Poll: Your reaction to this Pogue coin

CalGold · December 1, 2015 8:12AM

What comes to mind when you look at this coin graded MS66+ ex Eliasberg

ranshdow · December 1, 2015 8:33AM

I like the copper spotting, the frosted devices, the pretty darn amazing strike...

Flatwoods · December 1, 2015 8:43AM

None of the above.

AUandAG · December 1, 2015 8:44AM

I would say it has had several obverse wipes.

Pretty nonetheless.

bob

DennisH · December 1, 2015 8:49AM

"I hate spots" is what comes to my mind.

stealer · December 1, 2015 8:55AM

It's nice, but it's too nice. It's like how super models are extremely attractive, but I would much rather have a more down to earth (in appearance) wife.

LanceNewmanOCC · December 1, 2015 9:29AM

.

guess we'll call this an unc-cam (pl is too Blasé for this piece)

gr8 coin - with this style of imaging, blemishes are exaggerated.

would love to see "normal" images.

lacking pales/gules.

neat wonky fraction and font/lettering.

decent stars.

are these reeded edges?

would enjoy getting my grubby fingers on this for a few minutes.

.

AnkurJ · December 1, 2015 9:37AM

Nice coin, but I would rather spend the money on a 1795 $10.

steveben · December 1, 2015 9:38AM

beautiful

TwoSides2aCoin · December 1, 2015 9:42AM

Lust

Tibor · December 1, 2015 9:55AM

Can someone explain the "scars" around the letter "B" in Liberty?

cmerlo1 · December 1, 2015 9:57AM

I haven't flunked life. I just haven't aced it yet.

Walkerguy21D · December 1, 2015 9:58AM

Ditto to none of the above.....it's a very cool coin that I can appreciate, w/o putting down my own life or my coins.

LanceNewmanOCC · December 1, 2015 10:12AM

Originally posted by: Tibor

Can someone explain the "scars" around the letter "B" in Liberty?

contact. pretty strong for a 6+ too

.

CuKevin · December 1, 2015 10:32AM

Originally posted by: LanceNewmanOCC

Originally posted by: Tibor
Can someone explain the "scars" around the letter "B" in Liberty?

contact. pretty strong for a 6+ too
.

Looks to me like it's in the planchet. Notice how the B hasn't been deformed by contact that would've hit it? I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like contact to me.

garrynot · December 1, 2015 10:50AM

Originally posted by: AUandAG

I would say it has had several obverse wipes.

Pretty nonetheless.

bob

I agree. There are proof like qualities to it, but the fields look suspect.

LanceNewmanOCC · December 1, 2015 11:03AM

Looks to me like it's in the planchet. Notice how the B hasn't been deformed by contact that would've hit it? I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like contact to me.

the main one could be flan-related but the others are contact. goes from the cap, hair all the way to truncation.

.

BIGAL2749 · December 1, 2015 11:09AM

On both sides of the date you see a number of adjustment marks and with the prooflike surfaces we're seeing numerous die polishing marks.

I really don't think the TPG would grade 66, even on a big name coin

Broadstruck · December 1, 2015 11:13AM

Tough crowd

roadrunner · December 1, 2015 11:16AM

I'm ok with it in the 65 range. MS gold coins are generally graded a bit more liberally than the other metals.

Unknown · December 1, 2015 11:21AM

This content has been removed.

Nysoto · December 1, 2015 11:36AM

A great example of Robert Scot's last original (master) die engraving at age 75.

BillJones · December 1, 2015 11:49AM

Much better than the type coin in my collection, but over graded at MS-66. My grade would be MS-65 despite the marks in Ms Liberty's bust. I'd collect it if "I had not flunked in life" .... NOT ... flunked in life .... Not just up there with Eliasberg and Harry Bass.

DeliaBug · December 1, 2015 12:15PM

What comes to mind? That it is a proof.

Let's walk back in time. In Eliasberg this coin was graded Proof-67. This coin is also out of Parmelee, where it was also called a proof. Actually they called it a sharp, perfect, extremely-rare proof. (And bought $20 in 1890). It is also plated in the Parmelee sale and it looks the same as it does now.

Proskey, Smith, Bowers and others called this coin a proof. And if it is indeed a proof, that is one very rare bird.

ColonelJessup · December 1, 2015 12:18PM

Well, it's the best of the series and Dave Akers adored both this and the '95 $10. Having held both in-hand at Pogue II, quibble on.....

ColonelJessup · December 1, 2015 12:35PM

There are only 3 proofs of this date. The Norman Stack coin was really washed out, I owned the very original Garrett coin with MrE 30 years ago. Which could/must be the expertly dipped Loewinger piece from HA FUN Platinum some time in the last ten or so years.

There is a pretty noticeable depression in the center of the cheek of the 1821 proof QE that is diagnostic. No business strike '21 has it.

edited to add: my mistake, no proof in this coming FUN sale. Check out Loewinger's

ricko · December 2, 2015 12:23AM

A nice gold coin.... more likely a 65 in hand..... Cheers, RickO

BillJones · December 2, 2015 12:32AM

Among the coins I have seen of this type with at least some mint surface remaining, all of them have had what might be called P-L surfaces. The mintages were so small the dies didn't get enough use to lose their mirrors. Here is the "flunked in life" example in my collection. The P-L surfaces make every surface mark look bigger than it is. It's hard to get anything any better than this for this type.

valente151 · December 2, 2015 1:00AM

When I saw this in hand, it was transcendental. Some of y'all are quick to grab the loupe and dissect every tiny thing on the coin, while ignoring the overall appearance of the coin. Not all coins are made the same, grading isn't simply counting marks and subtracting from 70.

Back to studying...

Baley · December 2, 2015 1:03AM

None of the above in the weird poll.

Beautiful coin, I'd be thrilled to own any example of this type, though will probably never be able to obtain one that would be pleasant to look at.

JJSingleton · December 2, 2015 1:11AM

A Beauty for sure.

This is one tough crowd.

Rehctelf · December 2, 2015 2:21AM

Melanoma ;-)

Ronyahski · December 2, 2015 12:14PM

Gorgeous!

Spent over a day lot viewing the Pogue II sale. This coin is 66 "A" for sure.

Labeling coins from that era as Proofs is futile, it's a figment born from today.

ColonelJessup · December 2, 2015 12:17PM

In more than a few instances, you're right

The research on proofs of this specific date and issue is incontrovertible.

mercurydimeguy · December 2, 2015 12:23PM

I believe the coin has been "helped" or "enhanced" or whatever is the most politicly correct way of saying that. It definitely has nice fields but it's hard to tell if they are really PL or not because of the style of photography, it's easy to get that kind of a field look in a photo on many MS65 or better coins...

DeepCoin · December 2, 2015 11:27PM

Blowing up a coin to the size of a dinner plate on a big screen will always provide a range of opinions due to the excessive magnification. Once again, holding the coin in hand is 1,000 times better than viewing on a two dimensional screen in excessive size. Thus, I tend to pretty much side with those who have held the coin in hand over those who are working from a flawed (IMHO) viewing method.

Not that I dislike images as I love seeing all the coins, it is just that some are more representative of what the coin really looks like than others.

ColonelJessup · December 3, 2015 12:31AM

Originally posted by: mercurydimeguy
I believe the coin has been "helped" or "enhanced" or whatever is the most politicly correct way of saying that. It definitely has nice fields but it's hard to tell if they are really PL or not because of the style of photography, it's easy to get that kind of a field look in a photo on many MS65 or better coins...

Call 'em like you see 'em. But look again after you get your eyes checked.

WinLoseWin · December 3, 2015 1:44AM

Do people like the following 1821 any less or more than the coin in the original post?

In case it is not clear, this is the same coin as in the OP with more info from here:

http://coinsite.com/1821-cappe...-eliasberg-collection/

I guess I would trust those who viewed it in person over some who seem to consider themselves experts at assessing it from only a photo.

By the way, is there anyone who viewed it that did not like it? Some variation in grading would be understandable as even PCGS graded it as MS-65 in the late 1980's.

TwoSides2aCoin · December 3, 2015 3:01AM

Despite any other angle, my lust remains the same.

Ablinky · December 3, 2015 4:48AM

Originally posted by: valente151
When I saw this in hand, it was transcendental. Some of y'all are quick to grab the loupe and dissect every tiny thing on the coin, while ignoring the overall appearance of the coin. Not all coins are made the same, grading isn't simply counting marks and subtracting from 70.

Back to studying...

Well said.

johnny9434 · December 3, 2015 4:50AM

nice coin cept for the spots that are here and there. just saying

ColonelJessup · December 3, 2015 5:09AM

Originally posted by: CuKevin

Originally posted by: LanceNewmanOCC

Originally posted by: Tibor
Can someone explain the "scars" around the letter "B" in Liberty?

contact. pretty strong for a 6+ too
.

Looks to me like it's in the planchet. Notice how the B hasn't been deformed by contact that would've hit it? I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like contact to me.

OTM. The key to analyzing many of these planchet irregularities is that strike is over the gap, not the device under the "mark".

ColonelJessup · December 3, 2015 5:12AM

duplicate post

TwoSides2aCoin · December 3, 2015 6:45AM

I see red spots. Copper bleeding through on the planchet. Sign of originality. I see die polish lines, to me ; indicating the refurbished or state of the die when 'new' or renewed. Which also speaks to a high mint state specimen in my view. The way the lines (someone mentioned "wipe", in essence it's likely fine emory cloth that a tool and die guy did it with…. So , these lines emanate from or toward the devices or around them. That also speaks well of the "new state" of the die.

Then add the contrast between the fields and devices and it's hard to not see the magnificence of a great strike. Seems to be struck through something, also. I am not sure what the indentation is in the head of the coin, but it looks as though it might have been a flaw in the planchet. As to grade; that's not my forte'. I'm just an outside observer LQQKING in, as objectively on the subject at hand, as my eyes see and brain perceives…. and it's beautiful beyond my words or view.

Ronyahski · December 3, 2015 7:47AM

Originally posted by: ColonelJessup
In more than a few instances, you're right

The research on proofs of this specific date and issue is incontrovertible.

To quote Ray J. Johnson Jr., "You can call it a Specimen, you can call it Special, you can call it a Master Coin, but you doesn't hasta call it Proof."

earlyAurum · December 3, 2015 11:02AM

i viewed the coin in hand and found it simply beautiful. Wonderful contrast between the fields and devices. Looks like a proof but i don't have the expertise to have a strong view. I thought that it was nicer than the Pogue 1825 QE in 67 and wasn't surprise that the 1821 brought more money.

ColonelJessup mentioned that a proof be in the upcoming Fun. I look forward to seeing that one. Very interesting thread.

Justacommeman · December 3, 2015 2:10PM

That is a stellar beast of a coin

mark

Coinosaurus · December 3, 2015 3:00PM

The reverse shield is weak and the center curl on the obverse isn't well struck up either. The thing is spotted all over and the obverse planchet marks severely detract from the eye appeal. It also has one of those stupid centering dot things that clearly proves the engraver was goofing off that day. Star 13 completely lacks definition and you can also see some weak dentilation at the corresponding portion of the obverse rim. If the modern Mint put out something like this it would grade MS63 at best.

The cataloger probably had to get out his extra large shovel to put some lipstick on this POS

Lakesammman · December 3, 2015 3:14PM

It's a Pogue coin - 'nuff said.

Pistareen · December 3, 2015 11:52PM

Studying coins from pictures is a lot like the old fable about the blind men and the elephant. Depending upon what image you look at, and what your level of experience is, you could get very different views of the coin. The only way to study a coin like this is in hand, and the only way to understand it fully is to have a laundry list of similar coins already described in your head for comparison. A picture is nothing more than shorthand, eye candy, an icon that stands in for the real thing. That's why I have to fly back and forth to NYC for weeks to study and describe the Pogue coins in hand. Cataloguing them from pictures sure would be easier for everyone involved, but that's akin to reading National Geographic and saying you've been on a safari.

If folks could derive everything from a photograph that they can from a coin, they could trade in their safe deposit boxes in favor of a thumb drive instead.

Col. Jessup was literally studying coins like this before I was born (sorry Colonel, the truth hurts).

(Pogue III, checking in at a stout 336 pages, will be in the mail soon.)

Boosibri · December 3, 2015 11:53PM

Great post JK

Poll: Your reaction to this Pogue coin

Comments

Leave a Comment