Is This Ebay Gold Dollar Legit?

Genuine but has a lot of problems. Better to wait and get a problem free one.

It appears genuine because of its overall appearance. The areas on the reverse do look similar to what could be noted on a cast counterfeit but the rest of the coin looks like a cleaned/polished/ex-jewelry piece with the correct color and patina (or lack thereof) that one would expect to find on a gold dollar.

It is good that you're looking for problems and possible fakes but I'm 99% sure this is a genuine gold dollar.

Well the coin is genuine but has multiple problems plus no doubt is bent in some way. I know you want nice gold dollars at bargain prices but this series cannot be worked in that manner. In the end, buying at this level....you end up with damaged goods. Put a "few" would be buys together and buy problem free AU pieces in TPG holders. Gold Dollars ARE too small. Slabs even the field. BTW your very first gold dollar related buy should be Dave Bowers Gold Dollar book.

ambro --

I am looking at slabbed pieces now, for the most part, per the advice here. I simply can't find anything slabbed on ebay at a price I am hoping to pay. I'm also going to try Heritage.

Thanks!

Steve

All coins are this way, but gold is especially susceptible to it:

Symptoms need to be studied as a group, not as individual features. Some things about a coin need to be taken in the context of other things. New Orleans Morgans are a perfect example - they're known for weak strikes, so what looks like wear on a New Orleans Morgan might - in context - just be strike. A San Francisco coin of similar look might be actually worn.

That's just an egregious example, but the practice applies to all of numismatics.

atchisonbj -- understood, about the tool marks, but not familiar with "bubbling." Do you have a photographic example of that?

Dave -- I fully understand the point you are making. I've been reading that book I got -- Bowers' "United States Gold Coins -- an Illustrated History," and in it, he talks about how the Philadelphia mint had switched to "steam pressing" of the dies, and this was a better method for minting; meanwhile, the newly opened Charlotte and Dahlonega mints were using the older "crank pressing" method (I think that's the method that he said was used) -- anyway, the point is that it was a different, older, inferior way of pressing the dies together in the minting process, as compared to the newer, improved method that was begun in Philadelphia. And as a result of this being an inferior way of doing things, at these new minting offices, this resulted in less quality strikes on the coins produced at these mints, much of the time. SO -- I can see how knowing that info would allow a person to more accurately judge a Charlotte or Dahlonega coin (versus a Philadelphia-struck coin of the same time period).

Steve

ambro -- I appreciate greatly the advice on the gold -- and what to stay away from. Right now, I can't afford to take the approach you are advising, but someday, I will. For now, I really would like one or two "decent" examples -- a Type 1, and a II or III...

As for Bowers, I'm surprised he got this wrong, as he has referred to it in a couple of different spots. While speaking of the Charlotte mint, he said:

"Unlike Philadelphia, which was outfitted with steam-powered presses (an innovation introduced in 1836), the Charlotte Mint utilized old-style screw presses (as did the Dahlonega Mint). Planchet preparation was not as sophisticated, and striking was often irregular, with the result that Charlotte (and Dahlonega) gold coins sent today often exhibit areas of weakness."

He went on to say this, about the New Orleans Mint, a few pages later --

"While issues produced during the first years of the New Orleans Mint's operation were struck using old screw-type presses, the evidences of weak and irregular striking so often seen on surviving examples of the Charlotte and Dahlonega coinage do not have a counterpart among New Orleans pieces. The New Orleans facility seems to have been operated with greater care and technical skill."

He seems pretty sure of his information; where have you learned of him being mistaken on this?

Steve

Wow, thanks for that, ambro. Direct contradiction of what Bowers said...wonder what's up with that? Both of them referred to 1836 as being the year for the introduction of the steam press at the Philadelphia Mint. Both agree that the presses used in Dahlonega were not the SAME as the ones used in Philadelphia. BUT -- your source definitely says "state-of-the-art" minting equipment, "steam presses," were used at Dahlonega.

I apologize if I shared false information...

Thanks, ambro!

Steve