GTG-1859-O Liberty Seated Dollar

I now wish AU59 was a grade. Because that is what I would put this at.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes and no sir. I disagree, and always have, with US coin collectors differentiating wear from all other damage. To me, missing detail is missing detail, regardless of source. To me this coin should be 62 money, and I do not CARE that the only damage to the coin is wear versus bag marks. I would take this coin over all true "uncirculated" 62s out there, as it is nicer looking.

So, to me, I understand why the grading services are market grading these 62, but simply point out they are trying to fix the original sin of US numismatics, and that being a little wear is somehow worst than dings and all the other bad things that can happen to a coin and yet still be "uncirculated". That is why I collected pretty AU coins when I collected US coins, thinking MS was overpriced in terms of overall coin quality versus nice AUs with good strikes.

If the TPGs went to straight numerical grading it would clear this up, and I would applaud the move. Do not call anything uncirculated or circulated anymore, just a numerical grade based upon overall coin preservation.

 

I went with MS 62
...I can see a hint of wear, but think it was bumped out of 58 and into a low UNC.
Looks like a nice coin!

 

AU-58+ is now, unfortunately, a grade. You could use that.

 

OK, I think most everyone that wants to reply to this poll has done so. Most of you are calling it an AU-58. NGC slabbed it as MS-62. Some wise and experienced commentary was offered.


I agree that there are luster breaks on some of the obverse high points, but not all. There is no wear on this coin-Liberty's hair is the result of a tired die, this was the last die state (1-d, see photo below of clash marks) before Obverse 1 was retired. Similarly, the reverse has some high point luster breaks but no wear. The reverse (A-f) is also a late die state. (diagnostic photo shown below-note the internal cud)). There are no luster breaks in the fields on either obverse or reverse. Both obverse and reverse exhibit near proof-like fields. This coin is much more attractive in hand than my photographs can convey. The obverse was lapped just prior to the d-state strikes and it is pretty obvious that this coin was struck shortly after the lapped die was put back into service. I can't explain the near proof-like fields on the reverse since the A reverse was the only one used in this die marriage. Osburn & Cushing make no mention of die lapping the reverse but it's hard to imagine that the Reverse A die was used to strike thousands and thousands of coins without a lapping. It is also reasonable to surmise that when the obverse die was removed for lapping, they did the same with the reverse. O&C say "1859-O surfaces are usually frosty. They can be found proof-like, but with a large mintage and only four die pairs, the runs were long enough that most of the coins exhibit frosty surfaces."

I don't care what the coin slab says. I have been looking for this coin for 18 months after looking at literally hundreds of cleaned, bag-marked and downright ugly examples in every slabbed grade from 45 to 64. Other than early copper, this may be one of the most difficult series to find nice coins at reasonable prices.

Combined, PCGS and NGC have certified 146 1859-O coins in AU-58. Together they have certified 137 in MS-60, 248 in MS-61, 260 in MS-62, 112 in MS-63, 55 in MS-64, and 4 in MS-65. The large number of low-grade mint state coins is the result of the release of the "Bank Hoard" of thousands of uncirculated 1859-O dollars in the early 1960s. Most of these were heavily bag-marked and you can see it in the available population. I don't believe my coin was part of the hoard, it is just too free of the typical bag-marking.

Now, I have to seek out an equivalent "With Motto" dollar.

Thanks for participating.

 

Nice coin. Good GTG coin being that it is on the cusp between AU and MS.

Tossing in another point of reference with my S$1 1859-O VF30...

 

Like I stated earlier, a very pretty example and you did a superb job selecting your coin sir.

 

Well 4 members got it right in the poll. I was close but missed it.

 

Looks like I got it right but with incorrect reasoning.
Nice coin @Publius2

 

Hah!

For one I got it right.

Another point--

I always considered an AU63 a real compliment.

[Or AU-62

 

I'll bet Publius2 paid an MS-62 price for his AU-58 coin. Does that seem like a compliment?

Phrased from the other point of reference, it might be a compliment - you paid an AU-58 price for an MS-62 coin. But that's not usually how this works.

 

Here's the way I look at it: My price at auction including BP and shipping was exactly Greysheet for MS-62 and typical of similarly graded pieces at numerous auctions. Since the market price in general for MS-62 is set by the slab grade for most transactions, then my coin for commercial transaction purposes is worth MS-62 money. We can argue all day long about whether you, the discerning collector, would pay MS-62 money for my AU-58 coin but that would be completely beside the point. This coin, when it ever again enters the market, will sell in the market at its slabbed value because that's what the market does; tries to turn individual items into commodities. But again, that is beside the point for me: I have never seen a coin this nice at grades all the way up to MS-63 and I've seen some MS-64s that weren't as nice. To me, this coin is worth every bit of what I paid for it and then some because I'm not in it to make a buck or "get a deal".

 

I love the look of that coin, and it is very distinctive for the lack of marks. Very informative analysis by Publius2.

 

To me it looks like a nice coin and seems like it went for a decent price.
There tends to be a bias against low MS (60-62) coins-especially since those grades can have AU coins that were bumped up (as can be seen by many replies here). Also the low MS can have poor eye appeal. Your coin has nice appeal.
In general, it would trade sight unseen at the price determined for the 62 grade. Sight seen, there will be people who will try saying it needs to be discounted to sell, but there will also be people who see it like you and would pay a premium above the generic 62.

 

The luster breaks are the very definition of wear. You can see them on the obverse as well represented by color changes on the high points. That isn’t coin-on-coin friction.

This is a textbook market-graded coin. You will never find an AU-58 seated dollar this nice anymore.

 

I’ve never understood why low MS coins have higher price guide values than AU58 coins. I’d certainly pay more for a lovely AU58 than for a baggy MS62 w/o luster. This coin is an exception, as it’s super nice for a 62. Actually it’s an AU58 which got bumped to 62 to correct its market value, right? See the issue with the price guide? Lol

 

That is all that matters. I used to look for the cheapest example of the coin I was looking for, and always disliked my coins. I now look for a superb example in a reasonable price range. I am willing to pay more for quality. As Bowers says: "You can buy cheap coins or quality coins, but can't get both in the same coin."

 

I assume it is because there are many collectors who buy based on the number on the slab, and want an MS set, just to have it. They will pay more for it to be uncirculated even if it is less attractive, keeping overall market values high.

 

I was trying to say that they should fix the price guides instead of bumping “really great” AU coins to MS61/62.

@physics-fan3.14 I don’t mind the new AU58+ grade, that’s still better than grading circulated coins MS

 

Yes. That is *precisely* what happened. Sometimes, an AU-58 is a really premium example and deserves a higher price. So it gets bumped to a higher grade. This is the fundamental flaw in market grading, because now we have an AU-58 which should trade at a 62 price. Therefor, it gets a 62 grade, even though technically it's only a 58.

There is no denying that this coin is clearly superior to most 58's. I absolutely agree that it deserves a higher value than the typical 58. To the TPGs, the solution is to give it a 62 grade. Grade it at its value.

To the old-timers (and, although I'm one of the younger folks on the board, I lean more told old-school thinking), that's the wrong approach. Grade it at the 58 it is, and let the market determine its value.