Guess the grade (1836 Quarter Eagle) ---- GRADE POSTED
BECOKA
Posts: 16,960 ✭✭✭
------------------- Update -------------------
This is a beast of a coin to grade, 90% of the coin has XF/AU details yet the hair and headband look to be worn to VF details.
Under magnification there is actual wear on the hair and headband but not severe, it looks to be a bit of a weak strike as well. The stars with lack of detail appear to be more from weak strike than wear.
There is significantly more luster not common on a VF coin.
So how should it grade? My best guess is XF40/45 for the obverse depending on how much wear vs. weak strike there really is. Yet the reverse has AU50 detail and luster.
This is the kind of coin that I love to collect but rarely find. Not only is the price usually right, the attraction blows most other dipped, cleaned, beat up, bashed coins out of the water.
This is what PCGS said:
Here is what I saw on Teletrade:
------------------- Original Post -------------------
Just picked up my second variety out of seven known non-proofs for the 1836 quarter eagle.
See if you can guess the grade from the photos. I have a feeling this will be all over the place.
This is a beast of a coin to grade, 90% of the coin has XF/AU details yet the hair and headband look to be worn to VF details.
Under magnification there is actual wear on the hair and headband but not severe, it looks to be a bit of a weak strike as well. The stars with lack of detail appear to be more from weak strike than wear.
There is significantly more luster not common on a VF coin.
So how should it grade? My best guess is XF40/45 for the obverse depending on how much wear vs. weak strike there really is. Yet the reverse has AU50 detail and luster.
This is the kind of coin that I love to collect but rarely find. Not only is the price usually right, the attraction blows most other dipped, cleaned, beat up, bashed coins out of the water.
This is what PCGS said:
Here is what I saw on Teletrade:
------------------- Original Post -------------------
Just picked up my second variety out of seven known non-proofs for the 1836 quarter eagle.
See if you can guess the grade from the photos. I have a feeling this will be all over the place.
0
Comments
<< <i>35 sheldon scale. >>
that is my first reaction too. i can see the obvious luster so i am
hesitant to go down.. but the wear (strike issues?) keeps me from
going higher.
market graded xf40.
peacockcoins
Nice coin.
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
<< <i>30. >>
Nice Stars despite the weak strike
Nice Talons despite the weak chest
<< <i>I have a feeling this will be all over the place. >>
You sure got that one right.
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
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>Honestly, that coin looks like a 50 to me since I'm assuming the lack of hair detail is a function of the variety - after all, I see luster in the stars and even the fields. >>
I don't disagree with that, but in these guess the grade things the question is what did PCGS (NGC?) call it, and they don't tend to make allowances for the striking characteristics of individual die varieties.
<< <i>
<< <i>Honestly, that coin looks like a 50 to me since I'm assuming the lack of hair detail is a function of the variety - after all, I see luster in the stars and even the fields. >>
I don't disagree with that, but in these guess the grade things the question is what did PCGS (NGC?) call it, and they don't tend to make allowances for the striking characteristics of individual die varieties. >>
Hey CCU
I disagree.
When someone posts a guess the grade I assume they want to know
the real grade I think the coin is not what a TPG graded it. If they wanted to know the TPG
grade then we would need to know when the coin was slabbed because that would
have a direct effect on the slab grade.
<< <i>
<< <i>Honestly, that coin looks like a 50 to me since I'm assuming the lack of hair detail is a function of the variety - after all, I see luster in the stars and even the fields. >>
I don't disagree with that, but in these guess the grade things the question is what did PCGS (NGC?) call it, and they don't tend to make allowances for the striking characteristics of individual die varieties. >>
I beg to differ from your "...they don't tend to make allowances for the striking characteristics of individual die varieties" comment.
The TPG's do, wholeheartedly, address the notion of strike (weak or strong) when coming to a grade conclusion (be it MS or Circ) for different die varieties; most assuredly early Bust material such as this (or else the TPG's have been very lucky/consistent between how they grade circ G-4 through EF-45 coins; although I am most harsh when referencing NGC and their inconsistency of this; PCGS, to me, has shown great care in grading for certain/most die varieties.)
For instance, I have independently compiled an extensive list of Bust Quarters (1796-1828) by die variety, graded by PCGS, in grades of PO-01 through EF-45.
80% of these coins show a remarkably consistent grading standard for each variety, and strike plays a major factor when grading Circ Bust Quarters.
I consider 80% consistency remarkably strong when needing to evaluate strike and wear when determining how to grade a Circ coin!
Then again maybe I misunderstood you and I'm just flaunting myself
quite a turn out for this thread.
Well so far more than two of you are correct.
There is a bunch of luster in protected areas.
It should not help but it might. This is in a later gen green holder.
I will post the grade tomorrow lunch time.
<< <i>I will post the grade tomorrow lunch time.
I doubt I'll get much sleep tonight...
<< <i>
<< <i>I will post the grade tomorrow lunch time.
I doubt I'll get much sleep tonight...
Too much on TV tonight?
<< <i>I beg to differ from your "...they don't tend to make allowances for the striking characteristics of individual die varieties" comment.
The TPG's do, wholeheartedly, address the notion of strike (weak or strong) when coming to a grade conclusion (be it MS or Circ) for different die varieties; most assuredly early Bust material such as this (or else the TPG's have been very lucky/consistent between how they grade circ G-4 through EF-45 coins; although I am most harsh when referencing NGC and their inconsistency of this; PCGS, to me, has shown great care in grading for certain/most die varieties.)
For instance, I have independently compiled an extensive list of Bust Quarters (1796-1828) by die variety, graded by PCGS, in grades of PO-01 through EF-45.
80% of these coins show a remarkably consistent grading standard for each variety, and strike plays a major factor when grading Circ Bust Quarters.
I consider 80% consistency remarkably strong when needing to evaluate strike and wear when determining how to grade a Circ coin!
Then again maybe I misunderstood you and I'm just flaunting myself
If I'm wrong that would be great, but my point was that I believe they would grade this piece in comparison to other Quarter Eagles of this type, and not in comparison to other examples of this specific die variety. If this particular variety is typically more weakly struck than others, I think it will not be graded as high as they are.
Very nice!
<< <i>Honestly, that coin looks like a 50 to me since I'm assuming the lack of hair detail is a function of the variety - after all, I see luster in the stars and even the fields. >>
This is one of the most common varieties and the hair detail is not part of the variety attribution.
You are correct, there is luster in the stars and in many other places.
<< <i>I'll call it a variety C and a technical EF+. I see some luster remaining. Though perhaps I might want to net it down to an EF or even VF+ due to the strike. >>
You are correct as far as the variety it is what Bowers assigned as a C from notes provided by John McCloskey for the Bass sale.
That C will soon become a McCloskey 5D when he finally publishes is classic gold variety book.
as i think they were tighter back then.
so being off 5 points in my guess sure aint bad at all.
vf35, in my book, should have remaining luster but grade inflation
has ruined it for the most part. people call them xf now days. sigh.
so with a pcgs grade of vf30.. i am liking that type of grading. refreshing.
<< <i>I'm sorry, but VF30 coins do not have luster. >>
In today's world that may be true. I'm with fc, this clearly shows that market grading has taken over when no one expects luster in this grade.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm sorry, but VF30 coins do not have luster. >>
In today's world that may be true. I'm with fc, this clearly shows that market grading has taken over when no one expects luster in this grade. >>
feel free to continue to be manipulated by grade inflation then.
vf coins do indeed have luster in the protected areas if you grade
conservatively. 291fifth was always more correct then people wanted
to let on. Almost everything that was really nice and under graded
in older holders has been cracked out by this "industry" out to make
money. It is plainly obvious to anyone who thinks critically about
the situation and what has taken place.
ACG in the end will be considered correct
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm sorry, but VF30 coins do not have luster. >>
In today's world that may be true. I'm with fc, this clearly shows that market grading has taken over when no one expects luster in this grade. >>
feel free to continue to be manipulated by grade inflation then.
vf coins do indeed have luster in the protected areas if you grade
conservatively. 291fifth was always more correct then people wanted
to let on. Almost everything that was really nice and under graded
in older holders has been cracked out by this "industry" out to make
money. It is plainly obvious to anyone who thinks critically about
the situation and what has taken place.
ACG in the end will be considered correct
How are the wing tips on the reverse of that '37? The obverse is much more evenly worn and the hair buns appear a bit more worn which would explain the difference in PCGS grading from 25 to 30.
luster in the pics which is hard to do at HA.com if you know their pictures :-|
do not have a link. sorry. but i am sure you can find it.
<< <i>i just quickly dug around for an even lower grade example showing
luster in the pics which is hard to do at HA.com if you know their pictures :-|
do not have a link. sorry. but i am sure you can find it. >>
I'm sure I will I'm about half way through about 1000 1836 quarter eagle auctions for a variety census.
<< <i>
<< <i>i just quickly dug around for an even lower grade example showing
luster in the pics which is hard to do at HA.com if you know their pictures :-|
do not have a link. sorry. but i am sure you can find it. >>
I'm sure I will I'm about half way through about 1000 1836 quarter eagle auctions for a variety census.
Gotta be getting sick of variety D by now? And probably still waiting to see an E.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>
Gotta be getting sick of variety D by now? And probably still waiting to see an E. >>
You would be correct, out of the last 100 I saw
36% D or 2C
30% C or 5D
26% B or 6D
5% H or 2B
3% A or 4C
<< <i>
<< <i>
Gotta be getting sick of variety D by now? And probably still waiting to see an E. >>
You would be correct, out of the last 100 I saw
36% D or 2C
30% C or 5D
26% B or 6D
5% H or 2B
3% A or 4C >>
Forgot to post to this thread for a while?
Where are these variety A's? The only record I have of one is a 2002ish Heritage sale whose photos one cannot tell anything from. The D/C/B ratios seem about right, though I think I'm slightly surprised that the variety D is not even more common. What about varieties E & G? I've never seen an E, and G I would rate as more rare than H, but clearly less rare than A.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>Where are these variety A's? >>
Heritage:
Auction 263 Lot 8835
Auction 21081 Lot 1466
Auction 22113 Lot 15974
Auction 68023 Lot 63610
Auction 1125 Lot 8804
<< <i>The only record I have of one is a 2002ish? >>
Auction 22113 Lot 15974 11/19/2002
<< <i>The D/C/B ratios seem about right, though I think I'm slightly surprised that the variety D is not even more common. What about varieties E & G? I've never seen an E, and G I would rate as more rare than H, but clearly less rare than A. >>
Personally I have never seen an E or a G but I just started researching this date a few months ago.
Edited I meant I have never seen E or F, I have recorded 10 G's.