| Author |
 Replies: 46 / Views: 5,852 |
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
quote:
I am looking at a 2006 RedBook which is a bit outdated, but it shows a value of about $750.00.
The 2009 RedBook has a value in EF40 at $850.00 and AU-50 at $1,500.00 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1267 Posts |
Tenashere, if you are thinking of selling it, you need to have it graded and authenticated by ngc or pcgs in order to realize it's value.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
527 Posts |
Bryan1315, I said it was a bit out of date.  Looks like I need to upgrade. My book shows EF 40 @ $475 and AU 50 @ $750. I guess a lot can happen in a couple of years.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
764 Posts |
the diagnostics are correct so its either a genuine coin or from dies or molds created from one. its not a highly desired date so there is not much of a chance its counterfeit. most of the fakes would be crude contemporary counterfeits. its the better of two die varieties for the year, the block 8; theres about 100 thousand minted and probably 10-20 thousand still exist today. the coin pictured, unfortunately, is damaged, probably from being part of a jewelry piece. this is rather common for the time period with small gold coins, so the value isn't affected as much as other denominations would be. if you tried to sell it, you would probably get offers from around $200-$400. a little funfact: the classic head series was the last regular issues to be composed of both gold and silver. if you compare it to a later us gold coin, you'll see the difference.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
If it's ex-jewelry, you might just get bullion for it.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Off-topic question. Why does a coin that is "ex-jewelry" affect the value so much? I could understand if it were polished or had solder residue; but often times they have rested inside of a bezel unsoldered without really altering the coin (other than maybe minor rim dings). Are those even considered "ex-jewlry"? What are the visuals distinctions on this coin that point to ex-jewelry?
John
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
Ex-jewelry basically indicates the coin has been damaged. If you could tell it was in jewelry due to polishing, crimp marks, solder, etc....it's damaged. Damaged numismatic material, unless very rare, almost always goes down to a basal value. In the case of gold or silver...look at its bullion value.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Ok. So if a (non dipped or cleaned)coin was housed in a bezel without contact marks or damage(no glue or solder to hold it in place or other metallurgy altercations), then set free by simply unmessing with the bezel; this coin would not be considered "ex-jewelry"? Just wanting to clarify.
thanks
Edited by johnny54321
04/25/2008 4:59 pm
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189320 Posts |
Good question, Johnny! Without any of those problems, how would one even know it was used at jewelry?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
764 Posts |
i think you would get a little more than melt for a classic head, even if its ex jewelry. too many of them were melted in the mid 1800s
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6394 Posts |
The usual marker for an ex-jewelry piece is that it is peppered with tiny contact marks. The purpose of jewelry is to be worn, and if worn it will inevitably bump in to all kinds of things: buttons, watches, edges of furniture, keys, etc., plus other pieces of jewelry kept in jewelry boxes. Even though coin gold is alloyed to improve strength, it's still a soft metal and is easily damaged. Of course, Johnny54321 is essentially correct: if an undamaged coin was carefully set in a bezel and the bezel was not tightened enough to cause any visible damage to the rim, AND the mounted piece was placed in a velvet bag and never moved, the coin would be undamaged. I'll be happy to acquire a piece like that for my collection, if I can find one!  |
|
New Member
 United States
11 Posts |
So I have been catching up on the conversation about my coin. Very interesting, I did not see any marks on the coin that would indicate it was used for jewelry. Just for sake of conversation I can tell you that I took that picture myself and it was not easy (not a pro). I do not feel as though it shows how nice the coin actually is. I realize that it is not a super rare or even very valuable, but I wish you could see it for real. Anyway your opinions are very interesting. Thank you
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
It is a very nice coin tenashere, and I'm sure it is much more spectacular in real life. The classic head gold series is one of my favorites. I have an 1834 and an 1839-O in similar condition(vf-au). :-)
|
|
New Member
United States
11 Posts |
Thank you very much Johnny54321, I am pretty new at the coin thing, the passion of those who collect is pretty amazing.
|
|
New Member
United States
7 Posts |
Have an 1826 2.50 gold on hand and can assure you it is not of same type as your pictured coin. Can supply good quality digital pix if you would like.
|
|
|
Replies: 46 / Views: 5,852 |
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 04/24/2008 11:09 pm
