GTG: 1871 Seated Dollar

So please show me another 100+ year old circulated coin that has no color variation. Oh, and it has not been cleaned or improperly dipped.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can show you a blast white dipped circulated coin from that era if that is what you are looking for. Nevertheless, you keep using the term "improperly dipped," which tends to connote being dipped out or improperly rinsed. By a coin that "has not been cleaned or improperly dipped" do you mean a blast white 100+ year old coin that is considered market acceptable? I want to make sure that I am understanding here. Either way, I still don't see how it would make your case.

If this is what you are asking, any number of Morgan Dollars, Barber Head coinage from the 1890s and early 20th century, and even some later date Seated Liberty coinage show clear signs of dipping. These tend to be considered market acceptable (although I would agree undesirable to my personal taste) in high AU grades. In less than 10 minutes, you should be able to find a number of them in the Heritage archives.

 

Well, I looked at 150 1871 au dollars and found none as devoid of color as the op's coin except labeled cleaned. However, I did find several that should not have been graded IMO

 

I think you are being too narrow in limiting your search to 1871. Coins from that period but different years are also worthy of consideration as are other denominations and even other series. Since the silver content is the same, I wouldn't expect any major differences the closer you stick to the same period. So I think coins from the 1860s and 1880s would be equally fine, and you could absolutely expand the search out more for the 100+ year metric you established.

On another note, I think you might be conflating personal standards with market acceptability. There are many coins out there that are within the bounds of market acceptability that I deplore and wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I don't like dipped circulated pieces, and I tend to favor originality and positive eye appeal. This doesn't, however, render coins that don't meet my personal standards as not market acceptable. To the coin in the instant thread, even if it hadn't been cleaned (which I suspect it has been), I still would pass on the piece.

Edited: And on a final note, since many of these pieces were stored in albums, many tend to retone around the periphery but the central devices and fields should still show the same phenomenon we are talking about if you wanted.

 

And I forgot to include an example. Here is an 1872 Seated Liberty Half Dollar that is blast white and in a PCGS AU55 holder. I have seen a decent number of coins like this in the past in straight graded holders. It is not something I would ever buy, but it is considered market acceptable:

http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...a-wsl-price-for-problem-free/a/131452-29494.s

Edited: Here are more:

1851-O PCGS AU58 50c: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...edia-wsl-price-for-problem-free/a/1212-7583.s

1877-S PCGS AU55 50c: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...smedia-wsl-price-for-problem/a/131451-27107.s

1842 PCGS AU55 50c: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...764-numismedia-wsl-price-for/a/131450-26018.s

1866 PCGS AU53 50c: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...edia-wsl-price-for-problem-f/a/131451-27506.s

1857 PCGS AU55 50c: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...dia-wsl-price-for-problem-fr/a/131450-26019.s

1858 PCGS AU58 50c: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...edia-wsl-price-for-problem-f/a/131450-26020.s

1859-O PCGS AU55 50c: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...edia-wsl-price-for-problem-f/a/131450-25279.s

1844 PCGS AU58 S$1: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1844-1-au58-pcgs/a/1212-4184.s

1845 PCGS AU55 S$1: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1845-1-au55-pcgs/a/1210-3664.s

1869 PCGS AU53 S$1: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1869-1-au53-pcgs/a/1210-3679.s

1860-O PCGS AU58 S$1: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1860-o-1-au58-pcgs/a/1210-3671.s

1846 PCGS AU53 S$1: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-doll...edia-wsl-price-for-problem-free/a/1210-8157.s

1846-O PCGS AU55 S$1: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1846-o-1-au55-pcgs/a/1210-3665.s

1851-O PCGS AU58 S$1: http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-half...edia-wsl-price-for-problem-free/a/1212-7583.s

1866 PCGS XF45 S$1 (although admittedly pushing the envelope of market acceptability): http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-doll...d-dollars/1866-1-motto-xf45-ngc/a/1212-4190.s

1872 PCGS VF25 S$1 (also pushing market acceptability): http://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-doll...dia-wsl-price-for-problem-fr/a/131447-27720.s

 

Well, you managed to find 2 IMO. That 1877-s and 1851-O appear to rival the OP's coin. Every other one you list has easily noted color variation. FWIW, only a couple of those would I consider acceptable and I think everyone agrees that the TPG's are far from 100% accurate. So my original statement should have read "all of the scratches are the same color as the rest of the field as well as the recesses would be a good indication that the coin had been cleaned." But wait. Why is that contradictory to what I said to begin with?

 

You wrote that the luster and the coloration of the ticks and the fields were indicative of a cleaned coin. I agreed whole heartedly regarding the impaired luster, but I think the last test is worthless as the lack of color could just as easily be the result of dipping (which could be market acceptable) just as often as it could be of cleaning. That's when you asked for other examples and the thread ensued.

With regards to the pieces that I posted, there may have been some that slightly retoned, but as you even note, some of them look like they came straight from the dip jar. And the fact that several dipped circulated pieces have made it into TPG holders, are extremely obvious, and have still sold for the prices that many of them have sold for suggests an element of market acceptability. While grading services do make mistakes, experience and auction records suggest that this is more the result of TPG policy (and a policy that is necessarily controlled by the standards of market acceptability else the TPGs would be ignored and relegate to being irrelevant to the market).

 

Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree then.

 

Be careful of an 1871 Liberty Seated Dollar--it is a favorite of Chinese counterfeiters because it is vaulable enough in grades above G4 to make it worthwhile to peddle.

I have one that looked like it was an EF45, but had black streaks of toning across the Central Devices on both sides. I was sending some of my coins into ANACS for Variety Attribution and decided to ask them to "CONSERVE" this coin ($19). They tried, but when they treated it with (MS-70 or whatever) the black toning areas turned a dull brassy color indicating something was wrong! Weighing it on a scale they found it was underweight at 20.08gm (S/B 26.73 gm) and it was Body-Bagged as a "Struck Copy" (copper core with silver plating). NOTE that it was done well enough to have passed ANACS initial screening!

The saving grace is that I didn't buy this coin by itself--it was a "surprise" the Seller said, as he included it in with a "Lot" of coins that I bought on eBay when I first started collecting in 2009.

One of these days I will post a Hi Res photo of this one and two fake gold coins that I also bought in my very early collecting career.

 

While the coin in the OP has undoubtedly been dipped, it cannot be said definitively from the photos that it has been cleaned (ie treated with some type of abrasive process). I don't see hairlines that would indicate that.

As to the large numbers of bright white non-Morgan 19th c coins in top tier holders, a significant number of which are graded AU 55-58 with little remaining luster-- Let's remember that these are for profit companies.
If the market demands more TPG graded AU coins they will be supplied. In addition, a slackening of grading standards leads to more submissions (and more fees) in an effort to gain a higher grade. Look at all the coins in holders with those new two-tone blue labels. Does anyone think these are fresh to the market, or that most of them were re-holdered due to being in scratched up holders? Uh-Uh. gradeflation and multiple resubmissions.

 

Personally I'd pass on a coin like this.

 

I agree that we cannot say definitively that the piece has been cleaned. On another note, however, cleaning does not always produce discernible hairlines. Often the tell tale sign is impairment of luster that looks different (at least to me) than that produced by a dip.

 

My feeling is to buy a coin with its original skin even if it's more money. Sometimes a real old dip like 80 years ago will retone real nice tho