This large cent is stunning

[Hard Times]

I just received it, from the pics online which I show here (haven't had time to photo it myself yet) I was floored, but it had a price through the sky matching my bowing to the floor. Still, the ebay store is going well, so I treated myself. It is even better in hand, the pics are too bright and some of the richer color is not brought out.

 

What do you think the grade is? Give an explanation that supports your grade. I think the irregular toning from the poorly mixed alloy adds to the already amazing eye appeal. It should be worth a plus and a star in NGC world. But this was graded by the competition.

 

Mid-die state - note the mouse just starting to make an appearance on the top of the head of Miss Liberty. Note the gap between the 8 and 1 in the date - that gives away the variety.

 

 

[Coindude]

What a wonderful strike and the luster is like a sonic boom!!! Congrats!

[Hard Times]

Sometimes one strikes copper!

[johnny9434]

i like, thats a nice looking coin

[cpm9ball]

Super nice, HT! I love the reverse.

 

Chris

[AnkurJ]

It looks sharp, but the color does not look right to me. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't slab it.

[Hard Times]

It is already slabbed, previous owner said it went in 3 times, same grade each time. The blue tinting is claimed to result from dipping with MS70 so I have been told. I love that blue tinting. So did the top TPG.

[x2rider]

Gee I love early copper . Are we going to see that in the ebay store

[MarkFeld]

It looks like a 64BN to me. It displays very clean looking surfaces, but the streaks/staining detract.

 

Sorry, but I see nothing that would lead me to expect an NGC star for extra eye-appeal. And any talk about a plus should be dependent upon what the assigned graded currently is. For example, if it is graded 63, I think it deserves a plus. But if it is graded 64 or higher, I don't think a plus should be considered.

[Hard Times]

Mark you nailed the grade well done. If it is being graded down because of the streaks, then I have to disagree with PCGS who graded it. All indications to me, comparing straight up with other mid-date large cents in my collection from NGC and PCGS as guides, is that this is technically a MS65 BN. In fact, it is better than an MS66 in my collection when putting the two side by side, so they must have knocked off a point (or two?) for the streaks. IMO, the streaks, resulting from irregular toning of poorly mixed alloy, add character and history AND eye appeal. I love such distinct character that provides so much information about the process of planchet production..... But that is why we collect, we all have different tastes and we all will find different aspects of a coin eye appealing. I like the unusual, not the monochromatic coin that meets all regularity. That's why I collect Hard Times tokens - every single one of them is unusual in some way.

 

Martin, I won't put this one in the store, it is for the personal collection. It is the same die variety of an 1817 that just sold in the store - a lovely AU58 that will be in the collection of one of our members here.

 

 

[dean1345]

There have been 307 of the 1817 Brown graded by NGC. There has been only one star given and that was to a AU58.

[bubbapauls-migration]

 

 

Very nice, did it grade 64?

[MarkFeld]

 

Very nice, did it grade 64?

He indicated in his previous post that it did.

[kryptonitecomics]

It looks like a 64BN to me. It displays very clean looking surfaces, but the streaks/staining detract.

 

Sorry, but I see nothing that would lead me to expect an NGC star for extra eye-appeal. And any talk about a plus should be dependent upon what the assigned graded currently is. For example, if it is graded 63, I think it deserves a plus. But if it is graded 64 or higher, I don't think a plus should be considered.

 

 

This is the grade I was going to assign it and my thoughts on the likelyhood of a star match Mark's to a T so instead of typing the same thing let me just say....what he said

[BillJones]

I agree with the MS-64, Brown grade. The streaks take it out of the MS-65 or 66 category.

 

You don't want to know how the EAC guys would grade it.

[BROADSTRUCK]

You don't want to know how the EAC guys would grade it.

 

I do!

[Hard Times]

EAC grades are anything you want to have them be. There is no grading guide, and the 'knowledge' of grading appears to be kept among the chosen few. I have been a member for 5 years, and several times there have been requests by others to have a real EAC grading guide put together, and again, those with the supposed knowledge of their great system? They say it would be too hard to do. Hmm....

 

My take, EAC grading is dying and going to completely go away with the ancient generation that made it up if they can't provide a consensus of what EAC grading is by having a guide, with pics, etc. For ANA grading that the top TPG's use, many books, many online photos of how they apply grades. EAC? Hello?

 

Not only that, with the higher than thou EAC grading, I have purchased 3 raw coins total from so claimed EAC dealers that had EAC grades. Turns out they were overgraded compared to the value assigned when the TPG grades were obtained on these - I was hosed. Won't buy raw from an EAC dealer again, what a scam. How can an EAC grade given by a dealer be higher than the grade I got from NGC in their hallowed system? Don't get me started.......

 

Never have I heard in an ANA grading guide or other guide that toning streaks due to poorly mixed alloy downgrades a coin. I find it adds to the eye appeal and it demonstrates originality. Can someone cite in a document where that downgrades the grade and hence value of the coin? Are collectors/graders afraid of the distinctive look and character a coin like this has? Seems to me everyone is okay with this in Indian Cents, why is a large cent then not okay with this?

[BillJones]

In some ways EAC grading is fairer that that offered by the TPG's for copper. The reason is that the TPGs dump on any copper coin that has ever had anything done to it in area of preservation. On the other hand a silver coin can be dipped to death and still get graded, and a gold coin can be almost as white as a silver coin from dipping and still get graded. Go figure.

 

EAC grading takes the problems into account and provides a net grade. That way you have a better chance to assign a value to the piece.

 

EAC grading goes off the rails on Mint State coins IMO. They rip Mint State coins apart, in part because of the condition census thing and politics. You'll see foolishness like MS-64, down graded to MS-60 because of problem X. Sorry, but problem X, no matter what it is does not take an MS-64 and turn it into an MS-60. If the problem X was that big, the coin was not an MS-64 from the get-go.

 

As for your common about mixing of alloys, that really only comes into play with Mint State coins. If the alloy is poorly mixes, it's going to known a point or two off a coin that might have made MS-65, If you check out the color section in the ANA grading manual you will see this issue touched upon. I have the 6th edition of the book. If there has been a new addition, I think they will address it there as well.

[Hard Times]

Bill, EAC grading largely does not exist, it is only known to the chosen few and they apparently don't want the unwashed masses to know about it. Otherwise they would make an excellent guide and not keep harrumphing when members with much less experience request such information for learning sake.

 

One of the coins in question that I got hosed on from an EAC dealer was a half cent. The dealer gave it a MS63/62 and charged me $1100 for it which was MS65 prices, even though he of course had dropped it $200 from his show price. So surely, given their 'net' and more 'critical' grading it should come in at 65 right with the top TPG's? NGC gave it an MS63. So my take on it is that EAC dealers overgrade and don't want the rest of us to know how they grade because they can overcharge us for what they sell that way. I am so sick of their arrogance and their proud stance on 'only raw matters' that I probably won't renew next year. Their 'only raw' stance is just a way to keep selling overpriced and problem coins in my view. At least when the coin has an top TPG opinion you have a starting point for value. No other specialty club I have been involved with has such a 'tude.

 

I have the 6th edition of the ANA grading guide and just went through it. I could find no reference to poor alloy mixing and dropping points because of it. Can you refer me to the page?

 

What I did find is that MS coins are graded by strike, luster, eye appeal, contact marks, hairlines.

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Bill, EAC grading largely does not exist, it is only known to the chosen few and they apparently don't want the unwashed masses to know about it. Otherwise they would make an excellent guide and not keep harrumphing when members with much less experience request such information for learning sake.

 

One of the coins in question that I got hosed on from an EAC dealer was a half cent. The dealer gave it a MS63/62 and charged me $1100 for it which was MS65 prices, even though he of course had dropped it $200 from his show price. So surely, given their 'net' and more 'critical' grading it should come in at 65 right with the top TPG's? NGC gave it an MS63. So my take on it is that EAC dealers overgrade and don't want the rest of us to know how they grade because they can overcharge us for what they sell that way. I am so sick of their arrogance and their proud stance on 'only raw matters' that I probably won't renew next year. Their 'only raw' stance is just a way to keep selling overpriced and problem coins in my view. At least when the coin has an top TPG opinion you have a starting point for value. No other specialty club I have been involved with has such a 'tude.

 

I have the 6th edition of the ANA grading guide and just went through it. I could find no reference to poor alloy mixing and dropping points because of it. Can you refer me to the page?

 

What I did find is that MS coins are graded by strike, luster, eye appeal, contact marks, hairlines.

 

 

I'm not Bill and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but....to my eyes, at least, the poor alloy mix iis distracting and results in negative eye-appeal. Hence, a grade deduction is warranted.

[Walkerfan]

What a great strike for this CLASSIC large cent.!!

[Keigwin]

I like it, Hard Times. As you say, it has character. Okay, it's not for everyone. But it doesn't have to be, does it?

 

I would be proud to own it. To heck with EAC grading. The coin speaks for itself. Gorgeous!

 

Wonderful photos, too. Did you shoot them? Nice!

Lance.

[gmarguli]

I'm not Bill and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but....to my eyes, at least, the poor alloy mix iis distracting and results in negative eye-appeal. Hence, a grade deduction is warranted.

 

I believe that some of the areas being referred to as "poor alloy mix" is really corrosion. Some of it looks raised and other areas the MS70 has pooled around the spot which is typical of corrosion / environmental damage.

[BROADSTRUCK]

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

 

 

You seem more like a "We'll Leave The Light On For You" kinda guy!

 

 

[Hard Times]

I like it, Hard Times. As you say, it has character. Okay, it's not for everyone. But it doesn't have to be, does it?

 

I would be proud to own it. To heck with EAC grading. The coin speaks for itself. Gorgeous!

 

Wonderful photos, too. Did you shoot them? Nice!

Lance.

 

Lance, I agree which is I bought it as a 'replacement' for a gorgeous 1817 AU58 of the same die variety that just happens to be in the mail right now to a numismatist with an excellent eye

 

Those were the sellers pictures, I will take some this weekend and possibly post here.

[Hard Times]

I'm not Bill and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but....to my eyes, at least, the poor alloy mix iis distracting and results in negative eye-appeal. Hence, a grade deduction is warranted.

 

I believe that some of the areas being referred to as "poor alloy mix" is really corrosion. Some of it looks raised and other areas the MS70 has pooled around the spot which is typical of corrosion / environmental damage.

 

No this is incorrect, no raised areas present in hand. PCGS would not certify something with this much corrosion (which it did certify as MS64 as noted earlier). This kind of alignment of toning streaks is very typical in 19th century US coins with poorly mixed alloy, I have seen this frequently in indian cents and occasionally even in silver coins.

[Hard Times]

Bill, EAC grading largely does not exist, it is only known to the chosen few and they apparently don't want the unwashed masses to know about it. Otherwise they would make an excellent guide and not keep harrumphing when members with much less experience request such information for learning sake.

 

One of the coins in question that I got hosed on from an EAC dealer was a half cent. The dealer gave it a MS63/62 and charged me $1100 for it which was MS65 prices, even though he of course had dropped it $200 from his show price. So surely, given their 'net' and more 'critical' grading it should come in at 65 right with the top TPG's? NGC gave it an MS63. So my take on it is that EAC dealers overgrade and don't want the rest of us to know how they grade because they can overcharge us for what they sell that way. I am so sick of their arrogance and their proud stance on 'only raw matters' that I probably won't renew next year. Their 'only raw' stance is just a way to keep selling overpriced and problem coins in my view. At least when the coin has an top TPG opinion you have a starting point for value. No other specialty club I have been involved with has such a 'tude.

 

I have the 6th edition of the ANA grading guide and just went through it. I could find no reference to poor alloy mixing and dropping points because of it. Can you refer me to the page?

 

What I did find is that MS coins are graded by strike, luster, eye appeal, contact marks, hairlines.

 

 

I'm not Bill and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but....to my eyes, at least, the poor alloy mix iis distracting and results in negative eye-appeal. Hence, a grade deduction is warranted.

 

 

Mark, then this coin is not for you. I think it is stunning but I said that already. I'd take this over every other MS64 (and most of the 65's) 1817 large cent posted in the Heritage archives, and actually, I did. I love the character of the coin as a result of the alloy issues and the eye appeal it adds, IMHO, it extraordinary. That is what numismatics is about and we will all have different views of what make eye appeal what it is. I have just a few large cents, but each one has something very special about it that makes it stand out. I guess this comes from collecting Hard Times tokens. I don't have a single one of those that does not have some type of flaw because of poorly prepared planchets or dies, or poor strike, etc. Not only are they rare, but each carries a unique set of interesting features that tells a unique story. Who wants flawless? Heck I would collect MS70 modern if that is what I was in to........

[BillJones]

Never have I heard in an ANA grading guide or other guide that toning streaks due to poorly mixed alloy downgrades a coin. I find it adds to the eye appeal and it demonstrates originality.  

 

Okay, the ANA Grading Guide don't come out and say alloy mix, but they on the 12th page of color section (there are no page numbers in that section of the book) there is a 1795 Draped Bust silver dollar in EF-45 that has "a planchet flaw or rift at the left, at TED (UNITED) extending upward, a negative. Overall this is a "nice" example, but the flaw will dictate a slightly lower than usual price for this grade."

 

With Mint State coins, strike, alloy mix, planchet flaws and other mint cased defects kick in when the grade hits MS-65 and higher. A coin can be exactly as it was when it left the mint and not qualify for a grade like MS-65 or higher because of mint caused problems. This is just a fact of life.

 

Collectors are not going to pay super premium prices for coins with eye appeal issues. Grading services that put high grades like MS-65, 66 or 67 on such pieces are going to lose their credibility in the marketplace. When you buy an MS-65+ graded coin you expect a near perfect coin with no issues whatsoever.

 

[MikeInFL]

The coin posted by the OP looks to me to be a MS-70ed Randall Hoard (although I must admit I don't know off the top of my head if this particular year/variety was present in the hoard) coin with some surface issues that likely looked much worse before it was improved.

 

A few related points...

 

The "blue" would be "blue green" if natural, like this coin: http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=394&Lot_No=599#Photo Whereas the particular shade of blue in the coin posted by the OP is MS-70, in my experience.

 

Keep in mind many of the Randall Hoard coins damaged by moisture in the kegs they were allegedly stored underground in. This, along with the bad alloy and followed by a soap, and you have the shiny blue coin pictured by the OP, IMO.

 

IMO, 64 is the right grade. Surfaces look clean enough for a 65, but the streaky nature of the obverse is a negative in the market. There is also some question as to the originality (or market-acceptability, if you will) of MS-70ed copper. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to read it's in PCGS slab -- they view these coins, particularly recently, with a suspicious eye.

[MikeInFL]

p.s. after some further checking your coin appears to be an N-9, and not the commonly found N-14. Of course, this doesn't preclude the coin from being a member of the Randall Hoard (of which the VAST majority of mint 1816-1820 mint state examples were a part of).