Raw 1835 Bust Half

[MikeKing]

One of the really nice things about a raw Bustie is that you can photograph it without the hinderance of the plastic. Also, you can get the edges, which are always curious and interesting.

 

I took a few shots with different angles of lighting but grew too tired to work on it further, so settled on posting the two head on shots of the obverse and reverse. I would say this coin has (referring to another post by MBA101 where reference to % luster came up) probably about 90+% luster??? Of course, what do I compare it to?

 

Oh...and if anyone can come up with the Overton number

 

other than cropping and resizing for this board, the photos are entirely unretouched and taken with a single halogen light.

 

 

 

[MBA101]

Looks very cool! And I believe it to be O-101.

[Hoot]

Sweet coin, Michael! Looks like it would have some great luster and toning in-hand. (thumbs u

 

Hoot

[SkyMan]

Looks nice!

[IGWT]

I really like that coin, Mike.

[edmerlr]

Yep. It's the O-101.

 

I have always believed the 1835's is a sleeper in the Busties from the 1830's.

 

There are not that many well struck 1835's around in the mid- AU's and above.

 

A lot of us Bustie collectors like to spend our time looking for the "really old" Busties struck before the 1830's. We forget, as we search for Busties from the 18-teens or the 1820's, that even the 1835's are "awfully old."

 

If you don't believe me when I say a good 1835 is hard to come by, try an experiment: Take any one week on eBay and tally up how many Busties in the 1830's come up for sale. Tally them by date: 1830, 1831, 1832, etc.

 

...see how few 1835's you find compared to the other years.

 

Edgar Souders discusses in his book Bust Half Fever II how the reported high mintage figure for the 1835 is probably a bogus number.

 

Regards,

 

Ed R.

 

Edited to add: Excuse me, Mike. How rude of me. I forgot to add that this is a great looking 1835!!!

 

[James_OldeTowne]

That is how a wonderful, crusty old bust half is supposed to look. I congratulate you on being the guardian of such a terrific and meaningful coin.

[123cents]

Very nice crusty CBH.

[okbustchaser]

Yep. It's the O-101.

 

I have always believed the 1835's is a sleeper in the Busties from the 1830's.

 

There are not that many well struck 1835's around in the mid- AU's and above.

 

A lot of us Bustie collectors like to spend our time looking for the "really old" Busties struck before the 1830's. I we forget, as we search for Busties from the 18-teens or the 1820's, that even the 1835's are "awfully old."

 

If you don't believe me when I say a good 1835 is hard to come by, try an experiment: Take any one week on eBay and tally up how many Busties in the 1830's come up for sale. Tally them by date: 1830, 1831, 1832, etc.

 

...see how few 1835's you find compared to the other years.

 

Edgar Souders discusses in his book Bust Half Fever II how the reported high mintage figure for the 1835 is probably a bogus number.

 

Regards,

 

Ed R.

 

Edited to add: Excuse me, Mike. How rude of me. I forgot to add that this is a great looking 1835!!!

 

Well, when one considers that at least 4 DM's bearing the 1834 date were actually struck in 1835 (or at least after several 1835 DM's) and therefore counted as part of the 1835 mintage it is no wonder that the published mintage number is bogus.

 

And yes, this is a nice looking '35.

[rrantique]

Nice coin Mike. (thumbs u

[bsshog40]

Very nice CBH there Mike. Nice pics too. Has that been laquered?

[Bruceswar]

Very nice CBH there Mike. Nice pics too. Has that been laquered?

 

Not a chance.... No it is orginal looking. Sweet!

[bsshog40]

Didn't know. Thanks Bruce!

[Mozin]

I like the toning. Nice looking 1835 all around.

 

 

[JRocco]

Hi Mike,

I have to just chime in here also and add that that is a nice looking coin.

Just the right amount of color/crust and luster.

 

[jtryka]

Nice coin Mike and cool edges!!!

[CoinAddict]

Outstanding bustie, Mike.

[MikeKing]

Thanks for everyone's input, all, very much appreciated.

I'm posting the grade it received at pcgs, which turned out to be MS63

[MBA101]

Dang! Congrats!

[James_OldeTowne]

Thanks for everyone's input, all, very much appreciated.

I'm posting the grade it received at pcgs, which turned out to be MS63

Very interesting. I would have guessed MS-62 due to the cabinet friction, but I guess the friction is not that extensive, and it's tough to argue with a Choice grade. Congratulations!

[MikeKing]

I;m occasionally trying to rephotograph coins to capture more luster. i had a hard time with this one, i don't know why. when i look at it and rotate it, it's quite nice and very jewel-like, but damn if i could get this in the photo.

 

here's my latest shots, please let me know what you think or if you have any advice. my biggest problem is reflection off my own lens, and i am using just one light source, a tungsten bulb. best results were with the light coming from behind the camera onto the coin.

 

Ed's right. Finding a decent 1835 has been no mean task, and I'm having a helluva time finding a decent 1834 as well. Never expected that with the later dates.

 

James, the cabinet friction is a bit of contention with this coin, I think the surfaces and the luster pulled it up, and are kind of 64ish but because of the cabinet friction, the coin would not grade any higher, I think.

 

 

 

[jtryka]

THat is a sweet half Mike!