Guess the grade of this PCGS and CAC1887 $20 Liberty minted in Philadephia
oreville
Posts: 12,243 ✭✭✭✭✭
A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
2
oreville
Posts: 12,243 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
50
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
62 but I like it better at 53.
I saw this a nice tough pf-50
I sold a business strike 1881 in pcgs 45 at gc earlier this past year, but it was not as nice as this coin, nor cac'd.
The family I got that from had the 1886, but they lost it or it got stolen as the guy was bad for leaving stuff out in his office with numerous staff in and out.
53
Love the look of that one.
55
Actually was a trick question to see if anyone recognized this as a proof coin as it is difficult to determine if a proof coin that circulated looks like a proof or not. But in 1887 there were no mint state $20 coins..
PCGS graded this coin as PR50 but CAC gold stickered it.
I never would’ve guessed it was a proof.
I wonder how often these accidentally got into circulation?
Shirley it has a low mintage.
It the PF50 that sold on GC a couple days ago for 81K+. I don't recall if JD saw it in-hand or if we looked at a PCGS pic for his book. It's not in the top 15 but, it's a PF-only obv and rev, so easily auth'ed. I wouldn't kick it out even if it ate crackers in bed. Kudos to the new owner, you got some taste.
WARNING: Soap-box Mode
BTW, this perfectly illustrates why I so dislike GTG posts. Good show, you got a bunch of folks to bite on a GTG post so you can either make them feel like idiots or have them running around thinking they are the best "photo-grader" on the planet. Is this really how you get your kicks, cause it sure ain't a post to educate. IMHO, all the GTG posts are nothing more than pretty sad attempts by the poster to feel clever.
Grading or eval of coins from low-rez photos are a sucker's bet, at best. If you're really trying to sharpen forums members skills, post real info about the coin (post-grading for those who do the pre-grade posts) and ask for discussion of why the piece graded. In short, stop trying to be cute, 'cause you ain't. Be serious about helping fellow collectors instead of feeding your ego. Long past time when someone said it.
Since CAC treats 50/53 as equivalent, it means JA thinks it is at least a solid 55.
Oh, give me a break 🙄
If you dislike GTG posts so much, I recommend not clicking into them.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Man who pissed in your Cheerios? It’s only a game. Doesn’t matter wrong or right nobody’s keeping score except you.
VERY BAD SHOW, oreville, You were revealing this was a trick question just as I was posting about it being a deception. Is this what makes you feel good? Do you feel really clever or superior that you posted a coin most would not recognize and embarrass them for not doing so? IMHO, the way you so disingenuously posted this shows you're just feeding your own ego rather than trying to educate - "Look at me, I'm so clever because 87 DEs are a pf-only issue and most of you dummies didn't know that." Wow, am I impressed.
I may get banned for this, but your actions in this post represent the absolute worst habits in numismatics. Stop trying to show how clever you are. In case no one ever told you, tricking people IS NOT a good teaching method.
Fooling people to feel superior is not funny.
So, you like being used as click-bait?
This has gotta be one of the stupidest and most misguided rants I've ever seen.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
That doesn’t even make sense. You seem unhinged.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
PR45
The trick part of the guess the grade questionaire y wa to make sure everyone learns that the 1887 $20 Liberty was not minted as a circulating coin similar as to the 1895 Morgan silver dollar. The other purpose of this GTG thread was to demonstrate that it is not only difficult but nearly impossible to grade proof coins strictly from viewing a photo.
It was not done to make anyone feel badly.
I for one, knew it was a proof not because of the way it looks, as it looks Business strike looking due to circulation, but I know they didnt mint 1887 MS coins , and are proof only's. One area that I was not as knowledgeable in up until recently was $20's as they never came thru locally until I handled a complete set minus 70-cc, 54-o, 56-o, 79-o for family.
The said coin does look 53-55 IMO, and most likely would regrade, but Id leave it in the gold cac holder .
Excellent GTG as I had it pegged as a PR55. I checked my red Book to refresh my memory and confirmed there were no business strikes produced. (Which everyone could do).
I'm in at a 53 (no pissing contest, just coins)
PR-50 is probably about right. The piece has a lot of “meat,” but the Proof surfaces seem to be considerably muted.
The whole nature of this game is to throw everyone off otherwise it’s to easy and boring. The learning part comes later in the thread.
You are taking this way too seriously. And I don’t think @oreville had any malevolent intent. I see nothing wrong with guess the grade threads. And yes coins look different in hand, but it is possible to approximate based on photos and that can be a valuable skill when buying online as there are losses in time and postage/insurance in making returns.
And @oreville deceived no one. He posted a picture of a coin.
I’m thinking the lighting is a major component there as it almost looks like diffuse axial lighting. I’m betting there is more reflectivity to the fields in hand.
From CoinFacts....................
P. Scott Rubin: The 1887 Double Eagle was only issued in Proof. The United States Mint at Philadelphia reported striking 121 1887 Proof Double Eagles and no coins for general circulation. This was the last of a seven year run of low-mintage Double Eagles issued by the Philadelphia Mint. In three of the years from 1881 to 1887, the Philadelphia Mint issuance of Double Eagles consisted only of Proofs in 1883, 1884 and 1887. Both Proof and circulation strike Double Eagles were issued in 1881, 1882, 1885 and 1886.
The 121 Proof Double Eagles reported in 1887 was a larger-than-average mintage for the era. It is likely that not all of these coins were sold and some may have been melted at the end of the year or early the following year. Today only about thirty 1887 Proof Double Eagles are believed to have survived.
In 1887, few people collected Double Eagles. The coins were expensive to own and they were not worth much in the secondary market. The few individuals who did collect these large denomination coins would, in most cases, not have cared which Mint issued the coin. The 1887-S Double Eagle was the most plentiful of the year, this collectors had no need to pay a premium for a Proof coin from the Philadelphia Mint.
The first auction appearance of an 1887 Proof Double Eagle was in the 1890 S. H. & H. Chapman sale of the Cleneay Collection. The coin was offered as part of a Gold Proof Set of 1887. From 1890 to the 1940s, auction records show that only three or four appearances of 1887 Double Eagles took place each decade (seven examples offered in the 1920s are the only exception). In the 1940’s, sixteen examples appeared at auction. From 1960 to date, there have been approximately fifteen 1887 Double Eagles offered each decade.
David Akers (1975/88): Compared only to other proofs of the series, the 1887 is relatively common. A reported 121 proofs were minted and I estimate that 25-30 are still known. However, since most other dates are also available as business strikes while the 1887, a proof-only date, is not, the 1887 necessarily ranks as one of the rarest of all Double Eagles from the standpoint of total number of specimens known. It is more rare than the 1881, 1885 and 1886 and is surpassed among all Liberty Head twenties only by the 1854-O, 1856-O, 1861 Paquet, 1870-CC, 1882, 1883 and 1884.
CoinFacts Link
Maybe, but you can’t placed bids based on that assumption. There is too much money involved.
AU 50
I wish coins could talk. I'd bet this one would have an interesting backstory.
My War Nickels https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/nickels/jefferson-nickels-specialty-sets/jefferson-nickels-fs-basic-war-set-circulation-strikes-1942-1945/publishedset/94452
@oreville
So how do you like the coin ‘in hand’?
Did you or someone you trust look at it before the auction? That’s a lot of coin that I personally wouldn’t attempt without an eyeball on it.
Congrats!
I > @toyz4geo said:
I am most curious on how this one actually circulated? JA actually investigated and has not come up with an answer yet. i wished I had the chance to ask Dave Akers.
I also wonder if the proof surface is "muted" based on storage in an old time wood container which toned the surface. It seems to have little circulation friction.
Having handled a fairly large number of gold coins in Choice AU and Choice AU, which are graded MS-62, 62 or even 63, I can tell you that a rub in the fields shows more quickly that a rub on the devices. I have AUs and AUs graded Mint State which have Mint State sharpness on the devices, but rubs in the fields. Even CAC will sticker such coins, which I don’t view as Mint State.
I totally trusted JA view of this coin since I cannot grade proof coins well. I loved the circulated look of this coin and bought it at below the PR50 pricing. I just got lucky on the price. I am fine with it even at the PR45 grade level especially being there are no circulated mint state coins to compete with it.
I started a new protocol of buying coins BEFORE the major coin shows so no pressure at the coin shows other than viewing coins in person and practicing my grading skills which always can always improve
late to the party but I would grade it PF45 due to the amount of diminished mint surfaces (it could be flashy in hand and not just in the devices) and metal loss on the highpoints like Libs crown. One would expect a cir proof to have more details per grade range
Its also too pretty to be a 50 which I have always considered the ugly 53 grade. 53 and 45 really are the split how I was tough and once there is measurable details lost and bellow 33% mint surfaces it slides to the EF side of the range. Maybe it got 50 as a 53-
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Y ugly 53 ugly 53 grade. 53 and 45 really are the split how I was tough and once there is measurable details lost and bellow 33% mint surfaces it slides to the EF side of the range. Maybe it got 50 as a 53-
Can you clarify ugly 53?
How do you know that? I never heard of 50/53 being equivalent in JA’s eye.
53
JA has said it before. I’m sorry I don’t have a citation or remember where it is from.
There are other grades too but I am less certain on those at those are outside of my usual collecting range. I think there is an interval in the VF range as well as VG range (VG8/10 maybe). Someone should clarify those on the CAC forums.
You might be correct. I will ask JA at the FUN show about the 50 to 53. He once believed in a similar vein that G04 and G06 were essentially equivalent as both Good graded until I questioned him on it and won a gold sticker on a 1916-D dime graded by PCGS as G-04. But first I have to deliver Andy S. of Angel Dee his fsvorite diet coke at the show.
Low eye appeal. Dipped AU. Most 50s I have seen esp in PCGS holder were net graded AU or dull coins with too little friction for XF.
Put a different way if the coin is all there for for the range and the only differentiation is mint surfaces/luster preservation the grade is 53 or 45 often. At least how I learned or grade.
If I had to guess since that coin is attractive it’s a 53 with the yah but being wear
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set