• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Another Seated Dollar for my Box of 20
0

Started by Walkerfan,

58 posts in this topic

  • Popular Post
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

She is from the D ick Osburn Collection. I already have an Osburn coin (1844 in NGC plastic), so I had hoped to add, yet another, with that same pedigree (this time in PCGS plastic). Reconstruction Era Seated Dollars, in mint state, are scarce as hen's teeth! I am not bothered by the tiny toning freckles. They are not from foreign material and are not active or damaging the surface of the coin. Consistent for the grade, IMHO. This is the plate coin for Obverse 5 in the Osburn-Cushing Seated Dollar reference book. A Top 30 Variety, with misplaced digits visible in the denticles below the primary date (most likely 186). Clear-gold color and bits of tan-gold toning enrich the partially reflective surfaces of this attractive example. Mintage is a deceiving 423,700. In circulated grades, the 1869 is a prime issue, in this decade, of Philadelphia mint rarities. Most were exported to China and melted down. But, In Mint State, however, 1869 dollars are VERY rare, far rarer than Proofs, and are seldom encountered. Most high-grade coins are prooflike.

What are your thoughts?

I appreciate all feedback.

E7198B81-61FD-4724-8B3C-0FFAC21C9991.jpeg

91C7AC73-5114-415B-92CB-F6B6A1D6A0F4.jpeg

Edited by Walkerfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2023 at 11:52 AM, Hoghead515 said:

That is a beauty. Congratulations on a very nice addition. I really love the toning on it. Anyone would love to have that one in their collection. :golfclap:

Yeah, I was a little concerned about the light freckled toning, on the right facing side, of the obverse.  I got it in hand, today, and man is it ever lustrous and nice.  The toning is very subtle and barely noticeable, in the hand.  Not dark at all.  I am super happy with it.  Thanks for your positive feedback.

Edited by Walkerfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
rrantique

rrantique

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 8/26/2023 at 11:09 AM, Walkerfan said:

Yeah,, I was a little concerned about the light freckled toning, on the right facing side, of the obverse.  I got it in hand, today, and man is it ever lustrous and nice.  The toning is very subtle and barely noticeable, in the hand.  Not dark at all.  I am super happy with it.  Thanks for your positive feedback.

Post civil war beauty.  Congrats(thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hoghead515

Hoghead515

Posted
Posted (edited)

What grade does PCGS have on it? Did it cross over as the same grade NGC had on it? Its definately a beauty. I love the good natural toning. It toned beautifully in my opinion. If I ever had the chance to own one Id love for it to be a simular color. 

Edited by Hoghead515
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zadok

zadok

Posted
Posted
On 8/26/2023 at 3:11 PM, Hoghead515 said:

What grade does PCGS have on it? Did it cross over as the same grade NGC had on it? Its definately a beauty. I love the good natural toning. It toned beautifully in my opinion. If I ever had the chance to own one Id love for it to be a simular color. 

...pcgs graded it a 61 i believe it was in a 2013 SB auction if u have access to those catalogs online....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 8/26/2023 at 4:01 PM, zadok said:

...i totally agree...u can disregard the "numismatist of the year"'s opinion...i guess every forum must have its jesters, we have him n QA....

I don’t care how good his research is… he sure needs grading lessons. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
zadok

zadok

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 8/26/2023 at 4:05 PM, Walkerfan said:

I don’t care how good his research is… he sure needs grading lessons. lol

...personally i dont consider him a researcher, his efforts r more along the lines of a compiler, i see very little real numismatic research, its more like putting together a scrapbook from misc notes n adding some speculation n conjecture n a gazillion footnotes to provide credence...but thats just my opinion which carries no credence....i have had the privilege n pleasure to personally see several coins from osborne's coin collection n i applaud u for attempting to add representative examples to ur own collection...i do the same, theres something bout having pedigreed coins in ur own collection that makes it seem like u r following in the footsteps of some of the previous great collectors....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 8/26/2023 at 4:17 PM, zadok said:

...personally i dont consider him a researcher, his efforts r more along the lines of a compiler, i see very little real numismatic research, its more like putting together a scrapbook from misc notes n adding some speculation n conjecture n a gazillion footnotes to provide credence...but thats just my opinion which carries no credence....i have had the privilege n pleasure to personally see several coins from osborne's coin collection n i applaud u for attempting to add representative examples to ur own collection...i do the same, theres something bout having pedigreed coins in ur own collection that makes it seem like u r following in the footsteps of some of the previous great collectors....

Thanks.  Osburn is the true expert in the Seated Dollar world.  If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VKurtB

VKurtB

Posted
Posted

What does interest me is the small dark spots. What kind of origin are we guessing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 8/26/2023 at 4:30 PM, VKurtB said:

What does interest me is the small dark spots. What kind of origin are we guessing?

Probably retoned that way.  They look stable and inconsequential.  Looks great in hand.  Not dark and barely noticeable.  Luster is strong.  Looks consistent for a 154 year old coin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2023 at 3:42 PM, zadok said:

...pcgs graded it a 61 i believe it was in a 2013 SB auction if u have access to those catalogs online....

Do you happen to know what it sold for back then?

Edit to add: Sold for $2,350.00, in 2013...It was in NGC plastic back then.  I checked NGC Auction Central.    

Edited by Walkerfan
To answer question in my original post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2023 at 3:45 PM, Walkerfan said:

You are correct.  It is undeniably mint state.

Nope...at least not by the photo. The disturbance of luster in the field and evident abrasion on Liberty's breasts, legs, etc. are all classic indicators of an AU coin. If the coin were actually uncirculated the grade would be at least MS-63 even with the small facial scars. (A MS-61 coin will have numerous scrapes and contact marks, but undisturbed luster and no circulation abrasion.)

The so-called "grading company" lied to the submitter who then passed the lie to another and it eventually made it's way to you. The person/company from whom you bought this excellent AU coin probably did not do the grading....they simply let you assume.

Your coin shows the typical overall appearance of an AU coin --- through its lack of marks (very limited circulation, and inconsistent with Uncirculated grade). Many real AU coins are, indeed, superior to Unc coins in all respects except slight abrasion and luster disturbance.

(I would much prefer your coin over an UNC 60, 61 or 62 coin in many cases. It is much more attractive and representative of the design and production of 1869.)

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Sandon

Sandon

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

     Unquestionably, the 1869 Seated Liberty dollar that is the subject of this topic is a scarce and desirable coin.  Unlike abundantly common Morgan dollars, Seated dollars, by issue or as a group, are legitimately scarce. Although the 1869 issue has a relatively large mintage of over 423,000 pieces, it is believed that most were exported and melted. Perhaps no more than a few thousand exist in all grades, including impaired examples. This coin is also likely among the best 100 or so of the surviving pieces. That, however, does not mean that it is necessarily correct to describe it as "uncirculated."

    Based on the photos, the coin lacks luster and shows a flat gray color on the high points of Liberty's right leg and breast and the highest points of her hair.  There is similarly a lack of luster and some flatness due to "rub" at the tops of the eagle's wings and on the high points of the feathers of the neck and wings. These are among the high points where wear first appears as still described in the A.N.A. grading guide for determining whether a coin is AU or uncirculated. By the standards I--and presumably @RWB-- learned in the 1970s, such a coin is a Choice AU or "slider" and should not be graded "uncirculated". The grading services and the dealers who largely support them describe coins with "rub" like this with such euphemisms as "roll friction" and give such coins numerical grades as high as MS 63. (Compare this coin to the MS 65 and higher graded examples on PCGS Coinfacts, which are correctly described as "uncirculated" by traditional standards.)  The fact is that there are very few truly uncirculated coins among earlier U.S. coins, and most of those awarded lower mint state grades by grading services would have been graded AU by pre-1986 standards. When @RWB described this coin as a "really nice AU coin" he intended it as a compliment. So do I.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted

Agreed....and there is no justification for any numismatist to knowingly buy or sell a falsely described coin.  The 1869 dollar is, I feel, fully worth a premium sum for its actual quality, and might be valued higher than a scruffy UNC. (By "premium" I mean more than the typical auction results displayed on line.) But if the quality of coins is manipulated by faulty authentication or grading, the result is endemic confusion and falsehood perpetuated by those who are supposed to be trusted independent consistent evaluators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

@RWB and @Sandon You are entitled to your opinion and I will respect that.  But, I see no rub in the areas that you mentioned.  The coin looks almost like a 63 to me.  The fields are a reflective, semi-prooflike with good luster.  This is as nice of an 1869 that you'll find, without paying moon money.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.... 

Edited by Walkerfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted
On 8/26/2023 at 5:41 PM, Walkerfan said:

@RWB and @Sandon You are entitled to your opinion and I will respect that.  But, I see no rub in the areas that you mentioned.  The coin looks almost like a 63 to me.  The fields are a reflective, semi-prooflike.  This is as nice of an 1869 that you'll find, without paying moon money.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.... 

OK. Remember, this conversation when you eventually sell it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henri Charriere

Henri Charriere

Posted
Posted

To the OP:   It appears I have been shouted down before I'd even had a chance to weigh in. 🤣  By the time I had recovered from RWB's initial flash-bang post, Sandon leveled the playing field leaving me and guest viewers with delectable morsels to chew on. :roflmao:

This is one of those momentous occasions when evaluating a coin straddling the "Degree of Greatness Divide," can either be a travesty or a tragedy. The following is MY opinion which you are free to quote for attribution. :)

This coin never entered "circulation," as that term is commonly used by hobbyists. Any issues which may have arisen in its remarkably long shelf life can be attributed in pertinent part to less than ideal, otherwise unremarkable inter-steward transfers of ownership and, most regrettably, less than ideal storage conditions. [In your opening, you initially referred to your coin as "she" and later, as "it."  You got it right the first time.  She is absolutely stunning and your finest acquisition to date.  ^^ 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted (edited)

The 1869 dollar is, I feel, fully worth a premium sum for its actual quality, and might be valued higher than a scruffy UNC.

On 8/26/2023 at 5:46 PM, Walkerfan said:

You're notorious for your lowball BS and everyone knows it.  I'll be fine.  

"Lowball" is defined as deliberately denigrating or under grading for personal gain. I'm known for objectivity and describing what I see without financial bias or personal gain. The hope is that you will (if the coin is as photographed) learn.

Repeating the earlier comment: "The 1869 dollar is, I feel, fully worth a premium sum for its actual quality, and might be valued higher than a scruffy UNC."

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing