What will PCGS say? Coin 1 of 10 - 1818 large cent

I'm going with 55. That is a nice large cent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Duke - yes I know EAC and I know they are tougher than today's standard. I just have never heard "if you see any wear, then it can't be AU.". That statement I have never heard in regards to EAC grading.

 

I'll guess AU-53. Nice coin.

 

I've fallen down on the job. I'd say it was an N-7.

 

okaaaaaaay.... must be a tropical delusion cause the ear looks like the high point. Like I was saying I know nothing about this coin.

 

I don't believe so .

 

One the date...

There are 10 varieties of 1818 large cents. What's different about the numbering of the middle dates (1816-1839) is that Newcomb starts at N-1 for every date, whereas Sheldon who preceeded him started at 1 and went sequentially regardless of year. This is where I think GDJMSP might have become confused.

On the variety...

The most common is N-10, the Randall Hoard coin, with the telltale circular die crack. The coin pictured in this thread is an N-7 (the placement of the 6th star against the tip of the coronet, and double dentil just left of date are the giveaways). While some believe there were a number of representatives of this variety in the Hoard, there is little doubt given the condition of the large cent in this thread that it was not part of that hoard (of primarily mint state coins, virtually all having some spotting and/or environmental damage).

On the grading...

PCGS graded the coin AU 55.

I had no doubt whatsoever it would slab, but I had the coin at 54, as I was unsure if PCGS was going to go 53 or 55. Luster-wise it's more of a 50 or 53. However, the coin's eye appeal (color and strike and surfaces) more than make up for the bit of wear and luster imparement, or at least that's what made me buy the coin when it was presented, and I suspect PCGS would agree. If you don't, that's cool, but do me a favor and search eBay, TT, or Heritage for 1818 large cents in AU (or EAC dealer's tables in XF) and let me know if you find a more appealing one!

On the price...

PCGS price guide on this coin is $300, and I paid $400 for the coin from Tom Reynolds, a well-known EAC dealer. I thought, at the time, the price was a bit strong. However, I'm not afraid to overpay a bit for coins that look like this one -- what I consider the perfect look for an EAC 45 coin with the tan color I really like too. If it were offered to me tomorrow at $400, I would buy it again -- and I think that's the truest test of a coin.

Thanks to all that posted on the thread -- I hope you all enjoyed it.

On to coin #2....

 

Nice coin Mike. I have one of those elusive N-10's, but not struck nearly as nice as yours.

 

Thanks Bob. The N-10s are never well struck, and I'll bet your N-10 is in a much higher state of preservation too.

 

Leadfoot, I don't think you should be embarrassed in the least for paying what you had. It's a terrific looking specimen , and IMHO worth the premium paid . While it won't win you any awards , I would gladly offer you $425 .oo with no regrets.

 

Not much, MS62, but I've always liked that darn die crack.

 

Looking at past auctions, $400 is not a bad price.

 

Well I'm still high bidder at $500. I truly believe there should be upward net grading for coins like this. AU55/net MS63 doesn't bother me a bit.

 

The reason I said comparison coin is because IMHO the slabbed one shows what an AU coin should look like and illustrates why the OPs coin is NOT AU. I don't know if I see something that some are not or if I'm just off my nut (not out of the question either) but I can clearly see wear on this coin.

That make more sense, Mike?

 

ok, I posted that before I saw the grade. I don't argue with it, but I also wouldn't have graded it such from those pics.

Whoever pointed out that the ear is the high point is right. I goofed when I graded it, because the ear doesn't show any wear. I need to brush up on my early coppers, I guess.

 

It does indeed.

In fairness, I 100% set you up with that one, as I knew the coin was exactly the same AU 55 grade. Sorry about that.

That said, the other reason I reacted the way I did in that response was because I frankly don't like that NGC coin even half as much as the coin I posted. While it might have a bit less wear, it has an even dark coloration which doesn't appeal to me, and frankly looks quite dull in the photo. Of course that could change with better photos or an in-hand assessment, but I was rather surprised when you agreed that coin was a good AU example.

Then again, I suspect you prefer that coin over my coin (at least grade wise), and it only goes to show just how subjective each of our likes and dislikes are when it comes to coins, and how those preferences affect how each of us (and the TPGs!) actually grade/value coins.

We all grade through our own tinted lenses.

Take care...Mike

 

I would agree with Tom Reynold's grading myself. I am not denigrating the coin at all, I truly believe that it is very attractive and do not believe you overpaid. This is a point I know you know, and most other posters here, but I will say it for others. Grade is not a final determinant of price by any means. I have paid much more for a VF coin than what an XF is worth. Grade is an indicator, but it by no means a limiting factor ESPECIALLY for earlier coins where visual appeal and good clean fields can be hard to find. I am not saying go out and pay AU money for a VF 1916d dime, but when you get to early US, colonial, middle ages, ancient coins, etc, grade become less and less important in the overall value of a coin. By the time you get to ancients, grade may be the third or fourth most important factor. I have hand selected VG coins and chose them over VF examples, paying the same price.

Again, very nice coin, and no offense meant by my 45 guess. I guess I am too old school grading, and maybe what I saw would be different in hand.

 

No worries. You can't insult me by guessing low. Everyone is entitled to their opinion!