Featured A 1799 Bust Dollar - An Example of How Grading Standards Change

+1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What I can't show in the photos of this 1799 dollar is the luster. There is full luster in the protected areas of the around the devices and slightly impaired luster in the fields. I've tried to get angle shot of the coin to show it, but the reflections off the slab make that impossible.

These coins were struck on a screw press powered by human muscle. Some coins were more sharply stuck than others. Here a modern screw press that is in the ANA Museum in Colorado Springs. Working that machine provides one with a lesson as to how the sharpness of the strike can vary, even for coins that are stuck from the same set of dies in the same die state.

 

I see the luster hugging the devices, and in the protected fields on the reverse, but not much else.

 

I see the same. Why my 50 grade and I find the difference between xf 45 and low au is often luster not wear

 

So all in all, looking at my 35 and the examples of 58's and 55's than have been provided it does seem that strike is of essence. If that is a 55, then the flat space at the top of the eagle's left wing is entirely due to strike. If that is so, then I think my "35" should be at least a "40" because a lot that looks like wear on it is probably due to strike as well (but then it is CAC, so.....).. The older US coins are so interesting.

 

Here is an AU-58. You can dump on it if you like. The coin has luster under the 100% original surfaces which have 200+ years of toning.



You have a nice coin, but does have a lot of wear. There is wear in the hair and on the cheek as indicated by the change in color from the otherwise gray surfaces. The grade of your piece is exactly right, as CAC indicated. On on good day you might get an EF-40, but that would be a watering down of the standards.

 

Nice piece

Such huge variety in strike. This 58 has flattness in the left wing on the lowest feathers as well as the top. But the obverse is much sharper than the 55 from the OP. Better obverse strike.

 

You are dealing with the early 19th century when coins were struck with presses powered by humans with often less than perfect dies. These coins were not struck on the state of the art steam powered presses that the Soho Mint had in England. You can't apply 20th century standards to coins of this era.

Heaven help you if you ever get into the Massachusetts Oak Tree and large size Pine Tree coinage which was almost always struck bent on a rocker press or the medieval hammer stuck British coinage. You seem expect that everything is supposed is supposed to show every aspect of the design detail. It does not work that way. When you find a coin like that, it is either truly exceptional or there might be something going on with it that should make you run away from it.

 

Given that no one is 200 plus years old claims like these are unnecessary hype. Very few coins were ever paid attention to enough to have educated guesses on this. Doesn’t mean the grades wrong or anything like that but 100% original 200+ year toning is not only impossible to prove with very few exceptions but also unlikely

 

Hype?

I am not selling this coin. I have an opinion; you have yours. Both of us are entitled. What I am trying to do educate collectors.

I can show you similar coins that have had work done to them.

 

Calling something 100 percent original with 200 plus years of toning is what I would call hype with some exceptions. For that to be true it would have to have never even so much as a spit shine or wipe which is unlikely considering not only the age but how coins used to be treated.

There’s not many coins we know for sure are original and most of those were from mint bags. There’s a difference between something being worked on or doctored and 100 percent original. Educating collectors should include letting them know that and that almost always all that can be done is going off the current look, but without having owned the coin from day one the vast majority of the time it’s impossible to back up things like 100 percent original much less 200+ year toning.

 

If you want to be a troll, be my guest. I will just ignore you in the future. Notice that I said opinion.

 

It’s not being a troll pointing out your statement about your coin that it is “100% original surfaces which have 200+ years of toning” is almost certainly impossible to definitively prove.

Did you watch the coin for the last 200 years? Is it a coin tightly controlled the whole time with unquestionable records? 100 percent means no doubt of anything else

Than please educate. Saying you know “100% original surfaces which have 200+ year of toning” is a statement which you would benefit from as the owner of the coin and you have shown no definitive evidence

 

Hey, buddy. I don't expect anything, I'm just commenting on what I see. Everything you say is true except the personalizing of whatever it is that you are trying to say. I resent your speculation about my motives and they couldn't be farther from the truth. Good luck to you.