strike vs pristine condition vs price

I'm curious about other's perspective on this. So, here's pictures of two gold 1840-O quarter eagles - both NGC graded au55. One has a rare, excellent strike, the other is pristine but with a far more typical weak strike - the one with the good strike is probably the best strike you will ever find in an 1840-O quarter eagle. However the coin with the good strike has some dings, especially on the reverse. I assume the price of the one with the dings is less, but I don't know that for sure. As far as I know, neither is CAC certified (which very few 1840-O quarter eagles are, anyway). The photography is quite different, so that makes it a bit more subjective, but the condition of each is clear. I know for certain that the one with the dings has a lot of luster, I can only assume the one with the weak strike has good luster as well.

Which would "you" prefer, and why? Or are they equally desirable for different reasons?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd groove on the well struck specimen, despite the few dings. Much more comely to these old eyes.

 

I would pass on both in all honesty. The better strike lacks eye appeal if that picture is accurate and the weak strike is rather weak even for that issue

 

I think it's the photo, but point taken. One can never know for sure unless the coin is viewed in hand.

 

Yeah, I don't think the pictures accurately reflect eye appeal. Lets assume they are both nice in hand. I know the good strike coin is and can only assume the other is as well. I don't know if other folks have the same problem, but i find it quite difficult to get good pictures of small coins.

 

Certainly could be, if I saw it in hand and it had a different look to it I would certainly reassess my opinion of it

 

At times, they can be both a challenge and an enigma........

 

In most circumstances, with grade being equal, I would lean to the coin with the better strike.

I agree with the OP that the photos are quite different. It's hard to judge, but I would choose the one with the better strike.

 

Of the two, I would choose the coin with the better strike, hands down.

That said, I am wondering if it got a bit of a grade bump for the better strike. I'm not very experienced with this series or issue, but it looks more like a 50 or maybe a 53 to me, just by the fields.

 

Neither, not up to my standards.

 

Could be, but I was thinking the opposite - that it was graded down a bit from maybe 58 because of the dings. It doesn't show much wear - I think the softness in the center is all strike. The 1840-O is a first year of issue with a very low survival rate. Based on Heritage and other auction sites, any coin of that issue with a decent strike seems unusual.

 

Love the first one. Second one looks like it's seen a few days in a lab, or at least had a vigorous bath or two... not original nor appealing to my eye at all. Considering that NGC tends to "reward" coin enhancement within this realm (based on its view of market acceptability & tending to give such coins a higher grade), I usually avoid the purchase of NGC-graded early & branch mint gold unless I can see the coin in hand first, or if the image is compelling enough to give me the impression the photo is how the coin looks in hand. Based on the photos, I would say they both closely represent how the coins look in hand. I would take the weaker strike with original surfaces over a sharply struck example that's obviously been dipped out any day.

'dude

 

Good points. I would definitely agree about the dipping or processed issue. But that is tough to judge these from pics. In hand the good strike coin doesn't look processed to me. I'm not an expert but I do see a lot of early gold and this one has quite a lot of luster - it's surfaces - in terms of luster - look to me like some others that have CAC certification. I've heard that dipping coins tends to wipe out luster and results in a dull surface ( I have one like that – the price can be attractive). But unlike some folks on this forum, I've never actually seen a coin pre-and post dip - so I can't speak from experience. Mostly I have to go by the sorts of coins I see that CAC likes. How about the original question of pristine surfaces versus some abrasions and a better strike?

 

Excellent, edifying response, as usual. Thanks so much for the useful information and assistance.

 

The second coin shows excessive wear of the shield on Reverse: the horizontal lines have disappeared.

 

I don't know where those horizontal lines went but you do realize that coin number one never had any - which is typical of the year and issue? If I can get the coin in hand again I will take a look at it with a magnifier. I was thinking it is the result of weak center strike and some abrasion.

Note: I just had a chance to look at the good strike coin - in hand - again, and with a magnifier it seems pretty clear that the "missing" horizontal lines in the shield is 95% or more due to strike. It seems that way to me because the strike all the way around the shield and into the edges of the feathers around it is soft. There are also some small abrasions in that area which probably accounts for the darkness in the photograph - the color of the actual coin is rich gold, not dark as in the photo.

Thanks for noticing.

 

The coin on the left is not AU55, in my opinion, so the coin on the right is superior.

 

For comparison - here's a picture of what may be either the best or nearly best known example of this issue (gem quality MS65). The strike is similar to pic number 2 - and it's probably the same variety (the small "O" mintmark is in the same place). Same "lost horizontal lines" too. Doug Winter's photographer (Jenna Van Valen) is really good! Of course this coin is only valued at 15 or twenty times the coin in pic #2