Although I like the 46-O it appears to have weak luster, CAC can be very tough of LSD.
Winner!!!!!!! Well done shish!
1805 dime - Yes
1834 dime - Yes
1819 quarter - no - click on the image and do the zoom in, check out the area in the field beneath the beak - looks like someone used something sharp to scratch a spot(?) off. I was hoping CAC would miss it, this is an R5, otherwise a wonderful coin, but it does have that issue, but you can't really complain too much on an R5 case you won't find another this nice very often.
1834 quarter - Yes
1846-O dollar - No - I thought this was a shoe in, in fact I was worried about the 60-O not beaning first, boy was I wrong, I think I am going to send this one back for reconsideration so I can have JA look at it again and then have a phone conversation on it. He will do that if request in advance, which I did not to this time.
1860-O dollar - GOLD! after seeing the decision, I went back to the image and realized that yes this one does have minimal to no(?) wear. I want to look at the luster again when I get it back from CAC.
As rr noted, we should do this with other groups of coins, good way to learn.
Note also as shish said, CAC is very tough on LSD's, in fact my experience has been that they are tough on any seated coin. Seated have been my worst success, but that failure has taught me alot and now I think I make better decisions on seated.
Shish did a good job. To be completely fair here, their original guess on page 1 was bettered. Boosibri also had 2 incorrects yet did correctly ID the gold beaner. Boosibri is the winner on those who guessed before additional info was put out. Best was 4 right out of 6 with the gold being the tie breaker.
Very educational post. Well done to Spacehayduke for his coins and posting this challenge. More fun than the usual GTG because now we are trying to guess superlatives on one person's grading eye. And to Naysayers that suggested you can't reveal anything from pictures, I'd say hogwash. A lot of people got 66-71% right w/o even having the darn coin in their hands. If the photos are good enough, the assessment can be very good as well. The TPG's only grade to 65-75% accuracy and they DO hold the coin in their hands....with 3-4 sets of eyes on the coin.
Next time let's make it tougher, with no inside info other some of the coins could be stickered. And some might or might not be gold. Devilish!
And concerning the potential "pin scratching" mentioned on the 1819 25c. The TPG's can vary on stuff like that. An 1841 half I once had came back with various grades because of similar attempts to remove a spot or something under the eagle's left wing. It was body bagged once, and also received grades of 62, 63, 63. One grading event isn't necessary the real grade. I suspect in 2 of those submissions that light pin scratching wasn't picked up.
1805 Dime Yes
1834 Dime No
1819 Qurater Yes
1834 Quarter No
1846-O Dollar Yes, if there is more luster than is showing in the photo - I think that there is.
1860-O No
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 ... ?
1805 dime - Yes
1834 dime - Yes
1819 quarter - no - click on the image and do the zoom in, check out the area in the field beneath the beak - looks like someone used something sharp to scratch a spot(?) off. I was hoping CAC would miss it, this is an R5, otherwise a wonderful coin, but it does have that issue, but you can't really complain too much on an R5 case you won't find another this nice very often.
1834 quarter - Yes
1846-O dollar - No - I thought this was a shoe in, in fact I was worried about the 60-O not beaning first, boy was I wrong, I think I am going to send this one back for reconsideration so I can have JA look at it again and then have a phone conversation on it. He will do that if request in advance, which I did not to this time.
1860-O dollar - GOLD! after seeing the decision, I went back to the image and realized that yes this one does have minimal to no(?) wear. I want to look at the luster again when I get it back from CAC.
How did you conclude that someone had mechanically manipulated the surface of the 1819 quarter as opposed to normal chatter? The 1834 dime was also a surprise for me. It looks cleaned and retoned to me. Before you submitted, what did you anticipate the results would be?
1805 dime - Yes
1834 dime - Yes
1819 quarter - no - click on the image and do the zoom in, check out the area in the field beneath the beak - looks like someone used something sharp to scratch a spot(?) off. I was hoping CAC would miss it, this is an R5, otherwise a wonderful coin, but it does have that issue, but you can't really complain too much on an R5 case you won't find another this nice very often.
1834 quarter - Yes
1846-O dollar - No - I thought this was a shoe in, in fact I was worried about the 60-O not beaning first, boy was I wrong, I think I am going to send this one back for reconsideration so I can have JA look at it again and then have a phone conversation on it. He will do that if request in advance, which I did not to this time.
1860-O dollar - GOLD! after seeing the decision, I went back to the image and realized that yes this one does have minimal to no(?) wear. I want to look at the luster again when I get it back from CAC.
How did you conclude that someone had mechanically manipulated the surface of the 1819 quarter as opposed to normal chatter? The 1834 dime was also a surprise for me. It looks cleaned and retoned to me. Before you submitted, what did you anticipate the results would be?
It really looks like pinscratches that are repeated across each other rather than individual swipes across the surfaces. I interpret that to be someone removing something but of course anything is possible. Another person on these boards have had similar looking scratches on a coin or two of his come back from CAC as a no pass, where JA told him it was damage due to spot removal. Again, does not make it so, but that is a good interpretation.
Here were my predictions
1805 dime - on the fence, depends on how CAC judged the toning. I have similar toning on early coins w/CAC so was optimistic but you never know. No really problems with this coin, dripping eye appeal in hand.
1834 dime - Yes - why not? It is a $60 coin that I put in as a filler for the group to send.....
1819 quarter - no if the scratches beneath the beak matter, or if the reverse was judged to be too cleaned in the past, but was hoping I was wrong. The obverse is to die for in hand for eye appeal, and it is a R5 and I paid a huge premium for that, so was hoping for a bean but not optimistic.
1834 quarter, Yes, no brainer from the first 5 seconds I picked it up at a dealers table at the Houston Money Show. All there for a 62 with color and full luster. No obvious rub.
1846-O, Yes, totally original in hand as far as I can tell, nice luster that rotates under the light, no major scratches for a 55.
1860-O, on the fence, depends on what they think of grey toning, sometimes they like it, sometimes they don't because of an earlier cleaning, I never have been good at predicting these. But really strong luster, stood out right away from afar when viewing at the dealer's table at FUN.
I also sent in 4 Franklins expecting 2 to bean and 2 not to. I batted perfect on those predictions, it was a 'test' group for future reference as they were also inexpensive ones ($30 to 60 MS 64's, 5's). All part of the learning process.
@BillJones said:
1805 Dime Yes
1834 Dime No
1819 Qurater Yes
1834 Quarter No
1846-O Dollar Yes, if there is more luster than is showing in the photo - I think that there is.
1860-O No
Bill the 46-O I showed you at FUN and you are right there is alot of luster. I am not sure why CAC did not pass it.
1819 quarter - no - click on the image and do the zoom in, check out the area in the field beneath the beak - looks like someone used something sharp to scratch a spot(?) off. I was hoping CAC would miss it, this is an R5, otherwise a wonderful coin, but it does have that issue, but you can't really complain too much on an R5 case you won't find another this nice very often.
Best, Al
oh wow...i missed that. i see now when i zoom in... it looks like "TJ" ... graffiti?
1819 quarter - no - click on the image and do the zoom in, check out the area in the field beneath the beak - looks like someone used something sharp to scratch a spot(?) off. I was hoping CAC would miss it, this is an R5, otherwise a wonderful coin, but it does have that issue, but you can't really complain too much on an R5 case you won't find another this nice very often.
Best, Al
oh wow...i missed that. i see now when i zoom in... it looks like "TJ" ... graffiti?
I didn't see it even when zooming in at first. You're right. It does look like graffiti.
@BillJones said:
1805 Dime Yes
1834 Dime No
1819 Quarter Yes
1834 Quarter No
1846-O Dollar Yes, if there is more luster than is showing in the photo - I think that there is.
1860-O No
The results were given out earlier. Though no harm in trying as a self-test. YYNYNG.
Most interesting that Bill Jones and Boiler78, two very advanced collectors in 19th century type with discerning eyes, don't agree much with CAC on this grouping of coins. 1/6 and 2/6. That could be a discussion in itself. Many have said that CAC is not their standard. What's more important, being true to your own standards....or to CAC's? If we as a group cannot figure out current CAC standards....that's an issue. Though it matters little to CAC who only has to buy what they like and fill orders.
Here is what went through my mind with each of these coins:
1 The 1805 dime - I strongly thought about saying "no" to this one because I debated the grade on the obverse. It looked like a VF-35 to me instead of 40, The color is also not original. It's what you get after a piece has been cleaned or dipped and re-tones. It looks good to many people, but the new toning is a bit bright for my tastes on a circulated coin. An original Mint State coin might have toning that resembles this, but not a circulated piece like this. Yet this is an attractive, market acceptable coin for many so I said "yes."
2 1834 Dime - This is coin is properly graded, but it has little eye appeal in my opinion. Ms. Liberty's face looks rubbed and the high points look to be in a lower grade than the surfaces. I don't find the "two tone" look of bright devices and toned fields attractive. I have seen better looking coins of this type in Fine with even gray toning.
3 1819 Quarter - For an EF-45 graded coin, I don't know what's not to like. It's got ample luster in the protected areas where the grade only requires traces. I could see this coin going into an AU-50 holder. It's been dipped at one point, but few coins of this vintage are totally original, and if they are original they are too often dark and unattractive.
4 1834 Quarter - This is an example of the classic AU-61, 62 grade. It's got rub on the high points which take it out of the strictly Mint State grade. The eye appeal is good, but I had a feeling that the parts of the fields were dull, with the luster missing. I get taken to woodshed here when I post a gold coin with slightly rubbed fields in MS-61 or 62 holders. My 1836 half eagle comes to mind. Therefore I said "no."
5 1846-O Silver Dollar - I saw a lot of potential, attractive luster on this coin. I put that caveat at the end of my "yes." Given that the luster is there, the fields are smooth and attractive and the eye appeal is good. I did not recognize that I had seen this piece previously at FUN. When it's not mine, and I'm not considering buying it usually does not get into my coin "photographic memory."
6 1860-O Silver Dollar - This looked like the typically dull 1860-O dollar hoard coin. It looked dipped with diminished luster and some so-so retoning. There was also a fairly deep "X" on Ms. Liberty's upper arm that didn't impress me in a positive way for a coin that is nice for the grade. The gold sticker says "Unc." when I think that AU-58 would be a push. I take the 1846-O over this coin any time.
All of this is based on photos which can be deceiving. Still, this what I saw and 5 times out six it differed from JA's opinion. So be it. I am my own person, and I like what I like and sometimes have to compromise a little on what I like to fill slot that I know very hard to fill.
NOTE: The large print is not my doing. I did write and edit this off-line, but I have no idea why the print came out this way.
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 ... ?
6 1860-O Silver Dollar - This looked like the typically dull 1860-O dollar hoard coin. It looked dipped with diminished luster and some so-so retoning. There was also a fairly deep "X" on Ms. Liberty's upper arm that didn't impress me in a positive way for a coin that is nice for the grade. The gold sticker says "Unc." when I think that AU-58 would be a push. I take the 1846-O over this coin any time.
Well the luster is there for the 60-O - it is just my images that don't show it. Also for the 60-O, these usually come heavily bag marked, and this one has escaped most of that except the shoulder gouge you note. HST, I fully agree that I would take, and prefer the 46-O over this one any time. Hence a mystery to me that I want to follow up on why it did not bean.
@roadrunner said:
I'd still like to know if that 1834 F15 dime is showing faint peripheral luster or it's a photographic illusion.
Luster left over because of an uneven strike just doesn't add up for that type. By then those coins were quite well made.
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 ... ?
@roadrunner said:
I'd still like to know if that 1834 F15 dime is showing faint peripheral luster or it's a photographic illusion.
I try to depict the coins in my images like they are when viewing in hand, if anything, my images are always showing less luster than in hand and this is my limitation in my photographic abilities, for a $60 coin this one is really quite nice this1834 dime, the luster is no illusion.
6 1860-O Silver Dollar - This looked like the typically dull 1860-O dollar hoard coin. It looked dipped with diminished luster and some so-so retoning. There was also a fairly deep "X" on Ms. Liberty's upper arm that didn't impress me in a positive way for a coin that is nice for the grade. The gold sticker says "Unc." when I think that AU-58 would be a push. I take the 1846-O over this coin any time.
Well the luster is there for the 60-O - it is just my images that don't show it. Also for the 60-O, these usually come heavily bag marked, and this one has escaped most of that except the shoulder gouge you note. HST, I fully agree that I would take, and prefer the 46-O over this one any time. Hence a mystery to me that I want to follow up on why it did not bean.
Best, SH
I had the same issue with Bill. I had a hard time with the 60-O as it looked washed out in the photo. It just goes to show the futility of trying to grade by photo.
@roadrunner said:
I'd still like to know if that 1834 F15 dime is showing faint peripheral luster or it's a photographic illusion.
Luster left over because of an uneven strike just doesn't add up for that type. By then those coins were quite well made.
It adds up more often than you think. Last time I ran into it was a TPG graded 1875-cc F12 20c cent piece. You can't get a much more uneven strike than on those, especially on the shield, the critical point of grading. That coin had approx 5-10% mint luster, all peripheral. It was a darker original. I offered the seller between F15/VF20 money and they scoffed at me. The coin later sold for VF25 money in the F12 holder. The TPG was grading it based on strike only (only a few letters of LIBERTY), apparently ignoring or being unaware of the mint luster. On original coins, the mint luster is often very last to go. It was routinely seen on F15-VF 20-30 coins decades ago. Now that most of those are cleaned and stripped, you only really see it at the VF35-XF45 level now. When a Fine15 coin has it, that's pretty neat...and suggesting the coin probably is VF, if strike weren't influencing the grade.
While the 1860-0 dollar was somewhat light in color, it wasn't badly cleaned or anything. For an AU55 it should have only had 30-50% luster as the norm....which it certainly did. It might have more when looking in hand. Unlike most AU55's the coin had UNC details and no obvious wear anywhere except maybe in the fields where the luster thinned or was missing, and not the usual heavy bag marks seen on the hoard coins. I'd almost wager this didn't come from the hoards because those tend to be very blasty and bright, but hacked to bits. Overall, a vastly superior AU55. If the coin had better field luster, I'd grade it MS61/62.
Comparing the 1875-CC Twenty Cent piece to the Reduced Size Capped Bust Dime is totally invalid. Those who have collected the Twenty Cent Piece set in detail know that many of those coins are weakly struck on the upper part of the eagle's left wing in the reverse and the corrisponding area of the shield on the obverse. As the coin was used in circulation, the diagnostic grading spot on the shield grew weaker and weaker. With those coins grading comes down to surfaces, which is quite often controversial. They can have little or nothing left of the "LIBERTY" and some luster because the letters in the word are raised instead of incuse, and because the letters were weak from the time the coin was struck. The wear on Twenty Cent Pieces was abnormal compared to othe Seated Liberty coins and more so on that issue.
As for well worn dimes or any other 19th century silver coin, I have seen this type of colorful toning that is the result of retoning after dipping or even artificial toning take on the look of luster. It's an illusion, and to say that it is an indicator the last vestiges of mint luster and an indicator of claims to a higher grade is almost always a false premise.
As for the 1860-O dollar, I didn't care for the coin, and liked it less than the 1846-O. That's my observation. If you disagree, that's fine. Everyone has an opinion.
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 ... ?
Never said I liked the 46-0 better or worse than the 60-0. I thought the 46-0 was a nice coin and should have beaned, though recognizing it could have needed more luster for the AU55 grade. I've talked about the fact here before that bust coinage, especially higher grade bust halves, often once cleaned and retoned, have deceptive, simulated semi-PL luster in the peripherals. I also mentioned in my earlier post in this thread that finding Fine coins these days with remaining luster is very unusual (figure <1%). So that's why I asked about this bust dime as such coins still do exist. Being "almost always false premise" is not the same as "never." The OP confirmed that the F15 bust dime had remaining luster, "it was no illusion." I'll leave it at that since they've done an in hand inspection and we haven't.
@roadrunner said:
The OP confirmed that the F15 bust dime had remaining luster, "it was no illusion." I'll leave it at that since they've done an in hand inspection and we haven't.
I pulled out the 34 F15 and looked at it in hand again. All I can say is that my images are accurate. Under a halogen lamp, you can see the 'luster' rotate along the outer 2 mm next to the rims - so through the fields around the stars on the obverse, and around the lettering along the rims on the reverse. The devices are shades of gray as shown, the fields show variable darker/lightly colored toning, the deeper points in the bust are brown. Whether this coin has been cleaned in the past and then retoned is anyone's guess and it probably was as with most early coins. What was important to me is that I liked the look and wanted to see of the experts did as well. I bought it raw for $65, and I wanted to use it for testing whether it would grade and CAC which it did. If I find worn rare varieties costing multiples of $65 and hence a real investment, this coin gives me guidance about what is acceptable and what may not be. Worth the tuition and a fun coin after all.
As everyone knows, buying pre-civil war US coins is a mine field. So any information one can get about what are problems and what are acceptable for surfaces at this kind of price is well, priceless in value. Hence also discussions as we are having here are very important.
I have the coins back from CAC and had a look at the 1860-O P55 that got the gold bean. In hand, under the light, there is a heck of alot of luster despite my image that does not show it. It may or may not be a 61 or 62 but I would have to have someone who knows these better than I have a look. I don't see any breaks in the luster when rotating under the light and in the devices. I can see where it could be a strong 58 for sure. FWIW, CAC has gold beaned only 17 seated dollars - 1200 have been green beaned - that is a 1.4% chance that is you get one beaned, that the bean is gold..... I guess that adds some cachet to this one eh?
I still don't get the 46-O seated dollar not passing so I will definitely send it in again and request a phone call with JA about it. Great opportunity to learn.
Comments
Winner!!!!!!! Well done shish!
1805 dime - Yes
1834 dime - Yes
1819 quarter - no - click on the image and do the zoom in, check out the area in the field beneath the beak - looks like someone used something sharp to scratch a spot(?) off. I was hoping CAC would miss it, this is an R5, otherwise a wonderful coin, but it does have that issue, but you can't really complain too much on an R5 case you won't find another this nice very often.
1834 quarter - Yes
1846-O dollar - No - I thought this was a shoe in, in fact I was worried about the 60-O not beaning first, boy was I wrong, I think I am going to send this one back for reconsideration so I can have JA look at it again and then have a phone conversation on it. He will do that if request in advance, which I did not to this time.
1860-O dollar - GOLD! after seeing the decision, I went back to the image and realized that yes this one does have minimal to no(?) wear. I want to look at the luster again when I get it back from CAC.
As rr noted, we should do this with other groups of coins, good way to learn.
Best, Al
Can't resist not tossing in a guess. I say the two dollars stickered and the 60-0 got the gold.
Edit. Now I see the results! Oops!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Late to the game.... I would have guessed the gold... but did not do as well on the rest.... Cheers, RickO
Note also as shish said, CAC is very tough on LSD's, in fact my experience has been that they are tough on any seated coin. Seated have been my worst success, but that failure has taught me alot and now I think I make better decisions on seated.
Best, SH
And the answer is?
Shish look at my post 4 above yours, the answer is there.
Best, SH
Shish did a good job. To be completely fair here, their original guess on page 1 was bettered. Boosibri also had 2 incorrects yet did correctly ID the gold beaner. Boosibri is the winner on those who guessed before additional info was put out. Best was 4 right out of 6 with the gold being the tie breaker.
Very educational post. Well done to Spacehayduke for his coins and posting this challenge. More fun than the usual GTG because now we are trying to guess superlatives on one person's grading eye. And to Naysayers that suggested you can't reveal anything from pictures, I'd say hogwash. A lot of people got 66-71% right w/o even having the darn coin in their hands. If the photos are good enough, the assessment can be very good as well. The TPG's only grade to 65-75% accuracy and they DO hold the coin in their hands....with 3-4 sets of eyes on the coin.
Next time let's make it tougher, with no inside info other some of the coins could be stickered. And some might or might not be gold. Devilish!
And concerning the potential "pin scratching" mentioned on the 1819 25c. The TPG's can vary on stuff like that. An 1841 half I once had came back with various grades because of similar attempts to remove a spot or something under the eagle's left wing. It was body bagged once, and also received grades of 62, 63, 63. One grading event isn't necessary the real grade. I suspect in 2 of those submissions that light pin scratching wasn't picked up.
1805 Dime Yes
1834 Dime No
1819 Qurater Yes
1834 Quarter No
1846-O Dollar Yes, if there is more luster than is showing in the photo - I think that there is.
1860-O No
How did you conclude that someone had mechanically manipulated the surface of the 1819 quarter as opposed to normal chatter? The 1834 dime was also a surprise for me. It looks cleaned and retoned to me. Before you submitted, what did you anticipate the results would be?
Thanks Spacehaydude & RR, this was fun.
It really looks like pinscratches that are repeated across each other rather than individual swipes across the surfaces. I interpret that to be someone removing something but of course anything is possible. Another person on these boards have had similar looking scratches on a coin or two of his come back from CAC as a no pass, where JA told him it was damage due to spot removal. Again, does not make it so, but that is a good interpretation.
Here were my predictions
1805 dime - on the fence, depends on how CAC judged the toning. I have similar toning on early coins w/CAC so was optimistic but you never know. No really problems with this coin, dripping eye appeal in hand.
1834 dime - Yes - why not? It is a $60 coin that I put in as a filler for the group to send.....
1819 quarter - no if the scratches beneath the beak matter, or if the reverse was judged to be too cleaned in the past, but was hoping I was wrong. The obverse is to die for in hand for eye appeal, and it is a R5 and I paid a huge premium for that, so was hoping for a bean but not optimistic.
1834 quarter, Yes, no brainer from the first 5 seconds I picked it up at a dealers table at the Houston Money Show. All there for a 62 with color and full luster. No obvious rub.
1846-O, Yes, totally original in hand as far as I can tell, nice luster that rotates under the light, no major scratches for a 55.
1860-O, on the fence, depends on what they think of grey toning, sometimes they like it, sometimes they don't because of an earlier cleaning, I never have been good at predicting these. But really strong luster, stood out right away from afar when viewing at the dealer's table at FUN.
I also sent in 4 Franklins expecting 2 to bean and 2 not to. I batted perfect on those predictions, it was a 'test' group for future reference as they were also inexpensive ones ($30 to 60 MS 64's, 5's). All part of the learning process.
Best, SH
Bill the 46-O I showed you at FUN and you are right there is alot of luster. I am not sure why CAC did not pass it.
Best, SH
Thanks to all contributors, this is how we can learn.
Best, SH
oh wow...i missed that. i see now when i zoom in... it looks like "TJ" ... graffiti?
I didn't see it even when zooming in at first. You're right. It does look like graffiti.
The results were given out earlier. Though no harm in trying as a self-test. YYNYNG.
green
no
gold
green
green
no
Most interesting that Bill Jones and Boiler78, two very advanced collectors in 19th century type with discerning eyes, don't agree much with CAC on this grouping of coins. 1/6 and 2/6. That could be a discussion in itself. Many have said that CAC is not their standard. What's more important, being true to your own standards....or to CAC's? If we as a group cannot figure out current CAC standards....that's an issue. Though it matters little to CAC who only has to buy what they like and fill orders.
So the 1846-o did not gain favor at CAC...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Here is what went through my mind with each of these coins:
1 The 1805 dime - I strongly thought about saying "no" to this one because I debated the grade on the obverse. It looked like a VF-35 to me instead of 40, The color is also not original. It's what you get after a piece has been cleaned or dipped and re-tones. It looks good to many people, but the new toning is a bit bright for my tastes on a circulated coin. An original Mint State coin might have toning that resembles this, but not a circulated piece like this. Yet this is an attractive, market acceptable coin for many so I said "yes."
2 1834 Dime - This is coin is properly graded, but it has little eye appeal in my opinion. Ms. Liberty's face looks rubbed and the high points look to be in a lower grade than the surfaces. I don't find the "two tone" look of bright devices and toned fields attractive. I have seen better looking coins of this type in Fine with even gray toning.
3 1819 Quarter - For an EF-45 graded coin, I don't know what's not to like. It's got ample luster in the protected areas where the grade only requires traces. I could see this coin going into an AU-50 holder. It's been dipped at one point, but few coins of this vintage are totally original, and if they are original they are too often dark and unattractive.
4 1834 Quarter - This is an example of the classic AU-61, 62 grade. It's got rub on the high points which take it out of the strictly Mint State grade. The eye appeal is good, but I had a feeling that the parts of the fields were dull, with the luster missing. I get taken to woodshed here when I post a gold coin with slightly rubbed fields in MS-61 or 62 holders. My 1836 half eagle comes to mind. Therefore I said "no."
5 1846-O Silver Dollar - I saw a lot of potential, attractive luster on this coin. I put that caveat at the end of my "yes." Given that the luster is there, the fields are smooth and attractive and the eye appeal is good. I did not recognize that I had seen this piece previously at FUN. When it's not mine, and I'm not considering buying it usually does not get into my coin "photographic memory."
6 1860-O Silver Dollar - This looked like the typically dull 1860-O dollar hoard coin. It looked dipped with diminished luster and some so-so retoning. There was also a fairly deep "X" on Ms. Liberty's upper arm that didn't impress me in a positive way for a coin that is nice for the grade. The gold sticker says "Unc." when I think that AU-58 would be a push. I take the 1846-O over this coin any time.
All of this is based on photos which can be deceiving. Still, this what I saw and 5 times out six it differed from JA's opinion. So be it. I am my own person, and I like what I like and sometimes have to compromise a little on what I like to fill slot that I know very hard to fill.
NOTE: The large print is not my doing. I did write and edit this off-line, but I have no idea why the print came out this way.
Well the luster is there for the 60-O - it is just my images that don't show it. Also for the 60-O, these usually come heavily bag marked, and this one has escaped most of that except the shoulder gouge you note. HST, I fully agree that I would take, and prefer the 46-O over this one any time. Hence a mystery to me that I want to follow up on why it did not bean.
Best, SH
I'd still like to know if that 1834 F15 dime is showing faint peripheral luster or it's a photographic illusion.
Luster left over because of an uneven strike just doesn't add up for that type. By then those coins were quite well made.
I try to depict the coins in my images like they are when viewing in hand, if anything, my images are always showing less luster than in hand and this is my limitation in my photographic abilities, for a $60 coin this one is really quite nice this1834 dime, the luster is no illusion.
Best, SH
I had the same issue with Bill. I had a hard time with the 60-O as it looked washed out in the photo. It just goes to show the futility of trying to grade by photo.
jom
It adds up more often than you think. Last time I ran into it was a TPG graded 1875-cc F12 20c cent piece. You can't get a much more uneven strike than on those, especially on the shield, the critical point of grading. That coin had approx 5-10% mint luster, all peripheral. It was a darker original. I offered the seller between F15/VF20 money and they scoffed at me. The coin later sold for VF25 money in the F12 holder. The TPG was grading it based on strike only (only a few letters of LIBERTY), apparently ignoring or being unaware of the mint luster. On original coins, the mint luster is often very last to go. It was routinely seen on F15-VF 20-30 coins decades ago. Now that most of those are cleaned and stripped, you only really see it at the VF35-XF45 level now. When a Fine15 coin has it, that's pretty neat...and suggesting the coin probably is VF, if strike weren't influencing the grade.
While the 1860-0 dollar was somewhat light in color, it wasn't badly cleaned or anything. For an AU55 it should have only had 30-50% luster as the norm....which it certainly did. It might have more when looking in hand. Unlike most AU55's the coin had UNC details and no obvious wear anywhere except maybe in the fields where the luster thinned or was missing, and not the usual heavy bag marks seen on the hoard coins. I'd almost wager this didn't come from the hoards because those tend to be very blasty and bright, but hacked to bits. Overall, a vastly superior AU55. If the coin had better field luster, I'd grade it MS61/62.
Comparing the 1875-CC Twenty Cent piece to the Reduced Size Capped Bust Dime is totally invalid. Those who have collected the Twenty Cent Piece set in detail know that many of those coins are weakly struck on the upper part of the eagle's left wing in the reverse and the corrisponding area of the shield on the obverse. As the coin was used in circulation, the diagnostic grading spot on the shield grew weaker and weaker. With those coins grading comes down to surfaces, which is quite often controversial. They can have little or nothing left of the "LIBERTY" and some luster because the letters in the word are raised instead of incuse, and because the letters were weak from the time the coin was struck. The wear on Twenty Cent Pieces was abnormal compared to othe Seated Liberty coins and more so on that issue.
As for well worn dimes or any other 19th century silver coin, I have seen this type of colorful toning that is the result of retoning after dipping or even artificial toning take on the look of luster. It's an illusion, and to say that it is an indicator the last vestiges of mint luster and an indicator of claims to a higher grade is almost always a false premise.
As for the 1860-O dollar, I didn't care for the coin, and liked it less than the 1846-O. That's my observation. If you disagree, that's fine. Everyone has an opinion.
Never said I liked the 46-0 better or worse than the 60-0. I thought the 46-0 was a nice coin and should have beaned, though recognizing it could have needed more luster for the AU55 grade. I've talked about the fact here before that bust coinage, especially higher grade bust halves, often once cleaned and retoned, have deceptive, simulated semi-PL luster in the peripherals. I also mentioned in my earlier post in this thread that finding Fine coins these days with remaining luster is very unusual (figure <1%). So that's why I asked about this bust dime as such coins still do exist. Being "almost always false premise" is not the same as "never." The OP confirmed that the F15 bust dime had remaining luster, "it was no illusion." I'll leave it at that since they've done an in hand inspection and we haven't.
I pulled out the 34 F15 and looked at it in hand again. All I can say is that my images are accurate. Under a halogen lamp, you can see the 'luster' rotate along the outer 2 mm next to the rims - so through the fields around the stars on the obverse, and around the lettering along the rims on the reverse. The devices are shades of gray as shown, the fields show variable darker/lightly colored toning, the deeper points in the bust are brown. Whether this coin has been cleaned in the past and then retoned is anyone's guess and it probably was as with most early coins. What was important to me is that I liked the look and wanted to see of the experts did as well. I bought it raw for $65, and I wanted to use it for testing whether it would grade and CAC which it did. If I find worn rare varieties costing multiples of $65 and hence a real investment, this coin gives me guidance about what is acceptable and what may not be. Worth the tuition and a fun coin after all.
As everyone knows, buying pre-civil war US coins is a mine field. So any information one can get about what are problems and what are acceptable for surfaces at this kind of price is well, priceless in value. Hence also discussions as we are having here are very important.
Best, SH
I have the coins back from CAC and had a look at the 1860-O P55 that got the gold bean. In hand, under the light, there is a heck of alot of luster despite my image that does not show it. It may or may not be a 61 or 62 but I would have to have someone who knows these better than I have a look. I don't see any breaks in the luster when rotating under the light and in the devices. I can see where it could be a strong 58 for sure. FWIW, CAC has gold beaned only 17 seated dollars - 1200 have been green beaned - that is a 1.4% chance that is you get one beaned, that the bean is gold..... I guess that adds some cachet to this one eh?
I still don't get the 46-O seated dollar not passing so I will definitely send it in again and request a phone call with JA about it. Great opportunity to learn.
Best, SH