Anyone think this coin would grade VF?

[SouthFlorida guy]

 

Critique away...

 

[physics-fan3.14]

No, definitely not. That coin is a max Fine, but the obverse looks even weaker. Especially with the rims worn into the fields like that.

[Coindude]

Honestly, there seems to be some "new" damage to the coin in the form of scratches on the obverse at 10 o'c on the rim, the reverse in the central area and something strange going on on the obverse in the form of what looks like an "S" with a long tail that starts to the right of the bust, starting at star #10 and cruising through to the bust of the bust. Hope that makes sense.

[johnny9434]

i think coin dude nailed it. i still like the looks of it thou

[Walkerfan]

NO way that will VF. Sorry. Looks VG to me. It MIGHT be a FINE on a REALLY GOOD day but my conservative bet would definitely be on the VG for sure.

[michael]

i am assuming the coin is genuine

 

fine details

 

edge disturbance 10 pm obverse,

 

harshly cleaned

 

and

 

porous (porous from possibly being a dug coin)

[James_OldeTowne]

I like it as a respectable F-12. Any "problems" it are pretty meaningless to me, since it's a big coin with 208 years of history behind it.

[Tonto-migration]

I would say VG8

[Raybo55]

i am assuming the coin is genuine

 

fine details

 

edge disturbance 10 pm obverse,

 

harshly cleaned

 

and

 

porous (porous from possibly being a dug coin)

 

I agree with Michael. (thumbs u

[MBA101]

Third use of the obverse die, so you need to take into consideration that the details that are missing were not there in the first place. The reverse looks VF 20. The eye may not have been there to begin with either. I think this is actually a VF 20 coin. It has many circulation marks on it, but that is typical. If a grader thinks it is warranted, I could see it getting knocked to a 15, but my bet is on a 20. Take a look in Heritage's archives for a suitable comparison. AU coins of this D/M have only marginally more detail than this coin.

 

Without seeing the coin in hand, I am not going to judge the surfaces from a cleaned/retoned or original standpoint. It has the look of either. But it does look like coins that I have that were stored in some sort of metal container (Coffee can) with many other coins for a long time.

[SouthFlorida guy]

,

 

harshly cleaned

 

and

 

porous (porous from possibly being a dug coin)

 

This is not a dug coin.

 

Possibly it had an early cleaning, like many old coins have. But certainly not a harsh cleaning like you have suggested.

 

I don't plan on ever getting it graded. I don't see the point in having a coin of this condition graded.

 

Thanks for yours and everyones opinions in the thread.

 

Hold on one second.Let me ask you something Michael. Do you think with all the hairlines on the coin below, it was harshly cleaned?

 

[coinman1794]

I like it as a respectable F-12. Any "problems" it are pretty meaningless to me, since it's a big coin with 208 years of history behind it.

 

I agree with James that the coin is a nice F-12+.

 

The reverse is VF, but the obverse is weak and holds the coin at F-12. Much of the weakness is strike-related, but the coin is well worn and it would be impossible to differentiate wear from weak strike with precision. The marks are mild for a coin that circulated for 30+ years in the early 19th century. The pictures do not reveal any cleaning damage; that's not to say the coin might not have hairlines in person. Original planchet streaks show on the obverse. These are pockets of impurities in the silver/copper alloy that reacted with the environment, while the silver retained its precious metal qualities.

 

 

[coinman1794]

The 1805 PCGS-12 picture appears to show random handling lines, caused by careless handling by collectors over the years. From those pictures, however, it is not possible to tell if there is any other damage.

[MBA101]

I like it as a respectable F-12. Any "problems" it are pretty meaningless to me, since it's a big coin with 208 years of history behind it.

 

I agree with James that the coin is a nice F-12+.

 

The reverse is VF, but the obverse is weak and holds the coin at F-12. Much of the weakness is strike-related, but the coin is well worn and it would be impossible to differentiate wear from weak strike with precision. The marks are mild for a coin that circulated for 30+ years in the early 19th century. The pictures do not reveal any cleaning damage; that's not to say the coin might not have hairlines in person. Original planchet streaks show on the obverse. These are pockets of impurities in the silver/copper alloy that reacted with the environment, while the silver retained its precious metal qualities.

 

 

I disagree with your "well worn" statement. It has a weak strike therefore does not have as much wear as it looks. Usually you can tell by looking at the coin in hand as to how much wear, but not by those pics. By strike as wear, it sounds like the coin is automatically downgraded to XF as soon as it comes off the press...

[coinman1794]

I like it as a respectable F-12. Any "problems" it are pretty meaningless to me, since it's a big coin with 208 years of history behind it.

 

I agree with James that the coin is a nice F-12+.

 

The reverse is VF, but the obverse is weak and holds the coin at F-12. Much of the weakness is strike-related, but the coin is well worn and it would be impossible to differentiate wear from weak strike with precision. The marks are mild for a coin that circulated for 30+ years in the early 19th century. The pictures do not reveal any cleaning damage; that's not to say the coin might not have hairlines in person. Original planchet streaks show on the obverse. These are pockets of impurities in the silver/copper alloy that reacted with the environment, while the silver retained its precious metal qualities.

 

 

I disagree with your "well worn" statement. It has a weak strike therefore does not have as much wear as it looks. Usually you can tell by looking at the coin in hand as to how much wear, but not by those pics. By strike as wear, it sounds like the coin is automatically downgraded to XF as soon as it comes off the press...

 

The coin would probably show VF details if it were not weakly struck. We are not in disagreement. I am the one who comes out on the side of Early US coins being higher grades than they appear, due to their weak strikes!

 

What I was saying was that it is impossible to make an exact measurement of the strike vs. wear due to the fact that the coin is well worn. Any VF coin is well worn, in my opinion. However, the key is that no one can tell the exact amount, in this particular case.

 

The more time in circulation, the harder it is to tell weak strike from wear, because luster and flow lines are key determinants of condition, and they can largely be erased by wear. Thus, the process becomes less and less precise, the further you go down the grading scale. On an XF coin, wear is limited and a coin might have a well-delineated area that is flat but lustrous. It would be safe to say that area was weakly struck, and you would know not to count that specific area against the grade. Low VF coins, on the other hand, have wear across the entire surface, in many cases. Once that happens, it can be almost impossible to determine, precisely, the amount of wear that overlays weakly struck design elements. You might presume, or even know, an area is weakly struck, but you might not be able to determine the exact size of the weakly struck area, because wear has obscured its edges. You can only make an educated guess.

 

I could make an argument for VF on this coin. However, I do not think a grading service would be willing to go along, and I, personally, would not want to get it for full VF money. I think it could go F15 at PCGS. Also, this coin has streaks, and the surfaces and eye appeal are "just ok," so it does not have any assets that might lead to an optimistic grade. I would go with a F-12-15 as a certified grade on this piece, all things considered.

 

[michael]

,

 

harshly cleaned

 

and

 

porous (porous from possibly being a dug coin)

 

This is not a dug coin.

 

Possibly it had an early cleaning, like many old coins have. But certainly not a harsh cleaning like you have suggested.

 

I don't plan on ever getting it graded. I don't see the point in having a coin of this condition graded.

 

Thanks for yours and everyones opinions in the thread.

 

Hold on one second.Let me ask you something Michael. Do you think with all the hairlines on the coin below, it was harshly cleaned?

 

 

NO you hold on a second

 

let me ask you something??

 

first you ask board members to

 

Critique away...

 

 

and then i do this and now you are not happy with the results and asking me to compare apples to oranges

 

what has the hairlines on the second coin have to do at all with the surfaces on the first coin?

 

IF YOU dont want critiques and are CLEARLY not happy with the results than why are you asking for them??

 

and i can see my opinion is much different than yours

 

and guess what?? that is okie take what you need and leave what you dont

 

i dont want to get into a match with you on what you think of your coin

 

 

 

[michael]

[Mark T]

Grade – No less than F 12 no better than VF 20 . MBA is correct about the strike issues with this coin.

Coins surface - Large gash on the obverse at 11 Am - looks like another one at 8 Am . I think there is a good chance the coin was

cleaned - I do not think Michael was off base suggesting that the coin was harshly cleaned even though I think harshly might be a little harsh .

The coin has a lot of issues but it is a good coin to keep raw none the less.

 

[SouthFlorida guy]

,

 

harshly cleaned

 

and

 

porous (porous from possibly being a dug coin)

 

This is not a dug coin.

 

Possibly it had an early cleaning, like many old coins have. But certainly not a harsh cleaning like you have suggested.

 

I don't plan on ever getting it graded. I don't see the point in having a coin of this condition graded.

 

Thanks for yours and everyones opinions in the thread.

 

Hold on one second.Let me ask you something Michael. Do you think with all the hairlines on the coin below, it was harshly cleaned?

 

 

NO you hold on a second

 

let me ask you something??

 

first you ask board members to

 

Critique away...

 

 

and then i do this and now you are not happy with the results and asking me to compare apples to oranges

 

what has the hairlines on the second coin have to do at all with the surfaces on the first coin?

 

IF YOU dont want critiques and are CLEARLY not happy with the results than why are you asking for them??

 

and i can see my opinion is much different than yours

 

and guess what?? that is okie take what you need and leave what you dont

 

i dont want to get into a match with you on what you think of your coin

 

 

 

Apples to oranges you say? From the pictures I provided you can tell it was harshly cleaned? The coin is "dug"? ROFL

I posted the second pictures as a comparison showing scratch marks don't necessarily mean a wool brush was taken to the coin.

 

I'm not unhappy with what your opinion is.I did think it was laughable though, hence the reason I politely asked you to explain. Instead of explaining your opinion/position you go off on a teary rant. Bahahaha

 

 

[Mark T]

Florida Guy – Chill out , you just got here , you don’t want to get a rep

for having an attitude problem.

 

[SouthFlorida guy]

Florida Guy – Chill out , you just got here , you don’t want to get a rep

for having an attitude problem.

 

I'm not upset. Mikey is the one with his panties in a bunch, and I found that quite amusing. Still do!

 

 

Anyway, the original pictures I posted were taken by a friend who is a professional photographer. Those pictures were taken under 30x magnification. Of course you are going see the tiniest flaws.

 

Here are 'ok' pictures of what the coin would look like if you were holding it your hand. Without magnification you can see the problems at 10 o'clock, and 8 o'clock as well. I like the coin regardless of the problems it has. The coin didn't have the easiest life, but still is rich in history.

[Mark T]

Florida Guy – Chill out , you just got here , you don’t want to get a rep

for having an attitude problem.

 

I'm not upset. Mikey is the one with his panties in a bunch, and I found that quite amusing. Still do!

 

 

 

Actually you seem to be the one with the Panties problem not Michael.

 

As for the coin I doubt anyone here would argue that it had a hard life but is still a decent piece to have raw.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

The additional images firm up a grade of F-12 in my mind. I would argue that the details are F-12/VF-20, but as some have astutely pointed out, that obverse die was just about ground down to paste by the time it entered into this die marriage, and it's expected that the obverse would be weaker than the reverse. You can double-check the late die state by the really nice clash at the center of the portrait. Also, see how the reverse has dentilation, but the obverse does not? Yep, the obverse die is simply a lot older than it's companion.

 

Normally, F-12/VF-20 could average out to F-15, and even VF if one is grading by Overton number, BUT, there are obviously flaws on the obverse, and the upper left rim is weak. Therefore, F-12 is a highly suitable compromise, and that is how I would catalog it.