Grading opinions wanted on a very rare coin

seateddime · November 10, 2007 1:15PM

Hijacked thread

cmerlo1 · November 10, 2007 1:18PM

62? Looks proof or prooflike to me...

Barndog · November 10, 2007 1:19PM

that's a huge S on that reverse!

notwilight · November 10, 2007 1:19PM

PR61

DMWJR · November 10, 2007 1:21PM

62

78750Aggie · November 10, 2007 1:26PM

I'm certainly not a dime expert, butI looked at a few pictures of the Seated Liberty Dime. This one seems really unusual...the right arm and hand are much larger than comparitive photos of the design/coin. Maybe that is normal for that year. Otherwise a very nice coin.

CJ

numisma · November 10, 2007 1:36PM

<< I'm certainly not a dime expert, butI looked at a few pictures of the Seated Liberty Dime. This one seems really unusual...the right arm and hand are much larger than comparitive photos of the design/coin. Maybe that is normal for that year. Otherwise a very nice coin.

CJ >>

Yeah. They couldn't find a female model so one of the mint's machine operators put on a gown and posed for Gobrecht, hence the large arms. (Kidding)

According to Breen, the S mintmark was created with the punch used on the half dollars and three dollar gold pieces of that time.

PS - I can's venture a grade from those images, but it does look like a nice piece. Is it the lone NGC MS62?

seateddime · November 10, 2007 1:49PM

It is in fact the lone 62, I am considering an attempt to cross it to PCGS.

I want to establish a better registery set on PCGS but there are some coins ( like this one) that if I don't cross they just can not be replaced.

I just got this coin bagged. There is no way to buy one like it, if this does not holder another like will never surface.

Frankcoins · November 10, 2007 3:07PM

Probably lightly cleaned long ago and since retoned. Nasty gashes to the left of Liberty's arm. Probably correctly graded as a 62.

oreville · November 10, 2007 3:27PM

Much harder to grade proof versus mint state coins via pics on the internet. Looks more like a PR61 than a 62.

PerryHall · November 10, 2007 9:21PM

<< Much harder to grade proof versus mint state coins via pics on the internet. Looks more like a PR61 than a 62. >>

Did the San Francisco mint strike proofs in 1856?

ricko · November 10, 2007 11:32PM

Very nice 61/62 - cannot determine if proof or not... but could be. Cheers, RickO

STONE · November 10, 2007 11:36PM

Why are you guys even debating if this coin is a proof or not. It's an "S" mint people, that makes it a Business Strike.

I'm fine with the 62 grade. The scratch next to Liberty's right shoulder is pretty distracting, plus the picture could be hiding a bit more than what meets the eye.

mozeppa · November 10, 2007 11:58PM

wow ...miss liberty is sportin' popeye guns.

anyone else think ther arms are large for her head?

cmerlo1 · November 10, 2007 11:59PM

<< Why are you guys even debating if this coin is a proof or not. It's an "S" mint people, that makes it a Business Strike.

I'm fine with the 62 grade. The scratch next to Liberty's right shoulder is pretty distracting, plus the picture could be hiding a bit more than what meets the eye. >>

Branch mints did make proofs- not sure if they made dimes in 1856, but they are known for other dates/series (1894-S Barber Dime, for example). I say 'looks proof or prooflike' because to me, based on the photos posted, the fields look especially smooth and flat, the strike is good, the rims are flat, and the devices look like they're 'floating' on the fields... (hey, at least I got the grade right!)

Barberman55 · November 11, 2007 12:06AM

<< wow ...miss liberty is sportin' popeye guns.

anyone else think ther arms are large for her head? >>

Maybe a case of elephantitus of the arms and hands......weird looking.

NumisOxide · November 11, 2007 12:08AM

I say it will cross. Looks like a solid 62 from the pics.

Nice date and mint.

coinlieutenant · November 11, 2007 12:09AM

I dont think there is any reason for san francisco to have struck a BM proof that year. The coin maybe PL but that makes sense given the low mintage.

I love the coin. It is a true rarity IMO. Let me know if you want to sell her.

As far as the grade, send it in for a crossover if you want. What can you lose? 50$?

J

seateddime · November 11, 2007 12:13AM

The coin is not a proof but it intersting that people thought is may be. It is currently in a NGC62 holder and while I would think it would upgrade I would hope it would cross over.

Coinosaurus · November 11, 2007 2:19AM

There are 54-S ($20) and 55-S proofs (25c, 50c, $3). Who knows - 1856 was the first year dimes were struck in SF. If you crack it take a really good look at the rims and see how square they are. If you have a raw Philadelphia proof you can do a side-by-side test.

seateddime · November 11, 2007 2:26AM

Have you visited the LCSS website listed above?

ColonialCoinUnion · November 11, 2007 2:30AM

I like it as a 61/62, but I think the slab grade makes very little difference on a coin like this. Specialists in the series know what they are looking at.

Sunnywood · November 11, 2007 2:34AM

That's a wonderful specimen of a rare date in the series. However, I have to repeat my usual admonition - it is simply impossible to grade coins accurately from most images.

The coin appears to have the luster intact at all the high points, which would of course make it a mint state coin. However, as with most coin images, it is not possible to evaluate the surfaces clearly enough to assess the MS grade. It is not even possible to rule out an old cleaning, see hairlines, detect thumbing, brushing, etc. (I am not suggesting that this coin is cleaned or impaired in any way; but rather, that it is not possible to make such determinations from most average-quality images, including those posted here.)

In the case of a '56-S dime, this coin would be quite welcome in any collection regardless of my rant against image-based grading !!!! I certainly agree with CCU in that respect - who cares about the slab grade on a coin like this. What difference whether it is 61, 62 or 63 ... !!

Incidentally, PCGS has done 2 in 62, 3 in 63, 1 in 64 and 1 in 65. This series has quite a few dates with paltry mint state survival rates. Just look at the 1843-O, 1845-O, 1862-S and 1865-S for example, not to mention some of the CC's !!

Best,
Sunnywood

seateddime · December 13, 2007 11:11AM

NGC62, PCGS DNC

Russ · December 13, 2007 11:14AM

AU58 on a good day.

Russ, NCNE

DoubleEagle59 · December 13, 2007 11:20AM

ms62/63.

I think it's way better than an au.

seateddime · December 13, 2007 11:22AM

<< AU58 on a good day.

Russ, NCNE >>

idiot!

Russ · December 13, 2007 11:24AM

Russ, NCNE

Elcontador · December 13, 2007 11:24AM

It's a nice coin & imo, a market graded MS 62. Like most 62s, it's really an AU 58. There appears to be a touch of wear on Miss Liberty's leg right next to the upper rt. hand corner of the shield. I see some very slight discoloration there.

Myqqy · December 13, 2007 11:25AM

I really like the eye appeal on that one- the prooflike fields with the golden toning is a nice combo- from the images, it looks nice for a 62...

seateddime · December 13, 2007 11:26AM

what is your point? Still not even a slight rub hence the MS grade.

Too many Kennedys I guess

Longacre · December 13, 2007 11:26AM

I was going to say 55 and no sticker.

Russ · December 13, 2007 11:28AM

<< I was going to say 55 and no sticker. >>

Yeah, I was being charitable at AU58.

Russ, NCNE

seateddime · December 13, 2007 11:29AM

<< 

<< I was going to say 55 and no sticker. >>

Yeah, I was being charitable at AU58.

Russ, NCNE >>

stick to the modern crap

Russ · December 13, 2007 11:31AM

<< what is your point? Still not even a slight rub hence the MS grade. >>

Rub isn't the only thing that puts a coin in an AU holder. I now understand why none of your coins crossed.

Russ, NCNE

Elcontador · December 13, 2007 11:35AM

I'm going to come to Russ's defense here, not that he needs it. You asked for the grade on the coin, he gave his opinion, and you started to berate the guy. I wouldn't be posting this if you asked him why he disagreed with you and wanted to have a discussion. No, you called him an 'idiot.'

If you do not wish or are unable to have an intelligent cyber conversation with people about your or other coins, you shouldn't be asking them what they think of them on a public forum such as this one.

MrEureka · December 13, 2007 11:35AM

I now understand why none of your coins crossed.

Russ - Please explain.

seateddime · December 13, 2007 11:35AM

<< 

<< what is your point? Still not even a slight rub hence the MS grade. >>

Rub isn't the only thing that puts a coin in an AU holder. I now understand why none of your coins crossed.

Russ, NCNE >>

Another worthless comment. DO you just make worthless comment for the sake of adding to your post numbers or do have anything of value to add?

AU55 - please. Better to keep your opinion to yourself than to look foolish

seateddime · December 13, 2007 11:37AM

<< I'm going to come to Russ's defense here, not that he needs it. You asked for the grade on the coin, he gave his opinion, and you started to berate the guy. I wouldn't be posting this if you asked him why he disagreed with you and wanted to have a discussion. No, you called him an 'idiot.'

If you do not wish or are unable to have an intelligent cyber conversation with people about your or other coins, you shouldn't be asking them what they think of them on a public forum such as this one. >>

Russ' comment comes from another thread.

Russ · December 13, 2007 11:42AM

<< I now understand why none of your coins crossed.

Russ - Please explain. >>

It's self-explanatory. He thinks the only criteria that will land coin in an AU holder is rub. It isn't, of course. Hairlines and/or totality of marks, (like this coin), will also do so.

Russ, NCNE

TwoSides2aCoin · December 13, 2007 11:42AM

<<

>>

I don't know seated coinage that well. Russ may be a modern guru, but even a modern guy can see what oil from the hands will do. Grading is subjective, but let's for a minute be "Objective".

I see the photo as having a slight bit of rub on the shoulder, right breast and even the clasp or ring that binds the garment on the shoulder. I attribute the blueish tint to oils from the hand. Given that observation, I still see the coin as mint state, but that isn't how PCGS always sees it.

Humbly submitted,

Joe

GoldenEyeNumismatics · December 13, 2007 11:44AM

I was thinking at least MS62 if they were critical on the scratch near Liberty's shoulde.r Maybe MS63.

seateddime · December 13, 2007 11:46AM

<< 

<<

>>

I don't know seated coinage that well. Russ may be a modern guru, but even a modern guy can see what oil from the hands will do. Grading is subjective, but let's for a minute be "Objective".

I see the photo as having a slight bit of rub on the shoulder, right breast and even the clasp or ring that binds the garment on the shoulder. I attribute the blueish tint to oils from the hand. Given that observation, I still see the coin as mint state, but that isn't how PCGS always sees it.

Humbly submitted,

Joe >>

Joe,

Thank you for your honest assesment

tradedollarnut · December 13, 2007 11:51AM

Might I suggest a trip to a national show to sit down and discuss your collection with a prominent national dealer? There are dozens who handle liberty seated coinage and could give you valuable feedback on how you are doing on your purchases. You can also sit down with HRH himself and go through your coins one by one to get his opinions.

Posting pics on the internet gets absolutely zero value IMO.

roadrunner · December 13, 2007 12:15PM

The picture that Russ put up shows the coin very well. There is no obvious rub on those obv highpoints, possibly strike issues, but not rub imo. Are all those highpoints fully frosted? Probably not. But these days, you won't find that until the MS64-66 grades. While I would not have called this coin UNC 20-25 years ago due to lack of full luster over the coin, it does seem to meet today's TPG...UNC standards. Liberty's upper right arm, breasts, and mid-leg are often areas that show some flatness in the "stars obverse" design. They are not rounded up all the time like you often see on the "legend obverse" dimes. On many dates, the squarish look to her right arm is all you get....it looks plateaued like rubbing. High point scuffing is sort of normal and you'll see that even on 66 and 67 coins at times....unfortunately. Liberty's left knee will never be rubbed before her right knee. At least I've never recalled seeing that happen. If her right thigh is rubbed it usually is not concentrated in the center but runs almost up to the knee, forming a plateau. At times you will see just a small spot of rub on the right knee area. Again, none of these areas appear to have the flattish rub that should place the coin to "today's TPG AU status.

Hairlines and knicks in no way keep a coin from mint state imo....unless you cleaned the coin or damaged the surface by brushing. It's either a fully lustrous, no rub coin or it isn't. A coin can show some damage that may net it less than a MS TPG grade...but the coin is still Mint State....but not worth MS money. Semantics yes, but important differences.

This coin appears to have significant luster breaks in the fields...or it is somewhat PL in those fields which would explain the lack of luster in those areas. I had an 1847 dime once that graded MS63 back in 1987 and if had no field luster. I always thought it just might be cleaned but in fact it was a near fully PL coin with luster only on the device crevices and around the lettering. FWIW MS 61-63 coins often don't have full field luster, or worse sometimes no field luster. It shouldn't be the case but it is.

To really judge the luster one needs to see the luster in hand. The photos cannot fully do that. Today's standards for a 61/62 coin wander from a "no rub" requirement to "mostly full luster" or any combo of those 2. It's a slippery slope. It doesn't make this particular 56-s any less rare.

As far as Breen stating that the S on this dime came from a half dollar punch seems far-fetched considering the halves only used Large S mint marks. And those 1855 to 1859 San Francisco Lg S mint marks are some of the biggest darn mint marks on US coinage.
One of those wouldn't even fit on a dime reverse.

roadrunner

TwoSides2aCoin · December 13, 2007 12:24PM

<< Might I suggest a trip to a national show to sit down and discuss your collection with a prominent national dealer? There are dozens who handle liberty seated coinage and could give you valuable feedback on how you are doing on your purchases. You can also sit down with HRH himself and go through your coins one by one to get his opinions.

Posting pics on the internet gets absolutely zero value IMO. >>

Well golly gee whiz... and here I was trying to be gracious and give an amateur opinion. Still, I guess it's kind of dweebish on my part, eh ?

TobyOneKenobe · December 13, 2007 5:42PM

Hey, if you want to show off your rare coin that's fine and dandy.

But don't go asking for grading opinions and then start calling some of the responders idiots.

It makes you look arrogant and foolish.

jmj3esq · December 13, 2007 11:03PM

"Grading opinions wanted..." Am I wrong or was that the title of your post?

When soliciting opinions you should not take offense to any legitimate opinion.

Russ' opinion is legitimate especialy considering he is not the only one who thinks the coin is AU.

In any event, IN MY OPINION the coin looks MS and properly graded. I would be happy with what you have.

Wolf359 · December 14, 2007 12:01AM

Following the DNC (now nuked) thread, it wasn't surprising to see this pop back up. I glanced at the
coin, graded it, then looked at your grade. I was surprised this was in an NGC MS62 holder, I had graded the coin (from the image) as AU.

Wolf359 · December 14, 2007 12:06AM

You can also sit down with HRH himself and go through your coins one by one to get his opinions.

That's an awesome suggestion, I'd second that (and for me to agree with TDN is like having to swallow a canary)

7Jaguars · December 14, 2007 12:22AM

Well, we may be beating this ole dead horse....This coin reminds me of some that I have sent to "P" and had BB'd for questionable tonnig. What it looks to be from the pictures as the other posters have stated is a coin struck to relatively PL standards (definately NOT proof) that has been cleaned in the somewhat distant past.The coin has retoned either "naturally" or perhaps in whatever environment it was placed.

There are contact issues in the fields as has been stated, and soft strike issues over the areas already mentioned. I would tend to put this into a net 58 category, sad to say. I have several coins of similar or greater rarity that have the same issues and would like to go back in time and slap around those who had mishandled them. If this comes back higher than its current grade I would be very surprised and still question it. I just can not see why it has to be again disturbed from its tomb of plastic as it has had enough issues in the past.

Grading opinions wanted on a very rare coin

Comments

Leave a Comment