How much would you pay for this PCGS slabbed 1894 $20 Liberty, what grade do you think PCGS assigned

oreville · December 6, 2003 3:00PM

sinin1 · December 6, 2003 3:04PM

if it was in a PCGS slab, I would agree that PCGS graded it

(unless the slab looked tampered with)

Bikingnut · December 6, 2003 3:05PM

BB for the scratches on the cheek? That would be my guess. $450 is my guess as to what I would pay.

fountainheadgold · December 6, 2003 3:10PM

ms60

oreville · December 6, 2003 3:15PM

You also need to state what you would pay for this coin or at the very least, what you think it is worth.

sinin1 · December 6, 2003 3:32PM

rub on eye - small scratch on cheek

AU-55 -> $400 max

fountainheadgold · December 6, 2003 3:44PM

I would pay 450.00

Placid · December 6, 2003 3:52PM

Spot. AU50, Do I agree with what?

oreville · December 6, 2003 4:05PM

Ok here goes. PCGS graded this coin MS-62. Now do you agree and what would such a coin be worth today. Personally, I do not agree and I would have graded it MS-61. I still bought the coin just in case I am not seeing the coin the same way the seller is seeing this coin.

The seller said: "Fully lustrous with light surface marks consistent with the grade. Deep yellow gold surfaces. A most attractive example."

I did a double take but wanted to give the seller the benefit of a doubt. The seller is B&M and was sold at auction to me for $483.00. I wanted to take a chance just in case the photograph is making the coin look worse than it is.

I can't seem to find slabbed mint state liberties for less than $450 anymore anyway.

Comments?

Baley · December 6, 2003 4:07PM

If that's a 62, I've got a handful of nice MS63s and 64s that I thought were 55s and 58s!

originalisbest · December 6, 2003 4:14PM

I would've thought 61. Sometimes I've seen 20's that I thought had too many marks for their grade given the bump because of a little bit brighter luster than usual.

oreville · December 6, 2003 4:20PM

Somehow, I have a feeling the photograph is a little out of focus making the coin look worse than it is. The area above the eye that some suggested looks like wear looks like a toned area to me.

RYK · December 6, 2003 9:28PM

Sorry for being late...my guess was MS 60/61, and for my collection, I would not buy it. It seems like the photograph was lightened in such a way to accentuate bagmarks (why would you want to do that?).If I were the consigner, I would be annoyed. Did you see the coin in person before bidding on it?

For $483, you did fine. You could chuck on ebay and easily for $550 plus. According to what I see, generic gold is very strong.

darktone · December 6, 2003 10:32PM

oreville, I was thinking MS62 before I saw your response and I was tempted to look at the B&M auction as I recognized the picture. I have a few perfect examples of $5 libertys that are the exact same type of MS62 as your coin- nice original surfaces with contact marks being the only real reason that it is graded 62. I prefer a 62 like this over a coin with few contact marks and un-original surfaces( better known as a light cleaning) or one with hairlines from a cleaning. I guess it's safe to say that originality is my #1 concern in any grade. Also I am pretty sure the color will be excellent in person. mike

sinin1 · December 6, 2003 11:06PM

I could see what I felt was rub above the eye, actually being tone or a "heavy copper" area in the alloy mix

The luster must be complete or else PCGS would have graded it AU (wouldn't they?)

I hope it turns out good for you

Meta · December 7, 2003 1:03AM

If thats a 62, then the worst of the gold that I will submit soon is a 66....at least. I know thats not true, and the least of my coins is probably a 63, but shouldn't that be impossible given that several people have to grade independently and agree and a final grader has to approve of the grade. I can believe its possible that one or even 2 grade (MAYBE) discrepancy could exist in the final grade compared to what we all agree on, especially in mint state, but how can a coin get by and be off by that far? No offense to the owner, really, but unless the picture doesn't look like the coin, thats not a 62.

razorface1027 · December 7, 2003 1:09AM

Givin' the pics, I'd have to say AU-53...

BillJones · December 7, 2003 1:51AM

MS-60 or 61. It's really baggy which would not make it easy to sell. The value is around $425 to $450, but I would not want it.

Sorry but bag marks drive me nuts.

darktone · December 7, 2003 2:46AM

<< <i>No offense to the owner, really, but unless the picture doesn't look like the coin, thats not a 62. >>

Meta, 62's come in many varieties. This is how I look at it- all gold coins in ms grades of 62 and down have some problems= bag marks, cleaning, over dipped, hairlines from cleaning, scratches, lack of luster and so on. It's been my experience that most 62's come to be graded as such because of some type of cleaning- you know the type of coin I mean the kind the novice thinks is undergraded because of the lack of marks and cracks it out hoping for a 63-64 but is shocked to get it back in a body bag for cleaning? To me a coin such as Orevilles with original skin and nice color is worth more than a cleaned 62 any day but again this is just my opinion.

mike

jdimmick · December 7, 2003 3:45AM

Oreville,

Going by the photo's, It looks 60- 61 at best, maybe it's a little better in person. As far as value, I dont know what they trade for but it would be at common 60 saint money.

I hope these are not the type coins they are going to use for the grading contest, will all be wrong!

eagle7 · December 7, 2003 4:09AM

One cannot grade coins by digital photographs. As far as the price, 483 is a great price for that coin at the present time. Nuff said!

oreville · December 7, 2003 5:55AM

I had that PCGS grading contest in mind as this coin's picture really threw me off.

I promise to take lots of detailed pics and post them here so we can learn.

dorkkarl · December 7, 2003 9:24PM

pcgs AND NGC do a horribly inconsistent job of grading coins like this imo. it obviously should be netted down considerably for the bagmarks. you'll see a piece of crap like that in a ms-62, then a totally mark-free coin w/ the slightest touch of friction in a au-58 slab. ridiculous! other than early copper, slabbed gold is the most unreliable plastic out there.

K S

jom · December 8, 2003 2:01AM

<< <i>piece of crap like that in a ms-62, then a totally mark-free coin w/ the slightest touch of friction in a au-58 slab. >>

I don't think that is ridiculous at all. That is the way it should be because it is the nature of things. Some coins come out of the mint in nice condition and get circulated slightly. Others don't come out of mint at all and look like crap. Now whether the services are CONSISTANT with Low MS vs AU thing is another matter entirely. I see $5 Indians that are clearly AU in MS62 holders because they are NICER than much of the other crap in the same grades. They are MARKET graded.

So it comes down to which type of grading is the RIGHT way: Technical or market? IMO, the grading services are NOT consistant on which they use. It's a little of both at this time......

jom

How much would you pay for this PCGS slabbed 1894 $20 Liberty, what grade do you think PCGS assigned

Comments

Leave a Comment