Grading Poll

So...I have 0 experience with these coins, so I'm probably completely wrong here. But, this is my thought.

The areas on the eagle which are lacking detail are solely due to a poor strike. The reason I think this is because those aren't aren't perfectly smooth. Wear causes a glassy smooth surface with no luster...which these areas have a slightly "textured" surface. If this coin had wear to the extreme that it appears, those areas would not have that texture. I suspect this is a really poorly struck coin.

There might be a little wear mixed in...but nothing stands out to me and I'm gonna be the guy who says this coin could be mint state and choose MS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What about posting what you saw on the grading site? What would make some members grade this reverse higher than VF?

 

I'm not going to speak for anyone other than myself, but I went to XF because the areas outside of the weak strike area looked pretty darn good, so i could see folks going even a bit higher.

 

Why are you suggesting that I look at the 2-1/2 D? Why not the 5?

 

Because the $2 1/2 is smaller. That was the last question I'll
answer UNTIL you answer mine.

What did you see on the wings?
What would make some members post grades higher than VF?

 

I cannot answer your question until you post pictures of the entire coin. I use a different system of grading which involves the whole coin.

 

Forget I ever asked!

 

I guessed AU55 because of the wing detail; many of the D HE's have weak centers.

 

The wing detail away from the scarcely struck center of the coin is AU-something, so I put 53, not knowing what the rest of the coin looks like.

 

cpm9ball, posted: "Forget I ever asked!"

I did! Unfortunately, I have not helped you learn anything. Color me a
failure! .

 

johnmilton, posted: "I cannot answer your question until you post pictures of the entire coin. I use a different system of grading [?] which involves the whole coin."

Then why bother to post in this thread at all? Perhaps you'll take the time to image the obverse, reverse, and edge of a coin and explain your system of grading.

 

Flies like honey....

 

Insider said:

Why should it make any difference what others may have said! Yes, I heard a lot of them say that the Dahlonega Mint was notorious for weak strikes, but for years, we heard from Morgan collectors that the New Orleans Mint was known for weak strikes when in fact the real reason was due to improper annealing. Wasn't it? So, why should I accept their word as gospel?

Like I said, forget I ever asked!

 

Okay, never mind. I’ll ignore you when you ask for grades. I have never understood the system where you grade with a microscope. Microscopes are great for authentication and looking at minute die varieties. A strong glass is necessary to see if a coin has been altered or if the surfaces have been manipulated. But when it comes to assigning grades, it like accessing a forest when you are lost in the trees. You can get no appreciation for the whole coin. Furthermore, it can lead to overemphasizing a defect because the microscope makes it look so big.

If I am to decide if a coin is worn, poorly struck and struck from worn dies, I need to look at the whole thing. You don’t, and works for you. Fine, but I don’t grade that way. If that were the way you are supposed to grade numismatic items, then why hasn’t someone written a guide or a book on that method?

Other collectors come to this site posting pictures of only part of the coin. Their excuse is they don’t want others to find the piece and scoop it out from under them. Almost invariably, others respond that they need to see the whole piece to access the piece.

Why are you exempt from that request? I guess it’s because you are a professional, and the rest of us are amateurs. I can’t tell you how many times you have frustrated me when you came here asking for our opinions or quizzing us with a microscopic view of a tiny part of a coin. Okay, I will ignore those requests from now on. My frustrations are solved!

 

I get frustrated with these as well. Just not my way of learning or grading so I don't give an opinion any longer.

 

I learn something useful from most of these threads, so I'll keep reading.

 

I know this isn't the point of your post...but New Orleans minted Morgan's are known for more commonly having poor strike quality in certain years when compared to other mint Morgan's. There are several reasons for this one of which is improper annealing...but that is not the sole reason.

I honestly find these threads enlightening...but often hard to follow. Sometimes I sorta lose the point along the way, but when I don't I learn something.

I think part of the "issue" I have is that @Insider knows SO MUCH...he tries to answer questions and give "clues" along the way without accidently giving away the answer. Sometimes those comments "dance around" the point so much I struggle to understand what is really being said. But, that's OK. Like I said, when I can follow it I really do learn something.

 

Although the Dahlonega Mint did issue some poorly struck coins, they also made some very well made coins as well. Their first coin, the 1838-D half eagle, was as well struck or better than many of the coins the Philadelphia Mint made.



Here is another well-struck example, and 1853-D half eagle.



I might add that many of these 1853-D half eagles were made from California. Miners who went to California for work, decided to come home and brought their gold with them.

The Dahlonega Mint got into the most trouble with $1 and $2.50 coins. The minter had trouble calibrating their presses properly for the small coins, which often resulted in weak strikes and damaged dies.

 

cpm9ball, asked: "Why should it make any difference what others may have said!"

Perhaps because others may be more knowledgeable? Our job as folks who suck up information about everything through all of our senses is to take it in and process it. If a person is not exposed to "good" info (for whatever the reason) their opinion will not be reliable. So given all sorts of choices in this thread, including your comment: " Yes, I heard a lot of them say that the Dahlonega Mint was notorious for weak strikes,..." might influence members to search for more info so they will be better informed - THE ENTIRE REASON FOR MY POST!
"...but for years, we heard from Morgan collectors that the New Orleans Mint was known for weak strikes when in fact the real reason was due to improper annealing. Wasn't it? So, why should I accept their word as gospel?"

Ah, perhaps they know there are several reasons for an original coin to lack design details.

johnmilton, posted: "Okay, never mind. I’ll ignore you when you ask for grades. I have never understood the system where you grade with a microscope. Microscopes are great for authentication and looking at minute die varieties. A strong glass is necessary to see if a coin has been altered or if the surfaces have been manipulated. But when it comes to assigning grades, it like accessing a forest when you are lost in the trees." [That's NUTS! You have coughed up the smoke generated for decades with an almost exact quote from one of them!]

"You can get no appreciation for the whole coin. [I guess this statement comes from all your experience using with one of these "tools".] Furthermore, it can lead to overemphasizing a defect because the microscope makes it look so big.

Very true if one is inexperienced.

If I am to decide if a coin is worn, poorly struck and struck from worn dies, I need to look at the whole thing. You don’t,... [That is correct. And others should not either (check out the replies above)]

Why are you exempt from that request? [ASKED AND ANSWERED] I guess it’s because you are a professional, and the rest of us are amateurs. I can’t tell you how many times you have frustrated me when you came here asking for our opinions or quizzing us with a microscopic view of a tiny part of a coin. Okay, I will ignore those requests from now on. My frustrations are solved!

Thanks for your input. I had hoped to see a coin and learn your grading process.

Now, for others guessing: the micrograph is a coin with a very weak strike in the center. Weak strikes are common from this Mint. There is enough visible in the image to correctly guess from AU to MS because all you have to go on is the detail left in the wings! I don't need to post an image of the edge, or the entire obverse or reverse to get this nuance of coin grading across.

No one needs to see the whole coin to ID the characteristics I post such as this:




Hopefully you will overcome your frustrations for the future. Trust me when I say that your frustration with my methods/posts is miniscule compared to what I go through on an HOURLY basis here and in the grading room. I post here because it is fun AND I am banned from NGC and PCGS forums.