1831 Bust half, strangely attractive coin, I think ... your thoughts?

[James_OldeTowne]

What do you think of this coin?

 

 

I paid $200 for it about a month ago, which is more or less sheet for AU. In mulling it over, though, I'm beginning to think that it actually has UNC details! The luster is just about dead on this coin, yet as you can see, the patina is quite heavy. What do you think NGC might grade this? Any reason to suspect it's not an original coin? Thoughts appreciated.

 

JUMBO IMAGE here. Thanks!

 

James

[chinook]

Nice coin James,

 

IMHO, I would give it an AU-58 grade. The hair curls on the obverse and the head and feathers look "shiny" like just slight rub. Do you think it might have been wiped? The area around the stars and the talons looks dark. Its hard to clean those areas.

[TomB]

It looks like an O.104, which is an R1. The opinion that I will give is based entirely on this one set of images and might be completely wrong when comapred to the coin in-hand, so please keep this in mind.

 

I don't like the look of the coin and think it's an AU that might have been worked on. It appears that all the highpoints are somewhat lighter in color (the hair curl under L, the hair curl beneath Y, the top of the cap, the eagle's left talons, the top of the eagle's head and the top of the eagle's right wing). Also, CBHs from 1831 have generally fairly decent strikes, with many of the very good. This coin has weakness in the scroll, which is normal for the variety, but otherwise just gives me an overall impression of slight wear. Additionally, and perhaps this is an artifact of the imaging technique, the fields look smoothed over. Take my opinion for what it's worth as I have never held the coin to examine it.

[coinman1794]

When I looked at the pictures I thought emidiately that it was cleaned. Then you said the luster ws dead. I would almost guarantee that that coin ws cleaned. It would no-grade at NGC.

 

If not for the cleaning and/or lack of luster, it would grade at least AU58.

[Hoot]

The coin has some inconsistencies of detail between an AU and an UNC coin. Tom outlines the details well. When I combine the image with what you said about the lustre being nearly dead, I instantly thought "whizzed." Some whiz jobs can be difficult to detect in terms of surface abrasion, but flat lustre that does not cartwheel regularly (rather, glistens) and peculiar definition of details are two bad signs.

 

Hoot

[Elcontador]

Due to open collar striking of this series, you need to see the coin to be able to grade it. Most of the MS 65s I've seen are not fully struck (a fully struck Capped Bust Half is SCARCE). You need to look for luster breaks to determine if a particular area is worn or not.

 

A tip the coin has been played with is your comment that the luster is dead. I am also leery of a coin that is clear in its fields but is noticeably darker in its protected areas, which are more difficult for a coin doctor to work on.

[michael]

now this is from your scan and description in person sight seen my comments might be different as i need to see the coin in person to be sure and make any correct comments

 

so here goes my GUESSTIMATE just from your scan

 

 

looks overdipped/dipped in cynaide

 

 

 

i think it was a really harsh STRONG chemical overdip myself that burned off all the lustre that also changed the surfaces ever so slightly of this common coin i do not think anyone would work on a common date available bust half

 

all this was done a long long time ago decades ago i think so.............

 

 

 

the coin retoned somewhat over the years

 

to me the coin has negative eye appeal

 

 

 

tomb made some interesting observations also with regards to the coin being worked on and then cleverly toned to mask the work this is a possibility

 

but until i see this coin in person sight seen i cant say either way and as per the above only a guesstimate from a scan kind of like me giving an apprasial over the phone

 

myself i do not like the look of this coin either

 

there is definately something wrong with it

 

looks like a new evenly smoothed surfaced monochrome mattelike finish to me which in my minds eye is not natural or original to these coins

 

 

michael

[James_OldeTowne]

I appreciate all the honest comments. I probably used to strong of words in some of my description. The coin doesn't have "dead" luster, it's just that the luster is only slightly perceptible. Typically, with this much detail, I'd expect strong, rolling luster. It's like the luster is "muted" by the heavy patina. Now, one thing I'm sure of is that the coin isn't tooled or smoothed. The fields are pristine, with maybe only a couple of typical, incidental hairlines. I agree with the concept that the coin was harshly dipped, burning off too much luster.

 

I guess it's probably not worth sending in then? At best, I think it might go AU-50. If it had the expectant luster, then of course it'd be a 58.

 

Thanks for the advice and the reaction, guys. I really do appreciate it.

 

James

[Count_Erfit]

Well, I'll be danged if James shouldn't get SOME credit for a NEW description.

 

ROLLING ....luster. I like it. Too bad Q. Dave ain't writin da quarterly "Rare Coin Review" no more.

 

We could have a rolling luster BU rub.

 

The luster looks like SLIDING luster to me.