Concluded. 1877 S Trade dollar PCGS AU53 Thank you
Paradisefound
Posts: 8,621 ✭✭✭✭✭
I've done my due diligent of my 1st Trade prospective and I really like this common date AU 53 details better than most MS in their respective mintage.
Time to be serious (4 me).....I welcome your comments.
4
Comments
i really like it. The fields are terrific. No offense to you, but it WOULD look better in my collection!
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
It looks like it has haze all over it so I would be concerned about the coin.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I like it. Clean fields, light wear. Looks typical for a TD.
@Paradisefound
There is a reason this coin is in an AU-53 slab. ** See if you can tell us why.** If the price is right, you have three guy posting already that they like the coin. At the right price, I do also.
That is au58 details/xf45 luster so net graded for being dead (luster wise) to the catch all grade of 53. It would have been a 50 if it had negative eye appeal
Nice coin and much preferred most dipped AUs out there
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I have a better date just like that, mine has a pearliest glowing luster under its tone so they gave it a 55. Really just a thickly toned slider like yours
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
It has baking soda type dull surfaces.
Coins with fully original surfaces even at XF45 would have better luster.
I recently even saw a CBH in VF30 with better luster which isn't the norm.
Ehhh depends on the coin and how it started life and how it toned. If it was dull to start it could absolutely develop like that.
A VF30 should have much if any luster, might have been an XF with a strike issue
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The smooth, low mark fields and the detail are nice, but it lacks luster. Maybe there is some, and the photos did not grab it. If there is some luster, that's good, but if the coin is as dull as it looks, it's not really an AU. Here is the type luster the coin had when it was new.
Aren't TD's. With good luster hard to find?
$412. on ebay right now.
Not really. The most common dates, 1877-S and 1878-S are like well made Morgan Dollars. They are not dull when they are Mint State or AU and have not been cleaned.
Ok thanks.
I'll try this. Most wear is to the face. Worst place it could be? Still like it.
Regardless of the negatives I like the coin for it's clean fields.
The holder says it's a PCGS AU53... that's good enough for me. I'll take it....I mean I like it.
Not my favorite
I imagine there is some light cleaning under that ugly/fake toning, netting it down to 53.
Edited to be PC:
IMO, and I should expect most here to agree or numismatics is really in trouble, you deserve a BIG FAT Disagree for this: "it's not really an AU.
Perhaps that "net grading nonsense" has crept into this thread. We are not EAC'ers grading copper. Please get us back on track. What determines if a coin is XF, AU, or MS? Two BIG clues: The label says AU, and even more importantly, **It certainly IS NOT the amount of luster on the coin if the coin is 100% NOT ORIGINAL! Perhaps it's the computer screen. All the feathers on the eagle are present with just a hint of friction.
If you say that an AU does not need mint luster, than I guess that's part of your commercial "chestnut" grading system. I guess that AU coins don't need mint luster any more. If that's true, then how do we grade the pieces with light wear that have mint luster? Maybe they are now "Mint State."
If all of this true, then we are back to where we were before TPG took hold. There are no standards. You can simply put whatever grade you want on the item so that you can charge more money for it.
Nice coin what are they worth? Just wondering what a raw one cost.
OMG, Back to Numismatics Preschool Grading 001! Now,
it is really getting even more complicated.
@BillJones said: "If you say that an AU does not need mint luster, than I guess that's part of your commercial "chestnut" grading system. [NO, it is actually common sense and simple experience that anyone can gain looking at coins] I guess that AU coins don't need mint luster any more. If that's true, then how do we grade the pieces with light wear that have mint luster? [it's very easy, read the label on the OP's coin!] Maybe they are now "Mint State." [That is a consequence of modern grading where coins you and I agree
are not MS are graded as such.]
Unfortunately, I have found that very many knowledgeable numismatists consider the word "luster" as ONLY referring to "Mint Luster" as you have graciously demonstrated. If an acid etches a fully lustrous Trade dollar down to the overly dull AU-53 example, the coin still has luster - the reflection of light from a surface! However, It no longer has what we call "Mint Luster."
Bill continued: "If all of this true, then we are back to where we were before TPG took hold. There are no standards. You can simply put whatever grade you want on the item so that you can charge more money for it."
I'm going to ignore this nonsense as it does not belong in the discussion because There were no grading standards before the TPGS's and there are none now. The monstrosity of "Net grading" has played a part in this condition.
Now back to the OP's ABOUT UNCIRCULATED coin that is closer to MS than it is to "not really AU." Once a coin drops out of the MS grade range the ONE MAIN factor affecting its grade the most is the amount of detail that is lost due to friction from the state it was in when it left the dies. That is of course if you are not a "net grader" as those folks are the ones who - as you so correctly wrote: "You can simply put whatever grade you want on the item so that you can charge more money for it."
I am often wrong about frost/luster/cartwheel when looking at photos of toned coins. So much depends on lighting, angles, etc. Looks like a decent example with relatively mark free surfaces.
My first impression was “bland”, looks like I came to the discussion late as others have walked it around the block pretty well.
When I see coins like this for sale, I think, there somebody out there that likes this look or that there is a collection for it some place......
So now you don't need mint luster to have an AU coin ...
We shall agree to disagree, insider.
Please, don't twist my statement. AU coins are supposed to have Mint luster. VF coins should too LOL, try and find one! However, on a weekly basis, I see some AU and higher coins without a trace of original mint luster remaining (even in the recesses) due to chemical and mechanical alteration to their surface.
Paradise.......thank you for posting this coin. I find this coin to be dull and not a great example for the assigned grade. The technical grade may be correct, but I think it is a "C" coin for the grade. I tend to collect "pretty" coins regardless of TPG grade. Some are high grade, but some my most spectacular are PR 63 and PR64's. TPG's don't grade pretty and I find a lot of great values in pretty coins with low grades.
But your post is "A" because you not only got a LOT of expert opinion, but you shared these opinions with us on this forum. But I think that you are not into this coin for too many $$, and you may even be able to sell it for what you paid. Sooooo, a lot of expert advice for FREE perhaps.
OINK
I have seen VF sharpness coins with mint luster. Most often they are early coins with odd strike and wear patterns, but good luck selling them as AUs.
As for the pieces that are treated with chemicals and mechanical alterations, they are quite often destined for "details" grades.
“TPGs don’t grade pretty”, but don’t they grade eye appeal, so perhaps they do.
I agree with the rest of your comments Mr OINK, but would add that based on the images it warrants a pass for its lifeless appearance.
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
OMG...now you are bringing strike into this. PLEASE STOP. I bought technically AU branch mint nickels with mint luster graded and priced as FINE + because the ignorant dealer did not know about "strike." And...you are correct they don't sell for AU money anyway. SO WHAT? Ramble on, but to say that the OP's coin is not AU is a disservice to our little coin community here and all the inexperienced graders who follow your words.
In the AU grade, luster matters. We shall agree to disagree.
Actually, it does matter. Just not nearly as much as the amount of design detail remaining on the coin - original mint luster, impaired, or artificial.
Looks cleaned and dull. Not exciting to look at.
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
I see pro & con looking at it from a different perspective. Let me go back to my Trade dollar guide to better reasons for smart pick respectively.
but I will save my $412 for a better MS.
PS: I particularly like this one for it's clean detail & minimal wear.....plume is so beautiful
Thank you all!
I think that passing on this one is a good move. You will find one with more luster for the grade.
I don't necessarily disagree with most of the opinions here on this particular coin (I think you can find a more eye-appealing one, perhaps) but I really don't think of the coin as a "C" coin or all that unappealing. Many come a lot worse than this one.
That said, there is a "just right" coin out there for you; keep looking. I would also note the example Crypto posted is typical of his excellent taste in Trade dollars, and is a wonderful example of a "perfect" circ (for Trades, or any silver coin of this vintage.)
If I had a large collection of coins that looked just like that? Yeeesh. I once did get a gem of an 1894 dime, lightly circ'd, from RCONH that had the exact same appearance as Crypto's 1874 Trade above. Wish I had more like it!
@Paradisefound - good decision! If I were in your shoes and looking for guidance on a TD purchase, I think crypto would be an excellent adviser if he is willing to provide assistance. PM him next time?
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
Agreed, if shopping around Trade dollars, Crypto would be good to either get one from, or get just an opinion on one.
Nice Trade Dollar would love to have it,
I think you made the right move by passing on that coin at that price. It is a common date that looks kind of blah to me. Save your $412 for something more appealing, maybe even one with a chopmark.
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
@Paradisefound ...I think you made the right decision. While I like the detail on that coin, it is rather lifeless...There are really nice one's available with both detail and luster... Cheers, RickO
https://m.ebay.com/itm/-/263732568749?_trksid=p2501496.m2548.l10137&nordt=true&rt=nc#vi__app-cvip-panel