1798 $1 Grade opinions ?

GOLDSAINT · April 29, 2004 5:10AM

Try out your grading skills against U.S. top graders on this 1798 $1
I will post the certifiers grade within 24 hours.

dorkkarl · April 29, 2004 5:12AM

proper grade = ef-45, slabed grade = au-50

disclaimer: can't tell luster from your digipic

K S

JadeRareCoin · April 29, 2004 5:14AM

It's all about the surfaces on early material. I can't tell if that coin has luster or not. Based on the image and just shootin from the hip, I would go AU-50.

Sphinx357 · April 29, 2004 5:15AM

Looks like a low AU to me.

Placid · April 29, 2004 5:17AM

53

Trooper · April 29, 2004 5:21AM

low au also

WACoinGuy · April 29, 2004 5:21AM

AU-50

nwcs · April 29, 2004 5:23AM

XF-AU cleaned. Is that a scratch or a die crack on the date?

kieferscoins · April 29, 2004 5:24AM

AU-50.

Cameron Kiefer

Wondo · April 29, 2004 5:24AM

45

rlawsha · April 29, 2004 5:27AM

VF-30

dollardude · April 29, 2004 5:29AM

This one's tough. She's probably either XF45 or AU50. I'd have to go with the crowd and say AU50. She appears to be in original condition with minimal wear and a bit of the luster showing through the toning.

Colorfulcoins · April 29, 2004 5:31AM

NGC AU50

SportsModerator · April 29, 2004 5:31AM

XF-45

DennisH · April 29, 2004 5:34AM

XF40

louiskeller · April 29, 2004 5:36AM

I would say XF-44, about. Only because the picture is not so good.

What is the scratch? Another thing, the toning seems too regular. Was it cleaned, dipped, or otherwise?

Too many of the details are missing for me to say AU. But what do I know, except for what I see?

Louis

Numismanic · April 29, 2004 5:45AM

AU-50

Don

mgoodm3 · April 29, 2004 6:20AM

EF40

DominusDeus · April 29, 2004 6:21AM

AU58, maybe MS60.

mojorizn · April 29, 2004 7:04AM

Old cleaning, EF40

Mojo

coinlieutenant · April 29, 2004 7:12AM

AU if the coin has luster... XF45 if not...

Stuart · April 29, 2004 7:15AM

I'll guess XF-45 with a weakly struck central reverse area, and a bit of mint luster remaining in the protected fields around the starts on the obverse.

Could possibly go as high as AU-50 if there's more mint luster remaining than is apparent in this rather lifeless scan/photo.

JrGMan2004 · April 29, 2004 7:19AM

XF45

relayer · April 29, 2004 7:37AM

I think the missing motto is from the strike and not wear.

If it has some luster I'd say AU-55. If not I'd say AU-55 details; Cleaned; Net XF-45

Gemini · April 29, 2004 8:08AM

EF-40 may possibly get a 45 on a good day but AU no.

coinkat · April 29, 2004 8:53AM

EF45 max

jdimmick · April 29, 2004 9:39AM

Hard to determine without looking at the coin, but Ill say NGC-53

Betta285 · April 29, 2004 9:42AM

without luster 43-45... with luster, 48

lordmarcovan · April 29, 2004 4:16PM

I'll go 53.

Haven't scrolled down to the bottom of this thread yet to see if the actual grade was posted or not.

CapAnson · April 29, 2004 8:44PM

I think most of the flat areas are due to weak strike, with only slight wear.. So I'll say AU 55-58 cleaned.. Maybe low end MS if all the weakness is due to strike.

DHeath · April 29, 2004 8:59PM

XF-45 cleaned. Generally decent looking, but lifeless. The detail is far better than the luster based on the pics. JMO

GOLDSAINT · April 29, 2004 9:16PM

Looks like relayer hit it, NGC AU 55

dorkkarl · April 29, 2004 9:19PM

goldsaint, if you can, try to capture luster in the digipic. if that coin has, say 2/3 of the luster remaining, i'd agree w/ that grade. the digipic as is put's us at a disadvantage.

K S

pmh1nic · April 29, 2004 9:23PM

I would have said XF-45 for the same reason as most gave for not giving it an AU grade, the appearance of a lack of luster. That said it's a very nice example of this historic coin.

RotatedRainbows · April 29, 2004 10:10PM

Its absolutely impossible to accurately grade ANY bust coinage without being able to see the luster in person. Unlike more modern coinage (post steam press) luster is one of the most important factors when trying to determine whether a coins detail is the result of wear, soft strike or failing die, not to mention photography method plays a big role in exactly how much detail actually shows up in any posted picture.

RedneckHB · April 29, 2004 11:37PM

vf-35

Justhavingfun · April 29, 2004 11:48PM

From the scan, this looks unc to me. MS 60 to 63. Here's why ...

Those coins were weakly struck. Look at the reverse. The "unum" on the scroll isn't visible and that makes the coin look circulated. But look at the shield. That's usually where the wear shows. Especially on the upper tips, left and right, and those are pristine. Also: I see almost no bag marks. Show me a VF with no bag marks. I'll stick my neck out and say 60 to 63 with a shot at 64.

Enjoy!

Just having fun!

Dennis88 · April 30, 2004 3:11AM

EF-40

GOLDSAINT · April 30, 2004 3:14AM

Looks like relayer hit it, NGC AU 55

pmh1nic · April 30, 2004 5:35AM

I also made note of the weak strike. The kicker was the lack of luster otherwise it's an easy AU coin with a lot of detail.

dollardude · April 30, 2004 5:38AM

Inquiring minds want to know...WHAT'S THE GRADE?

GOLDSAINT · April 30, 2004 5:53AM

Sorry Guys and Gals I guess I did not make this clear enough, I post this twice today

"Looks like relayer hit it, NGC AU 55 "

dollardude · April 30, 2004 5:55AM

Goldsaint, I'm a moron, I didn't see it. Thanks for the fun thread!

jcping · April 30, 2004 5:56AM

NGC AU58, PCGS AU50.

1798 $1 Grade opinions ?

Comments

Leave a Comment