Would this be a good coin to buy for the Dirty Gold Collection?

RYK · September 11, 2011 12:35AM

LVGT · September 11, 2011 12:42AM

I don't know anything about gold, but I do not find that coin appealing when compared to many of your coins you have posted.

llafoe · September 11, 2011 12:45AM

I vote No... unless it's for sale at $450.

ColonialCoinUnion · September 11, 2011 12:47AM

I think it might be, but I can hardly see the reverse at all.

elmeister · September 11, 2011 12:51AM

It is old, it's a little (but not very) dirty, and it's gold...

I love the character and "oh, the stories this piece could tell"... just a neat piece of history...

but

for me personally, it's bit too worn for my taste... the older gold piece i really like fall into that VF-XF category... they still have some of the original details and retain ample of devices for dirt to settle in...

for not much above the melt value it's a cool piece (and it's the only G6 graded by either service)...

STONE · September 11, 2011 12:51AM

Nope, isn't dirty, just well worn!

ricko · September 11, 2011 12:56AM

Judging from the picture, I tend to agree with Stone... worn but not really 'dirty'. That being said, I like gold and it would be a nice coin to have. Cheers, RickO

crypto79 · September 11, 2011 12:57AM

gold is like pizza, some are better than others but it's all kind of good.

RYK · September 11, 2011 1:00AM

Next bid makes it $525 with juice and postage. At melt, I would like it for the collection. The 1844-O is one of the most common No Motto $5's, and I already have two in the collection. I am going to let the other guy have this one.

Edit: While maybe not filthy dirty, it seems to have a lot of natural reddish patina in the periphery which is a look I like very much for circ gold.

RYK · September 11, 2011 1:03AM

<< gold is like pizza, some is better than others but it's all kind of good. >>

Ha! Good one. There is another word that is often substituted for gold in that expression.

crypto79 · September 11, 2011 1:07AM

<< 

<< gold is like pizza, some is better than others but it's all kind of good. >>

Ha! Good one. There is another word that is often substituted for gold in that expression.

>>

I have no idea what you're talking about

mbbiker · September 11, 2011 1:09AM

I was watching that one in April on Heritage, seems like a neat piece not to often you see a gold coin that actually circulated long enough to end up in Good.

llafoe · September 11, 2011 1:09AM

<< 

<< 

<< gold is like pizza, some is better than others but it's all kind of good. >>

Ha! Good one. There is another word that is often substituted for gold in that expression.

>>

I have no idea what you're talking about

>>

I think he's referring to aurum. That's the only word I can think of that would be substituted for gold?

RYK · September 11, 2011 1:12AM

Here's another GOOD one I was tracking:

It looks more like AG to me, but at any rate, that design looks horrible to me when it is so worn. I do not care for these under XF.

llafoe · September 11, 2011 1:16AM

That is one hot piece of aurum!

ranshdow · September 11, 2011 2:04AM

From the pictures, I like that '44-O. The wear is nice & even considering how extensive it is. Hard to tell on the color but if the features aren't too much brighter than the fields, the better.

coinkat · September 11, 2011 2:06AM

I have to vote no on both of these

crypto79 · September 11, 2011 4:53AM

<< While maybe not filthy dirty, it seems to have a lot of natural reddish patina in the periphery which is a look I like very much for circ gold. >>

reddish patina or purple and black patina? It appears to me the the gold is completly smothered in purple

Barry · September 11, 2011 5:06AM

No. Too low a grade.

Baley · September 11, 2011 5:36AM

those are neat coins; even neater if cracked out and admired in bare hands. it wouldn't be the first time

MsMorrisine · September 11, 2011 5:39AM

if you are starting a low end collection, yes

but they don't seem to fit with most others that you show here.

Barndog · September 11, 2011 5:44AM

if you have to ask...

291fifth · September 11, 2011 6:22AM

No.

Among other things, that coin has probably lost about 10% of its gold content to wear.

Lakesammman · September 11, 2011 10:10AM

I think a G6 Mormon gold piece would be a good addition to your collection.

GeorgeKellogg · September 11, 2011 10:38AM

I've only purchased two gold coins that graded lower than VF. One was a raw 1855-D quarter eagle that forum member Dahlonega and I split at the 2003 Baltimore ANA. We had it graded onsite by PCGS (came back F12). It was nice and original, with practically no marks. This date is the second rarest Dahlonega quarter eagle (mintage 1,123). We were both excited to get it, due to its rarity and attractiveness. Later, I bought out Dahlonega's interest in the coin.

The other was an 1842-D Small Date half eagle, graded AG3 by PCGS. It has nice surfaces, like the 1844-O, above. I bought it because it had honest wear, was the lowest PCGS-graded Dahlonega gold piece that I'd ever seen and thought it would be useful to display in a future exhibit (to illustrate how much wear some Dahlonega pieces sustained).

Back to the present: I like the look of the 1844-O half eagle and could see it entering the Dirty Gold Collection under the right circumstances (such as those mentioned above).

messydesk · September 11, 2011 10:39AM

The 44-O $5 lost a lot of its ability to retain dirt a long time ago. I'd pass on it. I agree that the $3 is ugly in low grade. Looks like Liberty's wearing a strange chef toque. Worn down further, it would look like a really bad drawing of outline of northern New Jersey.

Coinosaurus · September 11, 2011 1:47PM

I kinda like it. And besides, you need something to cheer you up

MrEureka · September 11, 2011 1:53PM

Don't do it. You should wait for a beautiful DOGgy AU.

But if this were a 54-S, I'd tell you to go for it!

GoldenEyeNumismatics · September 11, 2011 2:17PM

<< Here's another GOOD one I was tracking:

It looks more like AG to me, but at any rate, that design looks horrible to me when it is so worn. I do not care for these under XF. >>

I won that one. It was a steal at that price.

I thought this was kinda up your alley. Not filthy, but very good color.

TwoSides2aCoin · September 11, 2011 2:43PM

I'd rather take your advice than give you any.

CoinJunkie · September 11, 2011 3:15PM

I find the look of the 44-O very appealing for a low grade piece. The wear on the $3 coin is too
uneven and I would pass.

RYK · September 11, 2011 8:46PM

<< 

<< Here's another GOOD one I was tracking:

It looks more like AG to me, but at any rate, that design looks horrible to me when it is so worn. I do not care for these under XF. >>

I won that one. It was a steal at that price.

I thought this was kinda up your alley. Not filthy, but very good color. >>

I thought of you when I saw the 1865 $3. I am glad you got it. It suits your collection, and, as you know, is a tough and expensive date.

I currently own two 1844-O $5's and did not want to take a chance on a third which might have nice color based on a photo.

Would this be a good coin to buy for the Dirty Gold Collection?

Comments

Leave a Comment