Please grade this Bust half and explain WHY. Thank you.

[MikeKing]

 

ummm...NO hairlines and rolling cartwheel luster.

 

Thank you

Michael

[Bruceswar]

Real Grade AU 50 ... Market Grade AU 55

[WinstonWare]

Coin is dipped and retoned. Grades au55 or so. Not the kind that I like, but their is a strong market for these.

[James_OldeTowne]

The 1807 and 1808 Capped Bust halves are in my mind the most difficult of all to grade, as they featured the original low-relief rendition of Liberty. What often appears as a cleaned and polished surface on the high points is actually simply unstruck planchet. I think your coin is in the MS-62 range, give or take a point. I might give it the point for nice retoning, but deduct the point for a normally bad strike.

 

It should be carefully noted that the flowline on these coins is also almost always very poor, so you don't typically have the advantage of being able to estimate grade based on the percentage of remaining luster, since there was hardly any to begin with. Considering the difficulty of finding nice examples of this "Sub Type One", I think your coin is very nice and desirable, and congratulate you warmly if you are the owner.

 

(If it's available, please let me know.)

 

James

[Stanley]

I would say solid 58. It appears to be a slight rub on the throat, upper chest, and lower cheek to keep it below MS60 or better. Almost 200 years old this coin has held up well and is the best it was meant to be. I like it.

 

Edited to add: Which equates to having its own unique character which I find so appealing in this series.

[DC Dawg]

Coin is dipped and retoned. Grades au55 or so. Not the kind that I like, but their is a strong market for these.

 

Can you explain how you know the coin has been dipped and retoned? I am interesed in learning how to detect this. THANKS!

 

Scott

[MikeKing]

Coin is dipped and retoned. Grades au55 or so. Not the kind that I like, but their is a strong market for these.

 

Can you explain how you know the coin has been dipped and retoned? I am interesed in learning how to detect this. THANKS!

 

Scott

 

Well Scott, this coin is almost 200 years old, yet sports a center that, although lightly toned (not showing in this photo), is almost untoned by comparison to it's periphery and other 'untouched' coins of similar ancestry. If you see silver, like this, on such an old coin, particularly busties, it's been dipped. In fact, even if completely toned over, likely the coin would have been dipped as this is just historically what's been done to most busties. This one, however, is very 'clean' in the center, and it's obviously been dipped. The peripheral toning you see is it's retoning over time. Not to be confused with artificial toning, which you can read a lot about by using the search mode in this forum. If the dipping is harsh, you can destroy the metal flow lines which are responsible for a coins luster, and this would lessen the quality of the coin. In this particular case, the dipping has not compromised the luster. In fact, this coin has an abundance of luster, perhaps more than usually seen in this year for bust halves. Also, often coins have been wiped and dipped (or dipped and wiped), in which case hairlines are produced in proportion to the enthusiasm of the wiping, as well as the kind of material used to wipe the coin. This is also undesirable. This coin, however, has notably clean fields in terms of an absence of hairlines that you might not just see in the fields, particularly above the eagle's wings, but also over the devices, in the exhuberantly wiped coin. (what you see in the photo is what is there, nothing hidden.)

 

Bruce, a good example of an au50 is an 1807 bustie on the current heritage auction site (which also has an abundance of hairlines). The wear on the 1808 coin pictured here, is actually minimal. If you look at the hair curls, you will never see the likes of this in an au50. I can see the argument of it technically being au55 perhaps, but I could only apply that to the reverse, which is mostly the way it is because of the poor striking capabilities of that particular design, like James pointed out.

[WinstonWare]

So Mike what is your guess if you submitted it for grading?

 

Thanks, Winston

[TomB]

If there is unbroken, rolling cartwheel luster as you have written then the coin is mint state. What folks do not generally realize is that the CBH series has several major sub-types and that each of these sub-types has its own peculiarities in grading. The 1807-1808 CBHs are sub-type I and are the softest detailed coins in the series. The Mint had relatively poor technology and resources and the high points of the CBH design were not thought through in a manner to strike them with full detail present.

 

Areas that are quite common to find with mushy details include the dentils, the stars, and Ms Liberty's hair and clasp on the obverse. Meanwhile, the reverse is often poorly struck in PLURIBUS, the eagle's talons, head and right wing (viewer's left wing). This coin is well struck in the dentils, clasp, some of the stars and PLURIBUS. It is adequately struck in the remainder of the stars, Ms Liberty's hair and the eagle's right wing. It is not that well struck in the eagle's talons and head. If these areas have cartwheel luster and no hairlines then they are not exhibiting wear. In fact, the coin appears to be better struck overall than most for this sub-type.

 

If the area immediately at the front of Ms Liberty's portrait is off-color and without luster then I might see the coin in an AU58 holder. However, if this area has no problems then the coin is likely an MS62.

[WinstonWare]

Thanks for the explanation Tom

[Hoot]

I would agree that the coin is a borderline AU/MS specimen, and quite an attractive piece. It's been left alone for a long time to have picked up the nice, crusty patina at the edges, and the "old dip" is of no consequence or distraction. The lack of detail in Liberty's hair and on the high points of the eagle's feathers are strike weakness. There is, however, the hint of discoloration in those areas and on Liberty's drapery and mobcap that indicate normal handling over time and, perhaps, the slide of the coin in a cabinet or in and out of an envelope. This coin should grade AU58-62, and may get a bump up for luster and the extent of the cartwheel effect in-hand (which simply cannot show in the photo). A truly pretty piece.

 

Hoot

[coinman1794]

Looks like a technical AU58 with a good shot at MS61-2 if the graders really like it. Great strike for the date with full left wing detail! Curtainly not an "original" piece, but not a problem coin and a very nice representative of the issue, overall.

[EZ_E]

I absolutely love this coin, Mike. Bottom line is always eye-appeal and this coin rocks with it. The toning is the clincher and, in a way, the cleaning actually adds to the appeal of Miss Liberty since she is framed in nice, concentric toning.

 

Notice the difference in descriptions among the board members:

 

The scientists Hoot and TomB, give a more technical description of the coin, although they most definitely are appreciators of beauty and eye-appeal.

 

Me, although I do have a technical background, focus more on the merits of eye-appeal which is more like a Liberal Arts major.

 

Oh well, I guess that I'm just more in touch with my feminine side.

[michael]

looks good to me

 

au55+

[MunkyMan95]

My immediate thought was MS63, but then I noticed a couple wear spot, so I'd go AU55-58.

[wonder-migration]

I agree with winston, but i'd say the grade would be an ms-62 -- ms-63 No trace of wear, maybe a few light blemishes, which were covered by the re-toning, possible slide marks also covered by the re-toning, take a look under a 20x or higher glass.

 

Josh.

[WinstonWare]

Here is an example of a 62 that has been dipped and later toned. Granted it's not the same coin as yours, I think your coin compares well to this one.

 

Edited to add: Here is a better example because it's also an 1808 that is dipped and retoned. Again I think your coin compares well to this one.

[23Pairer]

For comparison, this is my favorite bustie, in a PCGS holder, graded AU55.

 

[23Pairer]

Closeups, pre-submission in ANACs holder

 

[Stanley]

NGC 58 Here is one of my favorites for comparison. ( lustrous & bronzy )

In hand is lighter with Rose Bronze toning on the obverse. On the reverse there is also Rose Bronze toning with some Blue/Green and Red. Both Blue/Green and Red tints can be seen around the edges and devises.

 

 

 

[TomB]

It's really impossible to make meaningful comparisons between 1807-1808 CBHs and those from the 1830s. The design had been changed six times in the intervening years and the Mint technology was significantly better in the latter years.

[WinstonWare]

Sorry. I'm only through 1810 in my book

[James_OldeTowne]

I want to echo Tom's comment.

 

The first sub-type, as implied in my initial post, is a much different animal than any other, especially those of the early 1830s, which to me, represent a fourth sub-type! Sub-type one is a very low-relief and flat coin, which I believe may have been utilized to save die-wear by allowing for lower die-striking pressure. However, I think the mint soon discovered that the coins themselves wore quickly and gravitated to the higher-relief sub-type two of 1809 - 1815.

 

Grading sub-type one coins by comparison to any other sub-type will always yield a distinct (and unfair) disadvantage to the sub-type one coins.

 

James

[Stanley]

Tom and James what you are saying makes a lot of sense, however my intentions were not to yield an unfair comparison but to in fact give some balance to Pairer's Bust in comparing not just grade but the differences you have both noted.

I was very forgiving in my first assessment allowing for the imperfections which were typical to this date.

Thank you both for your input I'm learning this from you all.

 

Sorry, I should have noted that in my post

 

 

[okbustchaser]

Mike,

 

I have no problem anywhere between AU-58 and MS-63. It seems to have a pretty nice strike for the date. Here is mine for comparison. NGC called it a 63; I think it is a "tweener" just like yours. (It is currently raw and listed on my books as a 58.)

 

[MikeKing]

Jim, it's good to see you on this board. I'm sure everyone here will enjoy and benefit from your input and your posts. Welcome!

 

Your coin is really quite beautiful, thank you for posting it.

The problem I have with my coin is the eagles' head appears to have more wear than the coin as a whole reveals.

I don't know how much striking weakness contributes to this.

The E. Pluribus seems fairly well struck, but has some softness I would attribute to strike and not wear.

The upper shield tips look like wear, rather than strike deficiency.

[James_OldeTowne]

I like this coin as MS-62, but I definitely think it should be graded above AU-58!

 

James

[TJ'S Coins]

Mike, for an early CBH this is a well struck, beautiful coin that would please all but the most particular collector who may not like that it was dipped previously. That being said, I think it is an excellent mint state example..(thumbs up You have a fine specimen of a second year CBH. Rejoice and be glad because it is a wonderful specimen. Most, if not all, collectors would be pleased to own it. I would say it commands an MS62 price.

 

Has this coin been slabbed and graded?

[JonM]

It looks like a 55 to me.

 

There is wear on the Liberty's throat and the reverse is a little weak.

[coinman1794]

Its hard to judge the actual grade based on these images, but there is no doubt in my mind that that is at least an MS62. It doesnt even seem to have any "cabinet" friction. It also has one of the sharpest strikes I have seen on an 1808! That coin is a winner!