Three Classic Head Gold Quarter Eagles for you to grade - Answers provided
BillJones
Posts: 35,021 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here are three coins that been offered at various times. One of them has a "long ago" grading history.
1835
1836, script 8 variety
1838
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
0
Comments
I hate to go first, and gold it tough to grade from photos. So much of it comes down to luster and the photo techniques aren't identical.
First coin - Looks AU53 to me. What I'm seeing as wear could possibly be due to a weak strike. Would be easier in-hand.
Second coin - This one has the nicest look of the three, but probably grades either 58 or 62. The halos around the stars make me think it saw at least some circulation. Nice creamy luster look.
Third coin - Was probably dipped the day before yesterday. MS60, but not a look I favor.
62.6 CAC
63.8 CAC
59/61
I'll try. These are not my personal grades but what I think is on the TPGS label:
First: 63. Full luster w/ v. slight rub & flat strike.
Second: 62. Similar coin w/better strike yet more friction.
Third: Also a commercial Unc. Looks worse (61) than others due to photo. But my guess is in 62 slab.
Purty!
top ms62, center au58 bottom ms63. Nice trio.
58+ (Would be totally ok with 61)
55. ( I grade it higher but PCGS was tough on Gold back then)
62. (Gem luster, small coins and big pictures make Marks look worse)
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
62
64
62
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
55
58
63
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I'm actually like them all at 62
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
62
64
61
58 no CAC (should be a 63 CAC)
55 no CAC (should be a 64 CAC)
64 CAC (should be a 58 no CAC)
2,3,2
I would like to see them in hand to get a better handle on color and lustre. All look MS with my preference being in the current order they appear. Not saying the first grades the highest. At some level the coin speaks for itself or it jjust may be subjective preference.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
IMHO all three of these coins have great eye appeal...and look to have original surfaces...as others have said...the grade on the slab may be as much a function of who submitted, when, and how many times...as what the coin actually grades...so my guesses for the number on the holders are:
62
58
63
58
58
55
62
58
61
62
60
63
eBay ID-bruceshort978
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager.
Looks as if her head is deflating.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Check out strikes for these dates in HA archives. They vary tremendously. XF detail high-points with full lustre are not AU.
Whatever grade they might be, the first two are gems.
Look at more pictures,
If you're off by a lot, look at them again.
62
63
61
Latin American Collection
64- 1835 QEs are the weakest struck Classic Head, any date and denom.
63
62 -don't think the pic is very flattering.
62
62
61
I don't love the last one.
Tom
I am going to cover these coins one at a time. First, the 1835.
As ColonelJessip pointed out the 1835 and 1836 quarter eagles are often poorly stuck. One of the characteristics of these coins was the portrait of Ms. Liberty was modified a number of times during the short six year span for this design. On this rendition the bust was punched too deep into the die, the die broke or a combination of the two. The result was a loss of design detail especially in the center.
A result of this is that you can’t grade on the sharpness of the design alone; you must also grade by the surfaces.
The surfaces on this piece are fairly smooth and quite lustrous. In the old days (1970s), it would have been an AU-58 or “virtually Unc” because there are slight disturbances in the lusterin the obverse and reverse fields. Still this is a very nice "commercial MS-62." The color probably has been worked on a little. The coin is bit too bright be totally original, but looks original enough to fit in with the rest of my set. Hence I paid a full retail plus price. It is probably an economic burial, but it’s a “fun burial” because I really enjoy looking at the coin.
Well.. first one is now shown.... I would have said 55.... second is 62, third is 63.... Cheers, RickO
Now for the 1836, Script 8.
I purchased this coin in 1970 from the late Catherine Bullowa when I was a student in undergraduate school. She graded it “About Uncirculated,” but she said in passing at the time purchase that “It might be Unc. I couldn’t really tell.” I had this coin graded about 16 years ago.
This piece is full Mint State piece in my opinion. The fields are smooth with only some minor disturbances, and the luster is full. The center is weak due to the same problem that plagues the 1835 PLUS the obverse die is broken. You can see the crack through the sixth star and into Ms. Liberty’s crown and beyond.
The color also says original to me. It is a nice warm gold which given my no indicators that it has been stripped in any way. Therefore the MS-62 grade is absolutely correct in my opinion.
This is one of those rare Classic Head pieces that really is Mint State. These coins were issued at a time when there were few collectors in the United States. What few there were could not afford to leave $2.50 or $5.00 sitting idle in a coin cabinet. Therefore the few true Mint State pieces that exist were largely by accident.
As for its rarity within the Classic $2.50 series, this is by far the most common date and variety. It's like an 1881-S in the Morgan Dollar set without the superior strike.
And now the 1838, which I will diplomatically describe as a major disappointment. When I received an email about this piece, I was really excited because it was the last coin I need to complete the 19 piece Classic $2.50 and $5.00 “Red Book” coin set. When I saw it, “I was bummed” as college students used to say in the late ‘60s.
There were two big problems, the grade assigned and the resulting price. Here are the numbers:
MS-62, Gray Sheet bid $ 4,250, "Coin Facts" $ 6,250.
MS-63, Gray Sheet bid $ 8,500, "Coin Facts" $ 11,000.
As you can see the one point increase in grade pretty much doubles the price. Why? Because real Mint State Classic Head gold coins are rare, and you should get a real Mint State coin at the MS-63 level. That's why the price goes up so much. The asking price was $13,000.
This piece has rubs in the obverse and reverse fields. Look at the area above the eagle's head and the fields around Ms. Liberty. It is not a "Choice Uncirculated" coin. In addition the surfaces are not original. They have been brightened and perhaps that "shine" accounts for the over grading. I saw this coin in person, and what you see in the photos is how the coin looks "in the flesh." If this piece had been graded MS-62, I would have negociated for it, but at MS-63 the price difference was too great.
This coin sat in the the dealer's inventory for over two months, which was a very long time for him. He finally asked for offers, and I offered $8,500, Gray Sheet MS-63 bid, which was too much money given that "Coin Facts" says an MS-62 is worth $6,250. His response was "Ouch!" Fair enough, but you can't pay for a label and a sticker when the coin comes up short.
I saw the grades, but I was going to say, how they grade this type especially in EF and AU grades, I was going to guess all three must be low MS grades.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
The third coin is a "gross" disappointment. I'm out as a 62.
I've got my CAC 10 year mug in hand, but caffeine, not Kool-Aid, in my system.
Rather than debate this individual coin as a PCGS/CAC fail, consider your grades again and watch out for stripped surfaces.
My premier standard is "crust is king" AKA "frost is boss", so the 1838's surfaces stand out as a repudiation of "bright is right".
Nice honest gold: AU, AU, EF
i was going to guess 62, 62, 61, but was too late. the 35 and 36 are nice coins!
I thought that these may be low MS pieces due to striking deficiencies but just couldn't tell from the images alone. Nice coins in any event.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
All nice coins...very very impressed with the grading skills of all those on this forum...
Bill, Thanks for posting these. Very educational. Obviously I blew it on the first one, but in-hand I think it would be easier to judge the surfaces and call it an MS coin. The strike-vs-wear issue is just one of education and reflects my naivete about these issues.
The third coin is troubling. The full-slab shot looks better.... maybe it has really booming luster and a clean portrait. Still, I don't like the field issues and it just doesn't seem to have original skin. Pretty expensive if it isn't "all there."
I stand by my earlier comments. Thanks for posting these Bill
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I've seen the 1838 in hand and like I said above, the picture is not very flattering, especially when put next to the other two pictures (the white is cranked up a bit). I graded the 1838 a 63- . A bit chattery, but acceptable for a 63. A bit too bright, especially since you can find the date with very frosty surfaces.
I'd thought the noise on the 1838 made it a firm 62.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
I thought my 62, 62, 62 assessment was going to be a bullseye. The 62+ grade on the 1835 I didn't consider ( I really didn't realize they gave those out) but I can certainly see it as a just miss 63.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Thank you for adding this. It what makes these GTG's so challenging. It's challenging enough in hand. You've seen it in person so I will defer to you. It looks a little too bright for my taste
M
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......