1863 $10 GILT J-352 help needed

joebb21 · March 14, 2014 6:10AM

While trying to research gilt patterns, I find it very interesting that the Judd number attributed to them (as this case demonstrates) is the same number as their copper counterparts. As in this case, the j-352 pattern is given pcgs# 60514 for the brown designation and 70514 for red brown.

No mention is made in coinfacts of coins also being gilted (the process of gold plating with a very thin layer of either gold or a gold colored metal).

My question is how many coins were gilted from the mint and why coins were gilted. They seem to be much rarer then their comparable br/rb counterparts.
Any help on gilt info and this particular pattern would be appreciated.
thanks!

Broadstruck · March 14, 2014 6:18AM

I don't have Pollock's book handy but as I recall many of these now gilded patterns had been gilt post mint by collectors shortly after issued to persevere them.

RYK · March 14, 2014 6:40AM

Gilting was an aftermarket modification. As such, there is no standard process, and these are not recognized as varieties since the host coin is the same as the ones that remained ungilted.

Broadstruck · March 14, 2014 6:48AM

RWB just messaged me to let you know the following =

Please relay to PCGS poster "joebb21" that copper pattern pieces were gilded outside of the mint....the mint did not do that.

If someone at the mint of HQ wanted a gilt piece, it was sent out to a local jeweler for the work.

(Strictly speaking, they were not gilded, but electroplated.)

Broadstruck · March 14, 2014 6:54AM

<< <i>Gilting was an aftermarket modification. >>

RYK, Reading the words "Aftermarket Modification" is very potent...

Which now has me wondering if such impacts the value of these negatively

MrEureka · March 14, 2014 7:30AM

I can only recall one gilt pattern that I was 100% convinced was gilt at the Mint. A few "possibles" on top of that, but virtually all are post-Mint jobs.

Therefore, it would be a mistake to give gilt and non-gilt coins different Judd numbers. For some coins, it would create a false impression of rarity, and create market value where none is justified.

MrEureka · March 14, 2014 7:35AM

RYK, Reading the words "Aftermarket Modification" is very potent...

Which now has me wondering if such impacts the value of these negatively

The market seems to value gilt patterns at a premium to non-gilt pieces. If it were up to me, it would be the other way around.

BTW, not all gilt patterns will get a grade at the TPGs. If the job is super-obvious, like if it looks like a piece of gold-foiled chocolate, it will typically get "no-graded". (And, right or wrong, NGC is far more likely to grade gilt patterns than PCGS.)

joebb21 · March 14, 2014 7:36AM

Thank you all for the information! (you too RWB)

joebb21 · March 14, 2014 7:43AM

joebb21 · March 14, 2014 7:44AM

If Gilting was done post mint, why are they graded at all? perhaps they should be considered altered surface?
In this case it seems almost like a racketeer nickel.

Were gilted coins meant to fool people into thinking they were gold? Since they were created as patterns the cost was probably over face value (as appose to an 1863 $10 that you could have bought straight from the mint for $10) I would assume not. Also the reverse shows a $10 denomination so this theory is probably out.

LanceNewmanOCC · March 14, 2014 7:55AM

<< <i>If Gilting was done post mint, why are they graded at all? perhaps they should be considered altered surface?
In this case it seems almost like a racketeer nickel. Were gilted coins meant to fool people into thinking they were gold? >>

a big +1 to the "why are they graded at all"

i am no expert to gilting nor patterns but pmd is pmd.

edited to add:

<< <i>Thank you all for the information! (you too RWB) >>

.

michiganboy · March 14, 2014 8:31AM

I like it, plated or not. Patterns are something one day I hope to get into. As far as why is it graded yeah I think if its post mint then no should be details graded just like everything else. Oh well what do I know

MrEureka · March 14, 2014 9:50AM

<< If Gilting was done post mint, why are they graded at all? perhaps they should be considered altered surface?
In this case it seems almost like a racketeer nickel. Were gilted coins meant to fool people into thinking they were gold? >>

I don't think that these coins were intended to fool anyone. I think some people just liked them that way, and that holds true even today.

As for why they are graded, you would have to ask the TPGs. I have mixed feelings about it myself.

And FWIW, consider that there may be no definitive way to know that a US pattern was gilt at the Mint. Makes it hard for a TPG to take a firm position and defend it.

MrEureka · March 14, 2014 10:19AM

If someone at the mint of HQ wanted a gilt piece, it was sent out to a local jeweler for the work.

I missed this earlier comment attributed to RWB. This is news to me, but I'll accept it as fact because RWB does not make sh*t up.

It does surprise me, though, because I've seen so few pieces that I thought were gilt at the time of issue.

If RWB reads this, I'd love to know which patterns, if any, are known to have been gilt at the order of the US Mint.

1863 $10 GILT J-352 help needed

Comments

Leave a Comment