those who do not..Try this to see what I am calling "weak strike luster":
Find a frosty white original "O" mint Morgan dollar with no hair over a practically 100% missing ear.
A PCGS sMS-64 slab is a great place to look. The frost on the flat area will look completely different than the frost on the cheek and fields because that area did not come into contact with the die. The luster is dull and less reflective but the surface is 100% original with no change of color (except for what I'll describe as often a very light "mossy green") or hairlines. Recently I saw a fully original unc Seated Liberty 25c with a totally original surface like that where it was not struck up. You may see this type of flat luster on the outer edge and top of the eagle's left wing as you look at it on an original Seated $. Lots of early gold has this flat strike luster on the missing area of the shield.
I don't wish to annoy any members by being very picky about what I see. One reason I'm posting is that 100% original as made old coins hardly exist. In the first photo, that Norweb piece looked like one but the second image shows it is not. That makes my case.
Look, no one can change the grading system as it has evolved. All I do is take a realistic look at a piece of metal and say this has a totally original fully lustrous as made surface and this piece of metal does not. It is the way I was taught. If the "market" wishes to grade each piece of metal exactly the same - that is fine with me, I'll play along.
Thankfully, when I was learning to grade coins, I was taught (using fluorescent light and two eyes with a stereo microscope at 7X) what truly original coins looked like when they left the press. No cabinet friction was allowed. With that as a basis, we learned what weak strike, friction, mint flaws, hairlines, die polish, all types of luster, and damage looked like on a surface. That gives me the ability to look at a coin in a very conservative and technical way, see everything there is to see on its surface; yet back off as I understand the commercial side of the equation. Realistically, it does not matter what grade is assigned to either of these dollars. The people who want them will determine what they are worth!
I get great enjoyment when a professional numismatist can look at the same coin as I look at and say: "Yes, there is a trace of wear here, and here, there are hairlines from cleaning and the rim has been "touched-up" here. The bag marks are not detracting and a two-hundred-year-old coin can have a scratch crossing the adjustment marks that most will not see but this is the highest graded example of this type and has great eye appeal! Then I'll say I agree. What I do not enjoy is when another equally skilled professional sees everything the first one and I saw; yet tells me I'm nuts. LOL. NOTE: This comparison is not directed at anyone on this thread!
I think you are mixing up the two coins
@tradedollarnut said: "I think you are mixing up the two coins."
Sure did! The OP coin is Uncirculated. BTW, those tiny carbon spots should be professionally removed by "spot conservation." I've seen it done once while inside a conservation service. I don't think that technician works there anymore but one of his co-workers could possibly (?) do it without leaving a trace. Unfortunately, on such a famous coin, all would know something was done.
The Norweb coin was unknown to the collecting world until it's appearance in the Lord St. Oswald sale of 1964. The former Cardinal coin was acquired at some point by Virgil Brand, and it was included in his estate after his passing in 1926. Eric Newman appraised the collection for estate purposes. (I have the archive of those records.) This is the page that lists the 1794 dollar:
And here was the next appearance, in an offering by Stack's in 1950:
In both instances, the coin was described as Uncirculated with full luster.
For further comparisons for this thread, here are the images of the Norweb coin circa 1993, when offered by Bowers and Merena at the PCGS grade of MS63:
That shows what I know (not much) I like the first coin better. The spots bother me on the Norweb coin.
Nice work cardinal, thanks! That is an eye opener. Wonder if the Brand specimen was mishandled (cabinet friction) since Eric saw it.
Cardinal - I have to wonder if those B&M images are accurate- here is the coin pictured raw on the cover of the Norweb catalog and it is anything but toned:
The coin itself was sold in 1988, appearing in the pink Norweb catalog. The other picture above came from Bowers & Merena's Rare Coin Review of 1990, and was deemed faithful enough to offer it at a fixed price.
This is the pic Stack's Bowers just published in the May 15th edition of Coin World:
The first pictures in the thread (with the coin in its holder), have the slab tilted in orientation to the camera lens. (Notice how the slab appears to be wider at the bottom than at the top?) The tilted view changes the angle of reflection to camera lens, and in so doing, changes the image. You will also notice the bright light reflecting off of the slab, and with that lighting, colors can get washed out.
For comparison, when the Carter-Cardinal-Morelan 1794 dollar is viewed in its holder and at oblique angles, it seems to display muddy orange-brown colors on a matte surface. Out of the holder, it displays a light patina on top of screaming black-and-white cameo prooflike surfaces. I wish Phil was available to photograph it when we had it cracked out that day! The best of the photos we have come from when PCGS photographed it in-house in 2003, and coin photography has improved immensely since then.
50 ! I hope the next 50 come at a quicker pace.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com