Thoughts? - 1872CC Seated Dollar

speety · April 24, 2011 9:43AM

Any thoughts on this coin??? It's in a NCS Details Holder for improperly cleaned.

AnkurJ · April 24, 2011 9:44AM

It is what it is and nothing more....

llafoe · April 24, 2011 9:47AM

Definitely looks cleaned... how many 1872-CC's do you currently own? Trying to corner the market?

Walkerguy21D · April 24, 2011 9:49AM

At least it's genuine!

kaz · April 24, 2011 9:49AM

It looks VG as far as wear, but looks like something going on near the center of the shield (some metal moved around?)

RedHerring · April 24, 2011 9:51AM

VG Details with a harsh cleaning that left the coin damaged.

Unknown · April 24, 2011 9:51AM

This content has been removed.

crypto79 · April 24, 2011 9:54AM

it would be worth more in a GSA soft pack

speety · April 24, 2011 9:54AM

For all of you that have posted - have you judged the coin or the holder? Don't buy the plastic. For reference, here is the reverse of our AU coin, and there is only one mintmark known as far as I can tell. Anyone else see anything funky? this thread I started a while back.

COALPORTER · April 24, 2011 9:54AM

Looks like she had a C-section too.

And a few rim bumps that, imo, really detract from eye appeal.

llafoe · April 24, 2011 9:57AM

<< it would be worth more in a GSA soft pack >>

Higashiyama · April 24, 2011 10:04AM

Dramatically different mint mark positions!

kaz · April 24, 2011 10:08AM

Aha! where did the micro-cc come from??

llafoe · April 24, 2011 10:13AM

<< Aha! where did the micro-cc come from?? >>

I thought they shrunk when the coin was cleaned?

Walkerguy21D · April 24, 2011 10:13AM

<< At least it's genuine! >>

So, it might not even have that going for it? Added mintmark, and not caught by NGC?

speety · April 24, 2011 10:18AM

<< 

<< At least it's genuine! >>

So, it might not even have that going for it? Added mintmark, and not caught by NGC? >>

That or it's completely fake. And who says that the NGC/NCS holder is real? I have no clue what the truth is, I didn't buy it. But I advised the buyer to look carefully at it as no Genuine 1872-CC dollars have that mintmark location that I (or apparently anyone else) is aware of.

And this is a brilliant way for counterfeiters to get coins into the market place - Details graded coins (PCGS Genuine and NCS) get much less scrutiny then coins in problem free holders. Be carefull no matter what level you are buying at, problem free or not.

Can anyone else confirm this as a fake? I didn't want to put that in the OP because I didn't want to bias the thread and was hoping someone else would notice... I have been wrong before...

Edited to add - It appears that the NGC slab is authentic... hmmmm.

llafoe · April 24, 2011 10:20AM

<< I have been wrong before... >>

WHAT?!?!?!?!?! You're too young to have been married!

COALPORTER · April 24, 2011 10:29AM

It had to get by Teletrade too - let's hope they at least give it quick glance!

Coinosaurus · April 24, 2011 10:30AM

Also, that date position is funky. I have a 72 (not CC) dollar in front of me that doesn't match at all.

speety · April 24, 2011 10:36AM

<< Also, that date position is funky. I have a 72 (not CC) dollar in front of me that doesn't match at all. >>

The 72-p does come with one obverse die that has a high date placement that is very close to the coin in the OP so that is not really a good way to tell if it's fake. The mintmark is what looked weird to me. The coin in our set has a low date which I assume is what your coin has?

kaz · April 24, 2011 10:48AM

the photo of this issue in Bowers' "Encyclopedia" appears to show the same MM as the coin in the op. Bowers says that 2 obv. dies were shipped from Phil, but that the reverse was the same used for 1870-CC dollars. Unfortunately, he does not say how many rev. dies were used. It would seem possible that more than 1 of the multiple rev dies used in 1870 could have been used here.... paging the Gobrecht Society!

123cents · April 24, 2011 10:51AM

I looked up the certification number and this is the same coin pictured on the NGC site.

Coinosaurus · April 24, 2011 10:53AM

Mine has a low date. The Gobrecht Journal (collective volume 1) indicates that the 1872-P comes with both low and high date.

speety · April 24, 2011 10:55AM

Bower's Encyclopedia shows the same mintmark placement as the coin I posted just the reverse for (our personal coin). The reverse die used from 1870 is described as:

"Reverse B: Widest spaced CC. The left C is totally to the left of an imaginary line extending upward from the right top of the letter E in ONE. The upright of the left C is not parallel to this imaginary line; rather, it tips away from it. This die is found on some 1870-CC dollars and all known 1871-CC dollars."

EVillageProwler · April 24, 2011 11:25AM

The coin looks genuine to me (or, more likely genuine than not). However, I am not so sure about the MM. It looks too sharp compared to the rest of the coin. That being said, I don't assume only one reverse die was used for 72-CC dollars. The 70-CC had something like 5 or 6 reverse dies. It's all documented in the GobJ. I think Joe Jaffe discovered the last new reverse die used by 70-CC.

EVP

PS Don't go by Bowers' book. It's dated and not original research, especially not the section on SD.

cameron12x · April 24, 2011 11:26AM

The size of the mint mark immediately caught my eye and raised a flag, but I needed your reference example to see that its location appears to be off as well...

Good work, Mark!

Kove · April 24, 2011 11:37AM

<< Details graded coins (PCGS Genuine and NCS) get much less scrutiny then coins in problem free holders. >>

Much less scrutiny?

They spend less time grading it, but the authentication stage has to be thorough. If PCGS is going to put the coin in a Genuine holder, the coin will be genuine.

crypto79 · April 24, 2011 11:39AM

date placement looks right for the date in relationship to the denticals, also there is a small cc punch used that is just like that on the 73 cc trades

speety · April 24, 2011 11:41AM

<< 

<< Details graded coins (PCGS Genuine and NCS) get much less scrutiny then coins in problem free holders. >>

Much less scrutiny?

They spend less time grading it, but the authentication stage has to be thorough. If PCGS is going to put the coin in a Genuine holder, the coin will be genuine. >>

I was refering more to the time people spend looking at the little details of the coins when purchasing them (not the actual grading process)... I was thinking that the holder itself may have been fake. However, the NGC Cert Verification looks like its the same coin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVP, I use Bowers as a starting place. I have looked at over 100 specimens of this date (combined online and in hand) and have never seen another MM location/size. Doesn't mean it's not possible though - it'd be a cool find if it is indeed authentic. That's why I started this thread, i wasn't completely sure it was fake and wanted more opinions.

Kove · April 24, 2011 11:45AM

Oh, that makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

roadrunner · April 24, 2011 11:48AM

If an added mintmark the reeding should also give it away. I don't think NGC would have screwed up on this. They probably have a protocol where every CC dollar
gets checked for certain markers....reed count including. In any event, such a horribly scrubbed coin would never appeal to me.

In reviewing Gobrecht Journal collective volumes 1-4 I don't find anything identifying a CC seated dollar of any date with a MM this size and far left location. With a mintage
of only around 3,000 pieces varying MM sizes and locations would be a stretch imo.

roadrunner

speety · April 24, 2011 11:55AM

<< If an added mintmark the reeding should also give it away. I don't think NGC would have screwed up on this. They probably have a protocol where every CC dollar
gets checked for certain markers....reed count including. In any event, such a horribly scrubbed coin would never appeal to me. >>

RR, has a reed count survey for seated dollars ever been conducted? If so I'd love to know where to find it if publicly available. I know it's one of the things I've wanted to do but with most of our coins in slabs it's impossible.

EVillageProwler · April 24, 2011 12:08PM

Speety - don't spend your youth counting reeds. Rather, develop a device or method to count the reeds. Once developed, maybe you can discuss with the TPG's a way to do this as part of a re-holdering.

COALPORTER · April 24, 2011 12:21PM

Quote: "With a mintage of only around 3,000 pieces varying MM sizes and locations would be a stretch imo. "

Not really. It's my understanding that they were minted on demand for depositors of silver, so it would depend on how many times they set up the press. It's not hard to imagine they would use the first die they grabbed from storage.

speety · April 24, 2011 12:31PM

<< Quote: "With a mintage of only around 3,000 pieces varying MM sizes and locations would be a stretch imo. "

Not really. It's my understanding that they were minted on demand for depositors of silver, so it would depend on how many times they set up the press. It's not hard to imagine they would use the first die they grabbed from storage. >>

From what I can tell, it appears as though Carson City only got reverse dies in 1870. Since they had such low mintages, these dies lasted until mintage of seated dollars ceased in 1873. If you look at Bower's book, all known seated dollars at the time of the publication can be traced back to five dies which were used in 1870, with each of 1871, 1872, and 1873 using only one reverse die. The last new reverse die discovery was in 1984 by Joseph Jaffe, the odds that such a distinctive die would not be noticed is about zero.

And every seated dollar from CC that I have seen or owned has matched up with Bower's observations so I have little reason to doubt his reporting of the reverse dies. Also, no new dies have been reported in the Gobrecht Journal which is where you'd expect such a finding to occur. Edit to add I just recieved a PM saying one new die has been reported in the GJ, i must have missed it when I skimmed through last night. If anyone has more details on this new die please let me know.

tradedollarnut · April 24, 2011 12:44PM

Anybody looked at the 72-cc's on Heritage archives to check this out?

speety · April 24, 2011 12:55PM

<< Anybody looked at the 72-cc's on Heritage archives to check this out? >>

Last night I looked at about 50 then got bored, all had the same MM positioning as our coin (and your coin from the Legend Collection).

cameron12x · April 24, 2011 1:11PM

I'm absolutely no expert, but I've never seen a CC mintmark that small (relative to the denomination) and the spacing seems a bit wide between the letters?

In addition, it doesn't seem to show the same wear pattern as the rest of the coin?

Based on my limited experience and what I've seen I believe that it's an added mintmark at this point.

tradedollarnut · April 24, 2011 1:24PM

<< 

<< Anybody looked at the 72-cc's on Heritage archives to check this out? >>

Last night I looked at about 50 then got bored, all had the same MM positioning as our coin (and your coin from the Legend Collection). >>

Hmmm - anybody wanna post this ATS? The powers that be often interact.

speety · April 24, 2011 1:28PM

I advised the buyer to send it back to NGC rather than through Teletrade. If it is authentic, it'd be the discovery coin for the reverse and worth at least a little premium at least. If it's not real I'd think NGC would be more than happy to eat the ~$2k to get it off the market and out of their holder.

If I can remember my password I'll post it ATS.

Thoughts? - 1872CC Seated Dollar

Comments

Leave a Comment