Trivia Question (Seated Dollars)

[EVillageProwler]

In the *true* UNC grade range, name the underrated dates. Explain why you think they are underrated.

 

(Please note that I am NOT talking about those slider specimens that have been re-toned and have ended up in UNC holders.)

 

EVP

 

[keithdagen]

All Seated Dollars are underrated. Buy them now while you still have time.

[EVillageProwler]

Doesn't anyone care about Seated Dollars? (Besides me, that is!)

 

sniff, sniff...

 

 

EVP

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Once you got the 70-S, all the rest are overrated!

[shirohniichan]

Pretty much.

 

Wouldn't it be nice to have a ENTIRE set of 3 San Francisco seated dollars? Don't go correcting me by saying I skipped the 1873-S-- there's no proof one was ever struck (mint records can be wrong, you know).

[EVillageProwler]

That's almost as many different PF 20c pieces... Or, almost as many different MS 20c pieces. Total number of branch mint Seated Dollars is about as many as the total number of different MS and PF 20c pieces combined.

 

So what? Does that mean that we shouldn't know what's undervalued?

 

Ya know, many people consider Trade Dollars even more boring to collect than Seated Dollars. I obviously do not consider either series boring, but that's just me...

 

EVP

 

[shirohniichan]

Um... ALL of them are undervalued. How about that? What do I win?

[keithdagen]

Um... ALL of them are undervalued. How about that? What do I win?

 

Already tried that tactic.

[Guest]

EVP, I ignored the forum all day today until 11:50 pm. Even though your question is being panned I'd be happy to toss in my 2 cents. I did not consult the pops. But in looking at a greysheet in MS63 these would be my choices for good value:

 

1867, 1857, 1866, 1869, 1870, 1841, 1842, 1847, 1849, 1846. These were pretty much all the dates with values less than $5000 in MS63. I figure to ge to a real UNC coin it's probably gotta be MS63. Forget all those MS61-62 pieces. They aren't UNC except for the treasury hoard pieces that do have full luster. The above dates in MS64 are ok too I think. Grey sheet prices the 1866, 67, 69 as type coins in MS65. What . I've admired the 1867 since the late 1970's when I was lucky to be a beautiful XF for $175 or so (as I recall) through Coin World. At the time I felt it was one of the most underrated dates in the series. Probably still is. I also liked the 1857 back then and still do today.

 

Any non-treasury hoard seated dollar date in 63 or better within 30% of type price is probably a good buy. Saying they're all underrated is probably true. Compared to bust dollars, which have escalated the last few years, they represent a much better value right now. So did I get any right?

 

roadrunner

[EVillageProwler]

So did I get any right?

 

This is really a discussion question, with no absolute rights and wrongs...

 

1867, 1857, 1866, 1869, 1870, 1841, 1842, 1847, 1849, 1846. These were pretty much all the dates with values less than $5000 in MS63. I figure to ge to a real UNC coin it's probably gotta be MS63.

 

Your pricing structure is interesting... You go by Greysheet for pricing, but you ignore the 1851 and 1852. They are grossly underpriced in the CDN.

 

In the real world, Seated Dollars do not get priced by the CDN.

 

Let me offer my opinion on your choices...

 

1841: I dislike that date because it is fully priced relative to most of the other dates in the '40's, but isn't really rare. (It's not really overrated either!)

1842: I really like your selection here. It's fairly common in 63, but this date usually comes really nice and is so much more expensive in 64. People think this is a type coin in 63, and is priced accordingly.

1846: I just got one. In 63, it's a $4K coin. That's almost type money for the '40's, but is hardly a type coin. Nice choice.

1847: This is a type coin; unfortunately, type Seated Dollars don't go for cheap. I find this to be, at best, fully priced for the series.

1849: Same as for the '46. Good choice.

1857: Surprisingly, this coin is common as heck in UNC relative to its neighbors. It gives the '53 a good fight for most common of the '50's (minus the '59-O). It is priced fully due to its scarcity in the circ grades. This usually comes PL and weakly struck. A frosty specimen or a well-struck PL coin is a great buy.

1866: I like this date VERY much. But, I doubt that you can get this at CDN. In the real world, this date is probably close to being fully priced. Be ware of poorly struck specimens; they abound.

1867: I also like this date VERY much, but I feel this is the least rare of the 66-69 dates. It almost always comes looking very nice -- satiny and well-struck. I find this date to be slightly underrated.

1869: same as the '67.

1870: Excellent choice!!! This coin is priced as a type coin, and commensurate in pricing with the 71-73 P-mints. Yet, this coin is rarer than them, and generally comes with nicer luster and strike. In the real world, this date is so underpriced when compared to the common as 1873.

 

I have my favorites are others, which I will divulge slowly so as to milk this thread... (Look at the 1843!)

 

EVP

 

[Guest]

EVP, my own experience with UNC seated dollars is that most given that label just plain stink. Grading is very liberal on these IMO. I have seen very few of any date that I thought were actually decent in grades of 63 and up. Many are cleaned, recolord, beat up, or rubbed to death. Most have weak or dull luster. Deficient luster is my #1 complaint. It seems to be a chore just to find a nice original 64 of any date! I haven't seen one in a long time and I've checked many web sites this past year. So stating that this date or that date is better is almost pointless to me. I'll buy any nice one.

 

I like any date in the 40's, even the 1847. They all tend to end up dull. I'd be happy with a blazing lustrous 1847 too. I know I can't be so fussy as to pick the date or I'll never buy another one. I think I've owned 4 or 5 UNCs of any dates in the past 15 years, and liked only two of them. I remember one of these was an 1871 or 72 with nice color that I cherrypicked out of Stack's cases during auction viewing. I got it as a 63 and it slabbed out a 64 back in 1988. I saw an MS65 1867 dollar in the ANA sale this year. It was not a great coin. Luster was very dull. But it's on the census as a 65 nontheless. The doggy dollars in the pops overshadow the nice looking ones. If one can luck into a better date - lower pop piece, all the better. If it's a nice 60-0, it's still worth buying.

 

I didn't consider the 1851 or 1852 as they are specialist coins with major price tags. 99.99% of collectors can't afford them or won't even consider them...underrated or not. But they will consider a $4000 coin in MS64. Hence my choices are lower priced. It's funny but probably 90% or more of the sellers price by CDN, even though it's not accurate. We therefore can buy some good dates cheap at times. I'd bet that only a small fraction of the slabbed MS63-65 seated dollars really are decent. I guess that makes most indecent.

 

roadrunner

 

 

 

 

[shirohniichan]

I didn't realize the 1873 was so common. I looked for a nice AU coin for my collection and found lots of beat up ones. I came across a lot more 1871 and 1872 dollars than I did 1873's.

[EVillageProwler]

RR: if we hook up at White Plains, maybe I'll bring a couple of specimens to show you.

 

Shiroh: the 1871 and 1872 are common as heck (hoard coins), and overrated relative to the 1873. Still, the '73 is overrated relative to the '70.

 

EVP

 

[EVillageProwler]

I saw an MS65 1867 dollar in the ANA sale this year. It was not a great coin. Luster was very dull.

 

I think you're talking about an MS64 (NGC) specimen in the Heritage pre-ANA Signature Sale. (That's the only high-grade 1867 MS specimen available via auction this summer.) If so, it was a pukey coin. It hammered at $5750 (64PQ money!), I think, but I think it's really worth about 62 money.

 

There is an MS65 (NGC) specimen floating around that is probably better off in a 64 holder, but is so pretty that it's worth 65 money. The toning is spectacular -- vibrant, colorful, MONSTER target-toning. Unfortunately, the dealer who has it now is asking FULL RETAIL for this coin.

 

This coin has a companion that is unmistakeable. It's an 1864 in MS64 (NGC) that is just about identical in appearance to the 1867. I have no idea where that coin went... I am comfortable with that coin being in a 64 holder.

 

EVP

 

[Guest]

EVP, I checked back and that NGC MS 65 1867 dollar was in Superior's ANA sale. It brought mid $17K. While I didn't remember it being very pretty the photo did show rigns of rainbow coloring. All I recall is that the luster was not there for a 65 piece. I'd have been interested in bidding on it otherwise.

 

roadrunner

[EVillageProwler]

RR,

 

Pretty is in the eye of the beholder. And, even though we're in agreement that the coin is better off in a 64 holder, let's be clear that that date does NOT ever come fully frosted. Every specimen is either satiny or PL.

 

EVP