Something about these CBH I can't place my finger on.

[pendragon1998]

I was browsing the CBHs on eBay and came across these two. There's something about both of them that strikes me, but I can't put my finger on just what it is. It's just the GISS factor that's caught my attention. Would anyone care to take a look and give your opinions on these two coins?

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...A:IT&ih=006

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...p;rd=1&rd=1

 

 

[okbustchaser]

GISS factor?

 

Both coins are easily found die marriages.

 

Concerning the 1831...Randy sells a lot of very nice busties. He is usually very good about describing any problems that a coin might have. That said, however, he does (IMO) tend to grade them a mite "optimistically". I would call this one a 40 maybe a 45 not the AU he claims. I simply adjust my bids accordingly.

 

As for the other...I don't know the seller, but I don't like the looks of the coin at all.

[pendragon1998]

Sorry, GISS is a birding / old military term - I was curious to see if anyone would know what it meant. GISS stands for General Impression of Size and Shape. It basically means taking a lot of small, almost subconscious observations and forming a 'gut feeling' about the object. It was originally used to quickly ID aircraft or ships that were so far out identification wasn't a cinch, and birders commonly use the process to guess the species of hard-to-ID birds. I think that in numismatics, the same idea is behind "eye appeal".

 

The 1831 has a sort of - I dunno - "graininess" to the surface color that I was wondering about. Is that textile toning on the obverse? I actually prefer the color on the 1834, although I'm not sure I like the color on that coin - makes me think it was dipped. Those smudgy black areas bother me.

[TomB]

The 1831 being sold by Randy has the feel of a coin that was stripped down and then actively or passively retoned. The 1834 looks a bit overexposed but is almost certainly at least dipped.

[Mozin]

First coin does look like it has retoned. Still, not a bad looking XF.

 

Second coin looks terrible to me. I really don't care what they did to it.

[Dcoin]

Pendragon...saw this and i thought you might be interested...good luck.

 

Linky

 

 

Dcoin

[MikeInFL]

The 1831 being sold by Randy has the feel of a coin that was stripped down and then actively or passively retoned. The 1834 looks a bit overexposed but is almost certainly at least dipped.

 

I agree 100%, and add that I would pass on both coins...Mike

[WoodenJefferson]

I will only speak out in the case of the 1834 being sold...I would think that this auction is loaded with hype and verbage to up the ante of this CBH

 

<<1834 CAPPED BUST HALF DOLLAR PROOFLIKE SLIDER GEM>>

PROOFLIKE SLIDER...that is an oxymoron used to describe a CBH

 

<<that grades super slider Gem BU.>>

SUPER SLIDER!!! Does than mean it's been slid alot?

 

<<It looks full MS65 to the bare eye>>

Who's eye? (did you not see Miss Liberty's nostril on her nose...the wing joints of the eagle?)

 

<<I am selling off the rest of my halves collection and am not offering any returns on these items.>>

Your stuck with it!

 

<<Worth a huge premium and has more eye appeal than most MS64's and 65's that I have seen being sold on e-bay.>>

This may be in comparison to say, a MS-64/65 Kennedy half dollar?

When was the last time you saw a 1834 CBH in MS-65 being sold on e-bay?

There is probably maybe a little over 100 in exsistance in MS-65.

MS-64 $4K

MS-65 $10K

[JRocco]

I can only speak for myself, but once I read cr@p like that in an auction, I hit the BACK arrow. I feel as if the seller (any seller who throws in that type of verbiage) is talking to a complete *spoon* and I try not to allow myself to sit in that camp.

Describe the coin---fine

Say the toning is awesome--fine

 

Tell me an EF coin is a near 70 gem, and I do not look at anything sold by that seller.

[James_OldeTowne]

GISS factor?

 

Both coins are easily found die marriages.

 

Concerning the 1831...Randy sells a lot of very nice busties. He is usually very good about describing any problems that a coin might have. That said, however, he does (IMO) tend to grade them a mite "optimistically". I would call this one a 40 maybe a 45 not the AU he claims. I simply adjust my bids accordingly.

 

As for the other...I don't know the seller, but I don't like the looks of the coin at all.

I hope not to offend anyone who enjoys a positive relationship with this seller, but I have bought from him on two different occasions, and in both cases, the coins were "enhanced". I do not like the appearance of either coin linked above, and will not be bidding on any more of his coins.

 

Sorry to have to provide a negative perspective, and I hope I don't offend anyone.

[RGT]

I hope not to offend anyone who enjoys a positive relationship with this seller, but I have bought from him on two different occasions, and in both cases, the coins were "enhanced". I do not like the appearance of either coin linked above, and will not be bidding on any more of his coins.

 

Sorry to have to provide a negative perspective, and I hope I don't offend anyone.

 

James, I don't have any direct experience with this seller like you do but I've looked at quite a few of his auctions over the last few years. Most of his coins look "not quite right" to me. It's more of a gut impression than something that I can identify. I have never bid on any of his coins.

 

I have read ATS several posts where people praise his coins so I have gone back and checked his auctions several times to see if maybe I judged unfairly. I have always gotten that same gut feeling though. I can say that I have seen a good number of his coins overgraded. That's not a gut feeling but just simple observation.

 

I could never quite decide if the coins looked "enhanced" or if it was the images that were "enhanced".

[TomB]

Regarding the 1831 being sold by Randy, I can state that I have seen a number of his coins in-hand and that the coins I have seen have been largely original. In fact, the coins that I have seen in-hand have been more original than most coins of the era. However, I think his image capture technique is not as good as it should be and he often ends up with grainy images that appear to be slightly more saturated than they should be. Of course, please keep in mind that I have only seen his Barber halves in-hand and not CBHs.