What will PCGS say? Coin 4 of 10 - 1840 large cent

55.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

http://www.cointalk.com/t155164/

AU 55

Compare that coin (1839, AU55) to this coin. Focus on amount of luster remaining and high point wear:

 

For some reason this coin (the 1840) looks much more lustrous to me in the OP than in this photo, especially side-by-side with the '39. I'm going to have to revise my grade from MS62 down to AU53.

However, I see very little discoloration that would suggest "rub" on the 1840, particularly on the reverse. I had a sneaking suspicion you were trying to fool us with this one, because, although there looks to be rub on the ear and lower hair curl, there is none on some other high points such as the top of the coronet, curls above brow, cheekbone, etc. And that grey-ish discoloration on the ear and hair curl is not necessarily the grey of "wear," as it can be found in recessed areas elsewhere on the coin.

So, I'm kinda stumped!

 

Agreed. Looked closer at it tonight at home.

 

55

 

I don't understand this series at all. How does the little bit of rub happen with hardly any marks in the field ? I don't get it. - something going on on the reverse at the bottom 6 o'clock just above the rim.

t61/62 cause I don't think that flatness above the ear is from circulation.

 

I just compared the large photos in the OPs of both the '39 and the '40. In those photos, the '40 seems to have just as much luster as the '39. I don't believe this '40 is circulated and will go back to my original grade of 62; in fact, shot 63. Final answer.

BTW, you're telling us what you paid and it's unc. money!

 

Does not mean the coin is uncirculated, just worthy of uncirculated money. For really choice large cents you will pay a premium.

 

You're absolutely right but in this case I don't have the sense Mike would pay that much of a premium for, say, an AU53. Current PCGS price for AU55 is $400.

I would stick with my grade of MS62+ regardless of what he had paid; I didn't even think about his price until I went back to the OP's pics this morning and realized he had listed it! But he is giving us another piece of the puzzle with the price.

This is a tough coin to judge from the photos.

 

AU55 only because I can't see luster. I only see AU58 wear, but with a couple of hits. They might hold back due to those.

 

Nothing wrong with your grade, but review the previous two posts about what the coin graded and what was paid. Then look at the coins leadfoot posted and see if they are worth it. In my mind they are worth it - especially when you look at his complete collection. So when comparing this coin to the 1839 I just see a few more prime time hits - and thus my grade of 53. It is a very nice coin and worth whatever he paid for it. I don't pay attention to the price for collector coins like this when grading them. As a matter of fact I would have to go back and look to see what he said about price. I am not sure I have even read all the posts. Just like the other two - I grade and then post. I just happened to catch your post as the last one looking to see if he posted the grade. Personally I think he posted the prices to try to get people to grade off the price, rather than the coin. And no this is not pointed at you or anyone. The point I get from these is - "choice" coins can cost a premium above the norm.

 

I understand what you're saying but your post raises a couple of questions for me. First, let me say I don't know that much about large cents; I only own several. Therefore I don't know the rarity of, say, an 1840 in AU58 that has exactly the right qualities for a set someone is putting together. So I probably shouldn't be assuming what Mike would or would not pay for a certain coin he's happy to have found.

But that raises the question for me about the notion of fair market value. I realize FMV varies widely based on the quality of the coin, especially eye appeal. However, if an AU55 large cent has a FMV of $400, and attractive specimens aren't uncommon, then I would expect to be able to find one for about retail. Of course if they are very uncommon, then I well understand paying a premium.

In the case of the '39, it seems that Mike paid about retail for it, as it used to be in an AU58 holder—and might regrade again at that. So I would assume he would have paid about retail for the 1840. Again, I don't know just how hard it is to find the right large cent to fit your set. Hope this all makes sense.

BTW, I just did a quick look on Heritage. Here is a very clean MS62 that looks to have very reduced luster; reminds me of this 1840 (although in the OP the 1840 looks to have more luster). There is even the grey coloration over the ear and parts of the hair that might be construed as "wear." http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1139&Lot_No=7155

(I'm assuming it is 62 and not higher because of the reduced luster. It's clean!)

 

Yes - you make sense all the way thru and you actually ask some good questions. I will readily admit I can not answer some of them. I do not know any formula for determing a good price on large cents. I did see where he paid $875 for it in 2007 - I am not sure how much large cent prices might have flucuated in the two years. And plus your grade could be right - but even in a 62 holder I would still grade it AU.

Leadfoot and others know a whole lot more about these than me. While I have a mostly completed album of large cents(I just love these puppies) I still consider myself a newbie. The one thing I do know is some dates and varieties sell for good premiums.

Now personally(and I could be wrong) I think the coin you linked to is a very nice AU coin graded 62. Based off the pictures I think I see a touch of wear. Now search on 1840 N-9 - I found 3 coins. One an AU-58 a reiver coin - which I think is over graded by NGC. Looks like an XF coin to me. Keep in mind these are my humble opinions - lordie knows I can be completely off base. But it is what I see. I guess my bottom line is I have seen some nice coins and wondered why people paid the premium they paid. And I honestly think in some cases(not all) I am missing the boat in comparing the coins in that grade.

 

If I had seen the coin but not the slab I would agree with you 100%: there looks to be wear. For the life of me I don't know how the TPGs handle this. Maybe this is what they consider to be "cabinet friction," whatever that means. I would definitely put this coin in the "slider" area between AU and MS, which we all know exists. Maybe Mike's 1840 is in there, too.

 

Sorry, almost forgot about this one. PCGS graded it AU 58. I think they nailed the grade, but was hoping for a AU 62 or 63.

The reverse appears to be a planchet defect after further inspection. I'll try and take a closeup photo of the area sometime this week.

 

even though you said PCGS graded it AU-58, my initial thought was 50 at best. I'm not knowledgeable to give it an EAC grade (which would be lower). Did Doug Bird give it an EAC grade? or just say it graded $875 :smile

 

He did not offer a grade other than AU.

 

Then I'd definitely say it's an AU. Doug teaches ANA and EAC classes on how to grade early copper. Even an AU-50 is a tie for 9th in condition census for a N-9. Nice coin.

 

I think 58 is a good grade for the coin. Nice addition.

 

PCGS did a good job: Before seeing the grade, I thought an AU 55 or 58