1796 Quarter G or 1806 in 58?
topstuf
Posts: 14,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
Both show appx. same "value" in guide.
And sure, there aren't any to choose from in exactly those grades, but you know what I'm getting at.
1796 Quarter G or 1806 in 58?
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.
0
Comments
Is the question "which one would you rather have," or "which one ought to be worth more," or "which one is best to buy and hold"?
For me, the allure of owning a 1796 quarter would trump any other 25c piece that was "pretty."
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
For me, the 1796 hands down, because my early quarter set lacks any of that date, but has a dozen different varieties and die states of 1806 in AG-VG.
Not that i wouldn't love to upgrade the VF DBHE quarter in the type set. Can easilt see most type set and "Box of.." collectors going for the detail and luster on this awesome early type.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Any low-grade 1796 that looks decent will always be liquid. Sometimes rarity is more important than grade.
Here are two to compare:
From a financial perspective, it seems like a no brainer because the 1796 in G4 is worth almost 50% more.
It would be better to compare a 1796 AG3 which has a guide price of $8,500 as well. This probably won't make much of a difference for the purposes of this discussion.
I once had a very rare coin in low grade. It just always bothered me that it was in that condition and didn't fit with my other coins so I would take the au 58. That being said I did very well when I sold my low grade rarity.
If both were worth exactly the same I would take the higher grade.
I would take the 1796 quarter if it was my kind of coin.
Not as rare as the quarter, but still a tough one. I call this a gem good 4.
Those two True-Views confirm my vote ....
Being extremely fortunate to own both coins (different grades though), I still get more excited about having a 1796 quarter.
I just feel it's a more significant historical piece as the first year and single type than just 1 date out of 4 others (1804-1807)
However like pretty girls I like them all
I like quality and eye appeal over something that is a bit rarer but in a much lower grade.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
For me, aside from a Chain Cent, a Draped Bust anything with a Small Eagle reverse is as cool as it gets...the quarter being a 1 year type makes it even more so in my opinion.
I saw an 1807 in MS65 at a show this weekend. It had beautiful peripheral toning. One of the nicest I have seen in hand. Asking price was only $75,000. To answer your question, I would be torn between the two but would probably get the 1796.
I would take the 1796 every time.... Cheers, RickO
eBay offerings seem to dispute this poll.
Those True Views make it tough, but I just couldn't turn down the 1796 given the opportunity.
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
1796 hands down. Small eagles on quarters & half dollars are SOOOOOOO cool.
A better debate would be between a high grade common-date and low grade key date within the same series.
But, buy whatever makes YOU happy.
That was the intent of the poll. It's a low grade key vs a high grade common.
And no, the prices can't be exactly equal and maybe I should have made the 1796 an AG3 or so to get a better idea.
But I didn't.
ah well
What are the odds that most any Good 1796 you pick up will show a slight to moderate cleaning? I gave up looking for an uncleaned Good-Fine 1804 quarter years back. Would imagine the 1796 isn't much different.
I don't think I've seen either a 1796 in any grade or an AU55/58 draped bust quarter come through any of my local shops in 2 decades.....both are equally scarce imo.
"The old is the best, the new is of the devil". Amish saying.
I guess I just view the 1796 quarter as a unique coin, emotionally quite outside the regular bust quarter series.
I'd happily take either one on the giveaway.
Agree about the 1796 quarter being special. There's a reason my 1981 redbook naturally falls open there: the spine is broken at that page from years and years of dreaming about someday being able to own an example in any grade.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I would compromise and take the 1796 in AU58.
Lance.
1 year type anyday.
I have a 1796 Quarter in VF so that might disqualify me. I generally have a rule that if I can't a afford a decent example of the something that is really expensive, I pass.**
The 1796 Quarter in AG that was pictured in this thread was pretty decent, so that might prompt me to pause. Most of the low grade ones I have seen were awlful. Still if I didn't have either coin for type, I'd take the 1806 in AU-58 as my "foreever coin" and hope to buy a better 1796 Quarter sometime later.
** For my "one of every British king" set, I have bought a couple of ugly coins, but one cost me $200 and the other was $750. The one $750 had a good portrait and looked better than examples I've been offered for three times as much.
I am fast learning that all Henry IV coins are gross unless you are readly pay $47,000 for an Unc. gold piece. That might be the one king that I will never get. A dealer at the FUN show had one for $2,350 that looked like it had been run over by a railroad train. No thank you.
I did own a nice 1804 vg-8 Quarter for some time. I liked it and although there are debates which is rarer the 1796 or 1804. The 1804 just didn'tkeep my interest.
Not the same as that small eagle bad boy.
Had a good shot at a lowly fr-2 1796 but a serious personal thing came up and had to end up letting it go. Both 1796 and 1804 were "John" approved.
I'd probably do the 1796 if the eye appeal was good for the grade, but if it's ugly, I'd go with my vote as a 58 will likely look nice.
My YouTube Channel