New type set addition Gobrecht Dollar

[Tradedollarnut]

That's a looker - and I dare say that unless it's in a 63 holder which somehow I doubt that it's nicer than the Eliasberg coin.

[BillJones]

Your difficulties in finding a really nice J-60 confirm what I have noticed as well. With all of the restrikes that were issued of the 1836 signature on base Gobrecht dollar, it makes one wonder why collectors did not preserve them better. I know that the original coins with the eagle flying onward and upward were handled like regular issue, but why didn’t collectors take better care the later strikes given that they probably had to pay more than face value for them?

 

At any rate you coin is magnificent … far better than anything I could have ever hope to purchase or even locate.

 

[TomB]

Your difficulties in finding a really nice J-60 confirm what I have noticed as well. With all of the restrikes that were issued of the 1836 signature on base Gobrecht dollar, it makes one wonder why collectors did not preserve them better. I know that the original coins with the eagle flying onward and upward were handled like regular issue, but why didn’t collectors take better care the later strikes given that they probably had to pay more than face value for them?

 

At any rate you coin is magnificent … far better than anything I could have ever hope to purchase or even locate.

Bill, there is a valid school of thought that believes the J-60 (alignment IV) coins were struck in March, 1837 and delivered to banks to be placed into circulation. Julian and Sholley believe that the March, 1837 coins were all alignment II while Gray and Carboneau believe a mix of alignment II and alignment IV coins were sent to the banks for circulation. Dannreuther believes that the great majority of the coins struck in March, 1837 and issued to banks for circulation were the J-60 proofs of alignment IV. The Gobrecht terminology is nearly hopelessly muddled at this point by the usage of terms over the years, but I would consider these J-60 pieces to be "original" in that they were placed into circulation after striking, and only three months after the very first Gobrecht dollars were struck, even if they are proof examples vs the "restrike" coins such as J-58 that may have been struck at late as the 1860s.

[MJ]

That's a looker - and I dare say that unless it's in a 63 holder which somehow I doubt that it's nicer than the Eliasberg coin.

I believe that the OP's coin is better then a 63. Then again, grading proofs off a pic can be fools play..... call me a fool

 

MJ

[BOILER78]

Sorry I am late back to the boards. I've been out of pocket the last two days. The coin is accurately graded proof 64 IMO and in terms of surface condition and depth of mirrors the coin is comparable to the quality of the Eliasberg J60 maybe a tad less flashy (going from memory which is getting less reliable every year).

 

IGWT- my non-answer to your question is ....... I'm not sure either way regarding the emission sequence on these coins. The argument that coins in die alignment IV with reverse die cracks are restrikes seems to make sense logically but is not definitive in my mind. I've seen examples of J104 with barely perceptible cracks that could have been struck towards the end of the original production? I don't think we will ever know and for me it is not really important. In answer to the second part of your question..... yes this coin clearly shows evidence of Gobrecht's name on the based after it was effaced from the die.

[Tradedollarnut]

Having held the Eliasberg coin in my hands after certification, I can state that I was a bit disappointed in it - to the extent that I didn't buy it. While flashy, it's a certain restrike rather than original AND the fields had numerous short hairlines which my eye just wouldn't stray from.

[BillJones]

Here are the two Gobrect dollars that I have owned as a collector. The first one was an alignment IV that made it into an NCG PR-60 holder. My grade was PR-58, but it really does not matter. I doubt that this coin ever saw circulation, but it was mishandled. When Dave Bowers was writing his book I sent it to him to be weighted. It came out to be 415.8 grains which was just below the early dollar and first Gobrecht dollar standard of 416 grains. The later Gobrect dollars were supposed to have weighted 412 grains.

 

 

My current Gobrecht dollar is one of the "onward and upward" eagle pieces (alignment I) that was part of the original issue of 1,000 pieces. It is a PCGS PR-62 with a CAC sticker. To me it is very close to PR-63, but just misses it.

 

[TomB]

Bill, your PR62 Gobrecht looks darn nice for the grade and I would assume it received the PR62 because of the presence of hairlines. My Gobrecht is only a PR10 and I think that it actually saw use in commerce since it is not only worn, but also has dirt on the coin.

[BillJones]

Actually the hairlines are not too bad. I think what took it down was a dull spot in the right field. At least that's what Tony Teranova (the dealer from whom I bought the piece) and I thought.

[thebeav]

Those are some beautiful coins.....

[schultzmeister]

WOW THAT IS A BEAUTY-- I LOVE GOBRECHT DOLLARS.. it is a bucket list coin for me

[shirohniichan]

Dang, Boiler, if that ain't one purdy coin! (thumbs u

 

Bill, your PR62 Gobrecht looks darn nice for the grade and I would assume it received the PR62 because of the presence of hairlines. My Gobrecht is only a PR10 and I think that it actually saw use in commerce since it is not only worn, but also has dirt on the coin.

 

Circulated proofs interest me the most because I'm interested in coins mainly for their use as a medium of exchange. The proof double dime I wanted most was an 1877 in AU50. It may have been a mishandled proof, but some day I'd like to get an 1877 or 1878 that actually circulated.

 

Until someone finds a smoking gun (e.g. a receipt from the mint to a bank for Gobrecht dollars), I reckon we'll never know for sure which ones were meant for circulation, eh?

[Lakesammman]

Nice coin - I can't wait to own it.