| Author |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,062 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
362 Posts |
What would you grade this coin, and the price you'd pay for it? Without looking at PCGS price range, what would you off hand pay for it?  
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3468 Posts |
My guess at grade would be PR65/66.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3622 Posts |
Yowza! That is a stunner! I can't see anything that would hold it to PR-65. The only 1870 proof that I handled was a PR-65, and it was a blotchy negative eye appeal mess. I think the coin you posted is PR-66, all day. The question is whether is would make CAM. That's tough to judge from the pics, but the reverse at UNITED seems to come up just short of CAM. There isn't exactly a large pool of proofs for price comparison. IMHO, it's somewhere in the $15,000-$17,500 range, on the high end depending on if it makes CAM. Absolutely beautiful coin. EDIT: My wife reminded me that the one I handled was so bad that I called it a "dog" and she one-upped me and called it a Dalmation. 
Edited by fortcollins 12/26/2021 3:23 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Why not PR-67? I really can't see any problems to speak of.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
362 Posts |
Pictures show a beautiful coin for sure. Came with 4 photos. Those two then the two in the holder. All guesses are correct, even CF at 67, however with 4 photos the holder photos look only similar to the ones in the first post. The manipulation of ebay sellers, the first two holders had no clips on the sides of the photos. When I scrolled through I noticed that, then the faded difference in coins. However, most of that could be the holder fading it out. I just couldn't help but realize the difference in color as well.  
|
|
Valued Member
United States
82 Posts |
To my relatively inexperienced eye, I would never guess those 4 photos are showing the same coin.
But comparing the reverse photos, I see a mark at about 7:00 from O in OF in both photos. What I don't see in both is something in the field below the NI in UNITED, in the holder photo, but it's clean in the top photo.
In the first set of photos I'm also seeing a lot of rose toning in the fields compared the the other set.
Beautiful coin!!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
There's no "manipulation" - the first two photos are TrueView, taken outside the slab. You can see those exact images on PCGS. It is also the auction record coin, having sold for $44k in 2014 on Heritage, which you can also link to from PCGS.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
362 Posts |
Doesn't seem like the same coin to me. Probably wrong. The first photos show the color lighter around the edges, giving it a gleam. The second pictures makes it look dark and gloomy. I don't hold any grading company on high profile. I trust people here to be honest and bust my rear when I ask stupid questions, long before I'll ever pay a lot more for a coin just because it's PCGS. Doesn't matter to me that PCGS had it on their auction show before, that shows they're no better than great southern coins for showing boating a coin that doesn't look like it's reality. Why post a bright and colorful picture when the price is 13k less than it was auctioned for? So yes to me, that's all about manipulation. Anyhoo, that's how I see it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4680 Posts |
Definitely the same coin.
PCGS trueview pics typically show over saturated colors. They aren't showing anything that's not there, just exaggerated even in ideal lighting. That said, the sellers other pics may not be accurate. No way of knowing unless you see it in hand. I never buy based on Trueview pics alone. If someone chooses to do so, be prepared to be disappointed, depending on expectations.
As for realized auction prices, this has nothing to do with the grading company, just potential buyers. This was sold by Heritage, not PCGS. The toned market is hot, and toned collectors pay some, IMO, ridiculous prices (I'm not a toned collector).
One more factor to ALWAYS keep in mind, toning can change. If this was slabbed 7+ years ago, it could have looked less dark (like the TV pics) and darkened over time depending on how it was stored, looking closer to what it does now in the sellers pics. (Not saying this is the case with this one, just using it as an example of what can happen).
Bottom line, I would never buy something like this without seeing it in hand.
Edited by Ty2020b 12/26/2021 9:51 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
PCGS doesn't have an "auction show." They're just reporting the auction record price paid for that coin type and date, which in this case happens to be the one you posted. The cert lookup takes you right to those photos. https://www.PCGS.com/cert/41929235The Heritage auction is here https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-seat...ot=1&x=0&y=0. Their "money" photos are very similar to TrueView and at first glance you might think they're the same images, but if you look closely at specific toning spots they're clearly Heritage's images and not PCGS. You'll also note that at that time it was in an older holder (also with CAC), so it was probably resubmitted hoping for a higher grade. It's not that unusual to see somebody lose 25% or more on subsequent sales of coins like this, and it probably looks like both "views" depending on angle of the lighting. I don't see anything nefarious going on here.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3622 Posts |
Yikes. I absolutely cannot see that price. I agree with @Ty2020b, bidder frenzy over toning.  I'll also never understand the toning frenzy, because toning is an ongoing process. What exists today won't exist in the same way 20-30 years down the road.
Edited by fortcollins 12/27/2021 8:41 pm
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,062 |
|