Hi All. New to Coin Talk, but a long time collector. I recently inherited this purported 1846-C Coronet Quarter Eagle gold coin. The questions: 1. Real, or fake? The coloring of the metal in the damaged areas seems to be non-gold. It weights 4.13 g, which matches with the reported weight of 4.18g. I have not been able to locate any guides to ascertaining genuine examples of this coin. 2. Assuming real - what would the areas of damage be called? Obviously, mint error, or post-mint damage? 3. Also assuming real - your best guess as to grade? Thanks in advance.
I cannot see the photos well enough to say much beyond the date position appears to be correct, as does the mintmark. Your example appears to show the proper die rust below the eagle's wing and also to the right of UNITED. Based on this alone I would say likely genuine, and possibly to quite likely ex-jewelry.
Yeah, you're really gonna have to take better pics. The font on 'America' looks way thicker than 'United States of'. Makes me wonder if that's how the coin is or just the pic. Please, more pics needed.
I'm going with genuine at first glance, but we definitely would need some large images to really compare the markers.
Thanks for the input - I will figure out how to take some better photos, I am not sure I can do it with the lenses I have.
I think I got some much better photos, although whew, extreme closeups are brutal! Anyway, hope these help with the questions.
looks fake to me. the date looks too crude, the damage looks like it is more than a lamination, and the odd scratches that go every which way on the coin look odd. The coin should also be gold under the damage, which you said it looks like it is not. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole
I'm going with fake due to the bigger pictures. I'm seeing what look like casting bubbles near the C in "AMERICA" and above the eagle's right wing on the reverse; and all around the stars on the obverse. I'd test its specific gravity to see if it could even possibly be gold. Gold shouldn't really tone that color, so assuming it's genuine (and I have my doubts), that discoloration might be some kind of crud on it. It might be worth an acetone soak to see if it comes off. The damage does look like some kind of lamination, given that the surface has basically fallen away and left the stars in place. As far as grade, VF details, at best. On top of all the other problems this piece seems to have, it looks like it might have been cleaned at one time. The reverse looks especially problematic in this respect. If genuine, given that it's one of the rarer dates, and a C mint to boot, taking all of the coin's issues into account my guess is no more than double melt. I mean, whatever this piece is, it's had a rough life, and it shows.
I just wanted to post a follow-up on my coin. I sent it in to PCGS, and got it back tonight with true view. The grade came back as XF-Details, Damaged, so Paul M. came pretty close! I was hoping the left side damage on the obverse was a lamination or planchet error, because I don't see how the stars stay in place with the metal gone. Which leads me to a question - is there a priority for the various 9x codes at PCGS? I.e., this is labelled as Damaged, but could it also have gotten a Cleaned designation if not Damaged. That is, do they list two categories?
Damaged is about as bad as it gets, so they may not bother mentioning cleaning separately since it is also damage by definition.
Markers, which are clear as day in the larger photos.... go figure. Another fine example of why they, as well as understanding them, is so important. Congrats, OP.
