Home U.S. Coin Forum

1844 New Orleans Proof Gold at ANA

Morgan WhiteMorgan White Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited August 19, 2025 11:59AM in U.S. Coin Forum

Interesting pieces for sure. I guess CAC looked at the $10 and said: "Nope, we wouldn't buy that sight unseen as a 65".

GC Promotion:

Comments

  • Coins3675Coins3675 Posts: 428 ✭✭✭

    Nice set, will bring a lot of money.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 19, 2025 12:35PM

    @Morgan White said:
    Interesting pieces for sure. I guess CAC looked at the $10 and said: "Nope, we wouldn't buy that sight unseen as a 65".

    Great coin!

    EDIT: I looked a bit closer. I think there was some big abrasion near/on star 3 that scraped off the star and made the ding near it. That is my guess for why no CAC approval.

    chopmarkedtradedollars.com

  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 3,963 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @lermish said:

    @Morgan White said:
    Interesting pieces for sure. I guess CAC looked at the $10 and said: "Nope, we wouldn't buy that sight unseen as a 65".

    Great coin!

    EDIT: I looked a bit closer. I think there was some big abrasion near/on star 3 that scraped off the star and made the ding near it. That is my guess for why no CAC approval.

    I believe that is as-made.

  • yosclimberyosclimber Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 19, 2025 1:41PM

    These coins are part of the "100 Greatest US Coins" registry set, presented by their current owner in an amazing thread in May.
    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13909490/#Comment_13909490

    It's cool they are up for display to the public at the show.

  • Morgan WhiteMorgan White Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FlyingAl said:

    @lermish said:

    @Morgan White said:
    Interesting pieces for sure. I guess CAC looked at the $10 and said: "Nope, we wouldn't buy that sight unseen as a 65".

    Great coin!

    EDIT: I looked a bit closer. I think there was some big abrasion near/on star 3 that scraped off the star and made the ding near it. That is my guess for why no CAC approval.

    I believe that is as-made.

    Looks like a planchet void that is below the surface, so it didn't get polished like the rest of the fields.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Morgan White said:

    @FlyingAl said:

    @lermish said:

    @Morgan White said:
    Interesting pieces for sure. I guess CAC looked at the $10 and said: "Nope, we wouldn't buy that sight unseen as a 65".

    Great coin!

    EDIT: I looked a bit closer. I think there was some big abrasion near/on star 3 that scraped off the star and made the ding near it. That is my guess for why no CAC approval.

    I believe that is as-made.

    Looks like a planchet void that is below the surface, so it didn't get polished like the rest of the fields.

    I couldn't make up my mind and edited several times. I certainly have no problem being corrected. Don't really see things like that on proofs very often.

    chopmarkedtradedollars.com

  • hummingbird_coinshummingbird_coins Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There is a similar effect on star 10 which should discount the scrape theory. I don't believe a planchet void was the culprit either - this is a proof coin, after all. I am of the opinion that there was grease in the die, but even that should've been avoided for a coin of this caliber. I guess it just goes to show that there is no "perfect" early branch mint gold.

    Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
    Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled

  • Morgan WhiteMorgan White Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Since it didn't CAC, I think I'll pass and wait for a better example.

  • Just curious.
    Searched the pricing on PCGS and see there are only 1 of each minted.

    Why only mint 1 ?
    Why with a mint mark of New Orleans ?
    Wouldn't the time and effort of producing a master die make reason to mint more than 1 ?
    When were they actually minted ? In 1844 ? or closer to 1890 ?

    Truly what is the history of these 2 pieces ?

    Chris

  • RexfordRexford Posts: 1,316 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @SilverEagle1974 said:
    Just curious.
    Searched the pricing on PCGS and see there are only 1 of each minted.

    Why only mint 1 ?
    Why with a mint mark of New Orleans ?
    Wouldn't the time and effort of producing a master die make reason to mint more than 1 ?
    When were they actually minted ? In 1844 ? or closer to 1890 ?

    Truly what is the history of these 2 pieces ?

    Chris

    The mintage on the vast majority of pre-1858 proofs is unrecorded. When PCGS says the mintage is 1, they mean that one is example is known.

  • 1madman1madman Posts: 1,624 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Coins3675 said:
    Nice set, will bring a lot of money.

    Not for sale

  • WinLoseWinWinLoseWin Posts: 1,711 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Morgan White said:
    Interesting pieces for sure. I guess CAC looked at the $10 and said: "Nope, we wouldn't buy that sight unseen as a 65".

    @Morgan White said:
    Since it didn't CAC, I think I'll pass and wait for a better example.

    I recommend going with this PCGS Proof-64 1844-O Eagle from 1999. It's every bit as nice as the 65.

    (Watch the shiny gold coin swinging back and forth - to the grading services - and keep repeating "There's no such thing as gradeflation" "There's no such thing as gradeflation". You will be back home in Kansas in no time.)

    .
    .
    https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-liberty-eagles/1844-o-10-pr-64-pcgs-ex-parmelee-the-discovery-of-gold-in-lower-appalachia-in-the-early-19th-century-set-in-motion-a-chain-of-events/a/211-6120.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

    "To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin

Leave a Comment

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