| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 3,033 |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
Neither.
If you really want an example, just pick the cheapest, because you may have to wait a long time for an upgrade.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8517 Posts |
Love the look of number 1
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Germany
1849 Posts |
The purpose of this thread was to determine which of the two alternatives you would be more inclined/willing to accept when it comes to choosing early copper with "Problems" for your collections:
1. Coins with uniform, though still moderate porosity/roughness,
or,
2. Coins with severe but localised pitting on otherwise nice and smooth surfaces.
It is obvious we all would rather have problem-free, attractive early coppers, but such coins are very (very) pricey.
For example, from what I could see in the HA archives, a problem-free S-9 in VF30 - EF40 is currently valued at $10K (more like 12K-13K....)
Thanks to all who gave their input and preferences in this respect.
My personal choice in this case is coin #2. I was willing to overlook the pitting because the coin has otherwise really nice and smooth surfaces.
Edited by GERMANICVS
10/16/2022 07:58 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
To be honest, If I had to make the decision. it would have been the second example.
I have bought problem coins in the past, and with a small number of them, I was never completely happy.
However, if you are limited in your top price, it is better to go to that top price in this case, whatever that case may be.
Especially if you know that you not be able or unwilling to afford anything better.
In this sort of situation, waiting for something better becomes irrelevant.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5174 Posts |
Quote:
Despite the unattractive pockmarks I guess I would pick the second one for the clear date and legends, etc. But I don't collect these.  In practice I'd look for one that's a lot more worn than the first, and a little more damaged than the second, because it would be the only way to get a Wreath cent within anything remotely close to my budget. (Maybe something like this except dated 1793.) |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2362 Posts |
I prefer #1 despite the clarity of #2. I don't have a 1793 but have made the same kind of choice with other pricey 179x cents. #1 gives me a good feeling because it's a more natural looking coin with wear and somewhat smooth porosity. With #2 the damage jumps out at me and overtakes the clarity of the details.
Member ANA and EAC "You got to lose to know how to win". Dream On by Aerosmith |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
756 Posts |
i like the first coin better. I see the appeal of the second coin, but I would be unhappy about the pits.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
164 Posts |
I'd choose the first one. The wear and condition are to be expected for a coin of that period, whereas the second is just too distracting. I didn't see if you stated that they are roughly the same price or even that you are trying to decide to buy one or the other, is that the case? That would make a huge difference in the decision. Do you already own both and are trying to decide which to put in a type set?
I'd certainly try to have the second one restored to remove the green from the pits and completely neutralize any corrosion.
Edited by chirrrs
10/27/2022 12:31 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Germany
1849 Posts |
Quote:
. I didn't see if you stated that they are roughly the same price or even that you are trying to decide to buy one or the other, is that the case? That would make a huge difference in the decision. Do you already own both and are trying to decide which to put in a type set? Thank you for your input  It seems that most members prefer coin #1, whereas I personally prefer #2. I guess you have to see it in-hand to appreciate it well; or, maybe I am just biased toward it. To answer your question, both of these 1793 S-9's are still part of my collection, both bought in 1986. The prices I paid were moderate, and similar (LS 400 pound sterling for #2 at an auction in the UK, and $700 for number 1 at a Bowers&Merena auction). |
|
Valued Member
China
141 Posts |
If they are at the same price. I'd choose the second one.
|
| |
Replies: 25 / Views: 3,033 |
First Page
Posted 10/15/2022 11:16 am
