How would you grade this dollar?

So when do we get the answer?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Guilty...my grade drifted from VF-30 to EF-45 after I looked at my ANA grading book. In actuality, I have net zero experience in grading this type of coin. But..one has to start somewhere..

 

Hmmm..me thinks I've undergraded now..

 

BTW...what's with the ugly eagle..it looks like a cross between an eagle and a pterodactyl.

Was the pay such in the mint those days that they couldn't hire a decent artist..

 

An ancient eagle..

 

My GUESS is 35 / 45 ish.....just too much rub for a higher grade unless it's an X-Eliasberg

 

if it was eliasberg it would be ms 71

 

reminds me i was getting the TOTW and u started ur psycho rambling and the thread got closed and now u want a TOTW i say justice is served

 

or X-Spock

 

Nope. I am saying that the TPGs tend to be a bit forgiving on any early US coinage. What will BB or "Genuine" a Morgan or Barber won't affect a lot of these coins gradewise. And a lot of it is due to the nature of the beast, these weren't churned out by the tens of millions on steam-powered presses with hundreds of tons of pressure, these were largely made by hand. And seeing as to the adjustment marks on the planchet are in areas where the strike is weak, I'll stick with it being a typically weak strike.

See those scratches near the date? Those are adjustment marks on the planchet and quite normal on coins like this, they also don't come fully and sharply struck. Other than being untarnished from age, that coin was probably just as you see it now when it was minted.

So, for this issue, the 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar, ths coin actually has light surface rub only, IMO it's probably an AU. Technically it's a low grade AU, however these coins don't, and probably never did, exist with mint luster that you would see on machine struck coins.

My ultimate goal is a date set of Heraldic Eagle Bust dollars, the same rules apply to those, they are tricky to grade and were, by our standards, produced using very crude methods. Remember, this was WELL before the industrial revolution!

 

The more I look at it the higher I want to grade it.
It has to be at least AU-55. Maybe even 58 but not MS.
I wonder how long it took to make one of these on an old screw press.

 

OK, since this is a posting by Ruben, it cannot be a straightforward and obvious answer answer like EF 45 or AU50.

So will say PCGS or NCS Genuine due to cleaning/recoloring, or tooling, or damage/repair.

(I seem to remember a 1794 Dollar which had trouble finding a buyer due to various problems. Maybe this is it?)

Eduard

 

There was about 2000 of these minted and I'll point out the information from these as soon as I reveal the grade it got.

Ruben

 

I don't think this is AU quality, but EF-40 is what my guess would be.

 

Damaged because of the reverse rim?

Ruben

 

FWIW - I think a 1794 Dollar would need to be mulched in a lawn mower before they would body bad them.

Ruben

 

This post got me reading an old book on the topic.
I found it interesting that the press used this year was made to only handle up to 50¢ pieces. The poor results is thought to be part of the reason for the low mintage. Wow, what a coin.

 

I think you should bear in mind that in 1794, the Mint was in its infancy, and its technology was very rudimentary by today's standards. Dies were made by hand, coins were struck with a hand press, and the machinery and dies broke down a lot. A newly struck coin could look like it had already been circulated. It's difficult to apply the same grading standards to those coins as it is to, say, the Seated Liberty series which was minted with much more consistent quality.

 

Most folks don't get to see many of these, including myself.
Some years of Bust half dollars seem to catch people as well.
I have a good guess what the op coin is worth but I'll let Ruben.