Featured A Tale of Two Draped Bust Quarters...

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Publius2, Mar 2, 2020.

  1. Publius2

    Publius2 Well-Known Member

    It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... Whoops, this is Dickens and this post is to compare two draped bust quarters which might well have been still in circulation when Dickens was publishing.

    The first coin is an 1805 in an ICG holder graded F-15. I bought this at a local show last year for my type set because I thought it had a lot of meat on the bone for the grade, looked nice, and I negotiated a nice price.

    The second is an 1806 in a NGC holder graded F-12 with a CAC green bean. This coin is out there now in auction and this post is NOT intended to denigrate this coin or in any other way interfere in the auctioning of this coin. I have hidden the serial number and other identifiers in an excess of caution.

    The purpose here is ask the erudite membership if I should consider crossing my coin to PCGS or NGC and then asking for a CAC bean. Crossing and submission is not something I have ever contemplated until now-for any coin. It is also to ask if the sharper eyes and minds that reside here can see anything about my coin that makes it less attractive than I think.

    Feel free to opine (as if you won't). Thanks.

    Moderators: If I have violated any explicit or implicit rule by posting a coin that is currently on the market, please correct my error and let me know that I have transgressed.

    DSC_0288-tile.jpg

    1806 F12 CAC Quarter Obv.jpg
    1806 F12 CAC Quarter Rev.jpg
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Wow, I am shocked more that the second coin got a CAC sticker. Sure does not look like F12 with that reverse.

    OP, I think your concern would be surfaces and if it would clean label. I am simply not good at seeing this from photographs, but a ton of these coins got messed with over the years. Demonstrably its a better coin. The second coin I would do VG on myself due to the reverse.
     
  4. Long Beard

    Long Beard Well-Known Member

    Just out of curiosity, did you cross reference that 1806? There is no way that would grade fine based on the definition spelled out. I think that one got graded by someone out on an all night bender. Your 1805 is much, much better. And accurate on the grade.
     
    edwin sandel likes this.
  5. micbraun

    micbraun coindiccted

    You can cross ICG coins to PCGS, but not to NGC. NGC only accepts PCGS coins for crossovers. I’d give it a try as I made pretty good experiences :)
     
  6. DBDc80

    DBDc80 Numismatist

    I would say that your coin would stand a good shot....imo it is accurately graded and has very nice surfaces (better than the 2nd coin, imho). However.....and.....I'm not trying to be inflamatory by any means...but why woukm d you want to? It's a beautiful coin, accurately graded, and it sounds as though it was bought at a good price. Who cares what the green bean counters think. :cigar:
     
  7. Publius2

    Publius2 Well-Known Member

    Thanks to everyone for their opinions and thoughts, and not just because most people are seeing what I see. I would value contrary opinions just as much.

    I generally agree with @DBDc80 thoughts regarding "buy the coin and not the holder" and I don't really care which TPG holder it is in nor if it has a green bean. But, and it's a big "but" these days, the market is saying that equivalent coins in some holders are worth more than others and also that the bean can mean it's worth more in the marketplace. We may agree or disagree on that point, but in thinking about my heirs it might be worth their while for me to try and cross and bean.

    OTOH, I'm thinking about that bumper sticker that says "I'm spending my children's inheritance."
     
  8. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    yo, that's like a 10 point discrepancy between the two.

    whoever put the CAC label should be fired... that's a pretty poor verification for something way overgraded.
     
  9. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    I think the cac coin stickered due to understanding of strike issues and the wonderful original surfaces. The icg coin has great detail but I can’t get a read on the surfaces from the images
     
    CircCam likes this.
  10. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Yeah but....

    This is why I left US coins. This is the original sin of US numismatics. Is the detail there? That should be the ONLY question for the grade. As a collector, it may be interesting as to why, but if the details there forna Fine grade or not? WAY too much, "the issue is know for weak strikes", or "struck from worn die" etc etc. Its a bunch of garbage. Are the details there?

    It is this way in ancients. We are ok some coins left the mint in VG. We do not say VF for the issue. Some US dealers getting into ancients do, and as soon as I see an excuse I never buy from that dealer. It is either a Fine or not, no excuses to me. Maybe nice Fines are really rare for X reasons, that is ok, just don't grade a VG at best Fine because Fines are scarce.
     
    DBDc80 and hotwheelsearl like this.
  11. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    Don't they call it a "rarity bump" or something stupid? That just because there's only 100 examples of a certain coin goes does NOT forgive extreme gradeflation.

    Like you said, it's either Fine, or its NOT FINE!

    I can understand weak strikes being a problem, but in the vast majority of instances, a grade is a grade.

    I suspect the "rarity bump" is as much for the auction houses as for the collector.
     
  12. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Why even weak strikes being an excuse? Why is it not ok with US collectors that the day the mint made something it was only an XF?

    Tell me sir, if the details on the word Liberty on a coin was caused by a weak strike, a worn die, or honest wear, WHY does it matter? In every instance, detail that was supposed to be there isn't. Why are two graded BU with excuses but the third only graded VF?
     
    hotwheelsearl likes this.
  13. CircCam

    CircCam Victory

    It matters because you can have weakly struck, mark-free blazing examples with excellent eye appeal and luster that blinds your eyes... calling it VF just for the strike wouldn’t make sense as it is just one of the grading criteria.
     
  14. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    No, no, no! You're getting this dead wrong.

    There is an absolute world of difference between a coin where the details are missing because they were worn away, and a coin where the details were never there due to a weak strike.

    A weak strike tells us a lot about the state of the dies and the striking of the coin. This gives us insight into the minting process. It's quite a presumption to assert that the detail should have been there, when in many cases the coins are intentionally weakly struck to prolong the life of the dies. How can you possibly say the detail was supposed to be there, when it was struck without that detail intentionally?

    In other cases, a weak strike may be indicative of dies used past their prime, which also gives insights into the state of the mint and the economic, political, and/or logistic reasons why they might employ dies in such bad shape.

    Take for example the 1836 B-1 25C:

    PzS5s56SmScNAcqMjq75_s-l1600.jpg
    9Dd53F26SAOH3h8tWs7B_s-l1600 (1).jpg
    The detail on the reverse on these coins was absent on a significant portion of the eagle, due to the shattered state of the obverse die. Detail is also lost on the brow on the obverse.

    These features are not missing due to wear on the coin, and other features and luster will be intact commensurate with the actual level of wear on the coin. Grading the coin based on the absent details on the reverse will only leave you unable to discern quality between the vast majority of surviving examples of the coin. What value is there in that? None!

    A coin with weakness is as struck. It is not, and should not be confused with a worn coin by any numismatist worth his salt. Being able to differentiate between the two and understand why it is so important to differentiate them is fundamental to coin grading.
     
    hotwheelsearl likes this.
  15. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Again, WHY?

    Listen, I am not debating it is interesting to compare why details are missing. I know such things in ancient coins. We discuss worn dies, weak strike, etc all of the time. Do not begin to believe modern coins have a corner on this, ancient hand struck coins are 100 times more likely to have poor strikes or worn dies.

    However, again, to a collector looking for the most details on a coin, (as most collectors like coins, and the more they can see presumably the better), WHY is wear worst than poor strike or worn dies? While from a technical view your coin is interesting why its weak in details, from an aesthetic view the reverse is no better than a common VF. I would grade that as VF, weak strike.

    All coins have a potential max detail that could have been on the coin. Most types have examples like that in existence. THAT is a max grade coin. Any deficiency, from bag marks, to weak strike, to worn die, to wear that lowers it from that max by definition should lower the grade. Again, it is OK that a coin leaves the mint VF. If some wish to collect error coins that left the mint VF then god bless, more power to them. However, the original sin of US numismatics was to say wear is the WORST THING IN THE WORLD, and ONLY WEAR lowers the grade of a coin. Most coin collecting areas of the world do NOT say that, though the advent of TPGs on world and ancient markets is bringing that error to more collectors.

    Btw @Jaelus I am worth my salt in my own view. I am not CONFUSING THEM, I am saying your weak strike should not raise its grade above what details are on the coin. I probably have been collecting as long or longer than you, and own tens of thousands of coins sir and a substantial library. I am not a neophyte. I understand you have about 180 years of US numismatic history on your side, I am saying I have 500 years of ancient numismatic history on mine.
     
    Trebellianus likes this.
  16. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    I never said you were confusing them. I was making a general statement about grading.

    Believe me, I understand your argument. I am actually on your side here on a lot of your points regarding wear. I am firmly in the camp that wear is a lot less important to grading than people seem to think. I've certainly debated Doug on that regard many times here.

    Wear is no more significant a detractor to grade than is any hit mark or blemish that occurred after the coin was struck. And while I don't consider wear to be in any way special, the key here is that wear occurs post strike, and weakness occurs during the strike. I am a firm believer that any coin that is not an error that is as struck is capable of being an MS70 example. Any differences due to die state or strike pressure only create varieties, not imperfect coins. You can have an MS70 weakly struck example of a coin.

    Quite an assumption. Not all collectors are looking for this, or they are perfectly satisfied with coins that do not have full detail, but have other qualities like circulation cameo, toning, prooflike surfaces, late die states, etc. I certainly have different sets that contain different types of coins, and eye appeal is eye appeal, regardless of the amount of details on a coin.
     
  17. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I think we are close sir, with one major difference. You believe as long as a coin is how it way struck, it is perfect that way. I am saying a coin is ABLE to be perfect, (good dies, good strike, no marks or wear), so ANY deficiency is a lowering of grade. This means a coin can be struck and immediately grade VF or F. TONS of ancients are this way. It is just like the mint struck it the day it was made, yet is only a VF or F. Ancient collectors are ok with that fact.

    I am with you as well as most of my coins are circulated. I actually used this logic collecting AU coins back when I collected US coins. Most of my SL and capped bust halves were what was then graded AU55-58. I loved well struck examples with a touch or wear selling for 25% of ugly MS63's. I have never viewed wear as anything other than another way a coin is not as perfect as it could have been, not the worst thing ever.

    The assumption that collectors, on average as I should have stated, prefer details on coin does not rule out any other kind of collecting. I find weak strikes, worn or cracked dies, etc interesting and own many. I own examples of the world's first nickel coinage, some with cracks and some without, (without actually rarer), but every one is a unique die. They cracked like crazy, which is why no one was crazy enough to try to make nickel coins again for 1900 years.

    Anyway, given that coins graded XF go for far more money than those graded F or G, I think its a fair assumption that collectors want coins with more details rather than less. Given that, I am simply saying I believe ALL coins should be graded based upon details left on the coin. Collectors are completely free to desire them due to reasons, and I believe all coins are desirable and collectible, and never look down at whatever a collector wishes to collect.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page