I'd like your opinions again (and any others) on some photos taken of my 1847 Seated Dollar. To refresh your memory, please read this post first: http://www.cointalk.org/showthread.php?t=34234 I didn't want to add to that thread since by posting new images I thought it might be troublesome to download for some message board members. Anyway, you guys were giving me your honest opinion about my dollar and you were pointing out that you couldn't/didn't see much luster. Again, I don't know if these pictures help, but they were taken with a dedicated light source unlike my original pictures. So, would you experienced collectors give me your thoughts whether you would grade this coin as AU? and If you still cannot tell, then so be it! I've given it my best shot. P.S. This post is not intended to be argumentative. I'm just enjoying my coin and it gives me a reason to yack about it some more! :mouth:
These pictures do show a great deal more luster, and the coin looks much more attractive in these pictures (the coin has much more "pop"). That said, I, personally, have trouble calling it an AU coin. Still looks XF to me -- and the coin has about as much luster as I thought did when assessing it previously. In addition to those you mention, I would also wonder what Mr. Feld, GDJMSP, and Conder think about the coin. I have a great deal of resepect for these forum members' opinion, and all are far more experienced than I. One question though -- is the color of the coin accurate in this photo? (i.e. does it have a champagne tinge to it, or is the wihte balance/color just a bit off) Take care & thanks for sharing the additional photos....Mike
Definitely champaign color, not the harsh bluish or gunmetal look of the pics in my original post. Thanks for your opinion, Mike. Anyone else?
Her breasts ..... are they that flat due to wear or due to a weak strike. If it's wear then it's not AU in my opinion. I'd LOVE to have that coin in my 7070........
Craton: I do not have the coin with me right now to look at to answer your question. It is still with photographer that took these new pictures. The luster (reflective surfaces) I see are most apparent on the reverse in the eagles feathers, legs, and claw. These are orangish (?) in hue and wink back at you. Also in the fields mottled appearance where there are blotchy places that also reflect. My coin club president who advised me when I purchased the coin believes it is AU-53 and feels it may have been lightly cleaned long ago. He does not claim to be a seated dollar expert, but has taken several grading classes and has been collecting for 35 years. However, he is just one man's opinion! He tells me to bring to the Central States show and get a definitive opinion from David Lange of NGC! (I don't intend to slab it).
The coin sure looks AU to me. Forget about the lack of obverse detail, which I believe is mostly due to strike - look at the eagle and how little wear it appears to show. For purposes of comparison and information, here is an NGC AU58 of the same date:
I would go AU - it appears to have very slight wear on Liberty's breasts and some of the stars. I think the lack of some details is due to a weak strike and ever so slight wear. As for the luster - that is about as much luster as you will find in a 150+ year old coin.
It wouldn't surprise one bit for the TPG's to grade that coin as AU. Myself, I'd say XF45. But then I use ANA standards, the TPG's don't. If graded by the reverse only, yes I would call it AU as well. But coins aren't graded by the better side, they are graded by the worst side. And I don't buy a weak stike being the reason for what looks like wear on the obverse. The reverse shows no signs of a weak strike IMO, therefore the obverse should not either.
Hardly, there are a great many coins that old and more that have excellent luster. I will grant you that the majority of them do not, but that is often because the vast majority of them have been dipped, or over-dipped in years past. Still some others have the luster reduced by heavy, dark toning. And still some others have reduced luster due to a weak strike. All in all there are many reasons for a coin to have reduced luster - but age is not one of them.
Obverse Guys - I am enjoying this debate because it is educational to me. Thank you and keep it up if you want to scrutinize further. (p.s. God forbid if Liberty has weak breasts! How dare she show herself thusly! - where's my smiley icon?)
Much nicer pics! :thumb: And btw, I just call them as I see them, I am no way an expert on this series or denomination. Thanks though! There are many many many many many many (well, you get the point ) others that are more knowledgable than me, but I do appreciate the recognition. My opinion on the coin: Very nice coin, shows great eye-appeal in your pics. I do believe that is was dipped or cleaned at one time in it's "life" (for lack of a better word ) but I wouldn't be too upset about that. It is a great looking coin, and I don't think it would have trouble making it's way into an NGC or PCGS slab if you decide to go that way. But I could be wrong. Anyways, I'll stop rambling now, and just say this. You got one heck of a nice coin, that I'm sure you will enjoy all the while it is in your collection. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: Phoenix
