I took a real good, slow look at it and before I saw your guess/assessment I came up with the same grade…AU50. I almost said AU53, but the patches of wear on the reverse were rather prominent. That being said, that is a downright nice Trade Dollar even at a AU50…Spark
I’d have to say it’s a XF-40, maybe 45. Too much wear for an AU grade. It is very nice and no chop marks.
Sure, it does look like wear at first on the reverse, but how do you handle a coin and only wear one of the two sides you are touching? So I agree with this being a strike issue and go with MS62 rather than the AU53 I first thought.
I’ll admit that it is a good looking coin but I just don’t understand all of the AU grades. On the obverse a few of the stars are not as sharp as others, probably from wear. Liberty’s hair and dress show a tiny bit of wear, enough for an AU grade. However the ribbon with LIBERTY shows wear. The TY is almost gone and the R’s top have is worn but visible. The E only shows a small amount of wear. Both ends of that ribbon are worn but the bottom portion is worn a bit more. The seat area around the ribbon is worn quite a bit. On the reverse, the ribbon with E PLURIBUS UNUM shows signs of wear, more so towards the left side. The E I I there but it’s not clear or sharp as it should be. The eagles feathers show wear, stronger in some places than others. The wear is on the top left of the spread wing (our left) and the right leg, claw and feathers are quite worn. Again, too much to grade an AU I think. I can see why some think it’s been cleaned and that’s due to dirt around the letters. However there is no sign of cleaning in the fields. Am I missing something? I know I’m a conservative grader and the Trade Dollars are not a specialty of mine but I just don’t see this as a Almost Uncirculated Dollar.
... and PCGS graded it: Sting60 and samclemens3991 nailed it. This is not an easy coin to grade from photos. The reverse shows the poor strike that is very typical for many Trade Dollars, which can look like wear. In hand, under a point source light, there is just a trace of high point rub and some small breaks in the field luster consistent with the grade. I will say that the mint frost is very light and the fields are fairly reflective. I think there is a reason for that. In his monumental book on Trade Dollars, Joe Kirchgessner, notes that some 1876 proof dies lack a "heel spur" on the second L in DOLLAR. So does this coin. I suspect this coin was struck using proof dies before they became very worn so the mint luster/frost is not conspicuous. As many collectors know, proof dies were often repurposed for business strikes. this coin, obviously, is NOT a proof. Thanks for all the guesses and comments, everyone have a nice Sunday evening and a good week ahead.
