An Ebay purchase...didn't cost much....is it worth a submission?

[JIM F.]

Here is the listing

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360382244609&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT

 

I didn't bid much, and won it.

[MarkFeld]

It looks like an AU or low grade unc., which might no-grade. Either way, my guess is that it isn't worth submitting for grading.

[Dudley the 1st]

Appears to be a nice example, but not worth the cost of submission.

[Mark T]

I think the coin has been cleaned and re toned.

[e1cnr]

you have to wait until you get the coin in hand to decide

 

problems if cleaned or polishwd and retoned

 

 

 

if you get it, and looks gem PL, then YES

[jom]

What is your reasoning to want to certify it? Are you reselling it soon? Otherwise, why bother? Can't you enjoy the coin without it being surrounded in plastic? Just curious...

 

jom

[ultra-crepidarian]

I agree with Mark’s assessment. Based on the pictures, I don’t think that it makes economic sense to grade. However, I am guessing that you would really like to have this coin graded: curiosity can be a killer – just ask Felix. So once you have the coin in hand, make your decision. Remember, you only live once (unlike Felix) and coin collecting should be fun!

 

I have sent off many coins that shouldn’t have been graded and I have learned a lot through the experience. Like: my grading skills are indeed lacking (that is why I would be stupid NOT to agree with Mark’s assessment), I shouldn’t buy raw ungraded coins sight unseen over E-bay, it is expensive for the collector to get coins graded, detailed grading is like kissing your sister, and finally, even though the USPS is supposedly so bad, they will never lose YOUR registered mail package - even when you would really like them to.

[physics-fan3.14]

I have bought from that seller many times, and have always been pleased with them. I've never bought raw though. I think you will be pleasantly surprised when the coin arrives, although pictures like that may hide a lot of problems. Still, for that price, I think you did well.

[jesbroken]

Unlike Jason, I have bought a couple of raw coins from this seller and have been well pleased with the coin sent. Like many have said, wait until you have the coin inhand. Best of luck.

Jim

[JIM F.]

Thanks.

[jgrinz]

I have a couple of these "in stock" and the toning is about right for a cleaned and retoned specimen. Being that it is only an AU coin it probably is not worth submitting, though in this condition, they are market acceptable as I have one in an NGC holder.

This is what I consider a naturally toned specimen ...

Comparing the two you can see the difference ...

[James_OldeTowne]

Sorry, but it isn't remotely worth certifying, for numismatic or speculative reasons.

[Link]

I didn't bid much, and won it.

 

you could've bought three of them for that much

[JIM F.]

This coin looks spectacular in hand. Don't be confused by others posting pics of differenct coins. Link to the listing is here:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWNX%3AIT&item=360382244609

 

And the pics posted really are bad compared to what the coin looks like. If I saw this coin at an estate sale for instance, I would easily have paid several hundred bucks for it thinking it may be an actual proof (maybe a bad move, but I would have gone that route). I don't see evidence that it is AT, and the fields are mirror PL. Nice sea-green toning around the edges.

 

I will be submitting it for grading. And I won't be disappointed regardless of the results. It has real eye-appeal. Too bad I don't have the equipment to take a decent photo of it.

 

 

[Walkerfan]

It's been dipped for sure. Raw coins on Ebay are always such a huge gamble.

 

I would like to see it in hand to tell if it is truly MS.

 

Could be anywhere from an AU 58-MS 63.

 

Personally, I wouldn't submit it.

[physics-fan3.14]

For that price, if it looks good in hand, why wouldn't you submit it? Even if it only comes back 64PL, it is still worth a couple/few hundred bucks.

[Mark T]

You paid $ 47 for the coin . It is not worth grading unless it is MS 65 or truely proof like. Chances of it grading that high are slim to none. This seller does a high volume, if it was MS 64 or better and truly PL they probably would have put in a reserve price. The cost to grade the coin with shipping fees is probably close to $50. Take it to a local dealer for assessment and go from there.

 

 

[Ryan S.]

Indeed. I'm sorry to say, in this case the proof like fields would just indicate a loss of luster, but as jgrinz said your piece could be market acceptable and the toning looks nice. Hope to hear the grade!

[MarkFeld]

Indeed. I'm sorry to say, in this case the proof like fields would just indicate a loss of luster, but as jgrinz said your piece could be market acceptable and the toning looks nice. Hope to hear the grade!

Sorry, you are mistaken. The presence of prooflike fields indicates nothing about the loss of luster. In fact, a coin can't have/display proof like fields unless it possesses a good amount of luster.

[jom]

Sorry, you are mistaken. The presence of prooflike fields indicates nothing about the loss of luster. In fact, a coin can't have/display proof like fields unless it possesses a good amount of luster.

 

As an aside: I'm confused by this statement. Isn't something that is proof, by definition, without luster? Now, I don't mean this in the way the previous poster meant. What I'm trying to say is that if a coin has a reflective field doesn't that kinda mean that the luster (such as cartwheel) kind of non-existent?

 

Or is this a matter of semantics I'm unaware of?

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

Sorry, you are mistaken. The presence of prooflike fields indicates nothing about the loss of luster. In fact, a coin can't have/display proof like fields unless it possesses a good amount of luster.

 

As an aside: I'm confused by this statement. Isn't something that is proof, by definition, without luster? Now, I don't mean this in the way the previous poster meant. What I'm trying to say is that if a coin has a reflective field doesn't that kinda mean that the luster (such as cartwheel) kind of non-existent?

 

Or is this a matter of semantics I'm unaware of?

 

jom

I have had similar questions/debates regarding whether Proof coins can exhibit luster. And, in the end, I think it comes down to semantics.

[Broc Mitchell]

Sorry, you are mistaken. The presence of prooflike fields indicates nothing about the loss of luster. In fact, a coin can't have/display proof like fields unless it possesses a good amount of luster.

 

As an aside: I'm confused by this statement. Isn't something that is proof, by definition, without luster? Now, I don't mean this in the way the previous poster meant. What I'm trying to say is that if a coin has a reflective field doesn't that kinda mean that the luster (such as cartwheel) kind of non-existent?

 

Or is this a matter of semantics I'm unaware of?

 

jom

I have had similar questions/debates regarding whether Proof coins can exhibit luster. And, in the end, I think it comes down to semantics.

 

It would be a difficult discussion to have based on semantics I am sure! I have seen proof coins that ONLY have luster... Such as on some proof Liberty Nickels.

 

As I see it, all luster really is for the most part is flow lines from the metal forming to the shape of the die. A perfectly new proof die is so high polished that the metal flows into a glass-flat surface, making it appear is if it has no "luster" as we would expect to see on uncirculated coinage. As a proof die's life goes on, the die will start to 'erode' so to speak, and there will be trace evidence of what looks similar to UNC luster. Some of the best luster is seen on UNC coins that are struck with dies in mid-life, where there is more character from age on the die surface. Others have had the benefit of higher than normal strike pressure which lends to complete metal flow.

 

I wonder if what Mark Feld meant by saying it requires luster for a coin to even be proof like, is that if there were a distinct lack of the appearance of luster that it would be more likely the coin would exhibit DMLP surfaces? In any case I agree with the statement completely, because I have seen plenty of PL and DMPL coins with distinctive cartwheel luster, as well as some LDS proofs with the same, such as on some Franklin Halves with long production on a single die and early type proofs where the dies didn't retain superiority for very long due to archaic die production techniques.

 

Edit to add, as an after thought, it is the metallic property of "luster" in metals that gives the ability to be reflective at all. This is qualitatively different than the descriptive term we use to describe "ooooo shiny" in numismatics, because luster is an inherent property of metal while "ooooo shiny" luster is a qualitative assessment.

[Ryan S.]

While I love the added information I must apologize for my over simpilfied statement. My previous post was intended to say only that the coin circulated enough to wear down much of the frosty luster and the mirror-like fields were more a result of an improper cleaning than its die state (as I've seen with some of my own tests). Obviously that might not be the case, just my humble opinion.

[RWB]

You paid about the right price for the coin.

 

Sending it to some TPG will be wasting an equal amount. Put the money you save toward the cost of the ANA grading course, and learn how to grade coins for yourself.

 

[coinman_23885]

Sorry, you are mistaken. The presence of prooflike fields indicates nothing about the loss of luster. In fact, a coin can't have/display proof like fields unless it possesses a good amount of luster.

 

As an aside: I'm confused by this statement. Isn't something that is proof, by definition, without luster? Now, I don't mean this in the way the previous poster meant. What I'm trying to say is that if a coin has a reflective field doesn't that kinda mean that the luster (such as cartwheel) kind of non-existent?

 

Or is this a matter of semantics I'm unaware of?

 

jom

 

I would define luster as the capacity or trait of reflecting light. While a cartwheel may represent one type of luster, it certainly isn't the only type. When someone says that a coin has "no luster" I take this to mean that the typical type and/or level of luster is absent or significantly impaired.

[jom]

have had similar questions/debates regarding whether Proof coins can exhibit luster. And, in the end, I think it comes down to semantics.

 

I would define luster as the capacity or trait of reflecting light. While a cartwheel may represent one type of luster, it certainly isn't the only type. When someone says that a coin has "no luster" I take this to mean that the typical type and/or level of luster is absent or significantly impaired.

 

Excellent....thanks for the clarifications!...and brocmitchell's as well.

 

Yeah, I was taking "luster" as being the cartwheel type....the point about Liberty nickels is true. So I stand corrected!

 

jom