Can you give your opinion on this 1795 Draped Bust dollar? (Not mine)

ER · January 30, 2006 9:47AM

CalGold · January 30, 2006 9:50AM

I could give you my opinion but I cannot fathom why you would possibly want it.

CG

ER · January 30, 2006 9:52AM

<< I could give you my opinion but I cannot fathom why you would possibly want it.

CG >>

I would like everyone's opinion, if they care to give.

fc · January 30, 2006 9:53AM

i like it.

it looks from the pic it has luster.
dont mind those scratches, cause most of them aint scratches.
adjustment marks right?

the hair does not look tooled. nor the date.

big busty AU50 is my guess. how embarassed should i be ER?

BillJones · January 30, 2006 9:54AM

The coin has full AU sharpness, but it been cleaned something wicked. It's not the kind of thing I would put in my collection. I'd rather own a no problem, original VF-30 than this, but with that much "meat" left, someone might like it.

coinguy1 · January 30, 2006 9:54AM

Too light in the centers - looks odd/unoriginal as such..

stman · January 30, 2006 10:08AM

<< I would like everyone's opinion, if they care to give >>

Even me? Heh...... Nasty Nasty. Looks like AU details, and cleaned, with some nasty brown secondary tone. Not how these should look IMO.
I'll take a worn crusty one anytime over a POS like this. Of course "the power of the holder" is what Really matters. Right?

fc · January 30, 2006 10:12AM

argh.. i truly suck at this series and many like it.
i am very curious what you think ER.

techeff · January 30, 2006 10:13AM

Looks unoriginal, but it could be the pics...

JRocco · January 30, 2006 10:14AM

Shame what happened to this coin- probably many many years ago. This is one of those coins that probably looks worse in hand with that brutal cleaning. I agree with above comments about rather having a nice 25-30 coin in original skin.

EarlyTypeManJohn · January 30, 2006 10:17AM

I think the dealer needs to take a better photo of it. The photography certainly makes this coin look too bright and it could very well look a lot better in hand. I love this series and knew exactly where to go to figure out his is an AU55 according to NGC. I would definitely want to see this in hand before giving it a thumbs up or thumbs down. However, this one is a little out of my league...

stman · January 30, 2006 10:25AM

<< argh.. i truly suck at this series and many like it. >>

Why would you say this? You mentioned earlier you liked it. Nothing wrong with liking it. Going from the image you mentioned adjustment marks. I believe there are some on this coin. Just thought it was interesting that you liked it, then when others said they didn't.... you seem to change your mind.

fc · January 30, 2006 10:27AM

hm. i just said i sucked at grading due to every else coming
to a consensus so quickly that the coin was not deserving of
a AU grade.

From the picture, I still think it is a coin I would be proud to own.
Hardcore collectors of this series.. it appears they dislike it.

stman · January 30, 2006 10:32AM

OK, was just curious. Here is how I like them.....

JRocco · January 30, 2006 10:33AM

Hey fc- collect what you like. There are many collections out there that have cleaned or detailed coins. No problem with that. If you think about it- a nice VF coin has seen a lot of traction in its day, but could still be a great coin.

JRocco · January 30, 2006 10:34AM

<< OK, was just curious. Here is how I like them.....

>>

Now that coin is yummmmmmy stman.

fc · January 30, 2006 10:38AM

hm, now that you show me your coin.. and I look at the one above..
it appears the one above used to be like yours until it was dipped,
repeatedly to remove the toning. One can still see some traces of it.

live and learn. tastes get refined over time.

JoesMaName · January 30, 2006 10:42AM

Looks like a real POS, you may want to send it to me and save yourself the humiliation of having to unload it

I'll even pay postage.
Looks like XF+/AU- details.
Too bad it does look to have lost a fight with a wire brush.
Still would be nice to own, for the right price...

BillJones · January 30, 2006 10:46AM

Here is the Draped Bust, Small Eagle dollar from my type set. It too was cleaned many years ago and has since retoned. I bought this coin more than 20 years ago, and it has since retoned. This is not the ideal situation, but at the time I bought what I could afford. At least this coin does not and never did have an odd two-tone look to it like the piece that started this thread. Its surfaces had a uniform appearance and were not polished. There is a good chance that the coin that started this thread would get a body bag if you sent it to PCGS or NGC.

This coin is now in an NGC AU holder. I'd grade EF-45.

ER · January 30, 2006 10:49AM

The coin is NGC AU55. I agree with those said it's AU details, but been harshly cleaned. The hair details and the stars' central elements are almost all there, but the face, neck and bust somehow look flat too me. The eagle's breast feathers are about 80%. The fields look to me to have been harshly cleaned (and I'm not talking about the adjustment marks). Well, that's my impression when I first look at this. Here is the seller's original pic, which is even brighter. I just darkened it a little in the original post.

Hey stman, nice looking dollar there.

BillJones · January 30, 2006 10:58AM

I'm sorry to say that I have seen worse coins in NGC AU holders. Not of the aspect of the cleaning, but from the aspect of wear.

Some of the Draped Bust, Small Eagle dollar I've seen graded AU by NGC would have gotten no higher than EF-40 from me. And no they were not "original gems." They were lightly cleaned just like most of these coins are.

ColonialCoinUnion · January 30, 2006 11:36AM

<< The coin is NGC AU55. >>

Thats shocking, but not surprising.

Can you give your opinion on this 1795 Draped Bust dollar? (Not mine)

Comments

Leave a Comment