Another poorly produced Charlotte gold dollar
A few weeks ago I posted a GTG on a 1857-C gold dollar that many feel is one of the worst looking coins made by this mint, due to poor planchets and weak strikes. This time I have what most believe is the "worst of the worst" as far as production problems and overall look. The 1855-C gold dollar. No GTG on this one, this is a cleaned AU example, as noted on the holder. I really don't care for cleaned coins, and this is the only one in my collection (at least in the opinion of PCGS and NGC).
I made an exception on this coin because I think this is the most well stuck and best looking example of this date I have seen. The coin is too bright from a cleaning but is about as good looking as this one gets. Compare it to others on HA or elsewhere to see what I mean.
Tell me what you think!
Comments
wonder if the minting process or equipment improved that much from the 1850s to say 1878 when morgans started?
Charlotte mint had serious issues, especially with gold dollars. Lots of MD on that one too. But it is Southern gold so I gotta like it.
I haven't seen a 55-c gold dollar that has even close to good eye appeal. Most have poor planchets, terribly weak strikes, and sometimes foreign mint-made contaminants. This is the best I could find without spending a fortune. This coin grades PCGS AU53. It does have a full date and all the devices are present.
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
I really like that one!
+1
Nice, I like it too !!!
Very nice Mr. Commem. !
Yours is the full date variety which has a better reverse but weaker obverse. Mine is the other variety, which is weak in the date but stronger on the obverse.
Yes, they have their problems, but still, southern gold.... and I like them. Cheers, RickO
Very nice coin, MrCommem!
Here's the one in my collection, which is in an EF-45 holder. This is one coin issue where spending a boat load of extra money dones not get you that much more coin. Therefore, my advice is to find something in an EF holder that looks half way decent and go from there.
Here is view #1.
And here is view #2 which is an attempt to catch some of the luster, which is on the coin.
The best thing about my coin is the well struck date.
The U.S. Mint System was quite capable of making high quality coins before the 1850s. The trouble was with the Charlotte Mint. In its later years, it simply could not get its act together, especially with the gold dollars. Charlotte did issue some decent Type I gold dollars. Dahlonega also made some decent coins, and on average I think that the Dahlonega made a better product than Charlotte.
This 1850-C gold dollar ahs some wear, but it's obvious that it was well struck.
And this 1858-D was struck off-center on the obverse, but it was much better made than its Charlotte Mint counterparts.
Very good advice , Bill. I wish I could find an EF that looks like that one, but most do not.
All dies came from Philadelphia, so problems at branch mints would likely be related to press use and maintenance and/or planchet production.
for what it is i still like it as well.
This one went unsold at the SB ANA auction...the Reverse looked much better...
I like!
My YouTube Channel
From what I have read, the Philadelphia Mint didn’t also send their best dies to the branches, and I have also learned that the dies needed basining before they could be placed into service. Add to that, less that stellar personnel who didn’t get the gap right in the press, often allowed the dies to clash, and did not keep a sharp lookout for struck throughs and the like, and have the ingredients for an inferior product. You can see all of that going on with the 1855-C gold dollars.
I've never seen any evidence that defective dies were deliberately sent to any branch mint. Also, dies were basined at Philadelphia prior to final hardening. The only exception was San Francisco Mint where they cut and hardened their own dies. (Hardening and tempering could change the radius (basin) slightly, but it was not something that was quantitatively controllable, so results would have been random.)
I'm not sure if a good elemental analysis has been performed on pieces similar to the one the OP posted. The Annual Assay Commission records do not reveal anything out of line with the other mints or US law. However, a very small amount of iron could create major problems in gold alloy.
Here is the whole collection of Charlotte Gold Dollars (minus the 49 open wreath). All are graded AU53 to AU58. Note the 55, 57, and 59 issues are some of the worst produced coins from any U. S. mint.
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
Exceptional!!
My YouTube Channel
Well if your going to break your rules about cleaned coins. That is certainly the one to do it with. Great pick. Congratulations
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
So it may have been an issue with the quality of the planchets?
Spell check tried to make me say plan assets.
+2
RE: "So it may have been an issue with the quality of the planchets?"
That's far more likely than anything else. Might have involved the quality of refining, poor alloys, faulty annealing, inconsistent press setup, etc., etc.
Defective dies issued by the Philadelphia Mint are possibly the least likely cause of branch mint coin quality. Notice also that New Orleans coins tend to be better and either C or D.
Rusted reverse die?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.