Eye appeal zero in my opinion. I really dislike the way it looks. I will wait for a better one to come along.
Interesting. I think it is overgraded, and if it wasn't an 1804 dollar it would probably be a bodybag candidate. I'd call it a 50, it looks like it has been cleaned, there are scratches on the bust and what looks like a lamination on the head. For having been struck twice the strike detail is horrible. The reverse is interesting though. It shows evidence that the coin rotated several degrees between the two strikes. (More likely the rev was the hammer die and it rotated between strikes.) This can be most clearly seen at AME. From looking at the pedigrees I see the Dexter specimen has been upgraded again. It was a PF-64, and now it's a PCGS PF-65. Not bad for a dull mottled gray heavily hairlined lightly circulated proof that has been counterstamped on the reverse. PF-65 huh. I think some of the other class I coins have been upgraded again as well.
I think it's really cool, but I would rather just buy another Draped Bust Dollar and save a fortune. An 1804 would be cool...but to me, a 1799 or so would be close enough.
Call me a purist, but I just can't accept as "genuine" a coin struck in 1830 and dated 1804. I would much rather have a nice piece of Charlotte or Dahlonega gold than one of those things.
I sort of have this same feeling. I would take one, but I don't consider it part of the set. To me, it's kind if like the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel. It's cool, but because of the circumstances of it's production it stands alone from the rest of the series.
