A Commentary on the Grading of Flowing Hair Dollars, Then and Now

[BillJones]

Recently I purchased a 1795 Flowing Hair Dollar for my type set. It may have been a stupid purchase because I already a nice coin in that slot at cheap ancient dollars. Still I was drawn to the new piece in spite of the fact that it had the same grade on the holder as my old piece, EF-40. There was just some about the surfaces, which looked AU to me, which my attention to them.

 

It is a well known fact that all 1794 Flowing Hair dollars are weakly struck. The reason for this was that the early U.S. mint did not have a coin press that was large enough to provide the pressure to strike a dollar sized coin. The mint obtained a larger press in 1795, which was supposed to have solved the problem, but sometimes I wonder.

 

Some of the 1795 Flowing Hair dollars that I have seen have less detail than their surfaces would indicate with respect to wear. This statement goes into the thicket of grading by surfaces, which Dr. Sheldon described as one of those skills that a moderately talented collector learns after years of study.

 

The point is that sometimes you can’t grade a coin by the detail you see on it alone. Some pieces were poorly struck and never had the detail. Others had a feature in high relief that caused that area to wear prematurely. Some coins were made with cracked or worn dies, which resulted in loss of detail. And there are coins that were stuck in such a way that they had a protective rim that preserved certain details longer that the same details were preserved on other coins. An example of this is S-65, the most common 1794 large cent variety. The milling on the left obverse rim was high. That feature protected that hair detail which left the coin looking as if it is a higher grade than it actually is.

 

 

I purchased this 1795 Flowing Hair dollar more than 25 years ago. At the time that I bought it was graded Choice VF. Most people didn’t apply grading numbers to coins in those days, but when numbers were applied to it, the consensus fell in the VF 25 to 30 range with the reverse grading VF-30+. The surfaces on this coin are smooth and totally original. This piece has never been dipped or cleaned. There are some adjustment marks on the obverse, but they have never bothered me because they flowed with the design.

 

When I sent the coin to NGC, a bit over four years ago, I was amazed when it came back in an EF-40 holder. I thought that the detail or “meat” rated no more than VF on the obverse. The revere had some claim to the EF-40 grade, but as with most all coins, the obverse generally sets the grade and the reverse comes along for the ride unless it has problems. Still when I compared this piece to others in EF-40 holders, I found that I really not gotten a “gift.” It seemed that there was a new standard.

 

 

Here is the coin I purchased recently. This piece is in a PCGS EF-40 also. It has more hair detail on the obverse, but parts of the reverse, most notably the eagle’s head, show less detail than my first coin. Upon examination of this piece, however, I saw a lot of subdued mint luster and mint surface under the toning. Ms. Liberty’s face in particular looked be AU although there were fat spots in her hair. In the end I decided that PCGS had short changed this coin by at least 5 grading points. Still, in the “old days” this coin might have been graded as low as VF-35 because of the missing detail in the hair.

 

Upon arriving home I attributed this piece by die variety and learned that it is a B-1 in the classic Bolender book and BB-21 in Dave Bowers’ landmark work on U.S. silver dollars. Bowers in his commentary stated that the head on this variety was impressed in higher relief in the die, which resulted in premature wear on the hair detail.

 

That could very well be true, but I have another theory. It could have been that this piece did not get a “full squeeze” when it was struck which resulted in a loss of detail. Perhaps it was the end of the day, and the guys who were pushing and pulling the die press levers were tired, or perhaps it was intentional.

 

The dollar dies were larger than any other dies the U.S. mint personnel had worked with up to that point. As such it took more pressure to strike these coins because the larger the coin the more pressure it took to strike, all other things (e.g. the metal used) being equal. It might have been that the U.S. mint personnel were pulling their punches with the dollar dies because the heavy pressure it took to strike the coins was causing them to break or wear out too quickly. Perhaps this might explain why some 1795 Flowing Hair dollars (including the coin I bought 25 years ago) have less detail that they should, given the appearance of their surfaces.

 

This post has probably gone on too long for some folks, so I’ll turn the discussion over to you. Feel free to render opinions about grading, strike and the market for these fascinating coins.

 

By the way these two coins are the most common and second most common die varieites in the Flowing Hair Dollar series. In that respect I didn't exactly strike gold when I purchased these pieces.

[rrantique]

Great post Bill thanks,very informative

[MarkFeld]

Bill, thanks for another interesting and informative post. Like it or not, the change/loosening in grading standards that you noted with respect to the Flowing Hair dollars has also occurred in every other series I can think of.

[coinman1794]

Some of the 1795 Flowing Hair dollars that I have seen have less detail than their surfaces would indicate with respect to wear. This statement goes into the thicket of grading by surfaces, which Dr. Sheldon described as one of those skills that a moderately talented collector learns after years of study.

 

This is the key to the discussion, I believe. Many people never learn the difference between weak strike and wear, yet that distinction is essential when grading early U.S. coinage. Learning the difference is a bit like plato's wall; once you have finally crossed it, something clicks and it becomes very easy to differenciate from there on. Ultimately, you cannot grade any early US coin by detail alone and you cannot compare two different die varieties; you have to learn strike vs wear and apply that skill comprehensively.

 

All of the grading services have always been inconsistent on open collar strikes because professional graders themselves have a hard time making such distinctions. And, while there is no question that gradflation has taken place over the years, I don't necessarily view the difference in the grade of your Flowing Hair dollar as a factor of this. It may be that the graders actually understood strike vs. wear (for a change) when your coin went through. Next time it goes through, it might very well be a VF30. I haven't seen much gradeflation on circulated early US in general; normally it's been the slider AU and all MS grades that inflate.

 

Your PCGS-40 looks XF45+ to me, by the way.

[rbrown4]

Very informative points.

 

Thanks

 

Rey

[123cents]

Great post. Both coins are beauties.

[stev32k]

Very interesting and informative post. Thanks for taking the time to put it up.

[IGWT]

Another great post, Bill. Thanks for sharing your observations & experience.

[WinstonWare]

Great post! Thanks for all the great information. I must say that I prefer the look of your new coin. It appears heavily patinated where I don’t see that in the first coin. I’m not questioning your thoughts on the first coin being completely original but could you expand on how you know. Any insight would be appreciated . Thanks!

[numismatica]

An example of this is S-65, the most common 1794 large cent variety. The milling on the left obverse rim was high. That feature protected that hair detail which left the coin looking as if it is a higher grade than it actually is.

 

Yes! The "shielded hair" variety. These are often found on eBay, with G-4 examples being listed as "VF++++++".

[michael]

best thread on here this month

 

[BillJones]

Great post! Thanks for all the great information. I must say that I prefer the look of your new coin. It appears heavily patinated where I don’t see that in the first coin. I’m not questioning your thoughts on the first coin being completely original but could you expand on how you know. Any insight would be appreciated . Thanks!

 

The photos I used to show the first coin were a bit overexposed. I should have fixed them before I sent to the hosting site. Here are revised photos that show the coin in a light that more with its actual appearance.

 

 

The gray color that you see here is typical of a choice old silver coin that has never been cleaned. Chances are if you see bright colors, that the toning guys think is great, on a piece like this, it's been cleaned and perhaps even artificially retoned. If you look at a lot of old silver and develop a taste for it, this is the ideal color for coins in all grades below AU.

 

BTW I prefer to color of this piece to one I recently purchased. For that reason I might end up keeping both if my budget permits.

[WinstonWare]

Thanks Bill. I appreciate it

[realone]

Remember I am a newbe, so here are my questions to this great post.

How can you be absolutely without a doubt (becasue that is what i got from your post) certain the surfaces are original and in my humble opinion when I look at the details of the obverse of both coins I see VF30 not XF and the obverse of both coins I see XF, so to me the coin is reduced to VF30 forgetting that pCGS gave it a XF, I think it was there loose grading this time around. I have a 1797 XF45 by PCGS that was previously in a ICG XF45 holder that I cracked out and submitted to PCGS, so two grading companies saw the same thing and mine kills the 1795. Now I am completely unfamiliar with strike so maybe I am wrong but your obverse fair and face detail is weak in my opinion. Can you help me to understand what is going on?

Al

[BillJones]

How can you be absolutely without a doubt (becasue that is what i got from your post) certain the surfaces are original and in my humble opinion when I look at the details of the obverse of both coins I see VF30 not XF and the obverse of both coins

 

After collecting silver early coins more than 30 years, one gets to know what is original and what is not. The toning on original coins is "set" into the surface. It does not lie on top of the surface as is the case with coins that have been artificially toned. There is also an absence fine hairline scratches. When these scratches are present, it is an indicator that the coin has been cleaned with an abrasive. Removing old patina from a silver coin requires excessive dipping to make the coin “white” because it has worked its way into the piece. When a coin is dipped that much, it takes on a lifeless pasty look. Usually one needs to use an abrasive to clean such pieces. Neither of these Flowing Hair dollars shows any signs of cleaning.

 

As for the sharpness grade, first I would refer you to the ANA Grading Guide. If you compare these coins with the pictures of the EF and VF coins in that book, you will note that both coins have more detail than that the VF coin in the ANA Guide. And both coins appear to have smoother surfaces and comparable amounts of detail than the EF coin in the ANA Guide. I’m looking at the 6th edition of the ANA guide.

 

I have a 1797 XF45 by PCGS that was previously in a ICG XF45 holder that I cracked out and submitted to PCGS, so two grading companies saw the same thing and mine kills the 1795. Now I am completely unfamiliar with strike so maybe I am wrong but your obverse fair and face detail is weak in my opinion.

 

You can't compare the sharpness of Draped Bust dollars with that of a Flowing Hair dollars and use that as a reason to lower grades on the earlier coins. I have seen very few Draped Bust dollars, other that those that were struck with worn or damaged dies, that were poorly stuck. The Draped Bust Dollars were more sharply struck than the vast majority of Flowing Hair pieces and had more detail on both sides from the very beginning.

 

Now I am completely unfamiliar with strike so maybe I am wrong but your obverse fair and face detail is weak in my opinion.

 

You need to look much more closely at the face detail on the PCGS graded piece. There is a brush wear on the jaw, but the facial contours are complete. And if you were looking at the coin live, you would see mint luster in eye socket, around the mounth and on Ms. Liberty's forehead just under her hairline. The coin also has more than a trace of mint luster on all the surfaces, especially in the protected surfaces both obverse and reverse. You can't see this from a photo, but if you see it live the luster is there withou a doubt.

 

We can debate the wisdom of giving the NGC graded piece an EF, but I'll tell that that coin is better than any VF graded piece I've seen in the past year, and better than many of the EF coins as well. The PCGS coin would have made EF in the old days because of the luster, but it would brought a lower price than the EF graded coins that had more detail. Today those sharper EF coins are in AU holders, even if they don't have any luster. I know. I've seen them offered for sale at the shows.

 

As I stated before David Bowers in his book noted that his BB-21 variety, which is Bolander's B-1, had a high relief head, which tended to lose detail more quickly in circulation. That might be the case here, but I think that the coin got less than a "full squeeze" in 1795 which accounts for some of the weakness that you see.

[rbrown4]

Bill,

 

Great info and explanation for those of us less in the know on this type.

 

Rey