What's wrong with "Classic" head gold?

[Count_Erfit]

There's really not much to speak of, yet the prices are anemic relative to scarcity.

 

Other than possibly the ugliest head of Liberty ever devised, it still seems that people would want the ugly stuff just for "completeness."

 

[jtryka]

I think the classic head half and quarter eagles suffer from the same lack of interest as other series like trade dollars, half dimes and twenty cent pieces. There just aren't enough collectors out there to increase demand beyond the normal type set demand.

[EVillageProwler]

I like "classic" head gold, especially the quarter eagles. I think they are rare as heck in problem-free, original ChAU and ChMS grades.

 

And, I love their design too. Of course, I love the early gold designs even more...

 

EVP

[gmarguli]

Personally, I think they are hideously ugly. They are as attractive as a gold plated SBA. I don’t know too many people who find them attractive.

[jom]

Personally, I think they are hideously ugly. They are as attractive as a gold plated SBA. I don’t know too many people who find them attractive.

 

I know a LOT of people that collect "certain" modern coins that are hideously ugly. So what? At least Classic gold is rare...

 

jom

[gmarguli]

Personally, I think they are hideously ugly. They are as attractive as a gold plated SBA. I don’t know too many people who find them attractive.

 

I know a LOT of people that collect "certain" modern coins that are hideously ugly. So what? At least Classic gold is rare...

 

jom

 

Yeah, but it's easier to spend a few dollars on an ugly modern coin than it is a few thousand dollars on an ugly classic coin. The people with money to spend on these classics usually have refined tastes and senses.

[BillJones]

What's wrong with Classic head gold?

 

Nothing, so far as I'm concerned.

 

These coins have a great history because they were at the center of President Andrew Jackson's monetary program. Jackson believed that economic stability could be brought to the working classes if they were able to conduct their business with silver and gold coinage. To realize that end Jackson called for the mintage of low denomination gold coins gold coins in large quantities.

 

To achieve that goal, Jackson asked his main ally legislative, Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who was known as “old bullion,” to introduce legislation that would authorize the mintage of gold coins that would have a weight ratio of 16 to 1 relative to silver. The previous ratio of 15 to 1 had been too high, and the vast majority of the tiny mintages of U.S. gold coins from around 1814 to 1834 had been exported or melted. This accounts for the extreme rarity and high prices for the “ugly head” $5 gold coins that someone mentioned earlier. To further the distribution and total mintage of the new gold coins, Jackson supported legislation that created a new Philadelphia mint and authorized branch mints in Charlotte, Dahlonega and New Orleans.

 

Jackson’s gold coins were quite successful in that they were the first U.S. gold coins that achieved wide circulation. Today the vast majority of the Classic Head type gold coins are in the circulated grades. Strictly Mint State pieces are very scarce to rare to all dates. Most pieces that are in less than MS-64 holders that I have seen ARE NOT Mint State coins. All most all of them are nice AUs at best. The overgrading extends down into the lower grades as well. (e.g. the AUs are only EF at best, the EFs are VFs, etc.)

 

Why are these coins not popular with collectors? Part of the reason is that there are so few Mint State pieces to go around. It's a shame that so many collectors are "stuck on" this Mint State only craze. Another factor is that many pieces are well worn (VF-25 or so is an average grade for the survivors.), and most collectors don’t care for heavily circulated gold, even when it is rare.

 

I really like the Classic Head gold. Currently I have an 1836 $2.50 in a PCGS MS-62 holder that is really an AU-58, 1838-C $2.50 in a PCGS AU-55 holder that is properly graded and an 1934, plain 4 $5 gold in an NGC MS-61 holder that is really an AU-55.

[JamminJ]

I enjoyed the historical commentary surrounding these coins, thanks Bill!

I almost feel guilty adding my voice to the "ugly" chorus.

 

-JamminJ

[spy88]

Thanks for the post Bill! This is what I like about the boards the best (well, second to nice pics of coins!). HISTORY! The story behind the coin is what makes for an interesting and informative thread.

 

David;)

[jtryka]

Why are these coins not popular with collectors? Part of the reason is that there are so few Mint State pieces to go around. It's a shame that so many collectors are "stuck on" this Mint State only craze. Another factor is that many pieces are well worn (VF-25 or so is an average grade for the survivors.), and most collectors don’t care for heavily circulated gold, even when it is rare.

 

I couldn't agree more. I have three half eagles that I am halfheartedly putting together in a year set (no resources to spare on the branch mints of 1838). I have a nice 1835 in EF-45, and an 1836 sea salvaged AU det. Net EF-40, and a net VF 1838. I think I spent less than $200 on each piece, and they are still very enjoyable despite the wear. Of course many would disagree with me, but that's fine as long as I can continue to buy these 166-170 year old coins on the cheap!

[jom]

Yeah, but it's easier to spend a few dollars on an ugly modern coin than it is a few thousand dollars on an ugly classic coin. The people with money to spend on these classics usually have refined tastes and senses.

 

A "few" dollars? I KNOW that you know better than this. I'm sure you've seen some of the prices for these modern "gems"?

 

I agree with Bill. There does seem to be a MS bias. There just seems to be more people concerned about grade rarity as opposed to date rarity....

 

jom

[Hoot]

What a fantastic thread! Thanks Bill for the input. As David said, the history makes this and any numismatic topic worthy of pursuing. Had no idea that the overgrading was so rampant with old gold. And frankly, I've always liked the classic head designs.

 

Hoot

[BillJones]

I enjoyed the historical commentary surrounding these coins, thanks Bill!

I almost feel guilty adding my voice to the "ugly" chorus.

 

-JamminJ

 

Don't worry about the comment, Jammin. I think that the design of the half eagles that were minted from 1813 to 1834 is ugly also. The trouble is the price is even more ugly.

 

I saw a couple of "Mint State" pieces at the Baltimore show. One was called MS-62 and the other was MS-63. Both were AU or perhaps MS-60 if you gave them a push from the technical aspect. The prices? Well just take the price for the NEXT highest grade than what is marked on the holder. There's the DOUBLE WHAMMIE! Overgraded, overpriced. But at least the coins had not had their orginial "skin" removed so that they would look "nice and shiney." That is probably in their future.

 

I once had an 1813 half eagle of this type. In retrospect I probably should have kept it, but it had been stripped to make it look bright. That did not stop PCGS from calling it an AU-50 however.

 

Can you say "altered surfaces?"

[MikeKing]

This is a great post!!!

I love these coins!!!