GtG poll: silver 3-cent piece, 1860

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I was torn between 62 and details, polished. Is that mint-made die polish on the reverse? It looks a lot like hairlines in the pictures.

 

AU details, cleaned

 

If it was cleaned, I would still say that the details are too strong to be AU. I would guess that it would hit UNC 9 times out of 10.

Personally, I did not guess details. I think it is a combination of die polish lines and a beat up holder. There also appears to be some luster to the coin, so I would go with MS 63.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what @Paddy54 thinks.

 

Also @Burton Strauss III

 

Well I got it right, but I checked out the spoiler before voting, so I didn't vote. Lovely piece.

 

This has the appearance of incidental contact rather than deliberate cleaning, so it's a tossup whether or not PCGS let it pass. Literally, the way they're grading these days. I'm gonna spin the wheel and suppose it landed on "pass," and agree with ddddd on a straight 63. Now, to check the spoiler.

 

Well first of all with a mintage of 268,000 business strikes and a 1000 proof strikes.
The 1860 business strikes working dies are unknown . Die varieties none verified. There is one known as a counterfeit specimen which this isn't .
Now when it come to the surfaces at first I thought cleaned. But now looking at the coin and reading up on the year I don't think so. I see some nice clashes the one in the date almost makes one to believe it's an repunched date. Especially the 1 and 8 as there's what looks to be a repunched digits . .
Now with both the obv.and rev. Dies unknown I'm leaning towards a pair of dies reworked or polished the would account for all the lines seen on the surface . This date is scarce in circulated grades,rare in ms grades up to 65.....however very rare above 65 . The 1860 strikes range from weak to full strikes. The luster for this date for this date is normally above average and is also noted for some satiny to frosty luster.
From what I've found I can see this date minted from a set of dies reworked . I find it funny that it's either my eyes or the clashes but again the date looks repunched and again none noted in the reference for this date. Now looking at the stars placements are 100% correct but no notations of re cut stars. Again to my eyes I'm seeing recut stars and a reworked die. Since there are no known die marriage of this date I believe that the lines in question are from polishing of the dies. And also they were heavily clashed.
When I was looking at this early this morning I had it as a 62 and leaning towards details ..... but now still in the lower mid 60's grade range and not cleaned.
I do find it interesting that no dies pairs can be matched, maybe so due to the brink of the civil war.
That also could account for reworked dies.
1855 was a lower mintage but the years 56,57.58. did have significant mintages, over 1 to 1.5 millions minted. Then the 59 mintage's began to be cut back under 1/2 million .
With mintage's being reduced,pending war, To me it makes sense that the dies were recycled and reworked. Thus making well struck coins polishing lines transfer to the specimen giving the appearance of being cleaned.

 

61

 

I'll bet it would grade 64 today.

 

I'll go with details. The reverse hairlines go over the raised surfaces ... so I ruled out die polishing. The reverse hairlines are very parallel as per a cleaned coin. AU or UNC depending on the state of the luster, which I cant judge from the picture.

I just noticed the reverse scratches extend beyond the coin in the same direction. So I now think the scratches are on the slab. No guess on grade.

 

@ lordmarcovan can you provide some closer images of the date? As well some of the stars on the reverse ? Thanks

 

61

 

61, 62 ... not higher...

Refer back to the original photos, use this as a guide:

The places where the star meets the outline are the 1st places to show wear on the obverse. Pretty clean except at K2 - but that's the tiniest bit and could be just a little weakness in the strike - the planchet marks argue for a little weakness.

Flip to the reverse. Note that the outline of the C is still present (Arrow A) in a few places. That is so delicate, you'll almost never see it below MS.

However, the edges of the diamond are not razor sharp (Arrows B) which would be required for high MS.

The scuff (C) is certainly on the holder - note how it's edges don't match up with 'wear' on the coin?

 

I'm guessing UNC Details with an old cleaning. As everyone else has mentioned, the hairlines on the back go across some of the devices. I don't think it was a "let's get the silver polish and rag out" type of cleaning, but rather a quick wipe with a cotton rag way back when.

 

I think it's market acceptable and straight graded.

 

@lordmarcovan can you post some closer images of the date? Thanks