1803 1$ NGC45 Does dark tone add originality, subtract value, or both?

I keep thinking this coin is undergraded, but the dark color is the reason it's graded lower. With this toning, the coin seems completely original. What do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It certainly makes it obvious where the wear is.
In fact it sort of stresses the point.
I think mid-AU.

 

wait for more experienced opinions on this type coin.

 

I'm with you on this one. I have an AU-looking dollar with very similar dark toning that NGC clearly net graded down to a 45.

Personally I like the look and I got the coin at a good price (already slabbed). If I was buying one like that raw though I would look for an XF price. Very dark toning has a limited market.

 

I had an 1894 Morgan that looked XF but was VERY darkly toned.
The TPG (NGC or PCGS, I can't remember which) wouldn't grade it at all.
Said the surfaces were too obscured and the toning may have been covering a cleaning.

 

It looks almost AU but I'm guessing because of the eye appeal it dropped down. It's a beautiful coin but I'd expect it to cost less than another coin with no toning of a similar grade.

 

Too much wear for AU. The dark coin makes it pretty obvious where the wear is, and I don't think the grade on this coin is as much penalizing it as grades on lighter coins are rewarding the wear being camouflaged by the brighter coin.

 

This is what a circulated coin from 1803 SHOULD look like.

 

Dark toning on any coin will be considered a negative because it can hide surface problems. At what point in it's toning progression that happens, isn't defined. I have had several coins come back that way. One AU details grade in particular, a 1832 1/2 cent, has been shown to dealers and no one can see the improperly cleaned area. I think they will err on the side of caution in all cases.

 

TPGs don't look kindly at dark toning , though I don't mind it too much , I would expect a price cut . Though I do like your coin . I think that's an easy AU coin probably 53 .

 

It's remarkably clean for an XF. Very nice looking surfaces to me.

 

I don't know , I've seen more original skinned coins from this age that are gray . The black means it's been around something heavy in sulfur .

 

I don't think the coin is being penalized at all for the toning, and the originality adds to the eye appeal. For series like this, recently dipped coins often trade at a discount. I like it as is.

 

I wouldn't.

I don't know where you and @rzage shop, but I would love to pick this coin up for a discounted price because of the perfectly normal and accepted toning. If anything, I would expect the coin to sell for less if it was recently dipped. On another note, I don't think the coin is as dark as you might think it is; rather, the newer wear has removed some of the original toning and the stark contrast between the toned fields and the newly worn metal over emphasizes the difference IMO.

 

My point is that circulated silver this old, even if properly stored, should look similar to this one, be it slightly lighter or darker. Personally, I believe that a coin this old, in this grade, that retains this color, indicates that no one ever tried to alter it's appearance. And THAT makes this piece both highly desirable, and a preverbial "white buffalo," amongst early American coinage.

 

I like the 1801 better. The wear marks on this coin are distracting. The color is fine for me. It looks nicely struck, but IMO, it clearly shows circulation wear. I'd give it a XF40.

 

Not much of a market for dark toned coins like this. Most collectors want bright, shiny white coins. I agree with kanga, the darkness highlights the wear. I'd say low to mid AU range. Despite it's darkness it's a nice looking coin.

 

I think you should reword your post. Most NEW coin collectors might want bright, shiny white coins; however, a good number of advanced collectors (read as those that usually have the money and/or willingness to pay large sums of money for coins that a new person would not) do not and prefer original coins. I would argue that it is a majority, but I try not to be overly dogmatic and make unqualified claims. The exception to this might be for coins that were hoarded in mint bags (e.g. Morgan Dollars) where white original pieces still exist.

You can argue that this coin is darker than most, and it would be closer to being accurate IMHO. Regardless, I cannot agree that there isn't "much of a market" for coins like this. I think I could move it quite easily at a fair price if the piece were mine and if I desired to liquidate it.

 

Really, jpcienkus, xf 40? ! I am wondering why the grade isn't 50!
Yes , the coin clearly shows circulation wear: very little of it! Is the objection that we can SEE the wear? Perhaps we could prefer a coin with MORE wear that is less visible? I have seen many such coins receive higher grade than this one. I agree with rzage, that the coin deserves a technical grade of AU 50-ish. I have seen many bust dollars graded 50-53 with markedly more wear, but brighter color. This coin, in fact seems to have lots of luster peeking through the toning. So it seems that it is only the dark color that downgraded it, not wear or even lack of luster. It's all about eye appeal, I guess, and a dark surface with bright patches just isn't pretty enough, I fear. Market grading, anyone? What say you, sirrah?

 

I showed these photos to early dollar specialist David Perkins at the last Baltimore Whitman show. He liked the coin. But we didn't discuss whether the market or the TPGs like this sort of coin.