Opinions on this 1795 half dime

[RI AL]

I am not bidding on this coin...way out of my budget just now...but I was curious to get your opinions on this coin, particularly the scratches on the reverse, wings, and why this didn't get BB'ed. They don't look like slab marks, and they don't look like adjustment marks either. They almost look recent with the brightness of the marks. What do you guys think? I know that for lower grade stuff, things like this might get overlooked, but for a VF 20, I'm surprised it got by the PCGS guys. Sorry, I don't know how to transfer the photo from e-Bay to here.

 

E-Bay Item number: 370136598119

 

RI AL

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

[physics-fan3.14]

Kind of ugly if you ask me, way too many marks on the obverse. The reverse looks a little scuffed up as well. I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like those marks you are looking at might be exaggerated by the angle of the light.

 

By the way, anyone ever do business with this seller? I'm looking at a CBH he's got, although the price is a little high.

[DirtyGoldMan]

I am in the market for one of these, and I would pass on this one. I do not care for the fresh scratches on the reverse. The obverse marks do not bother me.

[EZ_E]

I kind of like it. Maybe not enough to buy it. Keep in mind that this is a tiny coin. The obverse scratches are probably contemporary which are somewhat forgivable. The reverse scratches on the eagle's wings are not and those are hard to overlook. I do like the patina and the circulated cameo devices. So, although this coin has lots of merits I'd still probably pass.

[realone]

I have never liked any of this ebay's sellers coins. I now ignore his stuff.

[michael]

a lightly corroded and lightly cleaned up coin that looks like a burial coin metal detecting coin?? with the resulting scratches being from dig removal marks on the reverse as the marks on the reverse are really recent

 

i am surprised myself that this coin slabbed

 

overall a yuk pass coin

[michael]

victor please pm me your mailing address and i will put in a free coupon to get your eyes examined and also a discount for reading/up close glasses

[EZ_E]

Right or wrong, I stand by what I said.

 

No offense, pudding-pop.

[BillJones]

This is not a bad coin at all for the type. These tiny coins are really rather fragile, and many of them are bend, badly scratched and generally a mess. Yes the piece does have some marks, but most of them are very old. I also don’t like the fresh marks on the wing, but that can be toned down or will tone down over time if you store the coin in a paper envelop. Normal paper has some sulfur in it, and that will tone silver coins over time. Even in the slab those marks will tone down over a long time.

 

As for the fact that this piece is in a slab, I can tell you from personal experience that I’ve seen much worse in PCGS slabs. I rejected a 1796 half dime that had big mark in the obverse field. The coin was in a PCGS AU-50 holder AND it had a CAC sticker. I've also seen pieces that had been cleaned and polished in AU-50 holders. So as these things go, this coin is far from the worst I've seen in certification holders.

 

No this coin is not bad at all if it is being priced in the Fine condition range.

[EZ_E]

It is extremely tough to find any early type any where near resembling original! You know that much better than I do, Bill. A 10:1 ratio would be extremely generous! It's probably more like 25 bad to one good from what I've seen. And the goods are usually in strong hands and not available.

[James_OldeTowne]

From these images, the coin looks "fixed" to me, like it's been burnished and recolored. I would gladly own it, but not at the price that the slab is likely to demand (and I did not even look at the eBay listing).