I like the toning on the first one however it appears to have been lightly soap and watered (likely very long ago) and retoned, albeit, very nicely.....but, probably not original.
As for the second one, dipped CBH's don't really do much for me. Although I must admit I own a few myself, they are scarcer Redbook varieties, however, if the opportunity should arise, I would replace them with original, eye appealing examples.
SmallEagle, it would be interesting if you could state whether that fingerprint (if that's what it is) is on the holder or the coin. It looks like the CAC football has a print on it as well so that makes me think the fingerprint others mention is on the holder.
Based on the first two photos, I woud choose the Eliasberg but I'd like Todd (or some other skilled photographer) to photograph both coins for a fair comparison.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
If I were pursuing top pop coins (raw or certified), I would look for good luster and lack of bagmarks, strong strike to a lesser degree. From the photos? #2.
Toning like #1 has tends to cover up any marks and sometimes subdues the luster. Also, #2 appears to have a better strike. And I don't care for fingerprints which at least one seems to be present on #1. The pedigree and holder mean very little. If I were pursuing top pop coins, I'd be looking at the coin. BUT I understand an older holdered coin is more likely to remain stable, as opposed to a newly slabbed coin which could've been doctored and could turn later. So I suppose the holder does weigh into the decision for me slightly.
I have existed since the creation of this world and will exist until its end. Only my form will change. For these 80 human life years, I have the benefit of having a functioning body and consciousness. I will not waste this opportunity.
Comparing #1 to #2, the consensus leans toward #2 being the better condition coin, not necesarily the better looking. Both being PCGS67 it seems that #2 should be in a 68 holder. OR #1 in a 66 holder and CAC is mistaken. It is sometimes very hard to decide which coin to keep for a type set. I doubt if a mistake by the OP was made in his selection of #2.
<< <i>Comparing #1 to #2, the consensus leans toward #2 being the better condition coin, not necesarily the better looking. Both being PCGS67 it seems that #2 should be in a 68 holder. OR #1 in a 66 holder and CAC is mistaken. It is sometimes very hard to decide which coin to keep for a type set. I doubt if a mistake by the OP was made in his selection of #2. >>
Just because one is marginally better than the other doesn't mean they should be different grades? Perhaps one is a 67.52 and one is a 67.56. Or maybe we must go to more decimal places!
Want to buy an auction catalog for the William Hesslein Sale (December 2, 1926). Thanks to all those who have helped us obtain the others!!!
Tough to tell based on different photos I agree, but...
To my eye, coin #1 looks like what we have all come to regard as original in this age of coin doctors, while I think coin #2 may be the Shangri-La standard according to which doctors aspire to when they commence their work. Quite simply, there are so few nearly 200yo original coins that look like #2, that it is nearly impossible to quantify, and in fact, almost looks wrong.
I would be proud (not even close to the appropriate word) to own either one. They each have their own story to tell as they've travelled through our history. If only we could all look so good and fresh at 184 years old!
<< <i>I would be proud (not even close to the appropriate word) to own either one. They each have their own story to tell as they've travelled through our history. If only we could all look so good and fresh at 184 years old! >>
Not to be a contrary but coins like that do very little for me from a history perspective as they were locked away and only changed hands a few times never being used as they were intended. I view them more as art and less of an artifact
Comments
As for the second one, dipped CBH's don't really do much for me. Although I must admit I own a few myself, they are scarcer Redbook varieties, however, if the opportunity should arise, I would replace them with original, eye appealing examples.
If I had to choose, I'd go with the first.
Based on the first two photos, I woud choose the Eliasberg but I'd like Todd (or some other skilled photographer) to photograph both coins for a fair comparison.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Toning like #1 has tends to cover up any marks and sometimes subdues the luster. Also, #2 appears to have a better strike. And I don't care for fingerprints which at least one seems to be present on #1. The pedigree and holder mean very little. If I were pursuing top pop coins, I'd be looking at the coin. BUT I understand an older holdered coin is more likely to remain stable, as opposed to a newly slabbed coin which could've been doctored and could turn later. So I suppose the holder does weigh into the decision for me slightly.
<< <i>Comparing #1 to #2, the consensus leans toward #2 being the better condition coin, not necesarily the better looking. Both being PCGS67 it seems that #2 should be in a 68 holder. OR #1 in a 66 holder and CAC is mistaken. It is sometimes very hard to decide which coin to keep for a type set. I doubt if a mistake by the OP was made in his selection of #2. >>
Just because one is marginally better than the other doesn't mean they should be different grades? Perhaps one is a 67.52 and one is a 67.56. Or maybe we must go to more decimal places!
To my eye, coin #1 looks like what we have all come to regard as original in this age of coin doctors, while I think coin #2 may be the Shangri-La standard according to which doctors aspire to when they commence their work. Quite simply, there are so few nearly 200yo original coins that look like #2, that it is nearly impossible to quantify, and in fact, almost looks wrong.
#2 all day long for me.
>>>My Collection
<< <i>I would be proud (not even close to the appropriate word) to own either one. They each have their own story to tell as they've travelled through our history. If only we could all look so good and fresh at 184 years old! >>
Not to be a contrary but coins like that do very little for me from a history perspective as they were locked away and only changed hands a few times never being used as they were intended. I view them more as art and less of an artifact