My only trade dollar...wonder what tradedollarnut will say about her??
Goldbully
Posts: 18,116 ✭✭✭✭✭
I remember posting this coin with my sorry pics many months ago, and tdn thought it was a wonderful 1877.
Now, here she is TrueViewed..........
...bought from J.J. Teaparty.
Now, here she is TrueViewed..........
...bought from J.J. Teaparty.
0
Comments
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Russ, NCNE
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>what do you think limited her grade? >>
I wish I knew. Perhaps some weakness on the Eagle's wings.
So you think she's a 63 too???
How about MS62PQ??
<< <i>
<< <i>what do you think limited her grade? >>
I wish I knew. Perhaps some weakness on the Eagle's wings.
>>
Nope. That's as fully struck as a trade dollar of the date gets and besides that amount of weakness in the wings exists on trade dollars graded MS67.
The limitor on the grade IMO is rub in the fields.
Edited to add: or diminished luster - can't assess luster in TrueViews.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>what do you think limited her grade? >>
I wish I knew. Perhaps some weakness on the Eagle's wings.
>>
Nope. That's as fully struck as a trade dollar of the date gets and besides that amount of weakness in the wings exists on trade dollars graded MS67.
The limitor on the grade IMO is rub in the fields.
Edited to add: or diminished luster - can't assess luster in TrueViews. >>
Wow, TDN......thanks for the numismatic lesson tonight.
I'll have to check out this wing weakness thing...much appreciated!!!
No wonder you are TDNut!!!!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Your lonley trade dollar would look good sitting right here in front of me!
Ray
<< <i>Might wanna upgrade GB.
Your lonley trade dollar would look good sitting right here in front of me!
Ray >>
Upgrade Raybo?? To what....This colorful lady is lookin' good sitting right here with me....sooo sorry!!!
Thanks for your concern and interest though!!!
Cert Verification #: 13877381
PCGS Coin #: 7044
Date, mintmark: 1877
Denomination: T$1
Variety:
Minor Variety:
Mint Error:
Pedigree:
Country: The United States of America
Grade: MS62
Mintage: 3,039,200
PCGS Price GuideSM Value: $1,400
Totally UNDERGRADED
JMHO, GrandAm
<< <i>
<< <i>Might wanna upgrade GB.
Your lonley trade dollar would look good sitting right here in front of me!
Ray >>
Upgrade Raybo?? To what....This colorful lady is lookin' good sitting right here with me....sooo sorry!!!
Thanks for your concern and interest though!!!
DAMN!
Ray
Strike does NOT impact grade on trade dollars below the gem level.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
Keoj
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Note that your coin is better struck than my MS65! The difference in grade is attributable to luster and pristineness of the fields [other than the spot, of course]
Yes, I'm understanding that now.
I'm so glad you were online tonight TDN.
BTW, that's a real looker....stunning!!!
Just imagine today's mint trying to come up with a finer design.
This $1 issue has got to be one of the classiest ever!!!
Thanks for all the great comments tonight.
My 1877 does have some finely struck stars I must say.
Damn, even Longacre commented....that's a first for me!!!
<< <i>Note that your coin is better struck than my MS65! The difference in grade is attributable to luster and pristineness of the fields [other than the spot, of course]
What he's trying to say is that he'd like to trade. And he'll pay postage
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>If I didn't know which was the higher graded or pricier piece, I would have guessed the OP's coin was the better of the two. Not to bash TD's coin, but between the strike and the toning I think the MS62 has infinitely better eye appeal (IMO of course). >>
That just shows the limitations of grading coins via image - especially if you're not experienced at interpreting them.
Yes, the OP's coin has the better strike. But strike counts very little in the grade of a coin up until gem. Note that both images are TrueViews, therefore taken under approximately the same conditions. See the luster evident in the MS65 coin? There is little to no luster evident in the OP's image. That doesn't mean it's not there - after all, it's an MS coin - it just means it has significantly less luster than the gem coin. Now - notice that the toning on the MS62 is not the same on both sides whereas it IS the same on both sides of the gem coin? That's an indication that the MS62 is probably not original, but the gem coin [combined with the full flowing luster] IS original. Now, notice how the fields around Liberty are not the same color as the balance of the coin on the obverse of the MS62? That's an indication of field rub - the pristine surface has been removed and as a result it's toned differently.
You can't accurately grade off an image, but once you know the grades if you're adept you can spot the reasons for it in many cases.
Field rub.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
<< <i>Great lesson, TDN - thanks. And to the OP as well for sharing! >>
He doesn't make this stuff up. Great thread. Congrats GB. --Jerry
Because the obverse and reverse have different toning, that it is an indication that the surface is not original? Is it not also possible that the coin was stored on one side for a long time?
I mean, I guess it's a safe bet calling a surface non-original. But it's also a cop-out in my opinion, as we really don't know for sure. It is a guess based on colors we see. If this coin was left in a velvet lined coin cabinet for a few years, untouched, might it also acquire a one-sided tone?
As far as field rub affecting toning near the devices; the physics are easy to understand. But I see changes in toning close to the devices on both coins. It's just that the changes are different. So how does one coin have 'field rub' affecting toning close to the devices on one coin and one does not?
I hope I do not offend, but I do question authoritative folks. If only for more clarity. I hope it is not taken wrong. I want more education and i'm not trying to call someone wrong or call someones bluff even though it might sound like that.
Perhaps my attention needs to be directed to very specific locations on these coins for me to understand.
I think both coins in this thread are pretty wonderful. My poor ugly trade dollar sheds a tear of sorrow.
I really like the 65. It looks like it is a coin with serious 'fire' going on! Serious luster with deep colorful toning on top. Yow!!!
I like the 62. It's amazing to me that it is a 62. It looks very clean. I wonder why it grades so low? Lack of luster? Perhaps I will re-read the thread to get the answer.
<< <i>Because the obverse and reverse have different toning, that it is an indication that the surface is not original? Is it not also possible that the coin was stored on one side for a long time?
I mean, I guess it's a safe bet calling a surface non-original. But it's also a cop-out in my opinion, as we really don't know for sure. It is a guess based on colors we see. If this coin was left in a velvet lined coin cabinet for a few years, untouched, might it also acquire a one-sided tone? >>
I think the implication is that both sides wouldn't both tone, but tone differently. For instance, if a coin's in a cabinet, likely the face-down side will tone, while the other side will remain relatively untoned. On the other hand, in something like an envelope, both sides will likely come out similar. In this case, both sides have toned, but the colors are very different. The indication is that either they were stored on opposite sides in very different conditions at some point, or the surfaces were not of the same "makeup" when the toning formed, and thus toned differently.
<< <i>As far as field rub affecting toning near the devices; the physics are easy to understand. But I see changes in toning close to the devices on both coins. It's just that the changes are different. So how does one coin have 'field rub' affecting toning close to the devices on one coin and one does not? >>
I think on TDN's coin, you'll see more gradation of color from the devices to the fields, whereas on Goldbully's piece, there are more definite/instant changes in shade. As the fields get rubbed, the metal flow is slightly changed. With this new texture, chemicals causing the toning will react to that part of the surface differently. What you'll see on Goldbully's coin are pockets of similar colors that change quickly in any location where there is a a rub in the field (mainly, the unprotected open areas of the fields around the bust or eagle). If the photos were geared to show specifically lustre, you'd see a somewhat dead region where those color changes occur--places where friction has rubbed off the metal flow that creates lustre.
<< <i>I like the 62. It's amazing to me that it is a 62. It looks very clean. I wonder why it grades so low? Lack of luster? Perhaps I will re-read the thread to get the answer. >>
This is the friction again. All of those blue areas on the obverse likely have little/no lustre left. The picture doesn't show it, but such friction is the cause of many low-grade uncs, the others being caused by surface problems are lots of marks. Clearly the latter doesn't affect this coin.
I think I am slowly getting it. But it sure is difficult when I cannot rotate these coins under a light in my hand.
There is some tell-tale stuff going on and it takes some time to see it. After all, these are beautiful coins and they 'pull my attention' to not necessarily the right place to look to see what is being talked about here. I think I am seeing the effects of the surface rub now relating to harsh changes in toning close to the devices.
I need to stop thinking about this. Surface rub. An MS coin does not mean that the coin has not been handled and worn in some way.
If I keep thinking along these lines, the dividing lines between MS and AU will break down and my whole world will collapse into jello. The world is not perfect. Oh my. Norman coordinate.
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
john
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
which helped me to understand up a very subtle difference (to me) in 2 coins by photo
which result in a 10x price difference.
and I appreciate the education very much
Is the implication of field rub
a gentle cleaning, a storage issue, or other?
thanks
<< <i>
Is the implication of field rub
a gentle cleaning, a storage issue, or other? >>
Probably another coin rubbed against it. That could have happened, for example, in a bag during transport. If you can look at a lot of AU58-MS62 pieces (properly graded... that might be hard to find), especially gold, you can see that a lot of these lustre breaks are the combination of many fine contact marks. I suppose a gentle cleaning could also impair the lustre, but I'm not sure how it would appear relative to this piece.
<< <i>If I keep thinking along these lines, the dividing lines between MS and AU will break down and my whole world will collapse into jello. >>
Ahhhh - now you're starting to understand, grasshopper!
There is no natural dividing line between MS and AU. In reality coin that has never been in circulation can show wear and a coin that has been in circulation can show no wear. IMO, wear/rub should be net graded right along with bagmarks and hairlines and all the rest. Why can't there be a particularly ugly MS55 and a particularly beautiful AU65? If that's where the coin falls in the quality continuum, then assign the grade!
Perhaps you are on to something that will emerge within the next 15-25 years...
The grading scale of 01-70 may not change from 01-100, but there might be numbers assigned within a grade with greater meaning than what we currently have. I can see the benefit for this in VF and higher based on several critical factors...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i>If I keep thinking along these lines, the dividing lines between MS and AU will break down and my whole world will collapse into jello. >>
Ahhhh - now you're starting to understand, grasshopper!
There is no natural dividing line between MS and AU. In reality coin that has never been in circulation can show wear and a coin that has been in circulation can show no wear. IMO, wear/rub should be net graded right along with bagmarks and hairlines and all the rest. Why can't there be a particularly ugly MS55 and a particularly beautiful AU65? If that's where the coin falls in the quality continuum, then assign the grade! >>
Another thing I did not know!!
I may have to change my title from Master Collector to Master Poster.
I had no idea my purdy lil' Trade Dollar would invoke such an educational experience.
Thank you all...especially Mr. TDN!!!
GB
GB
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution