1853 quarter. Is this NT?

Here is the ebay listing. This coin has a killer target tone, but I'm wondering whether or not it is NT? It's ANACS certified, but the crack is a tad concerning. Any additional opinions are welcome.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=370152443547

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here is a photo

 

It looks AT to me, but it could be just bad pictures.

 

I'd lean toward real. I have coins in an album that are not that different from that.

 

IMO, QT at best. The coin has been dipped and/or cleaned and then retoned in an album. NT or AT, who's to say for sure other than the person who owned it when it toned, so I just call it QT and value the coin as if it had no toning at all (edited to add: i.e. I would not pay any toning premium for this coin). I suspect neither NGC or PCGS would slab the coin as-is.

 

QT?

Quick Tan?

LOL

 

QT=Questionable toning, for those wondering (other than the smarty pants above ).

 

hey, we ain't all genuises.

LOL.

And, I agree, NT.

That crack isn't enough to have removed & replaced the coin in the holder.

 

I would go with NT (due to the minimal toning on the reverse).

 

That's a beautiful naturally toned coin!

 

I agree.

 

I agree also. It seems the reverse was down in an album to force the toning the way it is. No way an original toned coin comes out looking like that without being dipped first.

 

I have considered more than once starting a set of seated halves or quarters. I think they're a great looking set and I would like to collect something from that time period. This look, which is similar to one I see in a lot of Seated coins, scares me away and makes me think that I have a ways to go before I am ready to start buying.

I also wonder if those are hairlines on the obverse.

 

Thanks for the inputs. Wow, a variety of opinions here on both sides. I do agree that the coin was probably dipped, but in this case it wouldn't bother me provided there is ample remaining luster around the stars(hard to tell from the photos). I know many disagree with me, but it comes down to each one's opinion about eye appeal.

I was concerned about the cracks because I've heard stories about how coin doctors somehow AT the coin AFTER it's been slabbed. I have no idea how it's done, but the coin must be exposed somehow which is why those large cracks had me suspicious. ANACS slabs are fairly sturdy, why would it be cracked?

Anyways, I think it's an attractive coin and would look great in my type set, but there are WAY too many "what if's" to freely fork over $400 for.

 

I am with Mike and Mark on this one.

 

Well, first and foremost, looks like that slabb has been cracked open. So, that alone sends alarm bells clanging in my head. AS for NT or AT, without the coin in hand, I won't venture even my best guess. That alarm bell is to loud!

In this state, it's a problem coin for me. If I were to propose a bid, I would contact the seller and come to terms on having the coin re-submitted and offer to split the re-slabb and designation fee, if it comes back as described by the seller.

 

I agree that it's probably dipped and retoned, probably in an old Wayte Raymond album. I wouldn't pay a premium for it, but I like the way it looks.

 

I would call it questionable. The reverse looks okay, but the obverse just looks really dipped and unnatural.

 

I don't see any evidence that the slab has been cracked open - what do you base that on? In fact, the seller even states ".SLAB HAS TWO CRACKS VISIBLE IN PICTURES, HOLDER IS UNOPENED".