1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin

I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring. I know
that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the front appears to
have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an uncirculated 1861
quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has excellent detail. I would think an
1961 coin is special because Lincoln was president and the civil war started
in 1861. Is the coin's value as a coin or it's gold content greater? TIA,
Paul

"Paul H" wrote in message
...
I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring. I know
that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the front appears
to
have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an uncirculated 1861
quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has excellent detail. I would think
an
1961 coin is special because Lincoln was president and the civil war
started
in 1861. Is the coin's value as a coin or it's gold content greater?
TIA,
Paul

http://www.hoobly.com/0/0/1062137.html

should answer your question. how hard would it be to remove it?

Paul H wrote:
I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring. I
know that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the front
appears to have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an
uncirculated 1861 quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has excellent
detail. I would think an 1961 coin is special because Lincoln was
president and the civil war started in 1861. Is the coin's value as
a coin or it's gold content greater? TIA, Paul

When a coin is in a bezel, hanging as they usually do from a chain worn
around the neck, it is bound to get banged up and at the very least to have
its sharp edges rounded, if it was indeed uncirculated when it was mounted.
Dealers can always tell, even after the ring is carefully removed. Unless
this piece is a very rare exception to that rule, it is worth only its gold
content, assuming a knowledgeable buyer.

I also must advise against grading a coin from a picture in an ad.

James

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:49:17 -0600, "Paul H"
wrote:

I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring. I know
that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the front appears to
have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an uncirculated 1861
quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has excellent detail. I would think an
1961 coin is special because Lincoln was president and the civil war started
in 1861. Is the coin's value as a coin or it's gold content greater? TIA,
Paul

The date, as a historical point, will not affect the value of the coin
in any way. The grade (condition) of the coin and the relative rarity
of coins minted in that date determine the value. That value is, of
course, a theoretical value without a willing buyer available.

1861 $2.50 gold coins range from $300 to $700 (skipping the top-tier
conditions and the rarer "old reverse" versions), but your coin will
be downgraded by being ex-jewelry. The value will be higher than the
gold content value in any case.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:49:17 -0600, "Paul H"
wrote:

I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring.
I know that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the
front appears to have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an
uncirculated 1861 quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has excellent
detail. I would think an 1961 coin is special because Lincoln was
president and the civil war started in 1861. Is the coin's value as
a coin or it's gold content greater? TIA, Paul

The date, as a historical point, will not affect the value of the coin
in any way. The grade (condition) of the coin and the relative rarity
of coins minted in that date determine the value. That value is, of
course, a theoretical value without a willing buyer available.

1861 $2.50 gold coins range from $300 to $700 (skipping the top-tier
conditions and the rarer "old reverse" versions), but your coin will
be downgraded by being ex-jewelry. The value will be higher than the
gold content value in any case.

Tony, you've been away too long. Welcome back!

James

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:32:33 -0600, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:49:17 -0600, "Paul H"
wrote:

I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring.
I know that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the
front appears to have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an
uncirculated 1861 quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has excellent
detail. I would think an 1961 coin is special because Lincoln was
president and the civil war started in 1861. Is the coin's value as
a coin or it's gold content greater? TIA, Paul

The date, as a historical point, will not affect the value of the coin
in any way. The grade (condition) of the coin and the relative rarity
of coins minted in that date determine the value. That value is, of
course, a theoretical value without a willing buyer available.

1861 $2.50 gold coins range from $300 to $700 (skipping the top-tier
conditions and the rarer "old reverse" versions), but your coin will
be downgraded by being ex-jewelry. The value will be higher than the
gold content value in any case.

Tony, you've been away too long. Welcome back!

Thank you. I've been preparing some ads to run on eBay to sell some
US gold, so the post caught my eye. I just so happens that the pieces
I'll list are graded (Details) with a few ex-jewelry included.

That (Details) is a killer on selling price. One of the pieces is an
1858-C $2.50 gold piece ANACS graded AU-53, but (Details) due to
"Ex-jewelry". Would have been such a nice piece without that
(Details).

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:32:33 -0600, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:49:17 -0600, "Paul H"
wrote:

I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring.
I know that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the
front appears to have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an
uncirculated 1861 quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has
excellent detail. I would think an 1961 coin is special because
Lincoln was president and the civil war started in 1861. Is the
coin's value as a coin or it's gold content greater? TIA, Paul

The date, as a historical point, will not affect the value of the
coin in any way. The grade (condition) of the coin and the
relative rarity of coins minted in that date determine the value.
That value is, of course, a theoretical value without a willing
buyer available.

1861 $2.50 gold coins range from $300 to $700 (skipping the top-tier
conditions and the rarer "old reverse" versions), but your coin will
be downgraded by being ex-jewelry. The value will be higher than the
gold content value in any case.

Tony, you've been away too long. Welcome back!

Thank you. I've been preparing some ads to run on eBay to sell some
US gold, so the post caught my eye. I just so happens that the pieces
I'll list are graded (Details) with a few ex-jewelry included.

That (Details) is a killer on selling price. One of the pieces is an
1858-C $2.50 gold piece ANACS graded AU-53, but (Details) due to
"Ex-jewelry". Would have been such a nice piece without that
(Details).

Do your potential clients a favor and include the word "details" in the
title bar for any coin thus slabbed. Way too often I open up auctions that
don't reveal the "details" issue until I get inside. To me that's false
advertising.

James

James

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:32:33 -0600, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:49:17 -0600, "Paul H"
wrote:

I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring.
I know that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the
front appears to have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an
uncirculated 1861 quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has
excellent detail. I would think an 1961 coin is special because
Lincoln was president and the civil war started in 1861. Is the
coin's value as a coin or it's gold content greater? TIA, Paul

The date, as a historical point, will not affect the value of the
coin in any way. The grade (condition) of the coin and the
relative rarity of coins minted in that date determine the value.
That value is, of course, a theoretical value without a willing
buyer available.

1861 $2.50 gold coins range from $300 to $700 (skipping the top-tier
conditions and the rarer "old reverse" versions), but your coin will
be downgraded by being ex-jewelry. The value will be higher than the
gold content value in any case.

Tony, you've been away too long. Welcome back!

Thank you. I've been preparing some ads to run on eBay to sell some
US gold, so the post caught my eye. I just so happens that the pieces
I'll list are graded (Details) with a few ex-jewelry included.

That (Details) is a killer on selling price. One of the pieces is an
1858-C $2.50 gold piece ANACS graded AU-53, but (Details) due to
"Ex-jewelry". Would have been such a nice piece without that
(Details).

Do your potential clients a favor and include the word "details" in the title
bar for any coin thus slabbed. Way too often I open up auctions that don't
reveal the "details" issue until I get inside. To me that's false
advertising.

Oh my, you spend all of 5 seconds opening up an auction.
Get over yourself...

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 21:05:51 -0600, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:32:33 -0600, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:49:17 -0600, "Paul H"
wrote:

I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a ring.
I know that having been in a ring diminishes it's value. But the
front appears to have all of the detail that I see in an ad for an
uncirculated 1861 quarter-Eagle. The back, of course, has
excellent detail. I would think an 1961 coin is special because
Lincoln was president and the civil war started in 1861. Is the
coin's value as a coin or it's gold content greater? TIA, Paul

The date, as a historical point, will not affect the value of the
coin in any way. The grade (condition) of the coin and the
relative rarity of coins minted in that date determine the value.
That value is, of course, a theoretical value without a willing
buyer available.

1861 $2.50 gold coins range from $300 to $700 (skipping the top-tier
conditions and the rarer "old reverse" versions), but your coin will
be downgraded by being ex-jewelry. The value will be higher than the
gold content value in any case.

Tony, you've been away too long. Welcome back!

Thank you. I've been preparing some ads to run on eBay to sell some
US gold, so the post caught my eye. I just so happens that the pieces
I'll list are graded (Details) with a few ex-jewelry included.

That (Details) is a killer on selling price. One of the pieces is an
1858-C $2.50 gold piece ANACS graded AU-53, but (Details) due to
"Ex-jewelry". Would have been such a nice piece without that
(Details).

Do your potential clients a favor and include the word "details" in the
title bar for any coin thus slabbed. Way too often I open up auctions that
don't reveal the "details" issue until I get inside. To me that's false
advertising.

My ads *always* include "AU 55 - Details" (or whatever the grade is)
in the listing line and the headline. The body copy states what the
Details are (cleaned, ex-jewelry, scratched, etc) even though that
information is shown on the pictured slab.

I'm going to be listing all of my (Details) gold now, but I'm holding
on to the rest of the gold.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 21:05:51 -0600, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:32:33 -0600, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:49:17 -0600, "Paul H"
wrote:

I have an 1861 2 1/2 dollar gold coin (a quarter-Eagle) in a
ring. I know that having been in a ring diminishes it's value.
But the front appears to have all of the detail that I see in an
ad for an uncirculated 1861 quarter-Eagle. The back, of course,
has excellent detail. I would think an 1961 coin is special
because Lincoln was president and the civil war started in 1861.
Is the coin's value as a coin or it's gold content greater?
TIA, Paul

The date, as a historical point, will not affect the value of the
coin in any way. The grade (condition) of the coin and the
relative rarity of coins minted in that date determine the value.
That value is, of course, a theoretical value without a willing
buyer available.

1861 $2.50 gold coins range from $300 to $700 (skipping the
top-tier conditions and the rarer "old reverse" versions), but
your coin will be downgraded by being ex-jewelry. The value will
be higher than the gold content value in any case.

Tony, you've been away too long. Welcome back!

Thank you. I've been preparing some ads to run on eBay to sell some
US gold, so the post caught my eye. I just so happens that the
pieces I'll list are graded (Details) with a few ex-jewelry
included.

That (Details) is a killer on selling price. One of the pieces is
an 1858-C $2.50 gold piece ANACS graded AU-53, but (Details) due to
"Ex-jewelry". Would have been such a nice piece without that
(Details).

Do your potential clients a favor and include the word "details" in
the title bar for any coin thus slabbed. Way too often I open up
auctions that don't reveal the "details" issue until I get inside.
To me that's false advertising.

My ads *always* include "AU 55 - Details" (or whatever the grade is)
in the listing line and the headline. The body copy states what the
Details are (cleaned, ex-jewelry, scratched, etc) even though that
information is shown on the pictured slab.

You are indeed an exception. Keep up the good work!

I'm going to be listing all of my (Details) gold now, but I'm holding
on to the rest of the gold.

I'm really conflicted about all this "Details" and "Genuine" and NCS
business. I probably always will be. It does all carry the assurance that
what you have is the real thing, an issue of crucial and growing importance
these days, so I guess we live with it.

James