Another NGC MS69 coin I followed over the years was the Eliasberg/Clapp 1894-s $5 Liberty. A rare coin even in choice unc. I was flabbergasted when this showed up in a MS69 holder sometime in the 1988/1989 market. I had always figured it for a 67/68 coin. It does have some facial grazes but luster and fields to die for. More surprised that when I just checked, it's CAC'd too. PCGS prices this date in MS68 even though they don't have one. I suppose they entered this coin into their Eliasberg data base as a 68. I generally agree with Akers assessment of the coin's standing among its peers. It was the one coin I wanted the most at 1982 Eliasberg....going for double what I thought it would.
@keets said: I believe that is from the old mint packaging for proofs, tissue paper if I remember correctly. Many old proofs have that light pastel toning...
I knew an old guy who used to call that "lingerie" tone. it seems an apt description.
I handled an original 1900 proof set back around 10 years ago that came in the original wrappers and packaging. Those paper wrappers were quite thick, almost like Bond Typing paper. I don't know if the mint's "tissue" paper from 1878 was any different. Leave them in those wrappers long enough and the coins will likely turn dark blue to black. The Barbers in my set were bordering on blue/black. The Morgan dollar was a mottled silvery and brown on the way to blue. The Indian cents stayed approx 80% red. Those coins were in the wrappers for over 100 years....no "lingerie" quality toning here. I doubt the 1878 TD in this thread spent anywhere near that amount of time in the wrappers.
@roadrunner said:
Another NGC MS69 coin I followed over the years was the Eliasberg/Clapp 1894-s $5 Liberty. A rare coin even in choice unc. I was flabbergasted when this showed up in a MS69 holder sometime in the 1988/1989 market. I had always figured it for a 67/68 coin. It does have some facial grazes but luster and fields to die for. More surprised that when I just checked, it's CAC'd too. PCGS prices this date in MS68 even though they don't have one. I suppose they entered this coin into their Eliasberg data base as a 68. I generally agree with Akers assessment of the coin's standing among its peers. It was the one coin I wanted the most at 1982 Eliasberg....going for double what I thought it would.
@roadrunner said:
Another NGC MS69 coin I followed over the years was the Eliasberg/Clapp 1894-s $5 Liberty. A rare coin even in choice unc. I was flabbergasted when this showed up in a MS69 holder sometime in the 1988/1989 market. I had always figured it for a 67/68 coin. It does have some facial grazes but luster and fields to die for. More surprised that when I just checked, it's CAC'd too. PCGS prices this date in MS68 even though they don't have one. I suppose they entered this coin into their Eliasberg data base as a 68. I generally agree with Akers assessment of the coin's standing among its peers. It was the one coin I wanted the most at 1982 Eliasberg....going for double what I thought it would.
not to be argumentative, but if you go back and re-read the post I made and the cut/paste I referenced you'll see the words "light pastel toning" which is what my comment was about. it is, indeed, a very apt description of the tone since it is almost transparent as Wabbit alluded to.
...Its in hand again for you...Congrats! Crazy Awesome Coin and I agree with @RogerB and I think TDN may have enough balls to get it inside PCGS plastic with TrueView...Exactly where she Belongs
Edit: looks like it did get a new plastic tomb...looks better with 90% less slab scratches
This thread just popped up so I'm late to the party.
Please humor me as I've trained my eye to find every tiny defect on a coin and then I "back off." While my opinion does not matter to anyone, please indulge my thoughts. The OP's coin is one of the nicest I've see of that date; however, NGC has grossly over graded it. That said, a collector of this coin should not GAD about the TPGS opinion or the assigned grade. The coin is going to be worth $X to someone.
@tradedollarnut said: "The spot was always there and it was graded almost 20 years ago. And I guarantee you there are no hairlines in the fields - any that you see are certainly on the holder. I would pay six figures for that coin spot and all - in fact, I recently offered such and was quickly shot down."
What you would offer or pay for this coin should have nothing to do with NGC's opinion of its grade. As to hairlines, I think if we tip it in the correct orientation we'll see a few. I guarantee they are there. I'll point out one below.
@MsMorrisine said: "Is that a hit after the S in GRAINS?"
No.
@asheland said: "Acetone would have likely fixed that."
Actually, it would not. The surface has already been etched. There is a slim to none chance that the coin was struck thru some debris in which case the graders may have down-played the spot. Nevertheless, the coin is grossly over graded.
Now I get to pretend to be a professional TPGS employee. I get to be on the box first as a spoiler looking for any defects I can find. Let's crank up the power on my stereo microscope.
There is a tiny 5mm scratch parallel to the upper leg (also visible in OP). I believe that the horizontal hairlines in front of the knee at 3 o'clock are also on the coin. They are not visible in the OP.
There are stains in the right field between stars 12 & 13.
There are marks on both sides of the first "S" in "States." Cannot tell if these are strike-thrus.
.There is lots of "milk' spotting on the reverse under 420 and under the "E" of Trade.
I treat spots like bagmarks. So I'd send the coin on as an MS-67.1 as the color and eye appeal makes me forget what I just saw.
I should be interested in being taken to the "woodshed" by all the TPGS "finalizers" reading this nonsense from a rookie "wannabe". LOL.
The highest graded T$? There can't be too many at that grade. I hear they spend a lot of time on some coins in the grading room. What if any would be the recourse with NGC if leading experts thought it was overgraded?
@tradedollarnut said:
The spot was always there and it was graded almost 20 years ago. And I guarantee you there are no hairlines in the fields - any that you see are certainly on the holder.
I would pay six figures for that coin spot and all - in fact, I recently offered such and was quickly shot down.
IIRC, from Eric Streiner's deal out of John Story Jenks.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@tradedollarnut said:
The spot was always there and it was graded almost 20 years ago. And I guarantee you there are no hairlines in the fields - any that you see are certainly on the holder.
I would pay six figures for that coin spot and all - in fact, I recently offered such and was quickly shot down.
The OP posted coin is not a PF69 for my money.
I bet if you showed it in Baltimore at the convention center show with those blazing lights.
You might see it look better. > @asheland said:
Comments
question retracted.
Reminds of a post , photo some time ago about a Morgan Dollar, graded MS -69.... certainly that was not deserving of the grade
Another NGC MS69 coin I followed over the years was the Eliasberg/Clapp 1894-s $5 Liberty. A rare coin even in choice unc. I was flabbergasted when this showed up in a MS69 holder sometime in the 1988/1989 market. I had always figured it for a 67/68 coin. It does have some facial grazes but luster and fields to die for. More surprised that when I just checked, it's CAC'd too. PCGS prices this date in MS68 even though they don't have one. I suppose they entered this coin into their Eliasberg data base as a 68. I generally agree with Akers assessment of the coin's standing among its peers. It was the one coin I wanted the most at 1982 Eliasberg....going for double what I thought it would.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-half-eagles/1894-s-5-ms69-ngc/a/1201-5459.s?hdnJumpToLot=1x=0&y=0
I believe that is from the old mint packaging for proofs, tissue paper if I remember correctly. Many old proofs have that light pastel toning...
I knew an old guy who used to call that "lingerie" tone. it seems an apt description.
I handled an original 1900 proof set back around 10 years ago that came in the original wrappers and packaging. Those paper wrappers were quite thick, almost like Bond Typing paper. I don't know if the mint's "tissue" paper from 1878 was any different. Leave them in those wrappers long enough and the coins will likely turn dark blue to black. The Barbers in my set were bordering on blue/black. The Morgan dollar was a mottled silvery and brown on the way to blue. The Indian cents stayed approx 80% red. Those coins were in the wrappers for over 100 years....no "lingerie" quality toning here. I doubt the 1878 TD in this thread spent anywhere near that amount of time in the wrappers.
Sorry to ask but what does "CAC" mean?
Thanks!
go here: caccoin.com/
**no "lingerie" quality toning here. **
not to be argumentative, but if you go back and re-read the post I made and the cut/paste I referenced you'll see the words "light pastel toning" which is what my comment was about. it is, indeed, a very apt description of the tone since it is almost transparent as Wabbit alluded to.
Does this posting mean you acquired it?
...Its in hand again for you...Congrats! Crazy Awesome Coin and I agree with @RogerB and I think TDN may have enough balls to get it inside PCGS plastic with TrueView...Exactly where she Belongs
Edit: looks like it did get a new plastic tomb...looks better with 90% less slab scratches
No - alas - my most recent offer was declined once more. But these pics show some of the life of the coin so I felt they were post worthy
This thread just popped up so I'm late to the party.
Please humor me as I've trained my eye to find every tiny defect on a coin and then I "back off." While my opinion does not matter to anyone, please indulge my thoughts. The OP's coin is one of the nicest I've see of that date; however, NGC has grossly over graded it. That said, a collector of this coin should not GAD about the TPGS opinion or the assigned grade. The coin is going to be worth $X to someone.
@tradedollarnut said: "The spot was always there and it was graded almost 20 years ago. And I guarantee you there are no hairlines in the fields - any that you see are certainly on the holder. I would pay six figures for that coin spot and all - in fact, I recently offered such and was quickly shot down."
What you would offer or pay for this coin should have nothing to do with NGC's opinion of its grade. As to hairlines, I think if we tip it in the correct orientation we'll see a few. I guarantee they are there. I'll point out one below.
@MsMorrisine said: "Is that a hit after the S in GRAINS?"
No.
@asheland said: "Acetone would have likely fixed that."
Actually, it would not. The surface has already been etched. There is a slim to none chance that the coin was struck thru some debris in which case the graders may have down-played the spot. Nevertheless, the coin is grossly over graded.
Now I get to pretend to be a professional TPGS employee.
I get to be on the box first as a spoiler looking for any defects I can find. Let's crank up the power on my stereo microscope. 
I treat spots like bagmarks. So I'd send the coin on as an MS-67.1 as the color and eye appeal makes me forget what I just saw.
I should be interested in being taken to the "woodshed" by all the TPGS "finalizers" reading this nonsense from a rookie "wannabe". LOL.
The highest graded T$? There can't be too many at that grade. I hear they spend a lot of time on some coins in the grading room. What if any would be the recourse with NGC if leading experts thought it was overgraded?
It is certainly a lovely coin. That spot is not miniscule to my eye. PCGS says it has to be as stated below.
MS/PR-69
Virtually fully struck with miniscule imperfections visible upon close inspection.
IIRC, from Eric Streiner's deal out of John Story Jenks.
move the decimal right
The OP posted coin is not a PF69 for my money.
I bet if you showed it in Baltimore at the convention center show with those blazing lights.
You might see it look better. > @asheland said:
Nice coin but not 69 IMO
@tradedollarnut I see this coin is for sale now? Did it trade hands or has it always been in that dealers hands?
Is this the same one on TDN current "REMOVED" post?
Yes.
Don't drag me into this! This thread is 18 months old!!
Too late.
