Tell me what you think of my Eagle

JohnZ · August 21, 2003 12:13PM

You guys have been very helpful with my skills at grading gold coins. Don't pull any punches. I see a great deal of chatter in the fields. Has it been whizzed? dipped? The devices seem reasonably strong. No original luster. I accidentally made the scan of the reverse smaller, but it's the same coin. Also, the diameter, weight, and specific gravity measure out correctly for the series. Is it a slightly better date?

Placid · August 21, 2003 12:17PM

Looks harshly cleaned to me. The areas that are not easy to get at look different than the open areas.

wingedliberty · August 21, 2003 12:18PM

EF45

JohnZ · August 21, 2003 12:30PM

Harshly cleaned.....sigh. I was afraid of that. I bought it when I was a teenager. Youthful indescretion to be sure. Now I won't buy gold unless it's slabbed by either PCGS or NGC. Education is indeed expensive.

Bustman · August 21, 2003 12:43PM

I would go with 45 as well.

KlectorKid · August 21, 2003 12:45PM

AU-50. Hard to tell what the lustres like so I cant say wether its really AU or not.

Baley · August 21, 2003 12:47PM

does not look harshly cleaned to me, just chattery coin contact. AU53.

KlectorKid · August 21, 2003 12:47PM

BTW Placid I think that the change in color might have to do with the wear. They are hard to get at spots when it comes to rub.

JohnZ · August 21, 2003 12:52PM

45 is good enough for me. It was the first gold coin I ever bought. 1979. I was 16 years old and working at Bar-S Meat Packing Company in Seattle Washington. Paid an entire $100 for it (about two weeks salary).

OK, I was an uneducated tot, but still, I'd like the neck of the moron who applied the brillo pad to the coin to meet my clenched fingers!!!!

KlectorKid · August 21, 2003 12:58PM

Are you sure its cleaned? From the pictures it doesnt look like it but you have the coin in your hand so you would be able to tell.

JohnZ · August 21, 2003 1:05PM

Theoritically, yes, klectorkid, but I understand that many of the coins in this series are rife with bag marks and chatter...

How does one know the difference?

DenverCoin · August 21, 2003 1:06PM

Hi JohnZ,

Mintage: 1,718,825 i.e. common. I give it an EF-45. Value $215 according to Coin Prices Magazine.

John

Topdollarpaid · August 21, 2003 3:00PM

Thats a very nice coin, an a very nice au. Cleaned? I dont think so just the slightest wear.

JohnZ · August 21, 2003 3:22PM

Well now I'm completely confused.

Lakesammman · August 21, 2003 3:27PM

If you want 4 opinions on a coin photo, ask 3 people! It's not easy w/o the coin in hand.

jom · August 21, 2003 3:45PM

I'm not sure it has been cleaned. Too hard to tell from photo. AU50 or so, maybe...not much luster left.

It also sounds like you got a good price for the times. At $100 for 0.5 ounce you must have bought it at the beginning of 1979 since the price of gold would have been too high after that to get it at that price. You probably should have sold the thing in April of 1980 when gold went to $800 per ounce...

jom

RNCHSN · August 21, 2003 3:49PM

I'll call it AU-50 to AU-53, NOT cleaned! Just slight wear.

fivecents · August 21, 2003 8:28PM

Looks like a ms60 ms61 to me. I see a sizable cut between the date and bust.

darktone · August 21, 2003 9:18PM

I would say MS60-61 also but the cleaning is just too much to get into a slab. When the date is boxed in around a cleaning like that it won't slab. I don't understand why some call this coin XF ? are you net grading it? if so I think XF is kind of a harsh net grade. In higher grades this coin becomes rare but in this condition it's very common. I would think if I were to sell this on ebay I would get $190-$200 for it. mike

nwcs · August 21, 2003 9:53PM

Ahh, picture grading. I'd say AU details. I can't guage cleaning based on the pic.

my3cents · August 21, 2003 10:11PM

coin is original - not cleaned or whizzed - even apopears to have some original luster.

I'd say it will grade at MS60.

It's a keeper.

That being said....wanna sell it?

pmh1nic · August 21, 2003 10:11PM

Are you sure there is no original luster? The details are definitely AU and I'd be very surprised not to have any original luster especially in the protected areas around the devices. I agree with Baley in that the coin doesn't appear to be harshly cleaned. The coloration appears natural and the scuff marks are not atypical.

tjkillian · August 21, 2003 10:48PM

It looks very nice to me, and I do not see the cleaning. Remember that gold is very soft, even in the alloy of U.S. coins. I would grade it at least AU-58.

How did you exactly measure the specific gravity?

Tom

RBB617 · August 21, 2003 11:16PM

I'd say that the details are AU/MS, but a net grade of AU53 due to cleaning, chatter, and loss of luster. There are some pretty sharp details here. I wouldn't say that it has been harshly cleaned (i.e., a Brillo pad), but I do believe that someone has taken a cleaning product and a good stiff rag to it. Look at the way the "chatter" and loss of luster is in the wide open fields. The only places that you don't see it is directly around the stars, the eagle wings, the banner/words, and around the date.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to have this in my collection at a $100 cost basis, but I don't think that it warrants a net MS or a high AU. My guess is that PCGS and NGC would bodybag it. Just my opinion based on a photo and my ever improving grading abilities (they have a long way to go).
Brian

RYK · August 22, 2003 12:26AM

Unc details, net AU. Still not a bad buy for $100.

BillJones · August 22, 2003 12:44AM

It doesn't look cleaned to me. It just has some wear and marks. It grades AU from what I can see, but I've seen less attractive pieces in MS-60 holders. Those coins were so marked up that it was hard to tell if they had any wear or not.

jadecoin · August 22, 2003 1:26AM

I am with the school of thought that says "AU, original, nice coin". Does not look cleaned and would probably go AU-55 at best. Congratulations!

KlectorKid · August 22, 2003 1:50AM

RBB617, the reason you dont see it around letters, the date and the stars are because they are sheltered from the hits. Thats the same reason why there seems to be a chatter out line around the eagle, because its protected.

JohnZ · August 22, 2003 2:46AM

Thank you very much to all of you!! You've been a tremendous help as always. I'm going to hang on to it for the sentimental reason that it was the first gold coin I ever collected - almost 25 years ago.

RYK · August 22, 2003 2:56AM

I confess...I was thinking MS-61 until I read all of the talk about past cleaning. That determination could only be made definitively with the coin in hand. It is quite possible that the marks are bagmarks.

I have a PCGS submission to send. If the owner would like me to include it with my other freebies, I would be happy to send it along at my expense. Or, perhaps the owner will submit it and let us all know.

Robert

morganbarber · August 22, 2003 3:01AM

No cleaning. Decent luster. AU55. Nice coin. Be proud.

Placid · August 22, 2003 3:16AM

Hard to spot cleaning 100% for sure on gold from a picture, thats just the impression the picture gave me.
If you think you can tell a coins not cleaned either from a picture then here are a couple to ponder.

pmh1nic · August 22, 2003 3:32AM

Placid

Even in the photograph the coloration of those coins makes them highly suspect.

Placid · August 22, 2003 3:35AM

Placid

Even in the photograph the coloration of those coins makes them highly suspect.

O.k.

JohnZ · August 22, 2003 8:12AM

I have a submission going in next month with other coins that are still on order. Will let you know what PCGS says. Thank you for the kind offer, Robert.

lordmarcovan · August 22, 2003 9:19AM

I'd go AU55 to 58 on it.

I had a 1901 in a PCGS MS61 holder stolen this January. It was previously in an ANACS MS63 holder.

Tell me what you think of my Eagle

Comments

Leave a Comment