Is this the same coin?

[MikeInFL]

Are these the same coin?

 

http://www.legendcoin.com/cgi-bin/display.cgi?2763+inventory

 

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=352&Lot_No=7124&src=pr

[braddick]

Wow! Yes, absolutely. Many 'tells' outside of the obvious lack of "cameo" on the second set of photo's reverse.

[123cents]

It sure looks like the same coin.

[Prethen]

Yes it is.

[DJCoinz]

Wow that's a beaut. Yeah it's the same coin.

[jgrinz]

No Way ... I disagree ... I think you are seeing slab marks to think it is the same - My reasoning of difference is a scrape on the coin and a somewhat double lip on the lower picture as depicted

 

[TomB]

Yes, it is without doubt the same coin. However, I do not know that it was processed between the Heritage sale and the current Legend offering. I write this because the second set of Heritage images, which you do not show in the opening post and that show the coin in the slab, clearly show a relatively strong cameo effect consistent with the Legend images. It appears to me that the coin was at least sent in for designation review, but that it might not have been altered.

[WoodenJefferson]

The reverse shows the same hits in the same places...not much to go on with the obverse, but this is one in the same.

[DC Dawg]

Look at the revers by the "1" and you will see that the scratch is different:

 

 

Sorry.

 

Scott

[MarkFeld]

Look at the revers by the "1" and you will see that the scratch is different:

 

 

Sorry.

 

Scott

Scott, I believe that at least part of what appeared in the before image was a stain in that area, not a scratch.

[RUSS BEGA]

The reverse shows the same hits in the same places...not much to go on with the obverse, but this is one in the same.

 

 

Maybe the scratches are figments of our imaginations.

 

think about it

[MikeInFL]

Look at the revers by the "1" and you will see that the scratch is different:

 

 

Sorry.

 

Scott

Scott, I believe that at least part of what appeared in the before image was a stain in that area, not a scratch.

 

Not to sway the responses one way or the other...

 

I would also suggest that a difference in lighting technique could be responsible for the slightly different look of the mark/scratch in the photos.

[michael]

no brainer same coin

[Mozin]

no brainer same coin

Sure thing.

[DirtyGoldMan]

Another shocking revelation: I owned the coin a few years ago.

[James_OldeTowne]

I think they are pictures of the same coin, though the coin looks "different" between the pictures. Conserved, perhaps?

[lkenefic]

I see some diagnostics that are the same but some that look a bit different. I see the patch between R and I in AMERICA; The rub on "1" and the hit on the right side of the wreath...I don't see the two marks at 9 and 10 o'clock on the obverse (present on the second coin but not on the first). This could just be artifact of photography though...I'd say they're the same coin.

 

Leo

[DC Dawg]

Look at the revers by the "1" and you will see that the scratch is different:

 

 

Sorry.

 

Scott

Scott, I believe that at least part of what appeared in the before image was a stain in that area, not a scratch.

 

Not to sway the responses one way or the other...

 

I would also suggest that a difference in lighting technique could be responsible for the slightly different look of the mark/scratch in the photos.

Sorry Mark and Mike... the shape is different, the lengths are different, and the area details of how it crosses the "1" are differnt. Without the coin in hand, I would say it is different!!

 

Scott

[DirtyGoldMan]

Here's the Pinnacle photo from when I owned it:

[MarkFeld]

Look at the revers by the "1" and you will see that the scratch is different:

 

 

Sorry.

 

Scott

Scott, I believe that at least part of what appeared in the before image was a stain in that area, not a scratch.

 

Not to sway the responses one way or the other...

 

I would also suggest that a difference in lighting technique could be responsible for the slightly different look of the mark/scratch in the photos.

Sorry Mark and Mike... the shape is different, the lengths are different, and the area details of how it crosses the "1" are differnt. Without the coin in hand, I would say it is different!!

 

Scott

Scott, no need to be sorry. But, I believe it is far easier to account for the one perceived difference you mentioned, due to lighting and/or imaging and/or dipping than it is to explain away all of the other markers which appear to be identical.

[JRocco]

It is the same coin.

[jgrinz]

Here's the Pinnacle photo from when I owned it:

 

Clearly shows the SCRATCH on the CHIN/Cheek area

[DirtyGoldMan]

In hand, the coin looked to be relatively unperturbed, and far better in originality score than 90% of more of the proof gold that is seen on the market. It was a very nice coin, and I will post why I sold it (traded it back, more accurately) at a later date.

 

Remember, these are magnified photos of a very small coin. Some of the marks and blemishes are not visible with a 10x loupe. Also, the angle and lighting can have a sigificant impact on the look of an image, especially when looking at light lines and planchet roughness.

[michael]

coin was sold in a heritage auction in a pcgs proof 64 green tag holder with a wonderful milky original skin

 

after auction it was broken out dipped and received a proof 64 cameo grade from pcgs

 

in hand SIGHT SEEN the coin has a really bad staple scratch on the neck and left field from long ago, it is obvious from every angle and only a blind man would miss it...........

 

without the staple scratch the coin is an easy superb gem proof deep cameo obverse and gem proof deep cameo reverse

 

i know of the person who obtained this coin from pinnacle in a trade deal and held it until it was again traded for another coin at the nov. 2006 baltimore show

 

where it then again appeared in the fun auction jan 2007 and was sold and now from this thread i see it has appeared on a coin dealers newp website purchases

 

it is truly a small world in the coin world and without the staple scratch the coin is easily worth 25k and also it was lightly dipped and yet it still has a wonderful beautiful look as much of the patina is still left and the eye appeal is killer/monster even with the staple scratch.

 

it is a really scarce coin and is extremely deeply watery mirrored and killer deep cameo

 

basically a superb gem deeply cameoed wonderful surfaced medium skinned coin that borders on rare and a pre civil war proof gold coin with monster eye appeal along with this staple scratch in the neck extending to the left field

 

again without the staple scratch this coin is a 25k coin

[DirtyGoldMan]

I do not like to diss someone else's coin while it is for sale, but since it was brought up by someone else, Michael is correct. There is a staple scratch in the left obverse field, which I could not live with. (I was going to post such after the coin was sold.) It is best seen in the Heritage photo posted to this thread. Without it, this coin is a lock 65, possible 66. If it were possible to laser the scratch out (and I do not know what is possible), I would be in favor of doing so.

[MarkFeld]

I do not like to diss someone else's coin while it is for sale, but since it was brought up by someone else, Michael is correct. There is a staple scratch in the left obverse field, which I could not live with. (I was going to post such after the coin was sold.) It is best seen in the Heritage photo posted to this thread. Without it, this coin is a lock 65, possible 66. If it were possible to laser the scratch out (and I do not know what is possible), I would be in favor of doing so.

(Dr.), you'd seriously be in favor of lasering the scratch out, if possible?

and

[michael]

i am not dissing anyones coin...... this is a false lie and thinly veiled accusation which i would like you to kindly correct in this post this is unfair unwarrented stab at me

 

it is just a statement of fact this is why the person i know held the coin for a year and then traded it at balty nov 2006 show

 

and he held the coin for approx. a year and loved it and saw in for many months in hand sight seen

 

he might not be that much of an advanced numismatist as you sir but he did much research and thinking on this coin and he had come to the same conclusion

 

he could not live with the staple scratch that was magnified by the monster deep mirrors and the killer deep cameo of the coin

 

it is not a bad coin but it is what it is

[BillJones]

It's the same coin, because there are just too many markers on both piectures than can't be duplicated on two different pieces. Sadly somewhere along the line it's had a "bath" that has removed a good deal of its hundred year old chracter.

 

I like these coins, but I'm glad I'm not involved in this market. If you have "bath" a coin to sell it, I'd prefer to not to own it.

[MarkFeld]

i am not dissing anyones coin...... this is a false lie and thinly veiled accusation which i would like you to kindly correct in this post this is unfair unwarrented stab at me

 

it is just a statement of fact this is why the person i know held the coin for a year and then traded it at balty nov 2006 show

 

and he held the coin for approx. a year and loved it and saw in for many months in hand sight seen

 

he might not be that much of an advanced numismatist as you sir but he did much research and thinking on this coin and he had come to the same conclusion

 

he could not live with the staple scratch that was magnified by the monster deep mirrors and the killer deep cameo of the coin

 

it is not a bad coin but it is what it is

Michael, using the expression "false lie" is redundant. If a comment is true, it's not a lie. More seriously, though....even if your prior comments about the coin were entirely accurate and well intentioned, a person could fairly construe them as dissing the coin.

 

RYK did not lie or take an unfair stab at you in my opinion. Each of you has knowledge to share about the coin and have similar opinions about it. There is no reason to get testy, so please chill.

[DirtyGoldMan]

i am not dissing anyones coin...... this is a false lie and thinly veiled accusation which i would like you to kindly correct in this post this is unfair unwarrented stab at me

 

Speaking negatively, whether factually or as an opinion, about a coin is, in my mind, dissing or knocking it. Talking about a scratch on the coin, therefore, is dissing the coin, and it is a fact that you dissed the coin. I meant no disrespect to you, and you are free to diss or compliment coins as you wish. My accusation was neither thinly veiled (it was not veiled at all) nor was it a false lie (as you clearly discussed the scratch on the coin above).

 

I personally try to avoid knocking or dissing coins for sale offered by numismatic friends or relations. I think it is bad karma.