3 cent silver ... a little help?

[bochiman]

First off, I apologize for "cross-posting". I don't like it and I apologize for doing it (posting same info here and at pcgs board) but I don't think there are a ton of 3c silver folks so I am trying to get thoughts on this....

 

Bought the following from very bad pics, as a gamble, so I am ok if I didn't do well and I am even better if I did

 

Anyone care to try to "grade from a photo"? I have NO idea on grading these things (this is only our 3rd one). Doesn't look cleaned to me, but I could be wrong.

 

Here is my quick pic of the coin tonight (got it in the mail tonight):

 

 

Here is seller's 2 pics (I was hoping it was toned like the pic makes it look but went by the description....and it was in an auction that sounded like a scam but I did due diligence and figured it had a good shot at being on the up and up):

 

 

[PCcoins]

Thats a horrible seller pic. :o

 

But from the photo I would say at least AU-55. But I don't grade this series, so I'm just putting in my

[MikeInFL]

I'm no 3CS expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the fields on that coin are very odd to my eye.

[prudden]

That's really taking a chance!! I'm going to say AU 55. Cleaned? Maybe dipped.Don't take my word for that.I'm terrible at dipped coins. But those are some interesting flow lines in the obverse fields(if that's what they are). Very sharp coin.

[James_OldeTowne]

I will guess: AU-50 with delightful orange-peel effect.

[MarkFeld]

Hi Ron,

 

I sent an email to you before I saw that you had posted it here too. By the way, I see nothing wrong with cross-posting - it can be a good way to get more feedback.

 

And for those of you who did not receive the email

 

"Hi Ron,

 

To me, it looks AU and not worth submitting, though you apparently got a good deal on it. The most obvious wear looks to be on the C and the roman numerals on the reverse. My best guess grade-wise, would be AU55.

 

Best,

Mark"

[BillJones]

Sorry, but I don't care for this piece. I don't care for the fields, especially on the obverse. It might be die fatigue, but it could also be from getting dipped in the solution for too long. At any rate one adage of collecting is, if you can find something without a feature you don’t like try to avoid the problem. In this case the vast majority of Type I (1851-3) trimes do no not have this type of surface.

[RI AL]

Bochiman,

 

Your coin intrigued me, especially the odd looking surfaces. I don't have too many places to look, but I pulled out any reference book I had that might have decent pictures of the 3 cent "fish scale", type 1.

 

In the book, "United States Coinage, A Study by Type" by Guth and Garrett, (beautiful color pictures in this book...I recommend it highly) the example shown displays similar characteristics in spots to the surfaces of your coin. That leads me to believe that the surfaces of your trime are as minted and not the result of post mint mishandling...or worse.

 

I also picked up an interesting bit of trivia. The silver 3 centers were the first circulating coin without a depiction of Miss Liberty. I never really gave it any thought...but if you're on Jeopardy someday...you'll know the answer...or rather...the question.

 

Now as far as grade, I read in the ANA grading book that the type 1 coins are 75% silver composition as opposed to the type 2 and 3 which are 90% silver composition (which has nothing to do at all with your question...it's the retired school teacher in me showing it's ugly head again). . Also, the obverse shield is typically weakly struck in the type 1 coins. I'm going to go with AU 55. By the way, take a close look at the last 1 in the roman numeral. Is that recutting showing to the left?

 

RI AL

 

 

[Oldtrader3]

Acid surface damage, common date, not worth melt to me.

[MarkFeld]

Acid surface damage, common date, not worth melt to me.

I believe that look to be as struck, not damage, and have seen many T-1 Three Cent Silver pieces (including "gems") with that appearance.

[RI AL]

They probably can't be seen, but I put my 1852 under the microscope just now and it has similar, though not as pronounced, surface irregularities. I am still inclined to believe that the uneven surfaces are as minted and not the result of being messed with...I HOPE! (As usual...I see my photo S---S!) Sorry...

 

 

 

 

[RI AL]

...and if it is of any interest, my type 2 and type 3 trimes do NOT show the surface irregularities. I wonder if this may be because of the different silver composition from the type 1's?

 

 

[bochiman]

RI AL, Mark, and others,

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I've learned a lot about 3c silvers just in this short thread.

 

I think the coin is most likely to go into my son's 7070 to replace the toned, but slightly dinged, one that is in there. If I need a filler for a submission, it may get chosen. I don't know.

 

From the seller's description, certainly not the picture, I was thinking it was XF. When I got it, I was guessing maybe high-XF or AU.

 

Overall, I think I am happy with it and I don't mind the surfaces as long as they are "as minted". I also like die cracks and things that give "character" to coins.

[James_OldeTowne]

I am not seeing the nice images now, but the surfaces as previously imaged were as-struck. That orange-peel effect is not at all uncommon for these trimes, as the dies were beat to death in striking them. I had the opportunity to catalog a stunning, complete collection of certified trimes for the recent Scotsman sale, all PCGS, and the opportunity to study surface characteristics was priceless.

 

Incidental to this conversation, PCGS had certified one late-date coin as a proof which I felt certain was in fact a much rarer business strike, so be judicious with your purchases.

 

Edited to add: Oops! I see the images now.

[RGT]

The surfaces look "as struck" to me. Attached are pictures of one on my type 1 trimes. It's a different date but still a type 1. This one is in a PCGS MS64 holder.

 

As far as the grade, I don't see the wear that Mark was talking about but that doesn't mean it isn't there. I also don't see any luster in your pictures. It's a very sharp strike and has at least choice AU detail. I'm not so sure about any cleaning from the pictures.

 

By the way, I was watching that auction myself since it was sitting at just a few dollars when I spotted it. I didn't need the coin and didn't want to take the chance on those pictures after the price started rising. It looks like you did well for that price.