| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 2,584 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
New Member
 United States
12 Posts |
Thanks for the Welcome Dave,
The reverse certainly has more wear than the obverse. I suppose it could of been a jewelry piece. The pictures really don't capture just how reflective it is. It is without any doubt a mirror finish. I could shave with it were it large enough. Also, there is what is maybe? some lint marks in the last picture there. One below the F in OF and a small curly one by the M in aMerica. I really don't know though. But, yes I suppose it could have been heavily polished to look that way. Thanks for the input. Regardless, the gold dollar is a fun coin!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1081 Posts |
The obverse looks polished and damaged to me.I agree that it may very well have been a jewelry piece. I think it is safe to say that this is not a proof.
|
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
There is no damage on the obverse. That is an extreme close up of a very,very tiny coin. You would be able to see nothing that looks like damage with the naked eye. Thanks anyway....
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Actually, "damaged" is a pretty accurate term. The coin has been polished so heavily that the surface is abraded. You can see this most clearly around the T in UNITED. The shadows around the lettering - most noticeable in the last letters of AMERICA - and behind the head show where the tool used to destroy this coin couldn't reach.
|
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
Never mind You guys aren't even remotely serious or your reading a lot of things into the picture that aren't there. It took me a long time to DELIBERATELY get a picture that would reveal that much surface detail at extreme magnification. However, It is absurd to jump to 'destroyed'. The coin is in no way destroy. It is actually a very fine example on the obverse. The only obvious real damage is a large scratch and some nicks on the reverse. Regardless of what was only speculation as to a possible proof. This coin is a very nice example of the regular issue if anything even with polishing.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
The fact that you're willing to say that is proof that you need to listen to us. Believe what you wish; it won't change reality. You asked our opinion, and we're giving it. This is what an 1856 Proof Dollar looks like. It's a $50,000 coin:   |
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
I never said it WAS. I said possibly there is a difference. Unfortunately, I cannot get a clear enough picture such as the one's that you just posted. That was why I was wondering about it. In person, The obverse looks very much like the first photo of the 2 you just posted, while the back does not. It looks so much like the first photo that it had me curious. I looked at numerous mint state business strikes online and none of them have a reflective mirrored background not even the finest examples. The reverse,however,looks exactly like the business strike. So, that is why I was asking. It was curious. I accept your notion that it is possibly highly polished on the front. I don't think 'destroyed' would be anywhere in the ballpark of how one would describe this coin though. Some scratches on the reverse and polishing certainly reduces the value some, but there is a high level of detail on the coin so it is still a fairly nice coin despite that. It wouldn't be very hard to find many far worse looking examples of this coin.
|
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
The first 2 photos of the four I posted are as best I could get of the general appearance of the mirror-like background. Those pictures,while not great, show what I am talking about. It is not an optical illusion either. That is how it generally looks. The last more matte looking picture is some what at an angle and zoomed in and that finish is an optical illusion. I could try forever and I would never get the back of the coin to look cameo. That is the way the coin is. It looks highly cameo on the obverse or maybe proof-like. Maybe, A heavy polish made it appear that way. I don't know. Anyway,I do appreciate the help.
|
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
I posted another photo. This one has a slightly different surface appearance than the other.
|
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
Ok, so the prevailing theory is that the coin was heavily polished and used in jewelry. So, what type of polish would change a business strike into a cameo proof? Wouldn't polishing the coin simply make the entire coin brighter and not change the background surface into a mirrored surface? So, that would rule out polishing just for jewelry and mean possibly that it was machined? or tooled? to changed the background surfaces? But then, if that is the case. That would take incredibly precision small tools on a 15 mm diameter coin that is very fragile and a lot of effort to then simply leave the reverse of the coin as a plain business strike. So, what I am trying to get at is. If it was being altered to fool a collector for example by making it appear to be a proof then why not do the back of the coin? That would likely give it away or raise suspicion. One other possibility: It was tooled into a cameo proof and polished to put in a piece of jewelry. Still, that seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through just to then put the altered coin into a piece of jewelry? Still curious to me. None of those scenarios seem very logical to me.
Well, once again. Thank you very much for taking your time to look at it.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
No, no, you are making way too much out of this. The act of polishing the coin is what produced the mirrored surface. Judging by the condition of the obverse, it was polished with an abrasive cleaner instead of just a polish cloth. The new photo, #5, shows a "halo" around all of the devices which is caused by a combination of unpolished surfaces and polishing compound residue.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
It does look like a heavily polished piece. These tiny gold pieces were often used in jewelry and polished. I don't see any proof cameo characteristics. Here's the obverse of an 1856 proof G$1 with light cameo. I think you have an ex-jewelry piece worth about $150 retail.  |
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
Ok, that sounds more realistic. I have to agree it probably was polished for jewelry which gave it that appearance. Thanks for the replies. The coin does look fairly cameo even more so than photos I can show. That led me down a path of speculation. Don't get too bent out of shape tho. Gotta have some imagination for the possibilities,otherwise what is the point of coin collecting. I had 50,000 worth of fun looking into the possibility and learning more about these coins.
|
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
I was thrown off a bit by the whole description as 'destroyed'. The coin is not anywhere near that bad. While ANA grading standards say it isn't good that a coin has been polished or otherwise altered. If the coin still has nice detail, you simply add in the description those things done to the coin. So, A coin that was EF, for example, would say EF polished or something of that nature. Considering the low survival rate of these coins. It is not beyond grading or collectability. Edited by Coinquest2013
03/07/2013 08:48 am
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
Considering the low survival rate of these coins. It is not beyond grading or collectability. Absolute truth. My usage of the term "destroyed" is in the context of numismatic value; few collectors would pay more than the melt value of the gold plus maybe the smallest of premiums in consideration of its' age. This is the single-highest mintage of the entire series, and easy to find in well-preserved condition. But these coins are our history. They're our heritage, and it is the sacred trust of any committed numismatist to do their level best to preserve this history in unaltered condition for those who will follow in our footsteps. Ownership of a coin is never permanent, and a true collector understands that bigger picture. Seeing a valuable coin mistreated in this fashion invokes something similar to moral outrage, even though it was originally done with innocent intent. That's the context in which I use the term "destroyed." But if this is how you've found the coin, then all you can do is preserve it as it is. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 18 / Views: 2,584 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 03/06/2013 4:52 pm
