1903 S $10 gold piece Updated pics 12/14/09 again LOL

holeinone1972 · December 10, 2009 7:47AM

Is this a semi rare animal in MS 63, 64 & 65 and higher?

Updated pics after an acetone soak.

BillJones · December 10, 2009 7:54AM

It's a bit tougher than average in MS-64 and 65, but lower grade ones are not scarce at all. I had one in inventory at one point that was very nice MS-63. None of the dealers seemed to be impressed by the date however.

RYK · December 10, 2009 8:07AM

<< Is this a semi rare animal in MS 63, 64 & 65 and higher? >>

It's common enough that it deserves to be bought and sold as a generic date.

holeinone1972 · December 10, 2009 9:31AM

pictures are up.

Opinions

PerryHall · December 10, 2009 9:33AM

<< pictures are up.

Opinions >>

Lightly cleaned or polished.

commoncents05 · December 10, 2009 9:42AM

Altered Surfaces.

-Paul

holeinone1972 · December 10, 2009 9:45AM

Ya know I did not see it, until I took pics and loaded them up.

O well, I guess for buying it at spot I am OK.

TomB · December 10, 2009 10:26AM

My first impression is altered surfaces.

TwoSides2aCoin · December 10, 2009 10:45AM

Gold is over $1100 per ounce and has gone as high as $1225 in recent days. So as generic as the half ounce is, you're in, and isn't that the name of the game ?

darktone · December 10, 2009 6:59PM

Is it real? I have seen counterfiets of this date and the reverse color looks odd? The obverse does look odd like it was cleaned.

PerryHall · December 10, 2009 8:43PM

Looks real from what I can see in the pics, just a little shined up. Possibly used in jewelry at one time but a good deal at melt.

darktone · December 10, 2009 8:48PM

<< Looks real from what I can see in the pics, just a little shined up. Possibly used in jewelry at one time but a good deal at melt. >>

I don't know but it does have the look I have seen in the past.

maibockaddict · December 10, 2009 11:15PM

What are you talking about? Cleaned? Altered surfaces? All I can glean from the pics is that it looks a bit cartoonish. Looks like blazing luster to me, at least MS 63. Maybe the lighting isn't perfect, but I have done enough photographing of my own to know how pics look and without seeing this in hand, it looks fine.

BillJones · December 10, 2009 11:24PM

It is hard for me to make the call that this coin has altered surfaces from the picture. Yes, the obverse does have a different look than the reverse, but I'm not sure if that is from the nature of the photo or the coin. If the obverse really has that color, there is probably a problem.

If the coin has not been altered it would grade MS-64. I really don't see this making MS-65 given the number of small marks.

Longacre · December 11, 2009 12:27AM

I can't tell from the pic if it was gently polished generations ago. Therefore, I cannot opine on its sticker status at this time.

holeinone1972 · December 13, 2009 11:23AM

I put an updated pic in original post after a nice saok in acteone.

RYK · December 13, 2009 11:26AM

That's a pretty photo. I am going to award a sticker for your photography skills.

darktone · December 13, 2009 11:28AM

Can you do a close up shot in a few area's?

holeinone1972 · December 13, 2009 11:31AM

<< Can you do a close up shot in a few area's? >>

I can try.

Where.

STONE · December 13, 2009 11:34AM

Did the cheek and neck change after the dip?
They seem a lot less smooth, and more bumpy than your first images!

Still, overall a nice looking coin!

SilverEagles92 · December 13, 2009 11:37AM

Something's not right.

The coin looks way too smooth, I'd also guess "altered surfaces."

AUandAG · December 13, 2009 11:58AM

The bumpy and not sharp details leads me to believe that this coin is a 1950's Hong Kong
fake. The first pic actually looks better but the second pic gives it that cast look. Maybe
just the pics show too much detail. But they were gold so for melt I think you did just fine
no matter.

bob

holeinone1972 · December 13, 2009 12:05PM

<< The bumpy and not sharp details leads me to believe that this coin is a 1950's Hong Kong
fake. The first pic actually looks better but the second pic gives it that cast look. Maybe
just the pics show too much detail. But they were gold so for melt I think you did just fine
no matter.

bob >>

I do not think it's fake, only because the collection they came from every coin I have ever submitted has come back problem free, other than scratches. But always genuine at worst.

At first I thought I had a 64 or 65. After the acetone bath High au is my Guess.

fc · December 13, 2009 12:11PM

what bothers me is how the luster looks on the obv, especially by
liberty's head. the coin looks legit though.

darktone · December 13, 2009 8:11PM

Close up pics of the face area and the field area in front of it could help. If we can see evidence of casting/tooling we could really narrow this thing down. On the other hand we could get a good look at what was done to the surfaces. Either way their is a lot to learn from this.

coinguy1 · December 13, 2009 9:39PM

<< 

<< The bumpy and not sharp details leads me to believe that this coin is a 1950's Hong Kong
fake. The first pic actually looks better but the second pic gives it that cast look. Maybe
just the pics show too much detail. But they were gold so for melt I think you did just fine
no matter.

bob >>

I do not think it's fake, only because the collection they came from every coin I have ever submitted has come back problem free, other than scratches. But always genuine at worst.

At first I thought I had a 64 or 65. After the acetone bath High au is my Guess. >>

The coin looks odd in the images, but if it grades, I think it should go MS63 or MS64, not AU.

holeinone1972 · December 13, 2009 11:08PM

Great coinguy, is giving me hope. I guess I will throw it in for grading and see what happens. I just tossed the coin under the loupe again, I don't see the bumps under closer observation. Maybe it is just the photo. Maybe it is lit too harshly?

Hell I don't know.

Rob

maibockaddict · December 14, 2009 5:47AM

I don't know if this helps but here are pics of my PCGS MS-63. The size of the pics and the lighting amplify the marks big time...

darktone · December 14, 2009 11:24AM

Nice coin Dave- these coins really start to come alive at the MS63 grade level.

Rob, if you could get some close up pics before you send it in I think we all could learn here.

fc · December 14, 2009 11:43AM

<< I don't know if this helps but here are pics of my PCGS MS-63. The size of the pics and the lighting amplify the marks big time...

>>

it is not the hits or anything on his coin that seems to be at issue when
determining the grade even tough liberty's chewed up face gives
me a lot of pause.
it is how the luster looks compared to your coin to the OPs.

your coin shows full luster throughout the cartwheel where it can be
seen. the OP's coin seems to show luster missing in the cart wheel
effect which makes me think altered surfaces.

but with pics... one can never know for sure. but based on them i
would not be a strong bidder if it were up for auction.

the difference between how the luster looks on the rev and the obv
is night and day. rev looks fine.

holeinone1972 · December 14, 2009 12:11PM

These are about the largest pics I can manage with any clarity.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · December 14, 2009 12:14PM

It definitely has a bad wipe across the obverse, and some moderate hairlines on the reverse. Certainly not a bad pickup for melt, but not worth much over, IMO.

fc · December 14, 2009 12:17PM

<< It definitely has a bad wipe across the obverse, and some moderate hairlines on the reverse. Certainly not a bad pickup for melt, but not worth much over, IMO. >>

yup. what he said. your first pics were enough of a hint to know
there was a problem. your last set of pics just confirmed it for sure.

i would not send it in for grading.

TwoSides2aCoin · December 14, 2009 12:51PM

I agree that it's worth it's weight in gold, but not in plastic.

coinguy1 · December 14, 2009 1:12PM

Based on the new images, I would revise my MS63-64 grade guess (if it graded), downward to an MS62 maximum, in the event that it doesn't no-grade.

robkool · December 14, 2009 2:11PM

Appears to have been messed with... Not sure if copper spots were removed due to those areas of hairlines on the surface.
The first pic looks like a ms64 piece tho...

darktone · December 14, 2009 8:18PM

Good enough pictures to see the extensive hairlining. I think I would submit it just to get it into a genuine holder so buyers will know it's real which I still question. I think many learned from this thread- thanks!

PerryHall · December 14, 2009 9:59PM

I'll stick with my original assessment of a light polish probably during use in jewelry

1903 S $10 gold piece Updated pics 12/14/09 again LOL

Comments

Leave a Comment