I would appreciate anyones input as to the potential grades of the two coins whose images are attached. Also, should I consider getting them graded? Thanks,
The pictures look a little washed out but I'll say VF-30 for the $10 and and EF-40 for the $20. Good looking circulated coins. Ben
Can you post some better pictures ? Do you have a camera with Macro capability ? It's really hard to say from those scans. So-called "low gold" (common date + moderate grade) is not worth having certified as the value of the coin is not much more than melt. You can go from AG-3 all the way up to MS60 or so with almost no change in value. If it's better date and / or high grade, then certification often pays.
Thanks for input. All: Thanks for your input. I appreciate your comments. I have a digital camera with Macro but I have not been able to get good pictures. Have not been able to get the lighting good enough. If they have been harshly cleaned, it must have been done over 50 - 60 years ago because my father has had them since he was a young man and he has never done anything with them in that time. They just set in an envelope in a drawer. Will do some more expermenting with the scanner and camera and see if I can get better images. Also should I take them out of the 2x3 for the images? Later!
You can try using a camera phone if you have one. When I can't get a decent pic with my regular digital camera, I use my phone's camera and they turn out ok most of the time. Just a thought. Guy~
Question on the cleaning Hi all: Quick followup question, What do you see that indicates that they may been harshly cleaned?
Personally, I don't (photoshoped maybe) but I'm just a collector. Gold is a soft metal and with these having seen a pocket or saddle-bag as it were I stand by my VF & EF grades. I have some worn gold and can assure you cotton or leather or canvass (bag) is abrasive on a gold coin. Honor your coins. Keep em' raw and the way they were... Here is a similar coin Take Care Ben
The luster... or rather lack thereof. They look washed out and brassy, not the rich gold color of a natural piece. You've seen 24kt gold, eh ? Mix that with 10% copper and that's US gold coins. A beautiful color. It's possible the color is due to the scanner; they usually looked washed out even if natural, original, uncleaned pieces. Yours might be real. Gotta have better pics to tell.
Look at the double eagle closely, see the traces of black in some of the protected areas and around the stars - that is gunk that was not removed by the cleaning. Small traces can also be seen on the eagle. And both coins are covered with fine hairlines and have that washed out look that cleaned coins have. It's an experience thing, not everybody notices it unless they have seen it many times and know what to look for. But once you do, you notice it at a glance.
Doug, A sort of side question, but what do you consider "harsh" cleaning? My uneducated thinking is that whizzing and that ilk is "harsh" cleaning while dipping, ultrasonic, and that ilk would (or could, anyway) be improper cleaning but would not be "harsh" cleaning. I would think that most cleaning methods would leave similar remnants.
Typically harsh cleaning would be defined as any time the surface of the coin is touched with anything during the cleaning process. Dipping has always been an acceptable form of cleaning to many because it is strictly chemical in nature - in other words the surface of the coin is not ever touched or rubbed with anything. However, dipping can be considered as harsh as well if it is over-done since the acid in the coin dip has the ability to literally eat away the surface of the coin. Ultra-sonic cleaning would be much like dipping, it could go either way. Do it just right and no marks will be left, do it wrong or too long and the surface of the coin can be destroyed. So in a nutshell, any of these methods can be considered as harsh cleaning - it is a matter of degree. Whizzing is not cleaning at all - that is out and out alteration in order to deceive.
