1892 Columbian Exposition Commemorative
0

18 posts in this topic

2,870 posts

This coin is raw so like my other requests there will not be any reveal but I would appreciate opinions on grade.

 

1892_Columbian_Comm_Slightly_Toned.jpg

 

Thanks

 

 

Edited by wdrob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,071 posts

To me, it's kind of hard to grade these things. Looks like has some very nice details. Looks like a hit on the top of the cheek and a good scrape on the lower part of the cheek. Looks like a strong 65 from the pics. Jmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,281 posts

These tend to be lower grade when compared to most commems however, this one appears to be in very nice condition.

 

I think it might well be an MS 65.

 

I hope I'm right, it's a very nice coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,960 posts

I could be wrong but the cheek and the right most sail give me the impression that there's slight rub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367 posts

Nice Columbus Bill. I really like the little collection you purchased with the coin purse, etc...

 

I happen to own one of these because I like the design. I can't judge the luster that well from your photo. I'd say 64-65.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

I hate to be a kill joy, but I agree with Sam. There is rub that sticks out on the cheek and hair that jumps out especially when the photo is moderately large. I'll go with AU55.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,960 posts

This could be what some might consider cabinet friction. Some of those coins make it into MS holders but it's a gamble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,846 posts
I hate to be a kill joy, but I agree with Sam. There is rub that sticks out on the cheek and hair that jumps out especially when the photo is moderately large. I'll go with AU55.

 

You might be right about that. However, my experience has been that a large majority of this issue - even including examples graded as high as 65 and 66 - display what looks to be rub on the cheek.

 

Look at the cheek on this MS64

 

and this MS65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
I hate to be a kill joy, but I agree with Sam. There is rub that sticks out on the cheek and hair that jumps out especially when the photo is moderately large. I'll go with AU55.

 

You might be right about that. However, my experience has been that a large majority of this issue - even including examples graded as high as 65 and 66 - display what looks to be rub on the cheek.

 

Look at the cheek on this MS64

 

and this MS65

 

Do you think it is more an issue of striking considerations then? Also, what do you think about Sam's suggestion of so called "cabinet friction"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,846 posts
I hate to be a kill joy, but I agree with Sam. There is rub that sticks out on the cheek and hair that jumps out especially when the photo is moderately large. I'll go with AU55.

 

You might be right about that. However, my experience has been that a large majority of this issue - even including examples graded as high as 65 and 66 - display what looks to be rub on the cheek.

 

Look at the cheek on this MS64

 

and this MS65

 

Do you think it is more an issue of striking considerations then? Also, what do you think about Sam's suggestion of so called "cabinet friction"?

 

Without specifically addressing the coin in this thread (since I haven't seen it in hand) I think it - the frequently seen flatness on the cheek - must be a striking issue.

 

To me, "cabinet friction" refers to a coin with a trace of rub, but which hasn't seen actual circulation. However, the result is often the same with a coin that has seen light circulation - either way, there is a trace of rub/wear.

 

I used the word "often", because, in addition to a trace of rub/wear, a coin which has seen actual circulation might also display contact marks. Compare that to a coin which has not seen actual circulation and might exhibit the same wear/rub pattern, but an absence of contact/circulation marks.

Edited by MarkFeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,870 posts

Although a grade guess of about 64 to 65 would have been my guess, Mark makes a very valid point on strike based on all the examples I looked at in the last couple of days. I, too, have seen numerous examples with similar strike issues even in MS66 and possibly MS67 holders.

 

The grading guide on these states to look for wear to appear first on the eyebrow, the hair above the forehead, and the right globe on the reverse. Those areas look free of wear on the piece in hand and a much better lit photo may have made it easier to see these areas as well.

 

I sought some advice from Brandon and he was most forthcoming, (thank you again Brandon) so hopefully I can apply his best practices to develop a much more consistent series of future photos.

 

btw; this piece has a highly somewhat mirrored field and possibly I will take the time to photograph again in an attempt to show the mirrored fields.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Edited by wdrob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,870 posts

Here it is while trying to show the reflectivity of the mirrors. The toning hampers it in some areas though.

 

1892_Columbian_Showing_mirrors.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,856 posts

These Columbians are actually *very* common (relatively speaking) in prooflike condition. Its hard to judge if yours meets the criteria, but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

I don't like the "rub" on the cheek, but if it is actually a striking issue then I would call it a 65.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,870 posts

Well I think I will call it a MS65 and since all I really wanted out of this deal was the leather coin purse and the watch fob, I think I came out pretty good on that since no one bid against me.

 

Jason, after looking at it again while taking that second picture, although reflectivity is very good, I doubt this one is PL so it is what it is.

 

Would have been nice to have received a stray proof. :D

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
Here it is while trying to show the reflectivity of the mirrors. The toning hampers it in some areas though.

 

1892_Columbian_Showing_mirrors.jpg

 

 

This one makes the coin look mint state.

Share this post


Link to post
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