Options
GTG of this über-rare GOLD!!!
messydesk
Posts: 20,868 ✭✭✭✭✭
Shot these this morning.
John
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
0
Comments
As for the bottom coin...Say it ain't so J ?
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>As for the bottom coin...Say it ain't so J ? >>
SaintGuru must have stopped by messydesk's table with that one!
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>Yes, the 49 $20 is definitely of high relief and a somewhat trashed coin. >>
What a shame as I've only ever seen pics of it that prettied it up.
The 1933 looks CH AU to me.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, the 49 $20 is definitely of high relief and a somewhat trashed coin. >>
What a shame as I've only ever seen pics of it that prettied it up. >>
That proof is heavily hairlined from a harsh cleaning but depending on the lighting angle, the hairlines may not show up in a pic. This and many other coins were displayed at the Mint as part of their coin collection before they were all transfered to the Smithsonian Institution. I read that the custodial staff at the Mint would ocassionally shine up the coins in their collection. The staff at the S.I. knows better than to harshly clean such coins.
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>
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, the 49 $20 is definitely of high relief and a somewhat trashed coin. >>
What a shame as I've only ever seen pics of it that prettied it up. >>
That proof is heavily hairlined from a harsh cleaning but depending on the lighting angle, the hairlines may not show up in a pic. This and many other coins were displayed at the Mint as part of their coin collection before they were all transfered to the Smithsonian Institution. I read that the custodial staff at the Mint would ocassionally shine up the coins in their collection. The staff at the S.I. knows better than to harshly clean such coins. >>
I don't believe these are hairlines, but rather die polishing lines.
Look at the nose and cheek of Liberty. No evidence of hairlines.
How does one so expertly leave a multitude of supposedly cleaning hairlines without touching any part of Liberty or the stars?
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Really? It looks like a nice very choice BU coin to me.
Outstanding pictures messydesk!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, the 49 $20 is definitely of high relief and a somewhat trashed coin. >>
What a shame as I've only ever seen pics of it that prettied it up. >>
That proof is heavily hairlined from a harsh cleaning but depending on the lighting angle, the hairlines may not show up in a pic. This and many other coins were displayed at the Mint as part of their coin collection before they were all transfered to the Smithsonian Institution. I read that the custodial staff at the Mint would ocassionally shine up the coins in their collection. The staff at the S.I. knows better than to harshly clean such coins. >>
I don't believe these are hairlines, but rather die polishing lines.
Look at the nose and cheek of Liberty. No evidence of hairlines.
How does one so expertly leave a multitude of supposedly cleaning hairlines without touching any part of Liberty or the stars? >>
Those are definitely hairlines. Notice that they stop just short of the portriat and other design elements, they are in all directions, and some are heavier than others---none of these are characteristic of die polish. Like I said earlier, the custodial staff at the Mint used to shine up those coins that were on public display. Hairlines don't show up as readily on frosted surface like they will on mirrored surfaces. You would have to rotate the coin under a good light to see those hairlines on the portrait.
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>What is that "chatter" in the field above the star located at 7 O' clock on the 1849? >>
Those are a pair of Swans!
<< <i>WOW, nice pics and lucky you to get to play with those two.
Didn't so much get to "play" with them as I (or any other red-blooded coin geek) would have liked, but I took these through their display case. On Friday I did a couple hand-held shots. They were good, but I decided I'd bring in my tripod on Saturday and go for something better. I got there before the NMAH Numismatic Collections Manager turned on the little halogen spots, so the only light I had was the overhead lights, which was even better, as the light only had one color.
<< <i>What is that, 20 million $$$ of subject matter?!?! >>
Sounds about right. The first time I was looking at them, a couple of the Polish concession ladies came by to look, and that's what I told them. One of them said "that's more than my house!" I replied that it was probably more than my entire neighborhood.
<< <i>What is that "chatter" in the field above the star located at 7 O' clock on the 1849? >>
Rather loud for "chatter." I suppose I could make up a story that the coin that was presented to the Treasury Secretary (current whereabouts unknown) was dropped on this one and left these marks. As unfortunate as these impairments are, I find them to a certain extent to be endearing, as they make the coin less "sterile" and show that, for better or for worse, the coin had human contact now and then, even though it was misguided.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
My crummy photo (handheld autofocus with the spotlights on) would be a good photo for eBay...hides the hairlines
Dennis
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
I grade the 1933 MS64+. It does have too many ticks to make a 65 but the originality of the surfaces definitely count in the grading room.
<< <i>I grade the 1849 PR66. There's no doubt in my mind that it's a proof, both in hand and in picture. The lines are die polish. >>
So what are they? Hairlines or die polish marks??
Seems like the coiner would strike it once, see the coin, go "oops"...then do a proper job preparing the die.
Also, looks like the coin was dropped, or something was dropped on the coin at one time.
Hairlines from a cleaning would have to fade out in the immediate vicinity of the stars, i'd think. I'm not seeing that on this coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>I grade the 1849 PR66. There's no doubt in my mind that it's a proof, both in hand and in picture. The lines are die polish. >>
So what are they? Hairlines or die polish marks??
There is a similar thread with the same pics on the NGC coin forums. Mark Feld agrees with my contention that the 1849 double eagle was harshly cleaned.
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>Hairlines from a cleaning would have to fade out in the immediate vicinity of the stars, i'd think. I'm not seeing that on this coin. >>
The hairlines stop just short of the raised design elements if you study the pics on a large computer screen.
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>
<< <i>Hairlines from a cleaning would have to fade out in the immediate vicinity of the stars, i'd think. I'm not seeing that on this coin. >>
The hairlines stop just short of the raised design elements if you study the pics on a large computer screen. >>
Which support the case of die polish. When I looked at that coin up close (like in my face with a 15x loupe) it looked just like a High Relief with polish lines.
Naw; I see lots and lots of scratches right near the rim. It seems difficult to make so many straight lines so close to the dentils and stars. But when grinding down a die, it would be easy. That seems to indicate die polish to me.
How would a coin like this get dirty in the first place to warrant cleaning?
Anyway...
In my opinion, the coin is ugly from the scratches. In my ignorant world, I don't really care where the ugliness comes from. I am also just slightly bitter, not being able to go to the show.
It looks beaten up.
The mint should have handled every one with tongs and placed them all on down pillows.
What were they thinking?!?
The high relief of the design hides the hairlines rather effectively, especially where it is bright. If you look closely, you can see a couple on the jaw just in front of the neck that are almost horizontal. They are short, and run from 10:00 to 4:00, and are parallel to each other. They will not show up in bright parts of the picture, which is why all the pictures you've ever seen of this coin are with flat, bright lighting (and why you should never buy a proof coin solely from a photograph taken that way). The most egregious scratch runs from star 5 to the L in LIBERTY, and lit up rather well when the halogen spots were on. I assume there was a piece of grit in the cloth used to wipe this coin once.The spots light up all the horizontal hairlines and the nasty scratch. If you look very closely at the cover of the Garrett/Guth book, you can see this scratch. Here's the photo taken when I was hand-holding the camera on Friday with the spots turned on.
Also, I don't know of any brilliant proofs that have extensive die polishing lines in the fields. These were meant to look nice.
Regardless of these coins' flaws, however, they are a rather awesome sight to behold.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
It's still a $15 million coin!
OUCH
<< <i>Thats the first time Ive seen a good photograph on the 1849 $20 and Im struck by what appears to be a very high relief portrait. Since the 1849 gold dollar, as first issued was also high relief, and a 'copy' of the design for the $20, ...this is a similarity Ive never seen mentioned.
The 1849 $20 obverse die is not from the obverse hub used to make the 1850-1858 obverse dies. That hub has "LIBERTY" misspelled as "LLBERTY," with the lower part of the second "L" partially effaced. The 1849 has a clear "I" in "LIBERTY."
I agree that the relief appears to have been lowered between the 1849 die and the 1850's dies.
TD
wrt the 1933 it looks like a gem to me. Heck, the Farouk coin had a crater on her knee and was pregraded a 65 by PCGS.
Say, is that a drool splashmark I see on the obverse of the 1849?
Edited to add: boy, if these two pieces ain't a living testimony to how far we've come in numismatic protection and display methods, then nothing is.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
Years ago I bought in a collection that included a 19th century Proof coin that looked to be severely hairlined. Later, when I was working up the individual pieces for inventory, I noticed that the coin seemed to be unnaturally shiny. I soaked it in acetone, and a coating of old collector lacquer rinsed away, along with the hairlines which were in the lacquer!
Should I suggest to the Smithsonian Curator that they "curate" this piece with a little acetone and see what happens?
TD
<< <i>You know, looking at that picture of the 1849 $20 again, it looks lacquered!
Years ago I bought in a collection that included a 19th century Proof coin that looked to be severely hairlined. Later, when I was working up the individual pieces for inventory, I noticed that the coin seemed to be unnaturally shiny. I soaked it in acetone, and a coating of old collector lacquer rinsed away, along with the hairlines which were in the lacquer!
Should I suggest to the Smithsonian Curator that they "curate" this piece with a little acetone and see what happens?
TD >>
SURE. They probably won't do it, being a one-of-a-kind, but if theres some anomoly that isn't often seen it should be corrected if possible. Lacquered coins are something I have no first hand experience with...it could prove me wrong on the die polish idea. I don;t know. Perhaps talking to Jeff Garrett would be the best idea! He has access to these with a large degree of autonomy and authority.
<< <i>You know, looking at that picture of the 1849 $20 again, it looks lacquered!
Years ago I bought in a collection that included a 19th century Proof coin that looked to be severely hairlined. Later, when I was working up the individual pieces for inventory, I noticed that the coin seemed to be unnaturally shiny. I soaked it in acetone, and a coating of old collector lacquer rinsed away, along with the hairlines which were in the lacquer!
Should I suggest to the Smithsonian Curator that they "curate" this piece with a little acetone and see what happens?
TD >>
I've only seen red copper coins that were lacquered. Why would anyone bother to a lacquer a gold coin that's unlikely to ever tone? Also. this coin was never in private hands and the Mint and the Smithsonian Institute never lacquered any of their coins.
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>
<< <i>You know, looking at that picture of the 1849 $20 again, it looks lacquered!
Years ago I bought in a collection that included a 19th century Proof coin that looked to be severely hairlined. Later, when I was working up the individual pieces for inventory, I noticed that the coin seemed to be unnaturally shiny. I soaked it in acetone, and a coating of old collector lacquer rinsed away, along with the hairlines which were in the lacquer!
Should I suggest to the Smithsonian Curator that they "curate" this piece with a little acetone and see what happens?
TD >>
I've only seen red copper coins that were lacquered. Why would anyone bother to a lacquer a gold coin that's unlikely to ever tone? Also. this coin was never in private hands and the Mint and the Smithsonian Institute never lacquered any of their coins. >>
Perhaps I have seen more coins than you, for I have seen 19th century collector coins of all metals that have been lacquered. Didn't have to make sense at the time. All it took was a collector who liked the gloss on the first one he did.
<< <i>Which support the case of die polish. When I looked at that coin up close (like in my face with a 15x loupe) it looked just like a High Relief with polish lines. >>
With all due respect, it amazes me the amount of collectors and dealers that have a problem identifying hairlines vs. die polish. There are definitely signs of die polish on that coin, and perhaps even a die scratch or two, but the overwhelming MAJORITY of the marks on that coin are hairlines from at least one, perhaps more vigorous cleanings. One spot on the coin looked so bad it actually looked hazy from all the lines. Anytime you see lines, lots of them, that end prior to the devices, you just know that you're dealing with hairlines. Polishing a die, on the other hand, it would be almost impossible to imagine a scenario that would lead to this case.
And Jay, you even stated in your Smithsonian Visit post that the lighting conditions were poor in the room which you viewed the coin. Without at least a bright halogen, it is almost impossible to discern the difference between hairlines in the field and die polish in the field. You have to be able to identify convex lines by the shadows they create, which are miniscule, and require close to a point source of light.
I tend to agree with Bruce. PR60 - 61 at best. I'm sure that any common coin with mars like these would end up in a genuine holder.
Empty Nest Collection
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>You know, looking at that picture of the 1849 $20 again, it looks lacquered!
Years ago I bought in a collection that included a 19th century Proof coin that looked to be severely hairlined. Later, when I was working up the individual pieces for inventory, I noticed that the coin seemed to be unnaturally shiny. I soaked it in acetone, and a coating of old collector lacquer rinsed away, along with the hairlines which were in the lacquer!
Should I suggest to the Smithsonian Curator that they "curate" this piece with a little acetone and see what happens?
TD >>
I've only seen red copper coins that were lacquered. Why would anyone bother to a lacquer a gold coin that's unlikely to ever tone? Also. this coin was never in private hands and the Mint and the Smithsonian Institute never lacquered any of their coins. >>
Perhaps I have seen more coins than you, for I have seen 19th century collector coins of all metals that have been lacquered. Didn't have to make sense at the time. All it took was a collector who liked the gloss on the first one he did. >>
Is there any evidence or documentation that the U.S. Mint or the Smithsonian Institution ever laquered their coins? As far as I know, the 1849 double eagle was never in private hands.
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