New 1832 Bustie. What you guys think?

[MBA101]

Thoughts?

 

[Walkerfan]

WOW....I'm gonna leave this one to the expert CBH guys. I have no idea if that patina is NT or messed with. The strike & condition looks good; like about AU 50ish. I think it may have been cleaned but I am not sure. The cloudy areas on the obv. & reverse are making me suspect it. I think it was cleaned long ago and retoned. I'm not sure but my gut instinct is telling me this. I see no luster in the fields, whatsoever;it looks kind of dull.

 

If it's problem-free then I DO like it!

[jtryka]

I like it a lot, looks like a sweet AU coin Dave, with a nice patina, great luster still evident in the devices and pretty album toning. As for cleaning, I just always assume a bust half has been cleaned since it was standard practice for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, doesn't bother me a bit!

[physics-fan3.14]

While it may have been lightly cleaned in ancient times, lack of luster in the fields is quite characteristic and expected for an AU coin. I see no problems at all with this gorgeous coin!

[MBA101]

You guys are so cynical!

 

And take a gander at Heritage MS Bust coin pics. You often cant see luster in the fields on those, especially when they have heavy toning.

[Walkerfan]

Sorry, but I was just speculating and wondering if it is grade-able. I have known collectors who have submitted some busties that I thought looked great and the TPGS BBed them or gave them a DETAILS holder. As I mentioned in my first post I REALLY DO RATHER LIKE that coin! AS far as AU coins with or without luster; I have seen it both ways. Busties aren't my thing, though. I wonder what James would say?

[x2rider]

Me like that very much

[ldhair]

From the image, it looks AU-58 to me. Really nice.

[okbustchaser]

Looks to be a nice AU58 but knowing how both major TPGs grade these coins it is probably either in a details holder (because they were scared of what the heavy dark toning might cover) or an MS holder--maybe 63?

[123cents]

Thoughts?

 

 

 

My thoughts are that you better quit buying those great CBH's. They can become addicting!

[James_OldeTowne]

Sorry, guys. I was just speculating and wondering if it is grade-able. I have known collectors who have submitted some busties that I thought looked great and the TPGS BBed them or gave them a DETAILS holder. As I mentioned in my first post I REALLY DO RATHER LIKE that coin! AS far as AU coins with or without luster; I have seen it both ways. Busties aren't my thing, though. I wonder what James would say?

I like it very much . But I don't know whether a TPG would like it as much as I do . If it gets graded, I would guess a mid-AU grade, but the toning doesn't look fully original to me.

[MBA101]

Why do you guys think it isn't graded? Probably been sittin in a slab for 15-20 years or more.

 

 

The luster is a little subdued on the obverse, even to the point of calling it a 58. Maybe you could call it an AU-63? But I do not think this coin has enough hits for circulation, unless it was "gently" circulated. And the toning is pretty darned cool. Looks like it sat in a coin cabinet from the very beginning to me.

 

As far as cleaning goes, why do you think all coins have been in collections and therefore must have been cleaned? It sounds a little absurd considering the number of coins that were minted far exceeds the number of collectors. And there must have been some collections that remained untouched and out of the reach of cleaners, that were assembled when cleaning was not necessary. The large number of coins that have been cleaned is apparent by all the cleaned marked slabs, but there are many still out there that got away.

[James_OldeTowne]

Why do you guys think it isn't graded? Probably been sittin in a slab for 15-20 years or more.

 

The luster is a little subdued on the obverse, even to the point of calling it a 58. Maybe you could call it an AU-63? But I do not think this coin has enough hits for circulation, unless it was "gently" circulated. And the toning is pretty darned cool. Looks like it sat in a coin cabinet from the very beginning to me.

 

As far as cleaning goes, why do you think all coins have been in collections and therefore must have been cleaned? It sounds a little absurd considering the number of coins that were minted far exceeds the number of collectors. And there must have been some collections that remained untouched and out of the reach of cleaners, that were assembled when cleaning was not necessary. The large number of coins that have been cleaned is apparent by all the cleaned marked slabs, but there are many still out there that got away.

This is a classic situation where the image almost certainly doesn't convey the actual character of the coin very well. I'll bet that if imaged under different lighting conditions, full luster might show up. The reason why an AU estimate is understandable is that we can see luster between the stars, but the fields appear not to have any (again, just from the image).

 

To me, the details definitely do look UNC with no wear (other than a touch of cabinet friction), but you can imagine guesses in the AU range when considering what looks like essentially no wear, but also limited luster.

 

One other point is that dark coins like this image so much better outside a slab, and is likely better appreciated outside the limitations of a slab. It's yet another one of those reasons that I personally would rather own that coin raw. In fact, if the luster really is full as discussed, then I wouldn't hesitate to free it for my personal collection. (In no way am I suggesting you should crack it out.)

 

At the end of the day, as I stated, I like it a lot. I would love to enjoy it "in person" .

[Walkerfan]

Yes, I think that the first pic is really deceiving and probably masks some of this coins positive qualities.

 

I bet it looks much more sharp and lusterous in hand.

[MBA101]

I was torn about the luster not being flashy on this one, that is part of the "What do you think" question. But that said, chances are that the really flashy coins are the ones that have been "cared for" a bit too much. The coins appearance in hand gives the impression that the toning has become part of the coin (no way to remove it without killing the coin) which to me means it has the best chance of being "Original".

 

Thanks for the comments!

[physics-fan3.14]

I do not think it deserves an MS-63 grade. To me, I would be willing to pay an AU-58 price for it. I don't really buy the whole "cabinet friction" story - wear is wear. Those high points definitely and clearly have wear, and I don't much care why.

[Walkerfan]

I do not think it deserves an MS-63 grade. To me, I would be willing to pay an AU-58 price for it. I don't really buy the whole "cabinet friction" story - wear is wear. Those high points definitely and clearly have wear, and I don't much care why.

 

That's what really threw me a curve, too. Those high points appear not only to have a little flatness but also are discolored, which really points to wear and friction rub. I still like the coin but not at the MS 63 grade level.

[coinman_23885]

The cabinet friction lowers this to AU58 IMO. Also, it is my understanding that sometimes light cleaning resulted in net grading instead of a details holder or body bag in the "old days". I would not be surprised if the coin had been cleaned previously. I like the coin very much, but not at MS63.

[okbustchaser]

I do not think it deserves an MS-63 grade. To me, I would be willing to pay an AU-58 price for it. I don't really buy the whole "cabinet friction" story - wear is wear. Those high points definitely and clearly have wear, and I don't much care why.

 

That's what really threw me a curve, too. Those high points appear not only to have a little flatness but also are discolored, which really points to wear and friction rub. I still like the coin but not at the MS 63 grade level.

 

The discoloration and flat spots that you see above the eye and along the curls don't appear to be wear. Those details were never there in the first place. There does look to be some very light rub along Liberty's boob and lower curl. There is also a trace along the eagles' talons on the reverse.

 

As I said above, this appears to be a TRUE 58. The problem is that most real 58's--just like this one--are in MS holders. This in turn forces middle of the road AUs into 58 holders and turns coins that barely make AU into 55s. This leads XF coins into being graded AU and VFs into XFs. Gradeflation in action.

[Walkerfan]

I do not think it deserves an MS-63 grade. To me, I would be willing to pay an AU-58 price for it. I don't really buy the whole "cabinet friction" story - wear is wear. Those high points definitely and clearly have wear, and I don't much care why.

 

That's what really threw me a curve, too. Those high points appear not only to have a little flatness but also are discolored, which really points to wear and friction rub. I still like the coin but not at the MS 63 grade level.

 

The discoloration and flat spots that you see above the eye and along the curls don't appear to be wear. Those details were never there in the first place. There does look to be some very light rub along Liberty's boob and lower curl. There is also a trace along the eagles' talons on the reverse.

 

As I said above, this appears to be a TRUE 58. The problem is that most real 58's--just like this one--are in MS holders. This in turn forces middle of the road AUs into 58 holders and turns coins that barely make AU into 55s. This leads XF coins into being graded AU and VFs into XFs. Gradeflation in action.

 

If that was truly softness or an incompleteness of strike, then the color would be more consistent and the toning would be more evenly uniform.

[James_OldeTowne]

Digressing for a moment, if the slightest hint of wear instantly relegated a coin to the AU-58 category, then I'd estimate that 95% of all Walkers graded up through MS-65 should also be only AU-58, since about that percentage of them display roll friction on Liberty's bosom. For that matter, millions of UNC Morgan dollars display friction from sliding against other coins in bags, and would need to be lowered to AU-58.

 

The term "cabinet friction" is merely a contrivance. In no way can we know whether the friction on the high points of a bustie occurred in someone's actual coin cabinet - or within the confines of the early mint as the coins were slid across the counting table.

 

Technically, I agree that wear is wear, but the pricing structure used for market grading is supposed to have accommodations for that caveat built in.

[MBA101]

Digressing for a moment, if the slightest hint of wear instantly relegated a coin to the AU-58 category, then I'd estimate that 95% of all Walkers graded up through MS-65 should also be only AU-58, since about that percentage of them display roll friction on Liberty's bosom. For that matter, millions of UNC Morgan dollars display friction from sliding against other coins in bags, and would need to be lowered to AU-58.

 

The term "cabinet friction" is merely a contrivance. In no way can we know whether the friction on the high points of a bustie occurred in someone's actual coin cabinet - or within the confines of the early mint as the coins were slid across the counting table.

 

Technically, I agree that wear is wear, but the pricing structure used for market grading is supposed to have accommodations for that caveat built in.

 

Well said. I may also add that this coin only has a color change at a certain angle, and not from all angles. If the coin has true wear, then it looks worn from an angle and all angles, not just from the way light strikes it. Now, I am not saying anyone is right on their individual opinions, but u are all looking at a pic where a pro saw this coin for like 15 seconds a long time ago and thought it be a 63. Seriously, from what I know, its a 58, but like I said b4, it has way too few hits to be circulated, and the toning is way too even to be unoriginal. Also, from what I have seen and heard, slight discoloration on flat high points is more the norm anyway so how you can say its wear may not be right anyway. I believe there may be a tad bit of toning worn off that changed the color slightly...but who knows fer sure? Scotch is wonderful!

[physics-fan3.14]

Digressing for a moment, if the slightest hint of wear instantly relegated a coin to the AU-58 category, then I'd estimate that 95% of all Walkers graded up through MS-65 should also be only AU-58, since about that percentage of them display roll friction on Liberty's bosom. For that matter, millions of UNC Morgan dollars display friction from sliding against other coins in bags, and would need to be lowered to AU-58.

 

I agree, and have said so in the past.

[okbustchaser]

Digressing for a moment, if the slightest hint of wear instantly relegated a coin to the AU-58 category, then I'd estimate that 95% of all Walkers graded up through MS-65 should also be only AU-58, since about that percentage of them display roll friction on Liberty's bosom. For that matter, millions of UNC Morgan dollars display friction from sliding against other coins in bags, and would need to be lowered to AU-58.

 

The term "cabinet friction" is merely a contrivance. In no way can we know whether the friction on the high points of a bustie occurred in someone's actual coin cabinet - or within the confines of the early mint as the coins were slid across the counting table.

 

Technically, I agree that wear is wear, but the pricing structure used for market grading is supposed to have accommodations for that caveat built in.

 

And they SHOULD be bounced back to 58. If that means that a Walker becomes much tougher to find in MS-65 then so be it. If it takes "MS-65 money" to buy an AU-58 coin then the sheets are wrong not the grading standards.

[James_OldeTowne]

Digressing for a moment, if the slightest hint of wear instantly relegated a coin to the AU-58 category, then I'd estimate that 95% of all Walkers graded up through MS-65 should also be only AU-58, since about that percentage of them display roll friction on Liberty's bosom. For that matter, millions of UNC Morgan dollars display friction from sliding against other coins in bags, and would need to be lowered to AU-58.

 

The term "cabinet friction" is merely a contrivance. In no way can we know whether the friction on the high points of a bustie occurred in someone's actual coin cabinet - or within the confines of the early mint as the coins were slid across the counting table.

 

Technically, I agree that wear is wear, but the pricing structure used for market grading is supposed to have accommodations for that caveat built in.

 

And they SHOULD be bounced back to 58. If that means that a Walker becomes much tougher to find in MS-65 then so be it. If it takes "MS-65 money" to buy an AU-58 coin then the sheets are wrong not the grading standards.

I am all for technical grading. But I suspect it won't happen.

 

"What's in a name" applies here. The very poor choice of the term "mint state" is what causes the problem. Simply put, in the early days, coins that left the mint usually ALREADY had wear. But they are still "mint state", and they are also "uncirculated", because they look (more or less) as they did when the left the mint and went into someone's collection.

 

This is where some have suggested grades like MS-55 to suggest the coin is as it left the mint, but is also worn. I think that's too confusing.

 

The problem is that everyone forgets what's really important. What isn't so important is how the coin when it looked when it left the mint, but rather how it looked when it left the dies.

 

What we need is to do away with both terms "mint state" and "uncirculated", and use terms like "As-Struck" and "Post Struck". So, grades would be AS-60 through AS-69 for the coins that are more-or-less as they left the dies, except for toning and pre-struck defects. PS-58 down through PS-50 should describe what we now call "AU", and everything from EF-45 on down can remain the same.

[MBA101]

 

Still going eh? It amazes me how some people buy any classic coins at all because the only ones that meet their standards are graded MS-70.

[okbustchaser]

 

Still going eh? It amazes me how some people buy any classic coins at all because the only ones that meet their standards are graded MS-70.

 

I never said the coin didn't meet my standards. If it looks at all like the pics I would love to buy it. I would even pay what the market says is MS-63 money for it. I merely said that it shouldn't be graded MS anything if rub is visibly present

 

Of course, as for grading MS-70 I don't think ANY coin meets the listed standards.

[MBA101]

 

Still going eh? It amazes me how some people buy any classic coins at all because the only ones that meet their standards are graded MS-70.

 

I never said the coin didn't meet my standards. If it looks at all like the pics I would love to buy it. I would even pay what the market says is MS-63 money for it. I merely said that it shouldn't be graded MS anything if rub is visibly present

 

Of course, as for grading MS-70 I don't think ANY coin meets the listed standards.

 

I have avoided MS CBH's in the past for this very reason. You would be hard pressed to find any bust halves without some sort of discoloration below MS 65. In any event, I do want to add a few MS coins to the collection. And I find that some AU 58 CBH's look like some MS 61-63 or even 64 coins. Its all just so confusing.

[Walkerfan]

Busties at the MS 65 level are extremely expensive; there are alot of nice MS 63s out there. I HAVE seen MS 63 Walkers, just as anything else, in slabs that DO NOT belong there but rather in AU 58 holders but people just keep buying them (and for premiums!), b/c they put ALL their faith in the TPGS. Just like QDB once said and I quote:

 

"When buying coins such as this, cherrypicking is always the order of the day and people should just use their God-given brains a little bit."

 

Please don't get me wrong; I'm just trying to prove a point. I've been fooled MANY times. I'm just saying that we need to be a little discriminating and don't just rely on that insert number.

 

And also, I can't REALLY tell you exactly what I think of that coin from that photo. That coin really needs to be seen in person in order to make a better judgement.

 

 

[jtryka]

I may be a conservative grader, but I am not cynical! Ok, maybe I am.