1807 Capped Bust half, small stars: attribution confirmation, opinions please!

[James_OldeTowne]

What do you think of this 1807 Capped Bust half? I have attributed it as O-113 - only R.2 by die-marriage (early die-state), but I think it is the only "small stars obverse" variety (check your Redbook).

 

I think the coin has EF-45+ details, and except for one central bagmark on Liberty's neck, it is absolutely free of any other marks, rim-dings, digs or hairlines, with the only exception being a tiny handful of slide-marks on the middle worn spot just below Liberty's chin. Field surface quality seems to be very good, not glossy, and as stated, 100% hairline free. However, the color of this coin is two shades darker than average, with hints of original dirt visible in a few isolated areas. No actual luster is visible, but if you examine the reverse image, you will notice that in the well-protected areas between letters and such, the slightest vestige of luster is implied. The strike for this die-marriage seems strong to me, with the central obverse weakness and weakness at the bridge between the reverse shield and the eagle's left wing being diagnostic (check the Overton image, which is of an UNC coin).

 

Opinions, please? This coin is expensive (for my budget anyway ), but I have an opportunity to purchased it right now at a price just a little stronger than "CoinValues" EF+ money.

 

[MAULEMALL]

Nice coin...As far as buying....You know a ton more than me about them.

[okbustchaser]

James,

 

If you can get this for EF money JUMP ON IT! From the pics I think it is every bit a 45 and if there is sufficent luster (there doesn't look to be) I would accept AU on it.

 

Edited to add. Yes, it is the small stars obverse and yes, that was the only small stars die. It was also the first capped bust half die marriage minted even though the 50/20 comes first in the Overton countdown.

[WinstonWare]

I think this coin could go AU. It’s nice – dark and original. I don’t have my Overton book in front of me right now so I can’t hazard a guess at attribution.

[Bruceswar]

James this is a coin I would buy givin I had the money to. Buy it by all means!

[MBA101]

I would say that has a good chance of being a '50. The Greysheet quarterly has a price of 2200 on a 50 right now if that helps any...I wouldn't worry about luster, it does tone over sometimes, and I have seen 50's with no luster on them whatsoever.

[James_OldeTowne]

Very interesting and fantastic comments - thanks guys, for the highly appreciated information .

 

I used to (maybe 6 - 7 years ago) own an 1807-113 in an NGC AU-50 slab. (I had cherry-picked it from another vest-pocket dealer as a normal stars.) That coin was remarkably smooth and untroubled by any problems whatsoever, except for one thing that always bugged me - it had absolutely flat, lusterless somewhat dark surfaces. I ended up selling that coin for what I thought at the time was pretty good money ($2500 I believe), and for some time now, I've regretted letting it go for what I later realized was toO little for the coin. Part of this realization was the sudden upswing in CoinValues in recent months. Besides that, this coin is going to cost me nearly what I sold that other one for!

 

The present coin is the first one that I've come across that approaches the quality of the coin I sold. Coincidentally, it is as lusterless as the NGC coin was, and it is darker than usual, again, like the NGC coin was (though the NGC coin was only maybe one shade dark, while this one is two shades dark). I had always thought the NGC coin might have been cleaned, or at least heavily dipped, but this coin doesn't appear to be. So in short, I think it's comparable to my old coin.

 

As of just now, I've confirmed via eMail that I'm buying the coin, and have sent off a check for payment; I have had the coin for about a week on approval.

 

This place is GREAT - thanks again for the excellent feedback!

[MikeKing]

James, the coin is beautiful, and I like it very much!

[TomB]

Buy it, the coin is AU.

[James_OldeTowne]

Here are three XF-45s - apparently the highest grade that Heritage has ever sold - and their realized values:

 

$1840:

 

$1380:

 

$1265:

[WinstonWare]

Those are terrible! I wouldn’t buy any of those. That first one is particularly horrendous.

[okbustchaser]

Actually, the first and the last are different pics of the same coin.

[James_OldeTowne]

Actually, the first and the last are different pics of the same coin.

 

Wow, I didn't even realize that they have the same serial numbers! They look like totally different coins, which probably accounts for the large variation in realized value!

 

 

Good catch!

[MikeKing]

Buy it, the coin is AU.

 

DON'T TELL HIM THAT!!!!!! I might want to buy the coin from him!!!!

[TomB]

[Mozin]

Looks like about a $1500 Bustie. It is certainly a coin for someone that appreciates dark toning. If I owned this coin, I would ship it to NGC for grading. You have a good shot at AU50.

[James_OldeTowne]

Looks like about a $1500 Bustie. It is certainly a coin for someone that appreciates dark toning. If I owned this coin, I would ship it to NGC for grading. You have a good shot at AU50.

$1500? and I just mailed the check yesterday! I may not have done so well then - I paid somewhat more than that for it . Mozin, are you sure? Have you seen similar coins available for around that price ?

[Mozin]

Looks like about a $1500 Bustie. It is certainly a coin for someone that appreciates dark toning. If I owned this coin, I would ship it to NGC for grading. You have a good shot at AU50.

$1500? and I just mailed the check yesterday! I may not have done so well then - I paid somewhat more than that for it . Mozin, are you sure? Have you seen similar coins available for around that price ?

Get it into that NGC AU50 holder, and the price doubles, or more. There is a huge jump in demand from XF to AU, at least in holders. I looked for many years to find my NGC AU53 Small Stars.

[coinman1794]

If that coin has original luster, it should be an AU50-53 without any problem.

[stman]

Someone just alerted me to this thread. I follow the 1807's very closely. Small stars is much tougher to find then most would realize. It's actually my favorite variety. It sounds like you paid close to 2500.00 and that's certainly in line with what I see.

 

That said, it looks to have AU "detail" but with the dead luster you mention I'd not call it AU. In fact, if it's as dead as you mention, I'd call it 40. Not trying to be harsh, but hitting 45 I believe there should be some luster evident. Just my worthless opinion. I actually own several of this variety, and spend quite a bit of time studying them.

[James_OldeTowne]

Someone just alerted me to this thread. I follow the 1807's very closely. Small stars is much tougher to find then most would realize. It's actually my favorite variety. It sounds like you paid close to 2500.00 and that's certainly in line with what I see.

 

That said, it looks to have AU "detail" but with the dead luster you mention I'd not call it AU. In fact, if it's as dead as you mention, I'd call it 40. Not trying to be harsh, but hitting 45 I believe there should be some luster evident. Just my worthless opinion. I actually own several of this variety, and spend quite a bit of time studying them.

STman, thanks a lot for the terrific information. Thankfully, I didn't have to pay quite $2500 for it though! To avoid a spam situation, I'll PM you what it cost me just for your reference (not to sell).

[WinstonWare]

I still see the coin as au and demanding an original premium for being so dark

[stman]

I still see the coin as au and demanding an original premium for being so dark

 

Just an opinion here..... I'm not necessarily commenting on the coin that is the

original topic here. Because I can't get a good feel from the images. But just because a coin is "dark" in my opinion doesn't make it "original." These things have had plenty of time to re-tone. I really don't want to get into what's original and what's not. I just see this comment that a dark coin is original once in a while.

And decided to comment.

[WinstonWare]

You can't say this:

just because a coin is "dark" in my opinion doesn't make it "original"

and then say this:

I really don't want to get into what's original and what's not

 

In your opinion, what are some of the attributes of a more original CBH?

[stman]

You can't say this:

just because a coin is "dark" in my opinion doesn't make it "original"

and then say this:

I really don't want to get into what's original and what's not

 

In your opinion, what are some of the attributes of a more original CBH?

 

Well yes I can say that I really don't want to get in a debate here which is why I mentioned I didn't want to get into what's original and what's not. I simply just stated an opinion is all.

[WinstonWare]

I’m not trying to debate I’m trying to learn. I thought and still think that dark color is one attribute of an original CBH. You seem to have attributes in mind that carry a higher weight towards originality and I was just wondering what they were.

 

In any event, maybe someone else who is knowledgeable about CBHs can give their insight.

[stman]

I guess what I meant is like mentioned, these things have had plenty of time to re-tone. Of course we'll never know for sure if anything has been done to them in the past. I like to see a crusty/crunchy toning. Something that is deep down in the surfaces, in the devices etc. A coin can be dark, yet re-toned, by natural means, and yes artificial means. I really was trying to help by simply mentioning just because a coin looks dark doesn't mean it's original IMO.

 

Of course in higher grades they might not be as crusty, but the tone will be deep.

Remember, these things are going to celebrate their 200th anniversary soon.

 

The reason I was hesitant in my response is for one I'm not a good writer, and two, the subject gets debated all the time back and forth. I will say, just going by the images, it doesn't look to be completely original to me. Can't put my finger on it, but the color, tone just looks a bit off. Sorry if I'm not much help.

[James_OldeTowne]

I’m not trying to debate I’m trying to learn. I thought and still think that dark color is one attribute of an original CBH. You seem to have attributes in mind that carry a higher weight towards originality and I was just wondering what they were.

 

In any event, maybe someone else who is knowledgeable about CBHs can give their insight.

Winston,

 

I think the issue is this. A coin can be dark, yet still not be original. For instance, if a brightly-cleaned silver coin is exposed to certain chemicals, it can turn completely black. That doesn't make it original, of course. It makes a cleaned coin that's been (poorly) retoned. I have actually seen coins that were practically jet-black from just such treatment. My best memory is of a rare Morgan dollar that looked like a mini hockey-puck. Maybe "black hole" would be a better term!

 

To your point, if such a crude retoning method were used, the coin would be universally black, with no highlights for example, and even the protected areas would be black. My coin does indeed show ligher highpoints, and the recessed areas are also lighter in color. That lends credence to the notion that my coin hasn't been "doctored" by such a drastic recoloring method, but it isn't "proof" that the coin is original. It's just evidence supporting that assertion.

 

I happen to think my coin is pretty darned original, again based on the contrasts in color across highpoints and lowpoints. The toning pattern just "looks right", albeit in a darker shade than what is usually seen. Usually too, if a coin's been cleaned, even if subsequently artificially retoned, there's not going to be any dirt or "crust" on the coin, and mine definitely has remnants of dirt still clinging to some of the detail areas. That's another point toward originality.

 

The lack of luster is almost certainly due to the thick patina. I generally agree that some luster is necessary for a grade of EF-45, and certainly for AU and up, but common sense has to play a role as well, and if a coin is thickly patinated with orignal toning, common sense would tell you that you are not going to see luster no matter how hard you look.

 

Hope some of this makes sense .

[WinstonWare]

Yes that was helpful guys thanks. Makes more sense to me know.

[MBA101]

Heritage has an NGC 50 O-114 up for auction right now, that is bidding at $2400...with 12 days + a floor session left.

 

http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=428&Lot_No=1133

 

Crusty coin, but not quite the eye appeal of yours.

 

Dave