Two MS64 Arrows&Rays half dollars - one brings TRIPLE the other

[MarkFeld]

coin #1

 

coin #2

 

I thought coins of the same date and grade, certified by the same grading company were worth about the same?

 

 

 

 

[kryptonitecomics]

The second coin looks like an MS65 to me....the buyers also most have thought it was an upgrade

[Coindude]

Well, I don't have the kinda money to drop on either of those suckers, but I do like the second one. Nicer, more original, first one appears to have been jacked with to make it a 64 if ya know what I mean! I guess if you are a fan of distinguishing die cracks then the first one might be your style. If the toning on the first was attractive instead of ... well, I'm sure you get the point as I know well you were trying to make.... wink wink!

[FILTHYHOARD]

That's the only thing I could think of!

Perhaps it was an Old green rattler holder & they're thinking upgrade.

It does look better struck than the 1st coin , but that's a big chance to take and one heck of a difference in price!!!

I personally like the 1st coin better. (JMHO)

[gmarguli]

I thought coins of the same date and grade, certified by the same grading company were worth about the same?

 

I thought the market needed the CAC to tell the buyers which coin was better than the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, the first coin also looks like a pig.

[MarkFeld]

Oh, the first coin also looks like a pig.

How so? It looks attractive to me, and, while this might not mean anything, at about 20% over CDN bid, it didn't bring a "pig" price.

[gmarguli]

Oh, the first coin also looks like a pig.

How so? It looks attractive to me, and, while this might not mean anything, at about 20% over CDN bid, it didn't bring a "pig" price.

 

The grease looking stain from 11:00 to 4:00, smudged fingerprints all over the obverse, uneven toning, dark spots on her arm, and very visible hits on her arms, leg, and left obverse field.

 

To me there is no comparison between the coins. They both might technically be MS64s*, but they aren't even close in quality.

 

*Based on the pictures, I suspect that coin #2 is undergraded by at least a point and the price realized would match that opinion.

[WoodenJefferson]

FYI

 

Mark, I don't mean to high jack your thread, but I find the Arrows & Rays a very interesting historical topic and wanted to include how these unique coins came about. For those who want to take the time, read this short edited article and learn.

 

For more than half a century, the precious-metal content of United States gold and silver coins had been based on a relative value of sixteen parts of silver to one part of gold. Then, in the early 1850s, that equation came unraveled following the discovery of huge deposits of gold in California.

 

The Coinage Act of February 21, 1853, considered a temporary measure until the value of silver stabilized, lowered the weight (and thus the silver content) of all the silver coins but the dollar and three-cent piece by approximately seven percent. (The three-cent piece was already a subsidiary coin and was not being melted). This had the effect of reducing the relative value of gold and silver in most United States coinage to slightly less than fifteen-to-one. It also had the effect of greatly diminishing the widespread melting of silver coins and, in the process, restoring them to the nation's commerce.

 

Because of the emergency nature of this action, there hadn't been time to prepare and obtain approval for new designs. Still, Mint officials understandably felt the need to make the new coins readily distinguishable from the older, heavier coins. Otherwise, they too, might be subject to melting. Weighing the coins would make the difference apparent, to be sure, but Mint officials wanted something even more immediately obvious. They hit upon the idea of placing arrowheads next to the date.

 

At that time, there were six silver coins, and five of them (all but the three-cent piece) had a common obverse that featured a portrait of a seated female figure representing Liberty. This Seated Liberty design had been fashioned by portraitist Thomas Sully and executed by Mint engraver Christian Gobrecht. It first appeared on the half dollar in 1839, replacing the Capped Bust design. Four of these Seated Liberty coins-the half dime, dime, quarter and half dollar-had their silver content reduced in accordance with the new legislation, partway through production in 1853. From then through the end of 1855, all bore arrowheads beside their dates.

 

The quarter and half dollar also had essentially the same portraiture on the reverse; a naturalistic eagle with a shield superimposed upon its breast. For good measure, the Mint added rays around the eagle on these two coins. No similar modification was made on the smaller silver coins.

 

In the case of the half dollar, the slenderizing process reduced the total weight from 13.36 grams to 12.44. This may seem trivial, but it made a big difference to speculators and bullion-market manipulators. Up to then, they had been buying up half dollars in quantity for resale in the Caribbean Islands or Europe, where they were being melted. Now, they found their profit margin wiped out by the lower silver content except, of course, in the case of silver dollars, which continued to be subject to speculation and melting.

 

The rays were removed from the half dollar and quarter at the end of production in 1853, but the arrows lingered for two more years, probably to reinforce awareness of the change. In 1856, with the new weight solidly established, the arrows too were removed. The pieces with both arrows and rays, being minted only in 1853, are thus one-year type coins.

 

Arrows appeared again in 1873-74, this time to signify a slight boost in weight meant to give the coins exact metric figures. Another major change occurred in 1866, when the motto IN GOD WE TRUST was added on a ribbon above the eagle.

 

Seated Liberty half dollars with arrows and rays were struck at two mints, Philadelphia and New Orleans (with the "O" mint mark below the eagle), and both had relatively high mintages. Being perceived as common, though, they weren't widely saved in mint condition, and high-grade pieces are surprisingly scarce. Points to check for wear include Liberty's head, breast and knees and the eagle's head and wing tops.

 

CoinResource

 

 

[rons]

I like both of them:) Of course they are also out of my price range but they both have attractive features that while seemingly at opposite ends of the spectrum appeal to me but given the choice I would take coin #1

[BillJones]

Coin #1 looks like hell in the small photo. It looks better in the enlargement, but it's not a coin that I would go ga-ga over. Coin #2 looks pleasant which is somewhat of a rave for the 1853 arrows and rays half dollar because the typical "Mint State" example often looks washed out with indifferent luster. Add to that the fact that many of the pieces in Mint State holders are AUs IMO, I guess the coin was ready for a run away price.

 

For comparison, here's the one in my collection. It is an NGC MS-64. Yes, it's been dipped white. Yes, PCGS would not cross it. And yes it would probably get rejected by CAC.

 

Yet it is Mint State. And, when I bought it via "private treaty,” I paid $800 under Gray Sheet bid. Frankly I’m happy with what I have given the price that the bidders paid for these two pieces.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

These coins are of different die marriages, though I couldn't give you the WB numbers offhand. I suspect the huge disparity in prices is due to a couple of variety collectors fighting over the second coin. From the standpoint of studying die states, the first coin would be a fun one to own, though.

[realone]

This is a great example of many things. Two completely different looking coins from toning to grade to die marriage, same tpg but again one in a new holder and one in an old holder. So many differences for the same year pretty amazing if you ask me. But then if you were to ask a Half Dollar expert you would probably get a very simple answer, I don't know the answer but can assume it is a combo of what has already been said, either die marriage and or grade potential but yes Mark this is very interesting to someone who hasn't studied Half Dollars before. I am trying to relate that to cbhd's and only one example can come to mind that could also be so far apart, the 1837 LM-4 vs any other 1837. Thnaks for showing, would have difinitely missed it and I was just checking out the results of the sale.

[gmarguli]

same tpg but again one in a new holder and one in an old holder.

 

Both in the same type old holder.

[physics-fan3.14]

I find the first one pleasant enough, but the second one has very nice eye appeal. I don't know anything about die marriages, I just know the second one looks nicer.

[MarkFeld]

These coins are of different die marriages, though I couldn't give you the WB numbers offhand. I suspect the huge disparity in prices is due to a couple of variety collectors fighting over the second coin. From the standpoint of studying die states, the first coin would be a fun one to own, though.

And I suspect that that the huge disparity in prices had little, if anything, to do with die varieties. But rather, more than one person thought that the second coin would up-grade.

[toyonakataro]

I'm with kryptonitecomics.

I think it will come back to auction in MS65(or higher?) holder soon

[BillJones]

I don't know of anyone who collects these coins by die variety. Yes there are die varieties in these years, but by this time the die preparation process had become considerably mechanized. The result was that the differences were very minor unlike the early years when die preparation was done largely by hand.

[Oldtrader3]

I don't know anyone except Gerry Fortin who collects seated material, in his case, seated dimes by die marriages.

[realone]

One has doubling going on and the other doesn't but the two photos are strangely different, the 1st photo is grainy and taken a completely different way than the 2nd which seems truer. I suspect that the 1st one was so fugly that the photographer messed with the photos where as the second possibly looked so good it could be taken as is.

[MarkFeld]

I suspect that the 1st one was so fugly that the photographer messed with the photos where as the second possibly looked so good it could be taken as is.

I suspect that your suspicion is incorrect. And, without having seen the coins in hand, there's no way to know if one image is any more accurate than the other.

[realone]

Is it possible that the second one is a proof

[MarkFeld]

Is it possible that the second one is a proof

It's chances are identical to those of the 1833 Half Dime you drove so many people crazy over, elsewhere.

[realone]

Mark you got to do what you do best, I fell you sell the best coins and give out the best advice. I on the other hand try to buy the best coins (depending on the wallet of course) and try to take the best advice but not without a fight! The 1833 may not be a REAL Proof but it has absolutely phenomenal characteristics that will in the end set it apart from other 1833's mark (no pun intended) my words. But then I am only a lowly newbee still trying to soak up the hobby!

[texasrichard]

Is it possible that the second one is a proof

It's chances are identical to those of the 1833 Half Dime you drove so many people crazy over, elsewhere.

 

 

ouch.

 

 

 

Regarding the coins in the OP.... I can only think that someone is betting on an upgrade with # 2.

The picture of # 1 wasn't very flattering but it's still way better than any 1853 half that I own... I guess what I'm saying is that perception is relative. I'd be proud to own it... while whoever bought # 2 might look at # 1 with disgust.