$1 and $3 gold newps (secure plus crossover results in)

steveben · September 27, 2012 2:30AM

here are some newps for me that i am thinking of sending in for crossover to complete a couple of registry sets i have been working on. comments welcome!

1872 NGC ms62

1859-C NGC au58

LanceNewmanOCC · September 27, 2012 3:25AM

.
nice pick-ups and congratz on finishing whatever set(s) you are working on. hope they cross for you.
.

steveben · September 27, 2012 4:01AM

thanks. i should have mentioned that these could complete my 12 piece gold type set, seen here.

liefgold · September 27, 2012 4:19AM

You certainly did not take the easy route with those gold dollars. Congrats!

BillJones · September 27, 2012 4:24AM

I see that you have a thing for Charlotte mint gold dollars. I find that little odd for a 12 piece type set, but I guess it adds interest to the set.

The 1851-C comes nice, but the other two do not. The 1859-C is one of the worst made of all gold dollars. I learned that when I got an 1857-C for my Charlotte mint type set.

I think that the 1859-C dollar has a chance of crossing, but I do not think that the 1872 Three Dollar gold will. The color is odd, and the piece has rub on the high points.

Timbuk3 · September 27, 2012 4:33AM

Way cool, congratulations !!!

steveben · September 27, 2012 4:48AM

the gold dollars are also part of my charlotte set type sets. the 12 piece set was an afterthought when i saw how close i was to completing it, given my current collection. it turned out that i only needed a $20 lib and a $3. while i don't collect those, i went for them anyway.

i have always wanted a nice $3 piece...i think this one is really nice. i hope it crosses. i see what you mean about the rub on the high points...but in hand, it looks frosty all over the devices and the fields are proof like...although it's not a proof. it sure looks like one though. i'll be disappointed for sure if it doesn't cross, because if it's not MS, the value plummets. coinfacts shows a couple MS that i think look worse than this one (my opinion), including that area of hair below her headdress. BTW, I shot the photo at an angle to accentuate the toning on this piece. i could shoot it again so you can see how it looks proof, but i only have a crappy cell phone camera at my disposal now. you can look at the coin closer on heritage if you're a member. i got it during the August signature auction.

knowing my luck, someone probably set this piece to cac and it didn't sticker...so they cut it loose. i hope that's not the case.

anyway, it's a keeper regardless...because i think it looks fantastic in hand. i like the color and i don't think it's artificial...but, whether it's acceptable or not, we'll soon find out. i am packaging them up for secure plus right now.

if you are curious at all in the $3, i encourage you to look at better photos on heritage and see what you think. i have seen some old southern gold with that ice blue color...in fact i have a 46 D/D HE and a 39-C QE that have that kinda look.

BillJones · September 27, 2012 5:03AM

When looking for the $3 gold type it is usually best to look for one of the common dates. They are 1854, 1874 and 1878. Beyond that you can get some deals on Mint State pieces in the 1880s because the coins did not circulate that much, and the survival rates in Mint State are fairly high. I like the 1854 because the word "DOLLARS" in the reverse is in smaller letters which makes that year a minor type. To me it is as much of a type as the Type I and Type II Buffalo nickels, but since the Three Dollar gold is scarce type coin, it is no recognized.

steveben · September 28, 2012 1:44AM

good advice bill. i almost did exactly what you said and bought an 1854...but i got caught up in this piece for the way it looks. i can't explain it...but that's part of the fun of collecting i guess.

anyway, the submission for crossover on these two has already arrived at pcgs. i'm all in and told them to cross at any grade. let's see what happens next. i'll post the results and secure plus images, if/when they grade.

steveben · October 9, 2012 4:27AM

well, i sent them both in to cross at ANY grade. the 1859-c crossed at au55, which is about what i figured. i am good with that because i paid au53 money for it.

however...the $3 came back as DNC. so....they must think it's AT. it's certainly not cleaned...but i don't know the explanation yet. any thoughts? i was expecting au58. i am really surprised it did not cross...

and...

ouch! that is painful. i might be done buying coins in NGC holders.

lkeigwin · October 9, 2012 6:33AM

If PCGS didn't cross it because they felt it was AT you would have gotten a flip with a cert that said "questionable color". Same for any fatal problem.

What did you write on your submission form under "minimum grade"? Recently I learned that PCGS wants to see "any" or "P01" for a cross at any grade. I wrote "no minimum", thinking that it was clear I'd take any grade, no minimum. But PCGS treats "no minimum" as a request to cross at grade or better.
Lance.

steveben · October 9, 2012 6:47AM

i put ANY in the minimum grade slot...but i only have the online results...i don't have the coin back yet.

Barndog · October 9, 2012 6:49AM

could be altered surfaces too. I've heard of people calling PCGS and getting input on the reason for DNC. Might be worth a shot.

lkeigwin · October 9, 2012 6:49AM

Ah. You should get a cert stuck to a flip that cites the problem.

Sorry about the bad luck. You wouldn't be the first guy to resubmit again and again and eventually get a clean grade.
Lance.

PQueue · October 9, 2012 7:37AM

Minimally, the color pattern on that $3 looks unusual.

DCW · October 9, 2012 8:56AM

<< Minimally, the color pattern on that $3 looks unusual. >>

. <This.

I think Bill Jones nailed it in his comments from last month. From your picture that $3 looks messed with.

Rampage · October 9, 2012 9:23AM

<< ouch! that is painful. i might be done buying coins in NGC holders. >>

Instead of eliminating all NGC coins, why not try to learn to judge a coin based on its own merits. If you buy a coin, presumably, you like the coin regardless of the holder. People should realize that there are dogs in all types of slabs. So, again, learn to judge a coin based on its merits. If I had seen that coin in a shop, I would have waited for a better one, because as others have stated, the surfaces look altered.

ambro51 · October 9, 2012 10:22AM

Whoever graded that 59C as 55 should go and read up on that issue. They are SO rare that I doubt if they've ever seen one in hand at that level. The strike for what it is is nearly the sharpest I've seen and there is no abrasion on the fields. The tendrils in the grape leaves are visible as are the ribbon bow division lines. In my eye by that photo its MS62. As it is in that new undergraded holder it's a Gold Bean candidate. I agree on the $3 though Sorry in my eye the obverse and reverse don't "match", never a good sign. Send it back ATS

steveben · October 9, 2012 10:42AM

<< 

<< ouch! that is painful. i might be done buying coins in NGC holders. >>

Instead of eliminating all NGC coins, why not try to learn to judge a coin based on its own merits. If you buy a coin, presumably, you like the coin regardless of the holder. People should realize that there are dogs in all types of slabs. So, again, learn to judge a coin based on its merits. If I had seen that coin in a shop, I would have waited for a better one, because as others have stated, the surfaces look altered. >>

you're right. i was just frustrated when i said that.

RYK · October 9, 2012 10:51AM

Based on those photos, either of those coins could be wildly over or undergraded by PCGS and/or NGC. In other words, I defer to the expert who sees the coin in hand, not the armchair guy looking at a photo on the 'net.

steveben · October 9, 2012 11:38AM

<< Based on those photos, either of those coins could be wildly over or undergraded by PCGS and/or NGC. In other words, I defer to the expert who sees the coin in hand, not the armchair guy looking at a photo on the 'net. >>

there's a link to the heritage photos for the $3. those represent the coin very well. i think the obv and rev colors match...i guess it's just questionable. i felt like it has a similar look to a charlotte piece i own that is graded. so, i guess i don't have the eye for good toning yet. can anyone give specifics on the tells for AT here...or is it just a matter of taste and market opinion? i like the coin anyway. i think it's really nice looking. but, look at their photos, if you have a heritage account. they are so much better than mine.

there will be secure plus photos of the 59-c. once they have posted them...i'll post them here. but, yeah, it needs to be truly evaluated in hand. these are one of the hardest coins to grade, or so i have read. i think it has the details of an ms62, but not the luster. however, that said, the luster is a very grainy sort...almost like it has salt water damage. but, i have read that's how these came from the mint. anyway, i am very pleased to possess the coin for now. i feel it's a nice addition to my charlotte set. that's all the matters and the market ultimately tells what it is worth. my guess is the luster is holding it back. it only cartwheels on the very outer edges of the coin.

Priller · October 9, 2012 11:59AM

<< 
1859-C NGC au58

>>

For comparison, here is a PCGS AU53 CAC

steveben · October 10, 2012 1:52AM

priller, that au53 looks nice.

cert for 1859-c with image

$1 and $3 gold newps (secure plus crossover results in)

Comments

Leave a Comment