• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UPDATE**** Grades are back on the three Original Busties

Started by MikeKing,

37 posts in this topic

MikeKing

MikeKing

Posted
Posted

First, let me refer to the original post:

Original post (no pun intented...but you have to admit, it is funny)

 

I sent these coins in for grading.

Let me explain myself, because I know there are a lot of people who would scoff at that, and maybe rightfully so, but I have my reasons

1. I tend to drop coins, and there's already what looks like old saliva spray on one of them, so I felt that encasing them in plastic would just protect them from further damage. (If anyone doesn't think that's saliva spray on the 1824/1, please let me know what you think it is and why).

2. I have a registry set, and I'd like to put them in it, in order to do so, they have to be holdered by NGC or PCGS

3. I chose PCGS soley because I can see the coins better in their holders. If I chose a company because I like them, it would have been NGC hands down, but I'm getting older, so I need to do what I do.

 

The coins graded exactly as I suspected. Not necessarily because that is their 'true' grade, but because I understand how PCGS grades Busties. Well, pretty much so, barring their general inconsitencies in doing so.

 

I'm not going to say what I think, other than what I said, or reveal how Sheridan graded them for the auction, for those who haven't reviewed his catalogue, and then this could be an exercise in grading.

 

I think the photos are good enough to grade from with the following in mind

1. The luster is not obvious except on the coins I tilted in the light, and I'm not showing those here (some of them are in the original post). The luster is rather full, considering these coins, or at least one of them is/are circulated, or all three are circulated and I'm just not going to say at this point. So, consider the luster is there, and pretty good, considering the layer of toning and the fact that these have never been dipped (NEVER been dipped, EVER).

2. The surfaces are flawless EXCEPT for what you see in the photos. i.e., the photos accurately represent the surfaces. There are marks and gouges but no hairlines, nothing hidden.

 

disclaimer: I haven't received these back from PCGS, although I know their grades, so I'm baseing my description above, from memory, so I could be making a mistake, and I'll rectify that if I have to, once the coins come back.

 

The order I'll place them is

1822 lustrous

1824 lustrous+

1824/1 (prooflike)

 

 

 

42894-1822obversetilted.JPG.1b3971b1feb52785185f3df8cade0a8c.JPG

42895-1822reversetilted.JPG.73c11c234be160346b1c746e02a0fd86.JPG

42896-1824obverse.JPG.9321dac75c21d258cd16964f615a2508.JPG

42897-1824reverse.JPG.684e4f4fac40417a97cad795e24d0008.JPG

42899-1824_1obverse.JPG.6ca0ad249f442851e6633a1a7791d045.JPG

42900-1824_1reverse.JPG.51336ae78a0a3388cdd95244d9388e76.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IGWT

IGWT

Posted
Posted

I'll play, Mike, but you have to understand that my experience with Busties is nil. So . . . 1822 AU55; 1824 AU58; 1824/1 EF45. I'm not sure on strike v. wear, especially on the 24/1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrantique

rrantique

Posted
Posted
I'll play, Mike, but you have to understand that my experience with Busties is nil. So . . . 1822 AU55; 1824 AU58; 1824/1 EF45. I'm not sure on strike v. wear, especially on the 24/1.

 

Same here Mike but guess AU-55 across the board. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rexcat

rexcat

Posted
Posted

The order I'll place them is

 

1822 lustrous, AU58 or MS63

 

1824 lustrous+, AU55 maybe...

 

1824/1 (prooflike), AU50 maybe my best guess :eek:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WoodenJefferson

WoodenJefferson

Posted
Posted

1822 lustrous AU-53

1824 lustrous+ AU-58

1824/1 (prooflike) AU-55

 

They are a handsome set no matter what the finalizer placed on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted

I'll say AU-53, AU-55 and AU-50. They actually look a bit lower in the images since luster isn't obvious, but I'm going by the comments that they are lustrous pieces.

 

Without question, these coins would never be slabbed in my collection, but I understand and respect your motives and reasons for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Dawg

DC Dawg

Posted
Posted

1. I tend to drop coins, and there's already what looks like old saliva spray on one of them, so I felt that encasing them in plastic would just protect them from further damage. (If anyone doesn't think that's saliva spray on the 1824/1, please let me know what you think it is and why).

I guess it's a real problem getting old... can't hold on to your money and the drooling can be a big problem!! lol

 

Scott :hi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted

I'll go with a total of 175 for the trio - I believe that makes me the loosest grader among those who have responded thus far. The first 1824 gets my highest grade and the second 1824 receives my lowest . If you need more specifics, let me know. ;)

 

That said, last time I guessed on one of your Capped Bust half dollars I was about 10 points too high. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
edmerlr

edmerlr

Posted
Posted
1. I tend to drop coins, and there's already what looks like old saliva spray on one of them, so I felt that encasing them in plastic would just protect them from further damage. (If anyone doesn't think that's saliva spray on the 1824/1, please let me know what you think it is and why).

 

Saliva spray?

 

Does this mean we can do a DNA test and find the descendant(s) of the person who drooled on the coin? :tonofbricks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MBA101

MBA101

Posted
Posted
1. I tend to drop coins, and there's already what looks like old saliva spray on one of them, so I felt that encasing them in plastic would just protect them from further damage. (If anyone doesn't think that's saliva spray on the 1824/1, please let me know what you think it is and why).

 

Saliva spray?

 

Does this mean we can do a DNA test and find the descendant(s) of the person who drooled on the coin? :tonofbricks:

 

Or the BHNC member who got over excited when he bought the coins initially. :makepoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IGWT

IGWT

Posted
Posted
I'll go with a total of 175 for the trio - I believe that makes me the loosest grader among those who have responded thus far. The first 1824 gets my highest grade and the second 1824 receives my lowest.

 

Well, we agree on the condition of the coins in relation to one another. Just tweak my standards, and I'm ready for professional grading. ;)

 

Edited to add a subtest: How did Coinguy grade the coins? I guess 58, 62, 55.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stanley

Stanley

Posted
Posted

AU 62

AU 62

AU 58

Top shelf very nice Mike. Congrats (thumbs u

 

Edited to add: This post represents my opinion on the images as I interpret them based on my limited knowledge of this series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
edmerlr

edmerlr

Posted
Posted

I have a copy of MB #33

 

I know how Downey graded the coins. I am curious as to the PCGS grades.

 

I cannot give you my grade opinons because I have already been prejudiced by Downey's opinons.

 

In 2008 I plan on sending off my Busties to the TPGs. How PCGS graded these coins may influence any decision I may make regarding the TPGs.

 

Please give us the PCGS grades when you feel the time is appropriate.

 

I am keeping track and score - comparing the results to my grading opinions - as I read all of the results reported on different Busties by various forum members on both forums.

 

Thank you,

 

Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MBA101

MBA101

Posted
Posted
I have a copy of MB #33

 

I know how Downey graded the coins. I am curious as to the PCGS grades.

 

I cannot give you my grade opinons because I have already been prejudiced by Downey's opinons.

 

In 2008 I plan on sending off my Busties to the TPGs. How PCGS graded these coins may influence any decision I may make regarding the TPGs.

 

Please give us the PCGS grades when you feel the time is appropriate.

 

I am keeping track and score - comparing the results to my grading opinions - as I read all of the results reported on different Busties by various forum members on both forums.

 

Thank you,

 

Ed

 

 

I should be getting back 4 Busties from NGC rather soon. They used to be housed in newer ANACS holders, so it may be some interest reference material...

 

Stay tuned.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I'll go with a total of 175 for the trio - I believe that makes me the loosest grader among those who have responded thus far. The first 1824 gets my highest grade and the second 1824 receives my lowest.

 

Well, we agree on the condition of the coins in relation to one another. Just tweak my standards, and I'm ready for professional grading. ;)

 

Edited to add a subtest: How did Coinguy grade the coins? I guess 58, 62, 55.

Or perhaps if I tweak MY standards to match yours, I'll be ready.

 

As far as your guesses regarding my grades - you should immediately go buy a lotto ticket and use your own guesses for the winning numbers. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stanley

Stanley

Posted
Posted

I had 2 CBH crossed recently from old ANACS holders to NGC holders as well with both being graded the same by each service. They’re both in my Rigistry ;) Set

IMO ANACS had graded them accurately as was reflected in the cross over to NGC. (thumbs u

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyMan

SkyMan

Posted
Posted

Not a clue as to grade as they're not a series I collect.

 

Nice attractive coins though! (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicAL

comicAL

Posted
Posted

Hi, MikeKing :hi:

 

Man-o-Man I just love these three Busties you recently added to your collection! :cloud9:

 

Thank you for sharing them with us.

 

My grading from your pictures

1822 MS 62

1824 MS 63

1824/1 AU 58

 

AAJ hm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeKing

MikeKing

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is great. Yes, the coins are awesome and it doesn't matter what they grade, and this is an interesting exercise...would be better if I sent the coins to all of you for grading, but...ummm...I won't do that!!!!

 

..........Sheridan Downey's grade/PCGS's grade/my grade/concensus grade (so far)

1822 ......45+++ (see below)............/55.................../55............/56.40

1824.......58 (see below)................../58.................../62............/57

1824/1....58.................................../55..................../55............./53

 

 

Sheridan mentions in the auction manual that the 1822 most assuredly would grade an AU by the TPG's, and that the 1824 had just a small touch of wear on the hair curl behind the ear but otherwise was MS63.

 

When I get the coins back, I'll have to re-examine them and talk to him about the grades, like what am I missing re the 1824/1, and why the 1822 would have been considered a 45. Maybe Slumlord can make a statement if he's reading this.

 

I really, really appreciate everyone's input, and continued input here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing