1805 quarter eagle in PCGS 62+
earlyAurum
Posts: 750 ✭✭✭✭✭
I believe that the 1805 quarter eagle that just sold in tonight's FUN auction for 66k sold for 24k just 4 months ago in march as PCGS 61 in an OGH. It looks like it was regraded as a 62+ and might have had some sort of treatment (possibly dipping). It's a shame that the coin was awarded such a bump in grade.
I am certainly envious that the consignor made such a profit but it does not help collectors who want originality to be an important factor in grading. Do you think the buyer knew this and did not care because the coin is actually nice or is the coin really nice as is? Apologies if my detective work is simply wrong.
Here is a link to the 62+ version
And the link to the 61 version.
4
Comments
Wow. Certainly looks like the same coin to me. 2 pictures in quite different lighting.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
62+
I think you are correct. Same coin.
61
I prefer the originality of the 61. Crusty old gold looks good to me.
The different lighting makes comparisons more difficult, but I prefer the look of the coin before it was dipped.
wow, that's awful
OMG !!!
Yeah, certainly looks like the same coin... yikes...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Happens every day.... another decent coin lost to the market
Latin American Collection
Early gold is full of coins like this. It’s tough, since I’d love to have a piece or two, but even beyond the big prices, so many coins appear to have been processed.
Despite the change this is probably one of the less egregious enhancements. Probably just s surface dip but the coin doesn’t have a 200 year-old natural look. I’m not convinced this is the first time this coin has been manipulated either.
Oh nuts
That coin was scrumptious
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
Was it messed with at all? It may have simply been re-graded. If you look at the slab pictures, they do not appear to be much different -- the picture of the OGH 61 might be just a crappy HA photo. Perhaps someone who saw the coin in hand can comment.
Looks like some spots are missing so my vote was dipped.
I am wondering if it was sent in for conservation. There are some distracting spots that are missing in the newer pics.
Processing of some sort...too bad.
I think the crummy HA picture made the spots look more distracting than they really were - the slab pic on the 61 coin looks like a nice coin that did not need a dip - if it went to PCGS conservation they should have refused to conserve it - a shame. Note it did not "green bean" in either holder.
Also note these comments are based on the HA auction photos which, unbelievably are still as lousy as they were in 2004. Would be good to get comments from someone who reviewed the coin at both auctions.
My guess is someone took MS70 to it, removing the dirt. 200 some years of it.
Gross... and very unfortunate.
This coin is a reason some purchasers of old expensive gold want a cac sticker.
+1
The worst example I have saw was of a very nice, original surface 1795 No Stars Quarter Eagle that was graded AU-50. It was cracked out, scrubbed bright, which left it hairlined, and then went into an AU-58 holder.
I have posted pictures of the before and after a number of times.
Interesting comment. The coin most likely did not CAC as a 61. The collection it was part of back in march had CAC coins, so i feel pretty confident in saying so.
.#NothingNew
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I bought an 1860 double eagle in PCGS AU-55, CAC in Summer FUN. The coin is “dirty” with dark areas in the obverse field and Ms. Liberty’s cheek and hair not unlike the spots on that 1805 quarter eagle before it was processed. I could see where someone would want to remove dark areas from this piece which would make it look better to some people. I think the piece got the sticker because of its originality.
In my experience, Heritage photos from 2009-present are much better than they were in 2004.
I have used Heritage auction photos extensively to attribute die varieties for hundreds of Liberty Seated half dimes.
The quality of their standard full slab photos increased dramatically in about 2009.
Prior to 2009, it can be difficult to see key details on their archived photos for attributing half dimes (which are small relative to the overall slab).
To be more specific, for a half dime, I need about a 500 x 500 pixel image when cropped to the coin.
The Heritage photos are a great resource for coin research which they provide at no cost.
I disagree. I have seen CACed gold before that wasn't completely original, but market acceptable.
That's a damn shame.
I like the original look it had as a 61 in the OGH.
Looks processed, now.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I understand the appeal of the 61 OGH. Unfortunately, originality takes another hit for nice and shiny.
BUT lets say this coin was just graded for the 1st time and someone posted a GTG here. Would the 62+ bother you? Seems a bit generous but I can live with it.
With the weak, uneven strike along with adjustment marks that these coins have, grading can be a real challenge when you have 200 year old dirt on top of that. Sometimes you can have trouble determining if you're looking at a VF or an AU.
edit away
Anyway you can repost the pictures one more time?
Slab shots of the coin with OGH first:
Looks like AU-58 to me.
Spot on
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
capitalism
The slab photos posted by @skier07 show that some toning was removed around the stars and in front of Ms. Liberty's forehead, perhaps by a dip.
Seems like a natural "win" for the seller, who made around $42k before Heritage's cut.
If buyers pay up for that look, it will be delivered....
Is that a pun based on the pre-dip spot?
Certainly the same coin... the scratches on the date, rim and lower part of the image coincide...For those who like the 'dirty gold' look, it is a disappointment after dipping..for the buyer, obviously, it was not a deterrent. Cheers, RickO
i like the ms 61 better myself. just saying
Before
After
A dealer who handled this coin at least two times confirmed my observation that the coin had been cleaned after it is was cracked out of the AU-50 holder.
Too many collectors, dealers and graders are overly impressed with “shiny.” Sometimes it adds an undeserved grading point or two.
Luster is one thing. It can be muted and attractive, especially on an older coin that has original surfaces. “Shiny” is another. It can be attractive on a newer coin, but on an older coin that has been cleaned up, it can look garish to the more discerning eye.
That's horrible and worse than what was done to the OP's coin.
Each to their own. Gonna trade natural , silky smooth but aged skin, for chatter and bling, a higher grade and forty grand over the course of a short time. This is what happens from generation to generation. It's what it is. Or did I perceive this incorrectly ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
You perceive it incorrectly for the 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle I posted. Yes, toning can return over a period of time which can be long or short, attractive or ugly. Hairlines are forever, unfortunately.
delete
Wow, the second “cleaned” coin looks horrible.
We’re the hairlines present on the first coin? Were they underneath the toning and the dip accentuated them or was something else done to the coin?
No, the coin had smooth surfaces with old toning. You can see the original small marks in the hair and bust in both photos. The new marks stripped the surfaces to made the coin bright.
What, I can't understand is why would PCGS reward a coin that has been obviously treated? Especially since eye appeal is an important part of grading and a coin like the 1805 quarter eagle i originally posted doesn't really appeal most collectors on this forum who are a very good representation of what is desirable. The case of 1805 is an important one because PCGS just made it the 3rd highest graded of the date - only exceeded by the two coins in the Pogue collection. This is why price almost tripled!
Just noticed that the coin is in DL Hansen’s registry.
PCGS doesn't sleuth the internet for the coins it grades. It can only look at the here and now. Even though I dislike it now and preferred the original, the fact remains that it is still market acceptable in its new form. If we limit early gold to only wholly original specimens, almost all of it would be in genuine details holders!