Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

What would you grade this 1856-O seated quarter? New pic, video added

NumisOxideNumisOxide Posts: 11,041 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited November 15, 2020 4:36PM in U.S. Coin Forum

Picked up this better date/mint quarter last week. I like the original look it has. I'm going with VF30.

Comments

  • Options

    I'm going to say between vf 20 or vf25. I think vf 30 might be a little high.

  • Options
    Batman23Batman23 Posts: 5,372 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Matthew17 said:
    I'm going to say between vf 20 or vf25. I think vf 30 might be a little high.

    My thoughts also.

  • Options
    coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 12,507 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Between the wear, several nicks and cuts in the obv fields and some rim nicks I would call this VF25 netted down to VF20 at best.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • Options
    SmudgeSmudge Posts: 9,983 ✭✭✭✭✭

    20.

  • Options
    mannie graymannie gray Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't like the rim noise.

  • Options
    rec78rec78 Posts: 5,944 ✭✭✭✭✭

    VF 25-30

    image
  • Options
    KliaoKliao Posts: 5,793 ✭✭✭✭✭

    25

    Collector
    Over 100 Positive BST transactions buying and selling with 57 members and counting!
    instagram.com/klnumismatics

  • Options
    rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would go with VF25... though likely to details grade if submitted. Cheers, RickO

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 16,867 ✭✭✭✭✭

    VF25 looks right to me, though I wouldn’t describe it as having an original appearance.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    291fifth291fifth Posts: 25,202 ✭✭✭✭✭

    VF20 details, burnished, excessive obverse marks in the fields.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • Options
    BoosibriBoosibri Posts: 12,690 ✭✭✭✭✭

    25 if it grades

  • Options
    NumisOxideNumisOxide Posts: 11,041 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here is another picture.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 16,867 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 15, 2020 7:52AM

    It looks cleaned, more obviously so than in the original pictures.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    291fifth291fifth Posts: 25,202 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The second photos are overexposed and are not good for grading. Note how the marks in the obverse fields seem to have diminished. It also takes on a very "cleaned" look that is probably not accurate.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • Options
    NumisOxideNumisOxide Posts: 11,041 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @291fifth said:
    The second photos are overexposed and are not good for grading. Note how the marks in the obverse fields seem to have diminished. It also takes on a very "cleaned" look that is probably not accurate.

    Yes your right, its overexposed. I'll try to take another set of pics using an ott light. So is the consensus here that it had an old cleaning and this is secondary toning?

  • Options
    rheddenrhedden Posts: 6,648 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't like the coin that much, but I don't see any cleaning. I think it would go VF20 at PCGS. That being said, 1856-O is one of the more common "O" mint seated quarters, right behind 1840-o No Drapery, so I wouldn't send a VF of this date in for grading.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 16,867 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coinJP said:

    @291fifth said:
    The second photos are overexposed and are not good for grading. Note how the marks in the obverse fields seem to have diminished. It also takes on a very "cleaned" look that is probably not accurate.

    Yes your right, its overexposed. I'll try to take another set of pics using an ott light. So is the consensus here that it had an old cleaning and this is secondary toning?

    We don’t know what the coin actually looks like.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    NumisOxideNumisOxide Posts: 11,041 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 15, 2020 11:44AM

    @rhedden said:
    I don't like the coin that much, but I don't see any cleaning. I think it would go VF20 at PCGS. That being said, 1856-O is one of the more common "O" mint seated quarters, right behind 1840-o No Drapery, so I wouldn't send a VF of this date in for grading.

    Good to know Redden. Thanks.

    It's funny though. I never said I was going to submit it for grading. I just wanted some opinions about what other collectors would grade her. I paid about VG10 money if you went by the pcgs price guide.

  • Options
    NumisOxideNumisOxide Posts: 11,041 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @coinJP said:

    @291fifth said:
    The second photos are overexposed and are not good for grading. Note how the marks in the obverse fields seem to have diminished. It also takes on a very "cleaned" look that is probably not accurate.

    Yes your right, its overexposed. I'll try to take another set of pics using an ott light. So is the consensus here that it had an old cleaning and this is secondary toning?

    We don’t know what the coin actually looks like.

    I know it's hard to give an opinion by just looking at images. Here's a video which may or not give a better view. :)
    https://youtu.be/w7rZFKo7Uj4

  • Options
    johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 32,954 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Vf 25

  • Options
    fathomfathom Posts: 2,153 ✭✭✭✭✭

    VF something. That should straight grade.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 16,867 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coinJP said:

    @MFeld said:

    @coinJP said:

    @291fifth said:
    The second photos are overexposed and are not good for grading. Note how the marks in the obverse fields seem to have diminished. It also takes on a very "cleaned" look that is probably not accurate.

    Yes your right, its overexposed. I'll try to take another set of pics using an ott light. So is the consensus here that it had an old cleaning and this is secondary toning?

    We don’t know what the coin actually looks like.

    I know it's hard to give an opinion by just looking at images. Here's a video which may or not give a better view. :)
    https://youtu.be/w7rZFKo7Uj4

    It certainly looks better than in the second set of images!

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    oih82w8oih82w8 Posts: 13,092 ✭✭✭✭✭

    20-25 details

    oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's

    BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
  • Options
    NumisOxideNumisOxide Posts: 11,041 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @coinJP said:

    @MFeld said:

    @coinJP said:

    @291fifth said:
    The second photos are overexposed and are not good for grading. Note how the marks in the obverse fields seem to have diminished. It also takes on a very "cleaned" look that is probably not accurate.

    Yes your right, its overexposed. I'll try to take another set of pics using an ott light. So is the consensus here that it had an old cleaning and this is secondary toning?

    We don’t know what the coin actually looks like.

    I know it's hard to give an opinion by just looking at images. Here's a video which may or not give a better view. :)
    https://youtu.be/w7rZFKo7Uj4

    It certainly looks better than in the second set of images!

    Yes it does!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file