Duke's Creek Dahlonega Collection: Crossed to NGC and sold by private treaty

[DirtyGoldMan]

I have (below) listed all of the Dahlonega coins and their respective NGC grades as copied from the NGC website. I paged through Doug Winter's Dahlonega book and entered in parentheses the PCGS grades for all of the coins listed in his condition censuses. I am assuming there were no new discoveries/additions to Dukes Creek collection since the book was published mid-2003.

 

Some observations and questions:

1. One coin upgraded up by three grades, 6 coins upgraded by two grades, 28 coins upgraded by one grade, 23 coins crossed at same grade, and one coin downgraded by one grade.

2. The 54-D $5 upgraded from 65 to 67! It is hard to believe that any Dahlonega coin could possibly be a 67.

3. The 41-D $2.50 upgraded from 55 to 61. Maybe it's not the same coin?

4. The downgrade was the 56-D $1 from 62 to 61. Safe downgrade--shows that NGC can grade tougher.

5. The trend was for larger numbers in the new holders. Is it general gradeflation or does NGC grade "looser" than PCGS?

6. Do prominent collections get a boost when the coins are submitted together for grading? Do the graders know that these are "special" coins and (unintentionally) juice the grades?

 

 

Gold Dollars: 1849-D MS64 (PCGS 64), 1850-D MS63 (PCGS 63), 1851-D MS65 (PCGS 64), 1852-D MS62 (PCGS 62), 1853-D MS63 (PCGS 63), 1854-D MS61 (PCGS 61), 1855-D MS64 (PCGS 63), 1855-D Full Date MS64 (PCGS 62), 1856-D MS61 (PCGS 62), 1857-D MS62 (PCGS 62), 1858-D MS66 (PCGS 65), 1859-D MS64 (PCGS 63), 1860-D MS64 (PCGS 63), 1861-D MS65 (PCGS 63)

 

Quarter Eagles: 1839-D MS63 (PCGS 63), 1840-D MS62 (PCGS 61), 1841-D MS63 (PCGS 62), 1842-D MS61 (PCGS 55), 1843-D MS61 (PCGS 60), 1844-D MS63 (PCGS 63), 1845-D MS63 (PCGS 63), 1846-D MS63 (PCGS 63), 1846-D/D AU58 (?), 1847-D MS65 (PCGS 64), 1848-D MS62 (PCGS 62), 1849-D MS62 (PCGS 61), 1850-D MS61 (?), 1851-D MS65 (PCGS 64), 1852-D MS64 (PCGS 63), 1853-D MS62 (PCGS 61), 1854-D MS64 (PCGS 62), 1855-D MS61 (PCGS 60), 1856-D MS61 (PCGS 60), 1857-D MS62 (PCGS 62), 1859-D MS62 (PCGS 62)

 

Three Dollars: 1854-D MS62 (?)

 

Half Eagles: 1838-D MS63 (PCGS 62), 1839-D MS61 (PCGS 60), 1840-D MS62 (PCGS 61), 1841-D MS65 (PCGS 65), 1842-D SD MS63 (PCGS 62), 1842-D LD MS61 (PCGS 58), 1843-D MS64 (PCGS 64), 1844-D MS64 (PCGS 63), 1845-D MS64 (PCGS 63), 1846-D MS61 (PCGS 61), 1846-D/D MS66 (PCGS 65), 1847-D MS63 (PCGS 62), 1848-D MS62 (PCGS 62), 1848-D/D AU58 (?), 1849-D MS65 (PCGS 63), 1850-D MS61 (PCGS 61), 1851-D MS64 (PCGS 63), 1852-D MS63 (PCGS 63), 1853-D MS64 (PCGS 63), 1854-D MS67 (PCGS 65), 1855-D MS61 (PCGS 61), 1856-D MS65 (PCGS 64), 1857-D MS63 (PCGS 63), 1858-D MS65 (PCGS 64), 1859-D MS64 (PCGS 64), 1860-D MS64 (PCGS 64), 1861-D MS64 (PCGS 63)

[IGWT]

Interesting information derived from your study, Robert. I wish I had been a member of the forum when you posted it. I can't write intelligently about gold, but this question interests me:

 

6. Do prominent collections get a boost when the coins are submitted together for grading? Do the graders know that these are "special" coins and (unintentionally) juice the grades?

 

That same question motivated me to post this thread. The pictures that I placed in the initial post are of Shield Nickels from fairly major collections. It seemed to me that none were worthy of the grade assigned. I couldn't make the point, though, because there was no consensus that the coins are overgraded.

[EVillageProwler]

Nice post, SageRad. I don't know enough about branch mint gold at this level to comment intelligently; it's sort of like me commenting about the upper crust of Seated Dollars... (Aside from TDN, no one ever responds to my threads about them either!)

 

I think the lack of response (here) is simply a lack of knowledge.

 

As for your inquiry regarding a "juice", I suppose it is possible. Graders are human, no matter how professional they try to be. As human beings, they are susceptible to influence -- intentional and unintentional. One excellent example of this is TDN's sets. The coins are all marginal for the grade and of average to below eye appeal. (Don't get fooled by the images - there is such a thing as Photoshop!)

 

EVP

[jtryka]

Interesting analysis...My guess is that there are likely three or maybe four factors involved here. First, it is certainly possible that NGC grades more loosely than PCGS, and that seems to be a fairly widespread belief among some collectors. Second, there may have been considerable gradeflation based on the time elapsed since the time the coins were first graded by PCGS and the most recent crossover (there may not have been much time elapsed, so this one could be moot). Third, I think there is a tendancy to overgrade coins from famous collections, though probably not intentionally. I find it difficult to believe that a crossover submission with these coins could not be immediately attributed to the Duke's Creek collection. Fourth, I think there is also a tendancy to give rarer coins the benefit of the doubt (i.e. inflate grades), I know this has happened with a number of rarer date Saints I've seen over the years, and perhaps it is also true of Dahlonega gold as well.

 

One thing I find interesting though is that regardless of the crossover results, the entire collection was still sold by private treaty, and although I don't know the details of the transaction, I doubt the difference in grade added much if anything to the negotiated price.

[gmarguli]

Or 5th, the buyer selected only super PQ or undergraded examples and when regraded they upgraded.

[Hoot]

6th, as the grading services have gathered experience, particularly in uncommon series such as Charlotte and Dahlonega gold, there is the tendency for grades to waver more greatly at first, only to reach a central tendency for each grade over time.

 

Hoot

[DirtyGoldMan]

My OP is from Spring, 2004 (for those who did not otherwise notice).

 

Dahlonega experts who saw the coins before and after the crossover noticed that several of the coins were, uh, processed (and ruined) at some point before they landed in NGC holders.

[IGWT]

several of the coins were, uh, processed

 

"Processed" in what way?

 

What I read suggests that Dahlonega gold collectors favor originality; so, if that's the case, isn't it financially imprudent -- nevermind a numismatic no-no -- to mess with the coins in the quest for a higher grade?

[Oldtrader3]

Re: processing. My guess is that the Dahlonega coins that upgraded were sent to NCS and were conserved to remove copper spots and maybe dirt. The unfortunate side effect of this is that these processed gold coins tend to lose their delicate mint toning and luster.

 

I have looked at quite a few "C" and "D" quarter eagles and half eagles over the years, but have never owned one. Plus, most of the examples that I have looked at were the typical XF to low-end MS coins. Based on this limited experience, my observation is that coins from both these mints usually do not have high eye-appeal, they are poorly struck and they are IMHO, often overgraded. As are many early, scarce gold issues.

 

I do collect early "S" (pre-1879) mint gold quarter eagles and (IMHO), even these coins often are slabbed about a whole grade higher than they should be. There is a also point to be made that earlier gold issues just tend to be scruffy because of the Coronet design and soft surfaces.

[Calypso]

Hi OT3,

 

I didn't know you collected early S mint quarter eagle, very nice! Are they on line?? I'd love to take a look

[Oldtrader3]

Calypso: They are in a Quarter-eagle, One-Per-Date set under my moniker. I have just started recently recollecting these coins and only have a few, along with one Civil War date and a high grade later date, both "P" coins. I am trying to acquire AU55 or better coins that are accurately graded and it is a slow process. Many of the coins that I have looked at are one or two grades over graded.

[michael]

i love civil war dated quarter eagles totally historical opportunity value stand alone coins

[Oldtrader3]

Nice Quarter Eagle, Michael!!

[HaydenTubbs]