Its tough to tell the degree of wear from the photos, but I think the wear is light enough to qualify as mint state. The coin has too much wear and enough loss of luster to not achieve the 62. Its a decent low end UNC.
Its tough to tell the degree of wear from the photos, but I think the wear is light enough to qualify as mint state. The coin has too much wear and enough loss of luster to not achieve the 62. Its a decent low end UNC.
Just my two cents, from photos.
Seth >>
bingo!
I think part of the highest point lack of detail is strike, and there is some roll/stacking/cabinet friction, but almost all of the field and device luster, with marks and a few wispy hairlines accounting for the remainder of the deductions. And yes, I found 61 to be the sweet spot as far as the price guide. Good discussion everyone, thanks!
Looks a lot better than a MS61. There must be issues that aren't showing up in your pics such as hair line scratches.
Edited to add that perhaps it's a candidate for a gold CAC sticker.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Not my series but I do prefer coins without IGWT. I am a fan of the separation of church and state thingie that the US Gov't doesn't care about while they demonstrate their selective enforcement of the laws in this country. >>
Whoa, talk about a ton of mis-understanding and misinformation getting tossed around in the statement above. >>
I think that was a different Constitution that was in reference since there has never been a law pertaining the "the separation of church and state". oh ...."thingie". If you find it please point it out so I can stand corrected.
There are a lot of ways a coin can grade a certain grade like AU58 or MS61 (and for this particular coin, although I do agree with the slab grade and was happy to get this at about MS60 price guide, I can understand and make a case for anything AU58 through MS62 on it, but not as low as 55, as I have seen a lot of AU55s and 58s as well as MS61s and 62s, and some coins at each of those grades look unattractive to me in general and certainly worse to my eye than this 61) and the combination of little flaws can add up in numerous different combinations of traits at the same grade level. This was a good compromise for my set, as was said, this date is not rare, but will also have some demand from collectors like me who are doing expanded type sets with the subtypes like the no mottoes, the no stars and no drapery seated, the 3 subtypes of 3CS, etc etc... as has also been said, in AU and below these are essentially slabbed bullion with a modest premium to melt, even in this MS61 grade the cost was less than double the gold melt value, in hand the coin looks MS63or 64 until you take a glass to it, which is exactly what I was going for in my set. Seller's pics:
The coin graded MS61 on its last trip to PCGS. It doesn't indicate what the previous attempts resulted in. I'd bet heavily that an AU grade occurred in its recent past. While MS61 could be the sweet spot, it's also very probable that on a couple of return trips it would very likely see an AU58 grade at least once. If we had $200 to blow on submission fees I'd bet that in 5 attempts, MS61 would not appear more than 2 or 3 times. Another way to corroborate that would be to try for a sticker. I've learned that lesson the hard way on numerous pieces of what appeared to be PQish slabbed MS61 or MS62 Indian gold. Far too many times they would come back AU58. Hence....I don't do that anymore. Leave well enough alone.
Does anybody know why many of these coins have a shiny spot where the neck meets the jaw? Mine has it, as does the one RYK posted. Mine was bought from a local dealer who bought it raw at 63-64 money - it came back NGC 58.
Here is another one that NGC graded MS-62. I think that it is at least a point better than that.
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 ... ?
<< <i>Does anybody know why many of these coins have a shiny spot where the neck meets the jaw? Mine has it, as does the one RYK posted. Mine was bought from a local dealer who bought it raw at 63-64 money - it came back NGC 58. >>
Possibly an area of the die that is typically polished? It's an area where there is an abrupt change from devices to flat fields. A good thing to remember as a counterfeit probably wouldn't show this same feature.
Good point about that shiny spot at the juncture of the neck of the RYK example, could be similar to the "birthmark" 1967 Kennedy that indicates a well struck coin from freshly prepped dies, and appear as a variety that tends to be nicer than average for the year, as RYK example clearly is. Nice pics, too.
<< <i>Good point about that shiny spot at the juncture of the neck of the RYK example, could be similar to the "birthmark" 1967 Kennedy that indicates a well struck coin from freshly prepped dies, and appear as a variety that tends to be nicer than average for the year, as RYK example clearly is. Nice pics, too. >>
Thank your for your resurection of this post as it a classic for grading Indian eagles and especially the 1907. I have had one on my bucket list for a long time and re-reading te opinions was very helpful. I am still in the 58 camp because I care not whether the softness on the eagle's shoulder is rub or a soft strike. I downgrade all coins with a soft strike. And know full well this is not the industry standard.
I have to scratch my head as why that coin flunked at CAC. Perhaps it is color. It is certainly not from have too many marks or too much wear.
You are in good company. I have a couple of "flunkees" that failed to cut the mustard at CAC in my collection. I bought both of them after they had flunked, and was not the person who submitted them. One is a Confederate Restrike half dollar that I like better, at least from the pictures, than the one that is coming up in auction that did get CAC approval.
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 ... ?
<< <i>there is way too much breast feather detail missing on the reverse to get AU58 or even AU55 in my opinion. It is too nice looking to get AU50 in my opinion as AU50 is usually reserved for ugly AU coins. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave it XF45 or AU53... I think it's got nice eye appeal overall so I chose AU53. >>
Grading is all over the place on this series in AU in recent years as it's not hard to get a older holder AU50 into a AU55 or AU58 holder these days at all of the grading services.
This is a series I'd like to try again in old school AU58 one day, but just like my SLQ's it might be years between finding equally matched coins for the set.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
For Indian gold the grades of 58 to 62 are often interchangeable. I've had numerous $2-1/2's and $5 Indians in 61 and 62 holders that I cracked out hoping for a 63.....only to end up with a 58. And as the price of gold has shrunk the past 3 years the 58-62 price range has shrunk considerably as well. A rarity these days is to actually find a fairly fresh 61, 62 piece of Indian gold that has a chance to upgrade. Most specimens found seem to be much more tired if anything....and would probably drop a grade (or two) if resubmitted. That's not all that hard to fathom since so many of these were graded under the bulk submission programs where the TPG only gets paid if they meet minimum requested grades.
I have to scratch my head as why that coin flunked at CAC. Perhaps it is color. It is certainly not from have too many marks or too much wear.
You are in good company. I have a couple of "flunkees" that failed to cut the mustard at CAC in my collection. I bought both of them after they had flunked, and was not the person who submitted them. One is a Confederate Restrike half dollar that I like better, at least from the pictures, than the one that is coming up in auction that did get CAC approval. >>
There is a thin scratch across the obverse neck. You have to catch it just right in the light to see it. The dealer I bought it from claimed to have paid 63 money for it raw and claimed he was "hopelessly under water" on it.
Since this coin fills the "NO MOTTO" place in my collection, I was particularly looking for an example with a beautiful area where the IGWT motto would later be
the field luster over most of the coin rules out AU anything IMO, I think the lack of detail on the eagle's "shoulder" is due to weak strike rather than wear, likewise the highest points of the obverse detail.
So, sure, the graders deduct an MS point or two for the weaker than optimal strike, this coin's further "sins" are the obverse marks, none really singularly worth mention, but their quantity and placement in rather grade-sensitive areas is worth another couple points on the downside, yielding the PCGS net grade 61
Not a coin for everyone's tastes, but since all coins below 70 are unique net-graded individuals, we all pick our collecting preferences
There is a thin scratch across the obverse neck. You have to catch it just right in the light to see it. The dealer I bought it from claimed to have paid 63 money for it raw and claimed he was "hopelessly under water" on it.
If that little scratch on the neck is the reason why that coin flunked a CAC when it was only graded AU-58, then why did this MS-64 graded coin get the sticker with scratch that is larger? That scratch could be on an MS-63 graded coin.
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 ... ?
There is a thin scratch across the obverse neck. You have to catch it just right in the light to see it. The dealer I bought it from claimed to have paid 63 money for it raw and claimed he was "hopelessly under water" on it.
If that little scratch on the neck is the reason why that coin flunked a CAC when it was only graded AU-58, then why did this MS-64 graded coin get the sticker with scratch that is larger? That scratch could be on an MS-63 graded coin.
I don't think it was the scratch on the 58 that CAC didn't like. It was the overall look, color of the surfaces....which look unoriginal and too light out despite the bold luster. While your MS64 coin has the "look" that JA desires in original gold coins. If the surfaces don't look right (ie color and originality) JA usually passes on those, regardless of grade. That 58 is a monster based on few marks, minimal rub, and killer luster. It would fine for most anyone, including the dealer that paid MS63 money for it originally. But the surface color doesn't look original.
I would guess AU58+. But agree with RR that anywhere from 55-62 would not be out of question. Would have to see it in hand. Either way, I like it and it is among my favorite designs.
For giggles, I bought this in a VF30 holder. Cracked it and now in a PCGS AU53 holder. The softness does add to grading challenges.
For giggles, I bought this in a VF30 holder. Cracked it and now in a PCGS AU53 holder. The softness does add to grading challenges.
NIce pick up as a VF30 when it's showing about 30-50% luster. Those are the VF+ standards from the 1960's and 1970's. Now 30-50% luster is in the AU53/55 range.
Comments
Its tough to tell the degree of wear from the photos, but I think the wear is light enough to qualify as mint state. The coin has too much wear and enough loss of luster to not achieve the 62. Its a decent low end UNC.
Just my two cents, from photos.
Seth
<< <i>I'd call it an MS61.
Its tough to tell the degree of wear from the photos, but I think the wear is light enough to qualify as mint state. The coin has too much wear and enough loss of luster to not achieve the 62. Its a decent low end UNC.
Just my two cents, from photos.
Seth >>
bingo!
I think part of the highest point lack of detail is strike, and there is some roll/stacking/cabinet friction, but almost all of the field and device luster, with marks and a few wispy hairlines accounting for the remainder of the deductions. And yes, I found 61 to be the sweet spot as far as the price guide. Good discussion everyone, thanks!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Edited to add that perhaps it's a candidate for a gold CAC sticker.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>Not my series but I do prefer coins without IGWT. I am a fan of the separation of church and state thingie that the US Gov't doesn't care about while they demonstrate their selective enforcement of the laws in this country. >>
Whoa, talk about a ton of mis-understanding and misinformation getting tossed around in the statement above. >>
I think that was a different Constitution that was in reference since there has never been a law pertaining the "the separation of church and state". oh ...."thingie". If you find it please point it out so I can stand corrected.
I think that is a MS63 and a very nice piece.
As a Christian, I love the fact that the motto on US coins and currency annoys the
Atheists an ACLU.
In today's world, the motto undoubtedly violates the First Amendment, which
makes the annoyance even more satisfying.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I alsp like the less cluttered design.
Here's my example, NGC MS-62 (CAC):
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
While MS61 could be the sweet spot, it's also very probable that on a couple of return trips it would very likely see an AU58 grade at least once. If we had $200 to blow on
submission fees I'd bet that in 5 attempts, MS61 would not appear more than 2 or 3 times. Another way to corroborate that would be to try for a sticker. I've learned that lesson the
hard way on numerous pieces of what appeared to be PQish slabbed MS61 or MS62 Indian gold. Far too many times they would come back AU58. Hence....I don't do that anymore. Leave well enough alone.
<< <i>Does anybody know why many of these coins have a shiny spot where the neck meets the jaw? Mine has it, as does the one RYK posted. Mine was bought from a local dealer who bought it raw at 63-64 money - it came back NGC 58. >>
Possibly an area of the die that is typically polished? It's an area where there is an abrupt change from devices to flat fields. A good thing to remember as a counterfeit probably wouldn't show this same feature.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
[URL=http://s16.photobucket.com/user/jmicky41/media/Mobile Uploads/0710d2_zpsyk6rynbj.jpg.html]
<< <i>Good point about that shiny spot at the juncture of the neck of the RYK example, could be similar to the "birthmark" 1967 Kennedy that indicates a well struck coin from freshly prepped dies, and appear as a variety that tends to be nicer than average for the year, as RYK example clearly is. Nice pics, too. >>
Thank your for your resurection of this post as it a classic for grading Indian eagles and especially the 1907. I have had one on my bucket list for a long time and re-reading te opinions was very helpful. I am still in the 58 camp because I care not whether the softness on the eagle's shoulder is rub or a soft strike. I downgrade all coins with a soft strike. And know full well this is not the industry standard.
OINK
<< <i>My favorite coin in the whole US catalog. Here is mine, an NGC 58, which flunked at CAC. Pictures by MessyDesk.
[URL=http://s16.photobucket.com/user/jmicky41/media/Mobile Uploads/0710d2_zpsyk6rynbj.jpg.html]
I have to scratch my head as why that coin flunked at CAC. Perhaps it is color. It is certainly not from have too many marks or too much wear.
You are in good company. I have a couple of "flunkees" that failed to cut the mustard at CAC in my collection. I bought both of them after they had flunked, and was not the person who submitted them. One is a Confederate Restrike half dollar that I like better, at least from the pictures, than the one that is coming up in auction that did get CAC approval.
<< <i>there is way too much breast feather detail missing on the reverse to get AU58 or even AU55 in my opinion. It is too nice looking to get AU50 in my opinion as AU50 is usually reserved for ugly AU coins. It wouldn't surprise me if they gave it XF45 or AU53... I think it's got nice eye appeal overall so I chose AU53. >>
Grading is all over the place on this series in AU in recent years as it's not hard to get a older holder AU50 into a AU55 or AU58 holder these days at all of the grading services.
This is a series I'd like to try again in old school AU58 one day, but just like my SLQ's it might be years between finding equally matched coins for the set.
[URL=http://s57.photobucket.com/user/coinsareus10/media/1907GOLDINDIANCAC-1.jpg.html]
more tired if anything....and would probably drop a grade (or two) if resubmitted. That's not all that hard to fathom since so many of these were graded under the bulk submission programs where the TPG only gets paid if they meet minimum requested grades.
<< <i>
<< <i>My favorite coin in the whole US catalog. Here is mine, an NGC 58, which flunked at CAC. Pictures by MessyDesk.
[URL=http://s16.photobucket.com/user/jmicky41/media/Mobile Uploads/0710d2_zpsyk6rynbj.jpg.html]
I have to scratch my head as why that coin flunked at CAC. Perhaps it is color. It is certainly not from have too many marks or too much wear.
You are in good company. I have a couple of "flunkees" that failed to cut the mustard at CAC in my collection. I bought both of them after they had flunked, and was not the person who submitted them. One is a Confederate Restrike half dollar that I like better, at least from the pictures, than the one that is coming up in auction that did get CAC approval. >>
There is a thin scratch across the obverse neck. You have to catch it just right in the light to see it. The dealer I bought it from claimed to have paid 63 money for it raw and claimed he was "hopelessly under water" on it.
the field luster over most of the coin rules out AU anything IMO, I think the lack of detail on the eagle's "shoulder" is due to weak strike rather than wear, likewise the highest points of the obverse detail.
So, sure, the graders deduct an MS point or two for the weaker than optimal strike, this coin's further "sins" are the obverse marks, none really singularly worth mention, but their quantity and placement in rather grade-sensitive areas is worth another couple points on the downside, yielding the PCGS net grade 61
Not a coin for everyone's tastes, but since all coins below 70 are unique net-graded individuals, we all pick our collecting preferences
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Just bringing an older thread up, and inviting folks to post any pictures of their no-motto Indian head eagles.
Edit to add, the first one to get it "right" in guessing the PCGS grade was...
TwoSides2aCoin Posts: 37,498 ✭✭✭
December 15, 2013 11:48AM
In that case, it's an excellent exercise and thank you Baley. I can't love it as an AU 58… I'm going to have to guess it's LDS MS 61 (11 points off)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Here is mine.................. ex. Norweb.
If that little scratch on the neck is the reason why that coin flunked a CAC when it was only graded AU-58, then why did this MS-64 graded coin get the sticker with scratch that is larger? That scratch could be on an MS-63 graded coin.
I don't think it was the scratch on the 58 that CAC didn't like. It was the overall look, color of the surfaces....which look unoriginal and too light out despite the bold luster. While your MS64 coin has the "look" that JA desires in original gold coins. If the surfaces don't look right (ie color and originality) JA usually passes on those, regardless of grade. That 58 is a monster based on few marks, minimal rub, and killer luster. It would fine for most anyone, including the dealer that paid MS63 money for it originally. But the surface color doesn't look original.
Just tell us already, please
I would guess AU58+. But agree with RR that anywhere from 55-62 would not be out of question. Would have to see it in hand. Either way, I like it and it is among my favorite designs.
For giggles, I bought this in a VF30 holder. Cracked it and now in a PCGS AU53 holder. The softness does add to grading challenges.
siliconvalleycoins.com
I think the rub on eagles wing would give it AU53
NIce pick up as a VF30 when it's showing about 30-50% luster. Those are the VF+ standards from the 1960's and 1970's. Now 30-50% luster is in the AU53/55 range.
Holy cow, the hair detail! The feathers! I had no idea how much is missing in "run of the mill" examples (like mine)!
Thank for sharing, boiler78! What a gorgeous example.
No patterns allowed Mark....:D
siliconvalleycoins.com