charlotte gold coins
steveben
Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
i have noticed that a lot of charlotte gold coins are coming on the market. they are priced below the price guide values and not really moving. so, what is the deal here? is the market softening for charlotte gold? is the collector base shrinking? or is it the economy? what are your thoughts?
0
Comments
(Especially the grades of the coins involved.)
Like ajman, my first though would be originality of surfaces (or, more appropriately, lack thereof).
A number of years ago, at the Baltimore show, I looked over the inventory of a well-known southern dealer, who had a nearly full run of New Orleans eagles in AU slabs - unfortunately, every coin had been dipped or otherwise processed. I nearly cried at the sight of a dozen, bright, shiny, lifeless coins!
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>i have noticed that a lot of charlotte gold coins are coming on the market. they are priced below the price guide values and not really moving. so, what is the deal here? is the market softening for charlotte gold? is the collector base shrinking? or is it the economy? what are your thoughts? >>
I have not seen these "bargains." The last Charlotte coin that got my bid was an 1838-C five dollar gold in PCGS EF-40 that sold for well over most any listed catalog listing or auctionl result. Many of the "bargains" are coins that have been messed with. The stuff is still expensive.
<< <i>I think you have a limited collector market and those deep into these coins would rather pay VERY strong for premium pieces but ignore average coins. Problem Southern gold can be tough to sell. >>
it must be this that i am witnessing. also, i think the grading on these coins is wildly inconsistent (even with pcgs). i have pretty much learned to stay far away from a lot of ngc graded pieces as most have been cleaned, but graded anyway...and ones that don't have problems are over graded.
for example, isn't this obviously cleaned?
1859-c ngc ms61
and this one i think is nice, but no one's biting when it's offered less than it's valued:
1839-c pcgs au55
also, check this out:
this 1838-c xf40 sold for 11,500 while this 1838-c xf40 sold for 6900...both in pcgs holders. is the OGH worth 4600 more?
1859-c ms61
<< <i>The only one that is nice is the 1838-C that went for $11,500. The rest are have problems or are over graded. >>
do you think there's a 4600 dollar difference between the two 38-c?
also, do you think there's a problem with the 39-c qe? if so, what? just curious.
<< <i>also, check this out:
this 1838-c xf40 sold for 11,500 while this 1838-c xf40 sold for 6900...both in pcgs holders. is the OGH worth 4600 more? >>
Two words: "eye appeal."
just off the top of my head, the second 1838-C in XF-40 should have have more "dirt" on it - the coin is just too clean for the grade. I would suspect the coin has been dipped or "something."
The first 1838-C in XF-40, however. . .the color looks good and that slab isn't just an OGH, it's from one of the varieties just after the Rattler (that is, it was slabbed in the early 1990's). I would suspect, from the images, that the coin is undergraded. Compare the detail in the coin to the detail in the other 1838-C, for example.
Now the 1839-C quarter eagle, to me, suffers from really lousy images - you can't see the coin clearly, I hate the brown background (for looking at gold coins, especially) and the images make the coin look scratched, while the scratch is probably on the slab.
In summary, none of the images really do the coins justice, but I wouldn't buy the second 1838-C at all, nor the 1839-C QE. I'd be really interested in looking at the first 1838-C in person, though.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>
<< <i>also, check this out:
this 1838-c xf40 sold for 11,500 while this 1838-c xf40 sold for 6900...both in pcgs holders. is the OGH worth 4600 more? >>
Two words: "eye appeal." >>
Three words: much nicer coin.
SB, I recommend that you study southern gold coins in person, preferably in a Heritage or Stack's lot viewing, not on ebay. Ebay is chock full of false dreams and black pearls which will only inhibit your ability to understand grading and the coin market.
<< <i>I had a piece which I was SURE had been dipped or manipulated and it got a CAC sticker. >>
The thing to remember about CAC is that the sticker says the CAC company is willing to buy the coin in the grade assigned on the holder. It does not mean that the coin is original, PQ or perfect for the grade. A great many people do not realize that.
For my own part, I don't have a problem with a silver coin just because it's been dipper PROPERLY, and neither does CAC. Gold coins are a bit more tricky, but once again it depends upon the degree of how the dipping has changed the appearance of the piece.
i saw two more pieces (in person) yesterday that were graded au-58...but obviously polished...not even a hint of luster left. both were valued in the 6-8k range and priced accordingly. i think the tpgs are too lenient on charlotte gold. at least that's my opinion.
Actually, if you saw two coins in "no problem" slabs from the two major grading services, then I would suggest that you did not see two "obviously polished" coins.
Abrasive polishing leaves lots of scratches on a coin and the two major grading services would be able to see that and would not have put the coins in "no problem" slabs.
However, you might have seen two "dipped" coins.
It's important for a sophisticated collector to be able to tell the difference.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>steveben,
Actually, if you saw two coins in "no problem" slabs from the two major grading services, then I would suggest that you did not see two "obviously polished" coins.
Abrasive polishing leaves lots of scratches on a coin and the two major grading services would be able to see that and would not have put the coins in "no problem" slabs.
However, you might have seen two "dipped" coins.
It's important for a sophisticated collector to be able to tell the difference. >>
to me, obviously polished means that there are lots of hairline scratches and the coin has a shiny look...like jewelry. the frosty luster is gone.
A coin can have "lots" of hairline scratches without having been polished.
If many of the hairline scratches go in the same direction (or a bunch of them do), that would probably be a sign of polishing, whereas if each individual scratch goes in its own direction, that would probably be a sign of circulation.
The two major grading services are pretty good at spotting signs of polishing and are unlikely to have placed polished coins in "no problem" slabs.
It's important to be precise in describing a coin's perceived problems - what you're seeing may not be what you're describing.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>With DaveG, BillJones and RYK attempting to give insight, you have a veritable troika of valid information and experience in front of you. >>
I love your use of the word "troika" and am very excited to be part of it.
<< <i>
<< <i>With DaveG, BillJones and RYK attempting to give insight, you have a veritable troika of valid information and experience in front of you. >>
I love your use of the word "troika" and am very excited to be part of it.
Let's keep the language clean, guys. This is a family-oriented forum.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>With DaveG, BillJones and RYK attempting to give insight, you have a veritable troika of valid information and experience in front of you. >>
I love your use of the word "troika" and am very excited to be part of it.
Let's keep the language clean, guys. This is a family-oriented forum.
Did Laura send you here to break it up?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>With DaveG, BillJones and RYK attempting to give insight, you have a veritable troika of valid information and experience in front of you. >>
I love your use of the word "troika" and am very excited to be part of it.
Let's keep the language clean, guys. This is a family-oriented forum.
Did Laura send you here to break it up?
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
either way though, dave, you suggest that a dipped coin is still a problem coin and therefore not worth as much. eye appeal is part of the grade. so, at least in the case of the two xf40's they are inconsistent grades, correct? which is your explanation for the difference in price. i can accept that...but it still leads me to the same conclusion:
problem coins are still graded and not worth as much to those who recognize the difference and the grading is wildly inconsistent when i comes to these coins.
btw, i own the 1838-c that you say is a "dipped or something" coin. i bought it and submitted it for a secure plus regrade because the holder arrived scratched up so bad that i couldn't see the date. it regraded xf40 and is now in the coinfacts database as well. so, is that coin really an xf40 or not? is it a problem coin or not? we already know that it's not worth the same amount as the other xf40. does the holder make the 4600 difference or is it the coin?
dave, you also said:
"The two major grading services are pretty good at spotting signs of polishing and are unlikely to have placed polished coins in "no problem" slabs."
so, help me understand...is a dipped coin really that different from a polished coin when you get down to it? sure, they aren't the same thing. but they are both problems that affect the value, no? however, the grade doesn't reflect that. that's the point. you seem to suggest that dipped coins aren't worth as much...and the market supports that suggestion. so why wouldn't they be just as much a problem as a polished coin? does the difference between them really matter? if so, how?
Let me circle back to this as this seems to be a point of some consternation.
The $6900 coin looks like it is decent for the grade. Within the limitations of the photos, I cannot detect any significant surface issues. The $11,500 coin looks to me like it is at least two grading steps higher than the previous coin with wonderful, original color (if I am interpreting the photos correctly). It's not like comparing MS69 ASEs or 2 shares of GE stock, where the items are identical to the naked eye in the former case and literally identical in the latter.
<< <i>there's no point in me using the two coins i saw as examples since i can't provide any images to help determine if they are polished or dipped. maybe you're right...maybe they are dipped and not polished and i don't know the difference. let's assume that's the case for now.
either way though, dave, you suggest that a dipped coin is still a problem coin and therefore not worth as much. eye appeal is part of the grade. so, at least in the case of the two xf40's they are inconsistent grades, correct? which is your explanation for the difference in price. i can accept that...but it still leads me to the same conclusion:
problem coins are still graded and not worth as much to those who recognize the difference and the grading is wildly inconsistent when i comes to these coins.
btw, i own the 1838-c that you say is a "dipped or something" coin. i bought it and submitted it for a secure plus regrade because the holder arrived scratched up so bad that i couldn't see the date. it regraded xf40 and is now in the coinfacts database as well. so, is that coin really an xf40 or not? is it a problem coin or not? we already know that it's not worth the same amount as the other xf40. does the holder make the 4600 difference or is it the coin?
dave, you also said:
"The two major grading services are pretty good at spotting signs of polishing and are unlikely to have placed polished coins in "no problem" slabs."
so, help me understand...is a dipped coin really that different from a polished coin when you get down to it? sure, they aren't the same thing. but they are both problems that affect the value, no? however, the grade doesn't reflect that. that's the point. you seem to suggest that dipped coins aren't worth as much...and the market supports that suggestion. so why wouldn't they be just as much a problem as a polished coin? does the difference between them really matter? if so, how? >>
The market recognizes that dipping and polishing are two very different animals. One (dipping) involves stripping off an extremely thin layer of oxidation, grime and/or metal in a non-abrassive manner such that the skin has been removed or reduced. The other (polishing) requires mechanical disruption of the surfaces in a very invasive manner that will obliterate native flow patterns and introduce entirely new features to the surface. While those who study numismatics will often choose a coin with apparently original surfaces over one that has been dipped, it does not mean that the greater hobby/industry does not accept dipping. In fact, it has been accepted for many generations whereas polishing coins has not been so universally tolerated.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
"A number of years ago, at the Baltimore show, I looked over the inventory of a well-known southern dealer, who had a nearly full run of New Orleans eagles in AU slabs - unfortunately, every coin had been dipped or otherwise processed. I nearly cried at the sight of a dozen, bright, shiny, lifeless coins! "
he also said:
"I wouldn't buy the second 1838-C at all"
doesn't sound market acceptable to me! he passes over them as if they were genuine. he's recognized as an experienced collector.
so, what i am saying is:
the reason dipped coins are "market acceptable" is because they get graded. but, what you guys are saying is that discerning collectors know the difference and won't touch them.
the end result is the value isn't the same and they aren't "collector acceptable" which is something the grade hides.
btw, eye appeal is supposed to be part of the grade. so saying one has more eye appeal is like saying one is a higher grade.
it's not a point of consternation...i think it's a valid debatable point...and the market, at least in this case, supports my point. discerning collectors, like yourselves don't like coins that have been messed with/problem coins/whatever you want to call them. hence their grade is not as meaningful or the same. forget that one has more detail. i concede that point. but, still that backs up the inconsistency factor and the truth that many problem coins are graded...especially dipped ones. and, you can't deny that isn't viewed by experienced collectors as a problem.
you still answered my original question though. i mean no disrespect to anyone...and sorry for ruling out dave especially, but his comments i think back up my point of view.
<< <i>This 1838-c xf40 sold for 11,500 while this 1838-c xf40 sold for 6900...both in pcgs holders. is the OGH worth 4600 more? >>
I was very interested in the former 1838-C. It looked good in the pictures.
The person who checked it out in person for me told me it had the body of an AU50 but was both wiped and would not CAC.
<< <i>dave's words:
"A number of years ago, at the Baltimore show, I looked over the inventory of a well-known southern dealer, who had a nearly full run of New Orleans eagles in AU slabs - unfortunately, every coin had been dipped or otherwise processed. I nearly cried at the sight of a dozen, bright, shiny, lifeless coins! "
he also said:
"I wouldn't buy the second 1838-C at all"
doesn't sound market acceptable to me! he passes over them as if they were genuine. he's recognized as an experienced collector.
so, what i am saying is:
the reason dipped coins are "market acceptable" is because they get graded. but, what you guys are saying is that discerning collectors know the difference and won't touch them.
the end result is the value isn't the same and they aren't "collector acceptable" which is something the grade hides.
btw, eye appeal is supposed to be part of the grade. so saying one has more eye appeal is like saying one is a higher grade.
it's not a point of consternation...i think it's a valid debatable point...and the market, at least in this case, supports my point. discerning collectors, like yourselves don't like coins that have been messed with/problem coins/whatever you want to call them. hence their grade is not as meaningful or the same. forget that one has more detail. i concede that point. but, still that backs up the inconsistency factor and the truth that many problem coins are graded...especially dipped ones. and, you can't deny that isn't viewed by experienced collectors as a problem.
you still answered my original question though. i mean no disrespect to anyone...and sorry for ruling out dave especially, but his comments i think back up my point of view. >>
My interpretation of the above is that you are, at least to a degree, confusing personal preference and market tendancy. In this case, DaveG should not be used as an example of a typical collector and I mean that in every positive way possible. DaveG and I go way back together, probably to the mid-1990s when we were both based in NJ, and I can assure you that his level of numismatic scholarship and the way he views coins is not what you generally find in folks. DaveG is similar to RYK in what they both look for in a coin, which is not necessarily what the broader market of collectors looks for in coins. Similarly, I have a different threshhold for purchasing a coin for inventory than the vast majority of other dealers. There are a number of other dealers who participate on these boards who strive to do business in coins of roughly the same apparent level of originality or surface preservation, but again most dealers do not make a living in this niche...it is simply too hard to stay within the confines of those standards.
We see the same thing happen in other areas of numismatics, too, with proof Seated coinage or mint state Barber coinage. There are large numbers of folks who prefer essentially white proof Seated coinage or mint state Barber coinage. These coins are very liquid and trade at healthy price levels, yet most have been dipped in order to be untoned. This preference is not new. Therefore, these dipped coins are very "collector acceptable" while at the same time they are not preferred by certain segments of the hobby/industry. In certain instances this will hurt the sales price of processed coins, but in other instances the depth of the pool of buyers is so great for this material that there seems to be a negligilble drop off in liquidity or value. However, you do have a very valid point in that pieces that are viewed as truly superb for the issue; be they thick skinned, copper-spotted classic gold or wonderfully toned and highly attractive Seated or Barber coinage, do often find their way to a price level that is higher than other coins of the same grade. Conversly, I own a number of gunky, dirty, circulated coins that would be hard-pressed to find a home in most collections due to their surfaces being so dirty and unmessed with. For these coins their overall market liquidity is likely hurt, but their value to the right collector might be higher than a typical example within the broader market. Essentially, all these coins have to find their niche buyers.
One last comment, you write that "...eye appeal is supposed to be part of the grade. so saying one has more eye appeal is like saying one is a higher grade." and while eye appeal is indeed part of the grade, the key word is "part". I own coins with superb eye appeal that are clearly lower grades than coins with significantly lesser eye appeal due to the presence, severity or location of hits, marks, scratches or wear. In the art of coin grading eye appeal is important, but it has a significant level of subjectivity that renders its application as a quantitative science to be quite sketchy.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
First of all, TomB, thanks for the very kind and flattering words. At some point I hope to be as good as you think I am.
Second, there is a sub-set of southern gold collectors, led by Doug Winter, that values "original" surfaces and would prefer a "dirty" coin in an XF-40 slab to a "processed" coin in an AU-50 slab. (There are, of course, other collectors who value "original" surfaces.) Hopefully, this sub-set is growing, but it is currently a personal preference, not a "market acceptance" issue.
As far as I know, the two major grading services don't downgrade a coin for having been dipped, unless it has been "over-dipped" and the luster of the coin has been harmed.
Personally, I prefer to buy "dirty" or "original" coins, not dipped or otherwise "processed" coins, so for me, it isn't a question of what is the price difference between a dirty coin and a processed coin, it is that I will buy one and not the other. As a result, I am somewhat fussy about the amount of "dirt" that I expect to see on a coin for a given grade.
Finally, I find it almost impossible to evaluate a coin accurately from an image, which is why I like to say things like "the image makes the coin look X", not "the coin looks X". So, unless I am comfortable interpreting images (like I am with many Heritage images), please take my comments about a coin's image in context.
Check out the Southern Gold Society