Options
Guess the grade 1877 Indian (Sharper pics added)
Halfhunter06
Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭
This is the sharpest i can make it with my camera guys, hope this helps.
0
Comments
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
Gut: XF45
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
-Paul
<< <i>I will go against the grain of all the posters so far and say AU-53. I think I see a total of 3 diamonds, and I think the coin has excellent eye appeal
I will back you up on this. My first thought was AU53-55. It is a nice looking coin.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Nearly AU58 surface quality but with weakness on the feather tips and diamonds which lowers the grade from choice AU (AU-55 to AU-58) to Typical AU (AU-50 to AU53).
Edited to add: The S1 die pair is typically weak on the feather tips and diamonds. The dies were slightly skewed (not parallel) - similar to the problem that plagued 1794 dollars.
Edited to add: Well, after what Mr. Snow said...I'm probably wrong.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
<< <i>VF35 if honestly graded >>
The only person who agreed with me. Old school grading.
I took out my 10 power and examined the areas you mentioned. I can see 3 diamonds (1 full and half of 2 others) and there is a break, howver faint, between the hair and the ribbon.
Let's not overdue it. What is your justification for such a low grade, regardless of how old the school is?
<< <i>I strongly believe that if there is no gap between the lower hair curl and the ribbon, it is VF, like in this coin. But there are always exceptions. This one is an exception. Grade by surface wear and deduct for strike. >>
No one would make an exception if it wasn't an 1877. I'd be willing to buy the exception analysis if the coin had luster but it doesn't appear to have any based on the scan. Classic case of key date gradeflation in my opinion.
<< <i>Ouch, VF-35?
Let's not overdue it. What is your justification for such a low grade, regardless of how old the school is? >>
I answered that in my first post. Eagle Eye also made the same point for grading it a VF.
Even the so-called old school accounts for striking issues for various series by dates...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ouch, VF-35?
Let's not overdue it. What is your justification for such a low grade, regardless of how old the school is? >>
I answered that in my first post. Eagle Eye also made the same point for grading it a VF. >>
I see your point and it is logical, but if I'm understanding his response correctly, Eagle Eye is also making exceptions in this case.
Apparently PCGS looks at overall detail when assessing a grade, and I agree with this approach.
Most "old schoolers" would grade Barber coins strictly by the "LIBERTY" headband. I always thought that was ridiculous, as were many so-called grading standards of the past. They would lump together 1916 and 1917 T1 Standing Liberty quarters using the same "strict standards." Huh?
Rip-off dealers in the 70's and 80's (and there were plenty) used these standards, and the assigned grades were all over the place. Who was right, who was wrong?
Some graders were so "by the book", that they lacked the skill to grade subtlely, with little or no understanding of die characterstics or strike.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ouch, VF-35?
Let's not overdue it. What is your justification for such a low grade, regardless of how old the school is? >>
I answered that in my first post. Eagle Eye also made the same point for grading it a VF. >>
I see your point and it is logical, but if I'm understanding his response correctly, Eagle Eye is also making exceptions in this case.
Apparently PCGS looks at overall detail when assessing a grade, and I agree with this approach.
Most "old schoolers" would grade Barber coins strictly by the "LIBERTY" headband. I always thought that was ridiculous, as were many so-called grading standards of the past. They would lump together 1916 and 1917 T1 Standing Liberty quarters using the same "strict standards." Huh?
Rip-off dealers in the 70's and 80's (and there were plenty) used these standards, and the assigned grades were all over the place. Who was right, who was wrong?
Some graders were so "by the book", that they lacked the skill to grade subtlely, with little or no understanding of die characterstics or strike. >>
There's some truth in that. You can't grade 1909 halves by using liberty because of the hub difference that year. Ditto for the SLQ's. But, I don't believe the IHC had a differnt obverse hub in 1877. We're talking about striking characteristics which is a different issue in my opinion.
Like I said, I'm willing to look at exceptions for strike, in this case an AU-50 grade may be warrented *if* it has luster, which all AU coins should have regardless of strike. This one doesn't appear to have any luster and the larger point is that too many exceptions get made for key dates.
<< <i>VF35 if honestly graded >>
You don't happen to have any 1877 Indians for sale do you?
<< <i>
<< <i>VF35 if honestly graded >>
You don't happen to have any 1877 Indians for sale do you?
I was thinking the same thing.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Why would it be dishonestly graded?
The point is: consistently graded. If this were an 1883, no one would be saying AU-50.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would it be dishonestly graded?
The point is: consistently graded. If this were an 1883, no one would be saying AU-50. >>
Blackborder,
I was also a little surprised at the AU-50 grade, but I suspect the coin in question is sharper and more detailed than the photo shows. This is the kind of coin that begs to be seen in person for a truly accurate assessment, don't you agree? Since we cannot see the "real thing", none of us can second guess the assigned grade.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would it be dishonestly graded?
The point is: consistently graded. If this were an 1883, no one would be saying AU-50. >>
Blackborder,
I was also a little surprised at the AU-50 grade, but I suspect the coin in question is sharper and more detailed than the photo shows. This is the kind of coin that begs to be seen in person for a truly accurate assessment, don't you agree? Since we cannot see the "real thing", none of us can second guess the assigned grade. >>
I agree it should be seen in hand to truly make an assessment. But, I think it's valid to second guess based on the lack of luster in the pics and lack of separation between the ribbon and hair. In my opinion TPG's routinely inflate the grades of nice looking key dates. Does the market accept this? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's right.