What is wrong or right with this 1853-C Gold Dollar?

This has been a great thread. I discovered some new things (to me) about laminations and their diagnostics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Before leaving this thread, I want to thank those that price Mint Damage as PMD. I have purchased some real bargains because of this.

 

THE UNADULTERATED TRUTH HURTS DEPT:

Marshall, posted : "I hate snobbish behavior. They would hate my pitiful collection. They are not worthy of having such a special coin."

"They" (Professional GOLD COIN DEALERS) make a living buying and selling RARE & DESIRABLE coins such as this. AFAIK, you don't. I find NOTHING incorrect or snobbish about their answer. This is a VERY special coin BECAUSE it a coin that would be EXTREMELY HARD to sell at a decent price which is: Whatever a person pays when they cannot find one in better condition.

johnmilton, posted: "I am glad this coin has not fallen apart after 168 years. I agree that the planchet issue is probably a pre-strike lamination, but to listen him it would better if it had been whizzed."

This post just broke into my top ten, all-time ____________ posts I've ever read on CT! However, congratulations you have actually stumbled into the "nut." Since the problem on this coin is easily seen/felt by anyone including the blind man, a whizzed coin would be much easier to sell! This fact will not get you off my top ten because I had to explain the reason.

The Gold Monger, posted: "My first reaction is about the grading as well and why isn't this taken into account? Do CUD's, PMD's (I assume any post damage would highly effect grading/value), etc., figure into the grading?

I cannot answer for any one else with certainty; however, many graders I know grade an error coin as if it were normal and then mention the error. For example, I have graded Lincoln cents with cuds as high as MS-67, Red.the coin

ksparrow, posted: "Calling one of these with a pcgs pop of only about 120 an "expensive hole filler" because of a mint made flaw is way off base. I'd be proud to have it in my collection."

Any "normal" collector would be proud to own this coin. I would happily put it into my teaching set and watch its price climb over the decades. HOWEVER, the "BIG BOYS" frown on coins as this and would pass - probably even at a lowball price. A person below their means might think they are off-base. I prefer to think that all of us have different personal standards for what we purchase.

Marshall, posted: "Traditionally, coins with mint damage are treated very differently than coins with Post mint damage. They often have a premium in common and modern coins. Post mint damage is treated quite severely."

Very well said!

"I don't mind preference since I like detail over wear which is not reflected in pricing. But to single out this beauty [??????] for mint damage like it has PMD is beyond my understanding."

IMO, he rest you posted is nonsense (I'm glad you took the time to post anyway)and has nothing to do with the professionals who gave an opinion that I happen to agree with BECAUSE I understand REALITY. Therefore, while we all have our personal opinion of "beauty," it may be wise to develop an "eye" more in line with folks who know the value of coins.

 

Marshall, posted: "Before leaving this thread, I want to thank those that price Mint Damage as PMD. I have purchased some real bargains because of this."

So have I! If you have the time it would be very educational to post some of your Mint errors. NEW THREAD ALERT!

 

I suppose if it's "an expensive filler," I could sell it for scrap. That would be somewhere around $85. Given that @Insider is opposed to net grading for pricing purposes, I will leave him out of the discussion.

About the worst net grade you could put on this piece is EF-40. Those who have seen what EF-40 graded Charlotte Mint gold dollars look like can appreciate that. They are the old VF-30 or worse. They are frequently cleaned.

This coin has it's original surfaces and the sharpness qualifies for the grade assigned. As such, this "filler" is worth at least $1,400.

 

Most of my finds are posted here.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/attribute-this.288976/page-73#post-7586823

While most involve attribution, die state/stage questions and the process, the discovery of other minting issues and questions that just leave you with nagging issues is common.

 

With the sharp strike, I suspect it would have a technical grade of an MS and it compares favorably with MS62 and MS63 photos on Heritage. So a market grade of AU55 seems about right to me.

I personally find it MORE interesting than a bland "Investor Coin" complete with it's Pyramid pricing scheme.

But that's a preference. To each his own.

 

Sounds like I nailed it.

Proper term would be "Internal Die Break"

 

Here is an 11 year old thread post from GDJMSP. Terminology is a never ending struggle.

"For as long as I can remember there have been knock down, drag out fights among the experts as to exactly what constitutes a cud. It used to get downright bloody on rcc when this subject was discussed. For many years the name "internal cud" was constantly being proposed as the way to distinguish between the two types - those that involved the rim and those that did not. And never was an acceptable consensus established.

To me it's common sense. A cud is simply the result of piece being missing from the die when it strikes the coin. Think of it as a hole in the die that is not supposed to be there. Now regardless of how that hole in the die got there, or where it is on the die, the end result is always the same - a raised spot of metal on the coin. Thus that raised spot of metal is called a cud.

Now you can say that die chips are not cuds, but we all know and agree that die chips are quite common and they result from a tiny piece of the die breaking away. OK, that's fine, but how big does that piece that broke away have to be before it is called a cud ?

In that regard it's kind of like the damage thing. How big does a contact mark have to be before it is called damage and not a contact mark ? Or how big does a scratch have to be before it makes a coin ungradeable ?

You're never going to find an answer because there isn't one. And there will never be one because people simply cannot agree on something that seems so simple. And they cannot agree because if they did it would mean that some of their own coins, or coins they want to buy, or coins they want to sell, or coins they have graded, will suddenly no longer be gradeable. And that they are not willing to accept. It's OK if it happens to somebody else's coin, but not one of theirs, no sir.

So we shall forever have these arguments about what is and what isn't."

 

Note that with carful reading Doug answered his own non-question. Fortunately, there is no longer any argument between the numismatists who study the minting process. So, a collector can get with the program or appear to be ignorant.

Breaks in the die that are larger than a squiggly crack line indicate a chunk has broken off the die. If the chunk is on the rim it is a cud. When a chunk breaks away along the crack line it is a die chip. Coins exist with die breaks that do not reach either rim (common on Lincolns and Jeffersons). Chips can occur internally without any associated crack line (common on Barber dimes). Cuds are an entirely different characteristic.

The size if the characteristic does not change what it is. A tiny cud occurs for the same reason a major cud appears. Ditto a tiny die chip and a major one.

Look, I'm accused of being a know-it-all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm actually a good reader with good comprehension. The correct info is out there if you bother to look. Otherwise, please argue with yourselves.

 

@Insider...can you help me understand something. So, this coin has a major lamination around the ED. As I understand it, a lamination occurs when a patch of the planchet flakes off (is this correct)?

Because the ED is so clearly present...would the lamination area flake off before the coin was struck? The way I read your post is that it would have happened after? If it happened after, how could the ED be so clear?

Am I misunderstanding when the piece flaked off or am I just totally misunderstanding this whole coin?

Thanks.

 

The lamination is the split in the surface. Most look as the line going into the "1. Laminations often show a discoloration at the split where dirt or the impurity discolors it. Once part of the lamination comes off, it is delaminated and the evidence of the original design remains if the split is not too deep and it happened over part of the design. If the piece comes off in the field where there is no design, only a void appears with the internal part of the planchet metal showing.

When a coin is struck its design is so impressed into the planchet that if we were to peel away a thin strip over a letter, we can still see what that letter was. The top surface of the letter would appear different from a letter with the original surface still attached. The key to everything is the coin's original surface and the split in the surface.

 

@Insider is saying it flaked off after the coin was struck. I think @Conder101 agrees.

On the other hand, @GDJMSP in post #40 is saying it flaked off before the coin was struck (as it went through the upset mill).

 

Why is the “ED” so sharp if it was under a fallen lamination? I have seen other laminations where the design elements were only a shadow of what they were.

There is no way those those letters could be that sharp if they were under the lamination.

 

It still comes down to your believing the questions have been settled and if anyone doesn't agree with you, they are wrong.

Maybe it's true and I'm just not aware of how this consensus of experts came to this agreement. Was there an agreement after a huge convention of experts that I'm not aware of? It sounded to me like you just left it in the hands of a TPGs to decide for everybody.

Did all the major TPGs come to the same conclusion for the first time ever? And do you think those that have been disagreeing for decades are ignorant of the minting process? Hardly. These are ALL experts at some level in the causes of the issues called by different names.

How do you spell color? If you spelled it like I did you would be wrong if you grew up in England and right if you grew up in the States.

In my own view, it makes sense to aggregate all incused damage into the die into a greater heading. This would include chips, breaks and CUDs. I consider chips to be isolated and usually (but not always) smaller and shallower. But like on Obverse 19 of 1794, two or more chips can wear into a pretty substantial size. Another groups is the crack with both sides remaining close together and on the same surface plain.

But there is also the group where one side breaks away from the crack leaving a wider raised mass. I usually see them as a crack passes close to a design detail like lettering or leaves or the reverse fraction. This group name seems to be the bone of contention. Is it a greater crack or a differently located CUD?

If the above happens at the rim, there is fairly wide agreement that it is a CUD or Full CUD. But is that the universal set or merely a subset?

Now there is a subset called variously a developing CUD or incomplete CUD because while the levels are changing, it has not yet obliterated the design detail or become solid.

Most people know what is happening, but just group them differently. To say a group that disagrees is wrong is like saying the ENGLISH are spelling color wrong.

 

The owner of the coin is the only one who can prove it. I posted what the difference is. The fact that the underlying surface is UNDER the "ED" and runs right up to the raised, sharp line of original surface metal (the remaining part of the lamination) provides enough evidence for me.

 

I think you are reading it the same way I do. I had thought it was pre-strike flaking, but the point was well made that a pre-strike flaking would have resulted in complete flattening of the remnant fragment, The pressure of the press through a shallow lamination will still create sharp detail as Conder has said both here and when looking at the S-167. The timing of the flaking is speculative in respect to before, during or after the upset mill but during or after planchet production and before strike.

 

WRT cuds, I found this at the site "cuds-on-coins.com"
Interior Die Breaks & Die Chips on US Coins
Interior Die Break Definition: (IDB) When a thick flake spalls off the interior of the die face it leaves a void we call an interior die break. It appears on the coin as a featureless lump. Unlike a cud, an interior die break has no direct connection to the design rim. Interior die breaks are often connected to die cracks and sometimes straddle a split in the die face (split die). When it is not connected to a die crack, it is called a freestanding interior die breaks.
Die Chip Definition: (DC) A small piece (less than 4 square millimeters) that falls out of the die face and has no direct connection to the design rim. The missing piece leaves a void in the die face into which coin metal flows. As a result, the coin shows a featureless lump in the affected area.

 

OK, that makes sense as to why the detail is still there. Thank you.

Next question...is it same to assume that in hand, the area that has peeled off would not have much in the way of luster while the neighboring coin surface would?

 

Divot!