GTG-1859-O Liberty Seated Dollar

This should be a CAC'd 58

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

FWIW, I went to collectors.com to see what is for sale in AU58 to MS62, and this coin is way nicer than anything for sale on that site in that grade range.

 

That NGC grade is nonsensical. If it is concluded that the coin is Mint State, then, with the lack of marks and its great eye-appeal, it should be MS-64 on a bad day, MS-65 most of the time.

 

Catching up on this thread late; didn't get to vote in time.

I'm not an expert in this series, but one thing that stood out to me was the "full stars." I know this isn't a real term that TPG use, but I think it's generally a good indicator of wear on most 19th/20th century US coins.

Note that each star on the obverse is comprised of six rhombuses/diamonds. Generally, these stars tend to be some of the higher points and get worn relatively easily. Once worn, you can't easily see the individual rhombuses and only see the star as a single shape. This isn't exact science because I've certainly seen contradictory grades (ie. "worn" stars in MS or "full" stars in AU).

Something I saw and thought I'd share. Absolutely beautiful coin btw!

 

Retracted

 

I absolutely agree with this point of view but I think the cows have left the barn. No matter how much we might prefer it to be this way, there are just too many forces arrayed against it.

 

Although the stars appear to be worn, it’s often due to a weak strike. Beginners and collectors of modern coins usually get confused.

 

Very true! Any good resources/reading you can suggest to help differentiate wear vs. weak strike?

Edit - and I originally mentioned the stars to point out the contrary: I actually believe the stars on this particular coin look very sharp.

 

I would take that coin no matter what the slab said.

 

There are wiser and more-experienced collectors on this forum that could well have better or more accurate opinions than mine on this topic, but here's what I think:

I would venture to say that there is no set of generic rules that would be available that would cover all U.S. coins of all vintages much less all coins of all eras and countries.

But maybe a first point to consider is nomenclature: You can have strong strikes from fresh dies; weak strikes from fresh dies; strong strikes from tired dies and weak strikes from tired dies. So, in addition to wear and strike, you should add early and late die state to your criteria.

In order to make these distinctions between wear/strike/die state, you have to be able to grade and also have some intimate knowledge of the specific coin that is in question. Otherwise, it can be at least difficult and possibly impossible to distinguish between a weak strike or a late die state in mint state coins and all 3 criteria in circulated coins.

And to make it even more complicated, with some issues you can have a coin that exhibits both strong and weak striking on the obverse (or reverse) at different points on the obverse. Specific to your comment on the strong stars on the 1859-O, the head is weak but not due to strike weakness as this is a late die state coin. It just so happens that this die sharpness wore more at the head but not the stars.

I have only been collecting for two years but in that time I have purchased books and found on-line resources that have helped immeasurably in making these distinctions. But one rule that I have found to be almost universally true is that in order to figure out almost anything, it pays to be very familiar with the characteristics of the specific coin in question.

Sorry to be unable to provide a simple answer to your question. If you already know all the drivel I've thrown out there, then just ignore me.

 

PM sent

 

Great post! Not bad for someone who’s only two years in the hobby.

 

It's a netgrade accounting for friction.

 

Really pretty coin. The color/toning looks great.

 

When you look at the high points, look for continuity of luster and color. If the details are weak but both of these attributes are unbroken, then it is weakly struck. If the details are weak and both of these attributes are broken (can’t have one without the other), then it is worn. The only exception is when the surfaces have a “scuffy” appearance, which is the result of coin-on-coin friction.

This dollar has color changes on the high points which indicate that there is wear. If there was no wear, then it would be an MS-64 coin. This is why so many people were jokingly calling is AU62, because MS-62 is a “market grade”.

 

This bust half was graded AU-58+. You can see the color changes on the high points of the hair, eagle, face, and down the neck.



Unfortunately, seated dollars are one of the most leniently-graded series in US coinage. This was graded AU-58 by PCGS. You can see how much of the field luster has been lost as well as the sheer amount of impact damage that turn this into a low eye appeal coin. You see the same thing with early double eagles where almost every 58 looks no better than a 53. Oh the joys of gradeflation.



This is another 58 from PCGS. The luster is worn down to AU-53 levels.



Then, all of a sudden with an increase of three points to MS-61, we have full mint bloom. This isn’t a trick of the light. It is simple overgrading in action.

 

Not what I said.

I said an AU-63 is a compliment.

You purchased a coin as an AU-58, but it is very attractive.

As many 58's can be, I know I have a number of them, mostly Barbers.

But it is very attractive, and without that touch of wear, it could be a 63.

Therefore, it is a 58 but attractive as a 63, or AU-63.

 

Here are the places where I see color changes.