Please help me grade this Bust Half

[MikeKing]

This Bustie was in an OGH and I felt undergraded, so I sent it in to PCGS and it came back the same grade...in a new holder of course (darn!). I'm still convinced it's the grade I think it is. Any comments? Thanks.

Luster is significant.

[rrantique]

Great looking CBH Mike, while not having anything close to that to compare for grading, I will give that one a AU-58. Flatness on eagle's head,neck, top of wings, and claws. Hair on obverse may just be cabinet friction. And grading from photo is just not the same as in hand. Hope it graded higher. (thumbs u

[rbrown4]

MIke,

 

Based on what I can tell from the images and also based on my same type of experience with Capped Bust Halves I am going to say AU-55. I have one that has been graded AU-58 that to this day I can not determine why or how.

 

Rey

[bsshog40]

I'm not real good with these but I would go with AU50-55. Nice looking CBH Mike!

[edmerlr]

Mike:

 

I always hesitate trying to grade a Bustie via photo or scan. Too many factors come into play.

 

Scans/photos can exaggerate some conditions and not clearly show other conditions. (Because I am photographically challenged, I cannot seem to get luster to appear in any of my scans.)

 

...looking at your 1820 O-104, R4+ at first glance I came up with the grade in the AU-53 to AU-55 range. Then I was thinking AU-55. ...now I am not sure.

 

(The O-104 is a very tough coin to find in AU. I finally had to settle for an EF-45 for the set piece in my collection. At first I wasn't happy with my EF-45 and I started looking for an upgrade. ...but, as Bustie prices start to climb higher and higher, my EF-45 is becoming more and more attractive to me.)

 

Regards,

 

Ed R.

[MarkFeld]

My first guess would be AU58 and my second guess would be AU55. Regardless of the assigned grade, however, why not enjoy the coin and not give another thought to what PCGS graded it?

[MBA101]

Unless it is only graded AU 50, I would not worry about it too much. Looks to me like an AU 55 coin, but an in hand determination may be necessary for a proper grade.

[jesbroken]

Mike,

Nice CBH! I, along with most, feel it would grade AU55(maybe AU58 due to luster) but I can't see an MS grade being given to this coin. JMO. Although, when CBH's are graded by the TPG's sometimes common sense goes to the wind. Great coin regardless.

[123cents]

Very nice Mike. Looks about AU-53 to me.

[BillJones]

If you are looking for a Mint State grade, it really does not deserve one. The coin is a very nice AU, I'd say AU-55.

 

1820 is a "sleeper date" in the Bust half series. You think that it is a common date until you set out to find one. Then you learn that it takes a premium price to land a nice one like this.

[James_OldeTowne]

I guess I'm way out there. I would have been on the fence between EF-40 and EF-45.

[BillJones]

I guess I'm way out there. I would have been on the fence between EF-40 and EF-45.

 

Sorry James, but you must not have seen what they are calling EF these days. The coin was dipped a while ago, but there is too much luster left to call it EF. The weakness on the obverse is due to strike not wear.

[MikeKing]

Yes, there is significant luster in this coin, much more than an xf45 and also a lot less wear than a 45.

It's obviously been dipped and wiped, and I would demote it for the wiping but my personal grade would be AU50, maybe 53.

 

I really appreciate everyone's input, I needed to reality test, even though it's by photos and you're not seeing it in hand.

 

PCGS graded this XF45 when it was in an OGH and regraded it last year as an XF45.

 

Mark, I think you know I really don't pay that much attention to the grading thing, but I paid PCGS to provide a service and they fell short,

this is what peeves me. Also, when I go to sell the coin, that step in the grade makes a difference,

particularly for this variety, and it's not an iffy AU50 IMHO.

 

[MikeInFL]

XF 45 is my grade -- not enough luster for an AU grade in my opinion....Mike

 

[edited to add: However I must agree with Mark -- who cares what PCGS thinks]

[WinstonWare]

Did you crack it and regrade it or did you just send it in its holder? I think you should crack it and send it back in…

[edmerlr]

Here's the same die marriage with a sample of today's grading standards.

 

It is ex ANACS EF-45.

 

Even if you think that NO WAY is my coin an EF-45, there is no comparison to MikeKing's coin.

 

To call both coins EF-45 is like putting a raisin along side a jucy grape and calling BOTH identical in appearance.

 

(Heaven forbid the thought of what PCGS might grade my coin.)

 

[MikeKing]

I sent it in with the holder. I think you're right, if I send it in again, I'll crack it out first.

 

edited to add; thanks Ed for putting your coin up. Lovely Bustie.

 

Mike

[MarkFeld]

.....Mark, I think you know I really don't pay that much attention to the grading thing, but I paid PCGS to provide a service and they fell short,

this is what peeves me. Also, when I go to sell the coin, that step in the grade makes a difference,

particularly for this variety, and it's not an iffy AU50 IMHO.

Mike, I'm glad you don't pay that much attention to the grading stuff. If the images are accurate, my guess is that whenever you sell that coin, if you do so via public auction, it will bring AU $.

 

Here's a question for you, though - if you felt that PCGS fell short the first time, why pay them for their OPINION a second time (other than the reason you already gave about going to sell the coin)? You apparently were already secure in your conviction that the coin was an AU example.

[TomB]

I believe the coin is AU and am surprised that PCGS graded it EF45 given that in my experience they really seem to like untoned or lightly toned CBHs. Perhaps the coin was silently net graded because of what appear to be many circulation hairlines?

[MBA101]

Ed, if my eyes are not deceiving me and that is a truly spectacular 1820 that I am looking at, I would pay more for that than Mike King's 20 (no offense meant, Mike). And if ANACS were market grading that coin, then they UNDER graded it.

[edmerlr]

MBA101:

 

Thank you for your comments about my "EF-45" 1820 O-104, R4+. Now I feel better about the coin.

 

I only collect LECBH by die marriage and die states and my overall collecting goal has always been to have an AVERAGE grade in the AU-50 to AU-53 range. (Tough to do, because some of these R5's are costly even in the lower circulated grades.)

 

In the past when I "filled a slot" with a R4 rarity or lower coin in an EF-45 or below grade, I immediately made a note to some day upgrade it.

 

As I mentioned earlier in this Thread, when I saw the Bustie prices start to go up and up, this EF-45 1820 O-104 became a keeper. They don't "give away" 1820's in AU anymore.

 

This EF-45 replaced a VF-35 that I had. This coin was from a BHNC collection in the deep Southeast that was being liquidated eariler this year. I think I got a deal on it.

 

Not much luster on my crusty Bustie. There are hints of underlying luster under the "crust" around the obverse's central devices. The reverse's field, in some areas, has a golden/rust colored look that makes me think the coin spent a decade or two in a coin envelope.

 

Sorry MikeKing: I didn't mean to get off the subject of your coin. Please keep us updated on what grade your coin gets the second time around.

 

Regards again,

 

Ed R.

[JRocco]

Hey Mike,

Nice coin.

Looking at this pic I see a technical AU, but the coin looks a bit left of original to me. By that I mean that I believe I see some lines on the coin and it has that look like someone with a great deal of experience wanted to get this in a higher slab sometime in the past. I would buy this coin for the right price without hesitation, but personally like the look of Ed's coin a whole lot too.

I would hold this one as an AU coin if the luster is there as you say and disregard the number PCGS gave it, their opinion and my opinion differ at times, and not just on my coins.

[Mozin]

There must be something about the surfaces that caused PCGS to downgrade Mike King's coin to XF45. NGC would probably grade it at least AU50.

[warriorbassman-migration]

Did you crack it out before you sent it in or did you send it to PCGS in their old holder?

 

That is definitely 50-53. I'd be kind of annoyed.

[James_OldeTowne]

I guess I'm way out there. I would have been on the fence between EF-40 and EF-45.

 

Sorry James, but you must not have seen what they are calling EF these days. The coin was dipped a while ago, but there is too much luster left to call it EF. The weakness on the obverse is due to strike not wear.

Bill, that is true, I am definitely in the habit of completely ignoring certified grades on bust half-dollars. I am such a bust coin fanatic that honestly, most of the time, I don't even "see" the grade on the slab, and there have been times when I've forgotten what the brand of holder even was! I was assessing my grade guess based on how my bust half buddies grade, and they would call it EF or better, but not AU. I actually think the PCGS grade of EF-45 is perfect for this coin.

 

Just for a little diversions's sake, the 1820, 1821 and 1822, though definitely tougher dates, were actually some of the better produced dates in the bust half series. They generally come fairly well struck, and good planchet stock led to coins that usually have better-than-average luster and good eye-appeal. Many examples are semi-prooflike and exceptionally attractive. The prior dates (1819 and earlier) featured a capped bust motif in a little lower relief than the 1820 - 1822, so those are often not as appealing, and of course, beginning in 1823, the mint had all kinds of trouble getting the dies manufactured just right. Consider the "ugly 3", "patched 3", "reworked 3", and all manner of engraving problems, and you understand why that period from 1820 - 1822 is a good target for type collectors willing to pony up a little extra for these better dates.

 

Regardless of what "grade" is assigned, the coin is what it is - a nice, original bust half. I'll stay on record as being in the EF range, but I'm certainly not going to argue with someone willing to pay AU money for it - it's worthy!

 

One last thought - I actually think the ANACS coin is a very nice EF-40, and arguably has even better originality than the PCGS coin.

[MikeKing]

James, I need your help here. Why would you call this an ef45 and not an au? Based on technical things outside of luster that you can see in the photograph.

Thanks, Mike

 

edited to add: I need to know what you are seeing and what I am not seeing.

[MikeKing]

.....Mark, I think you know I really don't pay that much attention to the grading thing, but I paid PCGS to provide a service and they fell short,

this is what peeves me. Also, when I go to sell the coin, that step in the grade makes a difference,

particularly for this variety, and it's not an iffy AU50 IMHO.

Mike, I'm glad you don't pay that much attention to the grading stuff. If the images are accurate, my guess is that whenever you sell that coin, if you do so via public auction, it will bring AU $.

 

Here's a question for you, though - if you felt that PCGS fell short the first time, why pay them for their OPINION a second time (other than the reason you already gave about going to sell the coin)? You apparently were already secure in your conviction that the coin was an AU example.

 

I already answered that question