1853 quarter. Is this NT?

I read what the buyer commented in the op, and his additional statement regarding the holder. I viewed the Sellers pictures on Ebay, and found what I considered to be a curious disturbance on the reverse in the upper right hand corner of the holder. In conjunction with the more evident "cracks", I'm am concerned and suspicious about possible tampering, not to mention it is very difficult to find this date in an older ANACS holder with pleasant toning attributes as this. If it truly is NT, I would suggest there would be a considerable premium to be sought by the Seller. Now I could be all wet with my suspicion's , but that is my thinking of this coin. Comments welcomed.


This one sold for over $600.00

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think the color is natural, only to the extent that it was acquired after the coin was dipped. And I don't see that type of appearance being worth much of a premium, if any.

Since the grade looks accurate, there wouldn't have been any incentive to open the holder and switch coins. It looks like a damged holder (nothing terribly unusual there) but my "suspicion" is that the holder was not compromised.

 

I may be my misunderstanding , but are you saying the coin was "dipped" prior to encapsulation?

 

Yes, it looks as if it was dipped prior to encapsulation, and that subsequent to the dipping, it acquired the peripheral toning.

 

Curious ANACS did not make note of that as many of the pieces of this date we see today, they were right on that.

 

All grading companies grade and encapsulate large numbers of dipped coins, without noting such on the grading labels.

 

True. However, ANACS was notorious for the "cleaned or re-toned" designations in particular for some reason, with coins in these holders, for this issue/date/variety. So, would you say the coin in the holder as is, worth the $400.00 asked? I think ask/bid is somewhere around $250.00.

 

There is a difference between a coin which was merely dipped and which re-toned on its own, vs. one that was cleaned (more harshly than a mere dip) and re-toned, either naturally or otherwise. The former is rarely noted on the grading label, while the latter usually is.

 

so, suffice it to say, the coin in question was probably in the hands of a knowledgeable and proficient owner to enhance this coins appearance, without creating a problem for ANACS. Interesting.

 

I wouldn't assume that. For all we know, if we saw what it looked like before the dipping, we might have liked it better. I have seen some wonderful looking coins dipped for the worse.

 

Oh me as well.

 

It would be interesting indeed, to see how the coin comes back, if re-submitted. Or do you think that would be an unfavorable effort between the buyer and seller?

 

Based on the images, I have no problem with the assigned grade. And, while I generally prefer more original looking coins, that one still looks appealing to me. If it were cracked out and resubmitted, it could possibly grade a touch higher or receive a net grade for cleaning - there's just no way to tell, especially without having seen it in hand.

 

Thanks. I was not suggesting a crack out, but resubmitting to ANACS, if that makes a difference. I believe, it may grade a bit higher. Possibly as high as 58

But I believe you are also correct, that it may go either way.

 

The images make it hard to get a good look at the coin, but it appears to have too much wear (see Liberty's leg) to make a 58. I haven't resubmitted through ANACS, so have no idea how they view/treat resubmissions.

 

yes just looked at it again, and as you said, the pictures really don't present the coins best "leg" forward. Tough call there w/o coin in hand or much better pictures.

Thanks Mark.