| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 2,702 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
735 Posts |
Wow thats pretty neat
I've been collecting for a couple years... Favorite Coin's are Standing Liberty quarters, Working on my type set | Coffee, Corvettes, Coins & the CCF what could be better? |
|
Moderator
 United States
188560 Posts |
This one is smooth, that is for certain!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1316 Posts |
For us less familiar with the series, could you help us ID how they figured 1841?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5174 Posts |
Quote:
I've always thought that just as you can't go above 70, you shouldn't be able to go below 1, so yes the whole scale leaves too much room at the bottom. Indeed! Some types, especially single-year types*, can actually go far below the OP coin and still be identifiable, and sometimes even worth a nontrivial amount of money; in particular, there's a bunch of known 1793 chain cents worn so much that the chain is the only design element visible, and that barely. On the other side, for some other types it's extremely hard to get as far as standard Poor-1 and still have the date and/or mintmark visible. (And of course if it's a P mint in years that have others, even a Fair-2 is hard to confirm.) I recall seeing a thread a few years ago about a coin - I forgot what it was - that was claimed to be the first PO-1 coin known of its entire type; at the time there were none in the census reports and there was some dispute over whether it would actually be graded 1 when there's nothing to compare it with for that. EDIT: Quote:
For us less familiar with the series, could you help us ID how they figured 1841? As someone probably even less familiar with the series than you, 184x is clear enough and there's not a lot of plausible options for the last digit either. I'd read 1847 on the pic but I imagine it's clearer in hand, and/or with magnified contrast. Either way the date should be legible enough in hand. *) offhand I am not aware of any exceptions for US coins, not counting some single-year subtypes [such as the 1916 SLQ] where a date is uniquely determinable by non-date features, but there are some world coin examples; in particular, the recessed dates of 1860s British pennies, and the incuse dates of 1870s Russian 5 kopeks, combined with the high circulation of both, provide plentiful examples where almost nothing but the date is visible, though in those particular cases they're not worth anything unless it's a very rare date Edited by january1may
10/27/2022 12:15 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
I'm also curious how you get 1841. Perhaps it's more obvious in hand? I can see the 8, and enough of the third digit to decide that it can't be 5, 6 or 7, but the last digit? I can see it as 0 or 7 instead of 1.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
357 Posts |
Looks like the last digit is a "7" and not a "1."
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2205 Posts |
Back when silver dollars were real workhorses!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4680 Posts |
Wow, that is extreme! Slick is an understatement.
I can't make out a date, but I suppose if the date were without-a-doubt legible in hand it would be a shoo in for P-01. Now if it were a date that was struck at multiple mints, then no, as the potential MM wouldn't be discernible.
Very cool piece, nice pickup!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4416 Posts |
Thanks for all the astute replies! Quote:
For us less familiar with the series, could you help us ID how they figured 1841? It seems that many of the comments question the 1841 date. Let me be clear .... My dealer friend and I, examining the coin in-hand, THINK it's an 1841. We have over a hundred years of experience, studying coins, between us. That said, we may be wrong. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can't get some more telling camera angles. If I can, I'll post the close-up pics. The main reason for this post was to call attention to and hopefully discuss the grading of lowball coins. IMHO, PCGS undergraded the 1859-O $1. I view that coin as a Fair-2. Here's my rationale .... The purpose of the grading scale is an effort to quantify or rate the condition of any given coin. From my understanding, whether a coin is good or uncirculated, its basic design should be fully visible (excluding errors, damage and other anomolies, etc). With coins grading below GOOD, design elements are worn to the point of being obliterated. Personally, I've long graded coins below GOOD, based on the degree of design obliteration; this, which is quantifiable. Looking at the obverse and reverse surface area on my presumably "1841" dollar, approximately 35-40% is barely visible. Looking at the 1859-O $1, over 50% of the surface area is easily discernible. Whenever I see a coin that reveals between 50-80% of the design elements, I call it a FAIR coin. An AG coin would have up to say 20% of the design worn slick. All things considered, I think the grading companies would do well to uniformly grade POOR, FAIR and AG coins along this line, using agreed-upon, similar percentages. Then too, note that the visible design elements on the 1859-O are relatively strong, whereas the visible elements on the "1841" are mushy and week, So,I'd ultimately rate the 1859-O as a FAIR-2+ (the + indicating strength of remaining design). The "1841" is, IMHO, a true PO-1  . |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
https://www.PCGS.com/photograde#/SeatedDol/GradesIf you look at Photograde, there's a huge difference in remaining detail from P01 to AG3. Seems like there needs to be more numbers between 0 and 3. Their P01 I dare say is even "honkier" than yours. I have no idea how they got a date out of that one, given the images. I'm leery of the "race to the bottom" craze because it's too easy to make one yourself. The scratches on the PCGS example look suspiciously fresh to me. But that's a whole other discussion.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4416 Posts |
@kbbpll .... Thanks for the reference to Photograde. I've long been a fan. I could care less about the registry sets, but that approach surely is a marketing asset; admittedly, one that's rife for shenanigans though.
I really don't see a need for more numbers. I simply see that grades below good should be based on the percentage of design detail that remains on a well-worn coin; this, regardless of whether the wear was manufactured. If there are scratches or buffing evidence apparent, the coin would get a "details" designation. .
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
It depends then on where you delineate percentage of design detail and how you measure it. Essentially what grading is, I suppose. And that's sort of what CAC does, splitting a single grade into A, B and C, and then saying this one is A or B so give it a sticker. Which is why I said we need more numbers (grades) down there below G. Because it seems like there's way more spread in remaining detail from P01 through AG03 than there is between say VG8 and VG10. From that standpoint, it cracks me up when I see a P01 with a CAC sticker - why do they want one designated "better for the grade"? The PGCS FR02 example shows half the stars, a full date, and most/all of the denomination on the reverse, so your 1858-O example is arguably lower, so where between P01 and FR02 does it go?
|
|
Moderator
United States
15433 Posts |
That is indeed a true lowball and if the date could be firmly established as 1841 certainly fits the definition of PO01. I spent many years as a dedicated lowball collector and have quite a bit of experience in identifying raw coins the having them certified. I've moved beyond that phase and have sold all my sets (expect my beloved circulated classic silver commemorative) - so I understand the questions you are posing about lowball grading scales. I view the 1859-O you reference in a different way - to me it's simply an example of the TPG grading inconsistency on these type of coins. On any given day PCGS could judge the exact same coin as PO01, FR02 or even AG03. It's the reason I gave up the pursuit of lowballs - frustration and expense of the TPG inconstant standards. Quote:
I recall seeing a thread a few years ago about a coin - I forgot what it was - that was claimed to be the first PO-1 coin known of its entire type; at the time there were none in the census reports and there was some dispute over whether it would actually be graded 1 when there's nothing to compare it with for that. That would be my 1918-S PCGS PO01 Walking Liberty half which when I had it certified was Pop 1/0 across the entire series as a lowball. I could show a photo but do not wish to divert the OP thread. I eventually sold it for $1500 when I moved on from lowballs. There is indeed $$ to be made in this pursuit. |
|
Valued Member
United States
416 Posts |
To echo some of the above, yes those searching for coins down in the lowest grades have a tougher job because there is so much variation within a single number. Like look at this P01 Chain Cent, that's way better than many other "poor" cents with the same grade. I'd say there is more variation within P01 alone than between 60 and 70 at the upper end. That doesn't quite compute. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4416 Posts |
Quote:
.... those searching for coins down in the lowest grades have a tougher job because there is so much variation within a single number. @Tim .... I agree with your observation, in principle. In practice, I see a trend for TPG'ers to undergrade coins on the bottom end; this, just like the 1859-O $1 . Personally, I'd grade that Chain Cent you cited as a FR-02. It's got at least 50% of the detail, with a decent head and chain showing. This leads me to suspect that market prices on both ends of the grading scale may be "influencing" many assigned grades.  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 20 / Views: 2,702 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 10/27/2022 11:54 am
