CC gold opinion

[EZ_E]

I'm thinking of picking up one of these pieces: 1891 CC or 1892 CC $5 gold.

 

[WinstonWare]

I don’t know much about gold but these both look nice to me

[Oldtrader3]

The '92-CC is more scarce then the '91-CC and sells for appropriately more money. I have owned several 92-CC half eagles and both '91 and '92-CC eagles and feel that they are a better date than '91-CC's. The '92-CC coins appear at auction much, much less frequently than '91-CC coins.

[EZ_E]

The '92-CC is more scarce then the '91-CC and sells for appropriately more money. I have owned several 92-CC half eagles and both '91 and '92-CC eagles and feel that they are a better date than '91-CC's. The '92-CC coins appear at auction much, much less frequently than '91-CC coins.

 

Thanks for the input Charlie and boardsters. Both are NGC 45 even though the '92 has more detail.

 

My goal, however, is a type set of original, circulated types.

 

What's your evaluation of the '92 in these regards, Charlie?

[Stanley]

Buy them both .

[MunkyMan95]

The 1891 looks crustier.

[kryptonitecomics]

The 1891 looks crustier.

 

My thoughts exactly....I used to have an 1891 that was in AU55.....bought it as UNC from Paul Simms.....you know the drill.....

[Oldtrader3]

Victor: Hard to tell from a scan, but the '92-CC looks good to me for an EF45. Wear looks even a little better than EF45. Couple of marks on the reverse, but nothing out of line for an EF coin. Still even has some mint luster in "United". Usually, these are overgraded because they are Carson City coins, but this one looks EF+.

[DirtyGoldMan]

Both look nice, but I prefer the evenness of the original color of the obverse of the 91-CC.

[EZ_E]

Both look nice, but I prefer the evenness of the original color of the obverse of the 91-CC.

 

I agree with the consensus. However, I decided to pass on the purchase since Christmas and expenses are coming up. Thanks for all of the input. It was a very good numismatic exercise anyway.

[WinstonWare]

If you keep the ladies happy they’ll keep you happy. Good call

[EZ_E]

How true!

[Hoot]

From the photos, I definitely like the 91 more. It has a much more "thick skinned" look to it. The 92 looks like it's had a poor dip somewhere along the line, which shows up in the fields and around the stars.

 

Hoot

[EZ_E]

I agree, Mark. Just like my 1836 $5 gold in my registry set. The '92 has been cleaned and is by no means original. Since it has better details, many would be tempted to purchase it over the '91 since they are both the "same" grade. That would be a mistake. Give me problem-free originality over details any ol' day.

[Hoot]

Give me problem-free originality over details any ol' day.

 

I'll even opt for an original coin with limited problems over a blatantly cleaned coin. (This does not mean that I've changed my mind about fixing problems that are fixable, but that's another story...) My 1807 bust half (small stars) is an original, thick-skinned, darkly toned VF with graffiti around the date. That's a coin I won't touch, as the graffiti only shows with keen eyes or a loupe since it's as old and worn as the coin itself! I think I posted it in James' post on bust halves.

 

Anyway, Victor, I couldn't agree more.

 

Hoot

[mrearlygold]

How can you tell on such scans?

[DirtyGoldMan]

How can you tell on such scans?

 

'Cause we're good.

[mrearlygold]

How can you tell on such scans?

 

'Cause we're good.

 

Really

[EZ_E]

More extrapulation than anything but it is still difficult. Notice the uneveness of the '92's field, etc. vs the thick skin on the '91.

[DirtyGoldMan]

How can you tell on such scans?

 

I think that any opinion of a coin based on an image comes with the unspoken caveat that the coin may look different in-hand, and that the decision to buy or sell a coin should be made primarily on the basis of an in-hand evaluation, with proper lighting, magnification, etc.

 

It's simply too long a disclaimer to add to every post.

[MikeKing]

My first impression was the 1891, having 'the look', and I voted for it, but Charlie has a sense about these things that I don't, so I'd discuss it further with him...if it were me buying the coin. Perhaps as Hoot said, the '92 had a poor dip. Photos can be decieving. What's the schmutz near the neck of the '91?

[JJSingleton]

From the images I would choose the 91-CC. Nice crusty look, which I will go for every time. The 92-CC image just doesn't do it for me. My gut says it has been been messed with, and it makes me want to take a close look to see what's going on.

 

Of course mrearlygold is correct. Giving advice / opinions from images is really just a parlor game to be played on forums. All coins must be seen in hand to make accurate evaluations.

[michael]

cc coinage non morgan

[PerryHall]

The 91-CC is the most common date so I'd go with the 92-CC. I like them both so I'd buy them both even if I had to do it on layaway.