Are all early gold coins cleaned / worked?

Bustman · August 29, 2002 4:15AM

A question for the gold or draped bust experts. I have been looking for a nice Draped Bust Eagle ( high-end AU58/ or MS61-2) for almost two years now. The problem is almost every one that I have seen, that does not look like a teething ring, has been dipped....... way dipped!! Are there any nice original early gold coins out there? Are there any that have not been messed with? Do you have to look more in the MS 63-65 range ( which is out of my range)?

KlectorKid · August 29, 2002 4:19AM

harder to find but yes there are i dont really mind if they where lightly dipped because most of them have problems anyways. u have a better chance in high grades because they were not as dirty or "dip needing".

kieferscoins · August 29, 2002 4:20AM

Bass gallery at the ANA museum will blow you away. Every coin is awesome. As for those lower grades, I think they are out there, but you have to weed through those cleaned ones you keep seeing.

Cameron Kiefer

pmh1nic · August 29, 2002 5:18AM

Just about everything raw I've seen has some type of serious problem. The major services are more forgiving when it comes to early gold (hairlines, impaired luster, rub, etc.) because of the shortage of really nice (not messed with) examples. Unless you've got an unlimited budget you may have to learn to be a little more forgiving.

braddick · August 29, 2002 6:04AM

I saw an example in a Service holder once that had a bit of dried apoxy rattleing loose around in the slab. I guess that was an older technic in hiding marks.

Conder101 · August 29, 2002 11:22AM

Probably over 90% of it has been worked on in some fashion. Most of the nice original material tends to be held in long term collections so very little of it comes out onto the marketplace. When it does, forget price guides they're for wimps and crybabies.

Nic · August 29, 2002 1:20PM

Agree with Conder. Be patient and search the auctions. K Edit spelling error.

shylock · August 29, 2002 2:11PM

Perhaps Benson III (Goldberg Feb 24-25, 2003) will yield some originals.

BillJones · August 29, 2002 11:10PM

The really amazing thing is that people are still playing with these coins.

A dealer I know had a 1796 No Stars quarter eagle that was in an old NGC holder. The coin was graded AU-50 and was really attractive. I took a picture of it for my achieves.

A few months later the dealer had the same coin, but now it was in a PCGS AU-55 holder and it had been cleaned to a pasty gold color. To confirm that it was the same coin I took another picture of it and compared the two shots. Sure enough the tiny marks were in the same spots - it was the same coin.

Why do people clean these coins? I don’t get it. I guess they think that the new “cheep shine” will appeal to rich idiots who have an extra $100,000 to spend. To those of us who know what we are doing it’s a crime.

And the last question is, who did it? PCGS? WHY?

Baley · September 27, 2003 9:02AM

<<WHY?>>

I agree it's a shame, but as to why, it would have to be for the profit involved in turning an NGC AU50 into a PCGS AU55.

Don't know how much money they made, but it has to be well into 5 figures.

mrcommem · September 27, 2003 1:55PM

As long as the grading services keep grading higher for clean and shiney coins and lower for crusty toned coins, the destruction of gold coins will continue.

dorkkarl · September 28, 2003 9:41PM

assume every coin has been worked on , or at least cleaned. expect to pay at least double retail for a true orignal.

K S

BillJones · September 29, 2003 12:14AM

On another thread about MS-65 $5 Liberty someone commented that the coin deserved the MS-65 grade despite the fact that the coin had too many marks for the grade because of the luster. There in lies the problem. If you can get something to shine more and avoid the dreaded “whizzed” description, you might get a higher grade. And even you don’t get the higher grade, it will be easier to sell.

It’s a shame, but a lot of coins are being ruined because of the toning and shine in your face craze. Back in the 1960s “white” was in and virtually every Bust Dollar one saw in grades from F-VF to EF-AU was pasty white color. Now we have this. It’s shame that people can’t leave good coins alone.

originalisbest · September 29, 2003 1:20AM

And often, those who would otherwise leave them alone don't due to the profit motive involved.

coinkat · September 29, 2003 11:24AM

Great comments and all the more reason an Original Surfaces designation is necessary to prevent this type of crap from continuing. By the time the real people who can really make an impact in connection with this issue do something, it will be too late...

my3cents · September 29, 2003 12:14PM

agree with coinkat - an "OS" designation is needed for gold

RYK · September 29, 2003 12:20PM

Mr Commem,

I agree. Unfortunately, the nice crusty coins get harder and harder to find.

Dorkkarl,

While some day the crusty coins may sell for a premium ("double retail"), they certainly do not now. I buy mine as crusty as I can--in fact, I am almost afraid to buy a shiny one, particularly the AU's. It is very hard for me to distinguish the natural AU luster from the enhanced AU luster on pre-Civil War gold coins. I get the experts (like Doug Winter and board member, Dahlonega) to help me.

Here is my contribution to the non-worked early gold coin issue:

It also happens to be my icon coin, known to others as the "Mother's Day Half-Eagle"--but that's another story!

RYK · September 29, 2003 12:30PM

While one part of me likes the idea of the "OS" designation for classic gold coins, the skeptical side sees this as another marketing opportunity for NGC and PCGS. For an additional fee, I can send all my gold coins in to try to get the "OS" designation. For the coins on which I do not get it the first try, I could send these to the other service and so on and so forth.

Baley, out of curiosity, what inspired you to dig up this old thread?

Robert

Baley · September 29, 2003 12:37PM

RYK, had searched under "early gold", found the thread, and thought the topic interesting and deserving of more discussion.

keets · September 29, 2003 1:01PM

Back in the 1960s “white” was in and virtually every Bust Dollar one saw in grades from F-VF to EF-AU was pasty white color

i wonder how helpful any type of "original surfaces" designation would be? extrapolating the above, i'm certain that much of what we see today in all series' and deem original is actually retoned from previous efforts at improvement.

al h.

Bustman · September 29, 2003 1:14PM

Baley, I was shocked to see this old thread brought up. About 6 months ago, at the Baltimore show, I did manage to find a very nice au58 1801 eagle in nice original condition with a terrific look. I had to pay a ton of money to get it though.

Baley · September 29, 2003 3:08PM

Bustman, I don't believe you, am going to need to see some pictues!

am looking for such a coin.

dorkkarl · September 29, 2003 9:03PM

<< <i>Dorkkarl, While some day the crusty coins may sell for a premium ("double retail"), they certainly do not now. >>

your right, "double retail" is an exaggeration, but i personally know collectors who will pay a significant premium for coins whose originality warrants it. it's not just a case of "crusty" surfaces, but where unc gold is concerned, a staggering % of them have been dipped. there is no mistaking the orange glow of original, undipped surfaces for gold coins.

btw, fantastic coin, thanks for the digi-pic!

K S

Are all early gold coins cleaned / worked?

Comments

Leave a Comment