1801 1$ PCGS GTG; is this coin AT (artificially toned)

I think this 1801 silver dollar is mysterious. Does the uniform blanket of patina make you think it is artificially toned? How does the market view darkly colored coins like this? Is it a nice coin, or not, in your opinion? What do you think the PCGS grade is? I'll reveal the grade after a few replies come in.

-Lucky

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I like it. Looks XF40 to me.

 

I'm at XF40 as well.

 

great looking coin. toning looks original (nice) to me. wait for more experienced opinions on this type coin.

 

I'm between XF40 and XF45, but it's a nice coin regardless of what the grade is.

 

The front is XF45 but the back is closer to VF25. My guess is VF35

 

And regardless of its grade, that is a killer coin and I'd love to have one like that in my Type Set some day.

 

I would not say you can prove its AT, but I believe retoned is a given. I believe the coin was dipped at some point, and maybe cleaned. Its very common for these. I would need to see the coin in hand to be sure, but I would expect more trace luster in protected areas for the grade. Since it does not appear to be there, I am guessing it was cleaned, and the toning appeared later, either by age or other means.

Again, it could be a function of the photograph. Maybe the luster is there and I am just not seeing it with the photo.

 

I agree with @medoraman. Likely dipped and re-toned. I like the look for the coin.

From the pictures, I'd grade it XF45.

I think the toning is completely market acceptable. It may have been re-toned purposefully to hide a bad dip, but when I think of "AT", that is not the skin that comes to mind.

Did you buy the coin? Have you seen it in hand? Can you see any evidence of a cleaning (other than a dip)?

 

It is very well struck btw. Usually the clouds are weak. I like the coin, I wasn't hating on it earlier, just saying what I saw.

 

Very attractive. I'll say it's XF.

 

Seattlite, I guess that you grade the reverse as only 25 because of the weak shield and lower olive leaves. But, I've searched archives, and found a 58, a 53, and a 25, all B-4's, and all with almost identical weakness there. I've concluded that it is not wear, but a strike weakness of some particular die state of B-4 variety only. Of course, most B-4's don't have this feature; maybe I'm the first to notice it. Have I made a numismatic discovery?

 

I also agree that it may be retoned, but it's a moot point as it's definitely market acceptable.

 

Quick glance VF-35, but I wouldn't be surprised with XF-40

 

I actually find more troubling, the obverse hair wear above the ear, and also the lack of luster that medoraman and jpcienkus mentioned. That indicates to me an old cleaning, subsequently retoned. If I buy this coin and crack it out for regrading by PCGS, I wonder if it would come back as "details-cleaning "?

 

I'm at XF-40, but I'm curious if PCGS considered the mark on the chin damage or adjustment marks. And I agree that it was dipped and retoned.

 

Aha, Toughcoins, I wrote my last post before seeing yours. Yes, an uneven, partially-weak strike could account for this appearance. That doesn't bother me, and I like the overall look. But the lack of luster even where there's virtually no wear makes me think that the coin was net-graded due to cleaning. What do you think is the likelihood of a details grade upon resubmission to PCGS?

 

Send it in for reconsideration with the slab intact or just leave it be. I wouldn't risk it if it has a clean grade now.

 

jpcienkus and kirkuleez; I haven't seen the coin in hand. I have only these photos. I don't think the chin/forehead scrapes are adjustment marks, even though they do line up with each other. Can't tell for sure from pics, though. But they just seem superficial.