• 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.

Opinion on 2 half dimes, please?

17 posts in this topic

I think they are both slightly questionable as far as the toning goes but the first coin is more suspect because of the deep album toning on the reverse in contrast to what appears to be only a small amount of thate same type of toning on the obverse. I would expect to see coin #1 look more like coin number 2 with the matching toning on both sides. It would not shock me if both coins were NT and holdered as such....but I can't get my arms around how the obverse of coin 1 toned that way hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the images are accurate as they appear on my monitor and are accurate relative to one another then I would have little issue with the 1840 (top coin), but the 1845 (bottom coin) does not look right to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the images are accurate as they appear on my monitor and are accurate relative to one another then I would have little issue with the 1840 (top coin), but the 1845 (bottom coin) does not look right to me.

 

Agreed. The top coin has random toning and muted surfaces while the toning on the bottom coin looks controlled and artificial. Plus the untoned surfaces are a little too clean.

 

The top coin is probably the real deal while the bottom one is AT. Or perhaps the coin doctor who did #1 simply did a better job. It's hard to tell these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned by others, the toning looks a little iffy. OTOH, from the looks of it, both coins are slabbed... perhaps by NGC? Which means in essence (if it is NGC) that they are, at a minimum, market acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, 1840 is in NGC slab and 1845 WAS in NGC slab. :/

I bought 1840 as NGC MS65(and I haven't done anything on it)

And I bought 1845 as ANACS MS62 and crossed it to NGC MS61

I thought it was too clean for MS61 and cracked it out, sent to NGC⇒BB AT.

Then I tried NGC again⇒BB AT. So I tried PCGS hoping they have different opinion on it ⇒BB AT .......never give up. I tried NGC again ⇒BB AT :roflmao:

 

More than a year ago, I cracked 12 coins out of ANACS/NGC/PCGS holders and sent them to NGC and only 5 got graded.( posted this experience here about a year ago)

I have been resubmitting those bagged coins ever since and 2 coins including the 1845 are still raw.

Funny thing is, everytime I resubmit coins, at least one of them get in holder usually in higher grade and that's why I can't stop resubmitting them.

 

I'll report you back when the 1845 finally get back in holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem with the 1845, which I believe others have alluded to, is that the toning is a little "too perfect" and it is on both sides, which is very, very unusual in a natural environment. Not impossible, but just very unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem with the 1845, which I believe others have alluded to, is that the toning is a little "too perfect" and it is on both sides, which is very, very unusual in a natural environment. Not impossible, but just very unusual.

But if it's possible, then shoudn't TPG slab it? hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1840 looks like NT to me but the reverse is not right for the color . The obverse is Ok but the album toning is questionable. The other is my opion is AT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the colors in photos are accurate representations of the coins, I think that both of them are AT. Both sides of the 1845 half dime don’t look at all natural. The color of the toning is way too bright, and the patterns are overly uniform. The obverse of the 1840 is semi-convincing, but the reverse is like the 1845. The colors are too bright and too uniform.

 

I think that the re-coloring served three purposes here. First, it made the coins attractive to the less critical eye. Second they covered up marks and possible areas of rubbing. Third, I’ve seen coloring like this give off impressions of false mint luster. In short I think the intent was to make these coins more marketable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, how could someone "cook" the 1845 to give it the look it has if it is truly AT?

I have been explained one version of the process. First, Vaseline is smeared on the center of the coin in a circle (both sides of the coin in some cases, I guess), thinnest at the edges. Then, the coin is exposed to whatever chemical it is that creates the blue tone. It deposits bold blue color at the rims, blending into reddish concentric tones at the edge of the Vaseline smear, fading to no color where the Vaseline is thickest (nearer the center). When the color is satisfactory, the whole coin is washed. I was told that if there is too much contrast between the new blue toning and the unexposed coin, then the whole coin is gradually darkened until the contrast is satisfactorily diminished.

 

I don't know what chemicals are used but am told they are readily available commercially in quantity. Presumably, sulfur is one component? By the way, the person who explained this to me has very profitably put many, many colorful coins into slabs (by that I mean "hundreds"), if his tale is to be believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks James for your response.

 

I talked to someone who was purportedly an expert at doctoring copper coins...very, very expensive ones for the purpose of getting them in "good" slabs. I understand that he literaly fixes problem coins (I think including scratches and whatnot). I didn't ask how he did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to expand upon what I wrote initially to post my logic and interpretation for anyone who might be interested.

 

The 1840 is a coin that I would interpret from the images as having been dipped at least once and then possibly left to acquire original secondary toning. I don't think the coin has original surfaces, but at the same time it very well might not be a victim of intentional retoning. However, the 1845 appears to my eyes to be a coin that was stripped and then intentionally treated to acquire color. This would make the 1845 AT in my view. Of course, neither coin has original surfaces in any manner if my interpretations are correct, but the 1840 might have come about its color more by chance than the 1845.

Link to comment
Share on other sites