High end 1856-O $20
logger7
Posts: 9,072 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://raregoldcoins.com/rare-gold-coin-inventory/just-added-2000-1856-o-pcgs-au55
It looks like Doug Winter has submitted this coin a number of times for the AU58 grade, what is keeping it back?
With submission costs on high value coins running $250+1% re-submissions can get expensive.
0
Comments
What's keeping it back? Almost everything.
I think it's lucky to be an AU55. Don't see anything on that (wear, marks, luster) suggesting any higher grade. An AU53 would be a more accurate grade imo than an AU58. If that were a common date, it might grade even lower. No doubt being an 1856-0 this gets seen a lot differently than say a 1904-s. There can't be all that many pleasing circ specimens of those rare N.O. Twenties. Just because there are few examples doesn't mean we have to stretch some 55's to 58's. The coin is not remotely close to mint state. "The surfaces show just a few light abrasions with none remotely detracting while the strike is sharp." What would "heavy" or "distracting" abrasions look like?
DW says the coin was not sent to CAC. But has it been seen before this? First step to a 58 is getting their approval as a 55. Considering they've only stickered a single coin at AU50 with none higher, doesn't give me a lot of confidence that this one would become the best they've seen to date. If DW was extremely confident in this one stickering, it would be worth the plane fare to take it there personally....or the next trip to a NY coin show/auction. A trip to CAC's offices is never a wasted one. You always learn something.
As a rule, I expect AU58 gold to look mint state, with mostly full luster. And part of that is due to gold not toning and therefore not being subjected to as many dippings/cleanings to remove toning that silver coins of that era went through.
Wow. $400k and ON HOLD. Gotta love that 1971 sale price of $5250.
Yeah. It's not unusual for top rarities or superb better date/type coins to have increased 50-100X since the early 1970's. Real knowledge was hard to come by.
There are a few coins that get graded on a sliding scale, like the 70-cc $20 and other super rare coins. If the stellar rarities were in AU details "improperly cleaned" or "damaged" holders, etc. how would that impact the hobby?
A positive impact if it was maintained since day 1 when PCGS first came out in 1986. Those standards were kept fairly tight through 1990. Why have different standards for the same $20 gold coin if one is a rarity and the other one is common? By 1998 things had changed and I don't think it was good for the overall market, at least not long term. We are now dealing with the decisions made back in 1996-2008. Could the Childs 1804 dollar (PF68) if only graded 65/66 have still reached the same price levels over the past 10 years? The coin didn't change. Bringing CAC into existence in 2008 was a net negative for the hobby imo. While 30-40% has benefited, the majority of the market has received a black mark. Would have been better if the standards had been maintained since 1990 such that there was not a place for a CAC.
I don't know why CAC wouldn't be able to offer a preliminary thumbs up or thumbs down on super rarities "i.e. save your postage and money, the coin is too rough for us". A 3D image or super high resolution pictures should be enough for that.
Sounds reasonable to me, especially on gold coins where toning doesn't interfere with viewing it. I would think CAC could look at most gold coins using top quality photos and decide at least if a coin is an almost certain rejection or worth sending in for a closer look, especially 6 figure ones. And it wouldn't surprise me if dealers have done something similar to this for a specialized fee. Some of the CAC graders get around the country to major shows where they could look at stuff for you. I'm sure it's done. On the flip side, you have many dealers with policies to never offer an opinion of grade/price without having the coin in hand or being seen by them in the past (ie Legend)...CAC could take that same line. Once you step on to the slippery slope of offering opinions w/o the coin in hand....problems can arise. Somehow, somewhere, that opinion or "offer" could come back to haunt you.
I've seen this coin in hand, and marveled at it for several minutes. It's a gorgeous and extremely rare coin as such. Irma is a good photographer, but sometimes even her images don't do the coin justice.
'dude
What about the photo doesn't do the coin justice? Do the facial marks appear smaller in person? Is there more luster than the 40-60% visible in the photos? Is the strike sharper in person? Is there less actual rub on the cheek and hair than the photos show? I don't think anyone here would argue that it's a gorgeous 1856-0 and extremely rare. The only question in my mind is what would it market grade if it were say a regular 1856 Philly type 1? Does anyone else feel along with DW that it's an AU58 candidate? Fwiw, I've owned pre-1933 VF35 gold coins with as much, or more luster than this coin. What did Stacks grade it at the 1971 auction appearance?
raregoldcoins.com/rare-gold-coin-inventory/2000-1850-pcgs-au55-cac-1-82186799
How does this AU55 CAC 1850 compare to the 1856-0? I can see why CAC liked this one.
raregoldcoins.com/rare-gold-coin-inventory/just-added-500-1845-o-pcgs-au55-cac....nice 55
What about the photo doesn't do the coin justice? Do the facial marks appear smaller in person? Is there more luster than the 30-60% visible in the photos? Is the strike sharper in person? Is there less rub than the photos show? I don't think anyone here would argue that it's a gorgeous 1856-0 and extremely rare.
Yes, to all of the above.
'dude
She is a beater. He is lucky to get what he got he should not push his luck. He needs to take a step back and ask would he pay up for this in 58 if it was being sold to him.
Hoard the keys.
I can't get past the mark on the neck.
Based upon the photos the 1856-O looks more like a 53 than a 55 to me...
I think the luster may be a lot stronger than what's apparent in the photo and could easily pull the grade up to AU 55. 58 no, just two choppy
I'd have to agree it doesn't look choice for a 55 it were a 'regular' Double Eagle, but with a rarity like this it seems more like you're not really buying an AU-55 as much as you're buying the 4th (or wherever it ranks) best example in the condition census. Here's a link from the Heritage sale - https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-double-eagles/double-eagles/1856-o-20-au55-pcgs-secure-variety-1/a/1236-4843.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
I thought the coin fit quite well in an AU-55 holder, looking at it in hand. The luster is there... yes, it has a few hits on it, but you'd be hard pressed to find a '56-O $20 (or '54-O $20 for that matter), unless you're lucky enough to own the SP-63 example, that don't exhibit hits on them. To compare a Half Eagle in this condition to a $20 Lib is like comparing apples to oranges, and there are plenty enough '50-O $20's around that you will find a few that have excellent, near mark-free surfaces for the AU-55 grade.
'dude
So the consensus is that grading standards for this date are softened because there are too few specimens available. Additional marks are acceptable that wouldn't be on more common dates of that era. I get it...even if I don't agree. Interesting to know this was graded AU back at the Stacks 1971 auction. AU was still a pretty new grade even for that time.
As a common saying in the military.. this one is beyond my pay grade.
Although I know this is true, I simply do not agree with it.....grading is subjective enough without blurring the lines with rarity - or - eye appeal due to tarnish...and yes, that happens as well. I believe TPG's should stick to the technical aspects of the coin... strike, luster, surface hits etc.. I look forward to the time that truly objective grading becomes reality...likely through computer assessment. Cheers, RickO
I'm surprised it got that grade..
I think the other PCGS AU58 1856-O (ex-Carter) is in a different league than this coin, and maybe it would not be appropriate for both of them to have the same grade.
Money talks. --------- walks.
And I'm just tip toeing through.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Has anyone who has posted here actually ever owned an 1856-O $20?
Latin American Collection
Does that really matter? I've owned a couple of gem 1856-0 quarters over the years, but never an 1859-0. Does that make me unqualified to grade or form an opinion on a gem 1859-0 25c? I've looked at several gem raw/slabbed 59-0's, just never owned one. Both dates probably have at most 3-6 specimens known in gem. Should it be different for New Orleans mints type 1 $20 Libs in circ grades? The TPG graders routinely assign grades to coins they have never owned....and also many they've never even held in their hands before. Does that disqualify them? When the Eliasberg collection hit the block almost 20 yrs ago, many of those coins near the top of the condition census had not been seen before by the vast majority of the collecting fraternity. Most that had seen the coins decades earlier were probably deceased by 1997. I'd bet most of the new owners of those coins (approx half of them dealers?) had never owned one before....same for the TPG graders that ended up grading them.
i haven't seen the coin in hand, but i love it! congrats to the new owner.
i don't think it's a stretch at au55 at all. it looks accurately graded, to my poor eyes.
gold is pretty hard to judge. i think if i was shown this coin raw, i would probably more conservative with my grade, assuming the coin looks exactly like it does in the photos, which we know already it does not (refer to charlottedude's post...he has a good eye).
marks are less important than luster. this coin has a lot of luster.
to the naysayers...load the max true view and study this coin. i say pcgs got it right.
http://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/82247235_max.jpg
Not a gold guy but I can agree with the grade as it stand
Steve
Most of the people presenting opinions are far from experienced in rare gold yet can offer statements of hyperbole on the coin being a no grade etc. Many of the posts seem lazy but what is new. FWIW I have no problem with the coin as a 55 and I have also ever owned a 56-O $20.
Latin American Collection
I don't know what the grade is/should be. I find it interesting some will slam a coin with a few extra hits (possibly) and not accept the grading standards these days. Yet, accept that let's say a capped bust half in mint-state will have rub on high points and say that's how it is these days or something to that effect.
I'm sure the dealer and new buyer appreciate their coin getting slammed on here when it's only on hold, last I looked.
I'll go with PCGS, and the 'Dude that have seen the coin in person. And BTW, I have respect for the 'Dude's opinion on his gold. Especially seeing it in person. EOM
We've lost sight of the original intent of this thread. It wasn't whether this 1856-0 was graded properly as AU55. The question was what is it missing to be graded as an AU58, as DW felt it was? If everyone thinks it's fine as an AU55, then that's possibly why it's not an AU58. Or maybe it just needs a few more trips to the TPG?
Irma's not the photographer. I am.
There seems to be a significant difference between the Trueview images and those on DW's website. The number and magnitude of obverse contact marks look a lot more severe in DW's images.
@VanHalen
I have written a few photography blogs over the last couple of years - one of them deals specifically with the idea "wow, the coin looks better in hand!" and how I, as a photographer, have to try to show all the dimensions of a coin's surface in one image. I could make any coin look spectacular, or I could make the same coin look like garbage, depending on how I shoot and process the photos. What I aim to do every time is show honestly not just the overall feel of the coin in-hand, but all the little things you might see if you put the coin under a light and really looked at it for a while. It's a tricky line to walk, showing a coin's potential flaws while still showing how attractive it is.
The rarity of 54-O, 56-O and 70-CC $20's has long been known. They just weren't in great demand, and - without fact checking myself - typically brought no more than 30-40K range, even for really nice ones, well into the 90's. Obviously, times have changed since then.
Edited to add that RR's point is completely applicable to more obscure rarities, and to condition rarities of all sorts. But the three dates I mentioned have been famous for a long, long time.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Thanks photog. Let's cut to the chase: Are some images photoshopped? It appears a few of the obverse contact marks are all but missing in your images.
Boosibri -- I don't think anyone suggested that the coin should be a no grade...do YOU think it should be in a 58 holder?
@VanHalen I absolutely NEVER photoshop images. It would be incredibly unethical, and our business relies on my honesty as well as Doug's. But again, I only shoot the coin from one angle with so many light sources. Just rotating any coin a tiny bit can make some marks jump out and others all but disappear. As I said, it's hard to show everything in one static image.
I also have the disadvantage of shooting the coin in the holder, as opposed to Phil at PCGS who shoots the coins raw.
Irma's not the photographer. I am.
Ah!! Sorry Jenna!
Like I mentioned earlier, I had the pleasure of examining this exact coin in hand... and I agree with the AU-55 grade. Would it '58? Not sure, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities...
'dude
I have purchased a dozen or so coins in the past year from DWN and have always been extremely happy with the coin in hand...Jenna's photos are ALWAYS great representations of the coins...wish Heritage and others would step up their game...
Not a 58 ... not even close ... but then my grading of gold coins is more strict than most. I would call it a 53 but since I am not ever going to be a buyer of it, it probably doesn't matter what I think of it.
Images explain a lot with the true view: http://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/82247235_max.jpg
I opened the image on a computer in a library today and the golden brightness was like "apocalypse now", heads turned and were quite impressed.
After looking at the True View images ... still a 53 to me.
I agree. I guess It's the numismatic equivalent of fat shaming a size 2 actress on FB.
Coin Rarities Online
If the dealer and prospective owner don't have enough confidence in their own abilities that they would be influenced by some chat room weenies who don't collect this series, they shouldn't be in rare coins. Anyone looking to add an AU 1856-0 $20 to their set has to be an extremely serious and sharp player. The use of "slamming" is a stretch as it concerns the reasons why the coin isn't currently an AU58 (ie a size 0) when it's currently AU55 (ie a size 2). We could also discuss why it's not a MS62 and call that "slamming" as well. In any case, DW and the next owner will be 2 steps ahead of anyone here when it comes to evaluating this coin.
The market currently values accurate or conservatively graded coins where nearly every "expert" in that series agrees the coin is ok/nice for that grade. Would bumping this up to AU58 be a help or a hindrance? Considering that the highest stickered example of this date is currently an AU50, I would think whatever it takes to earn a sticker on this coin would be the "ideal" grade. And if that ended up being 53/55, that would make the coin the finest example stickered.....suggesting it being one of the most wholesome and originals of the extant 56-0's. That to me would be a worthy goal since "wholesomeness" is not a typical attribute of 1856-0 Twenties.
The newest images don't change anything. "Golden glow" is not a grading attribute. The marks, luster and strike are unchanged. The photo of any coin hides something. There are always more defects to uncover, even on MS65-MS67 coins. No one has yet to offer any strong arguments for an AU58 grade.
The original post was a discussion about an au58 grade as one poster suggests. Yet that poster only seems to bring up CAC stats and seated quarters and 1902 grading standards.
You can't blame him for trying - it's a $200,000 bump in 58.
But it sure has a number of hits on the obverse and to me it's lucky to get a 55 instead of a 53.
Back in the early 1980's we graded by the series, not by the date. This would have gotten an AU-50. The only question is whether or not we would have put "Cleaned" on the photo certificate.
TD