Need help with identifying this Bust Half

[MikeKing]

Here is an 1834 Bustie.

I thought I had the right Overton number and it agreed with the sellers O#, though, I've bought from this seller before, and found a coin mis-attributed.

 

I tried to plug this coin into my Registry set, but it was rejected as not being a number associated with the variety I thought it was.

 

Of course, I've had this problem on multiple occasions with both NGC and PCGS graded Busties, mislabeled, but sometimes it's not worth the bother sending it in as a 'mechanical error' and waiting a month or so for a return.

 

So I ask you, what is the Overton number for this Bustie.

My photos were kind of quick, and I'm not sure there is enough detail but you can always ask me to take a macro shot of a specific area, and if I can get to it, I will.

 

Also of note, why do I like this coin so much? I've been looking for an 1834 for a long time, this one has some cabinet friction (I think) and 4 little digs (equi-spaced in a row above the date) that I'm sure would bother some, but they sure don't bother me in lieu of the whole coin.

 

I think this is a very naturally toned, if not 'originally toned' coin, probably kraft envelope (James is good at determining this I think), because it has a very evenly layered dove grey patina with a huge blush of violet right over the bust itself, and additionally, it has a full cheek. Literally. No rub on the cheek. Can't say that for most of the 62's I've seen in both pcgs and ngc holders...oh...ok, maybe that wasn't rub I've been seeing all the time on these Busties (which have a much fuller cheek than pre 1830's), maybe it was just they didn't tone in one spot on the very upper surface because it was in contact with some kind of material that impeded toning. That must be it. (am I being too sarcastic?).

 

I think you'll agree, this is a lovely Bust Half, but please HELP ME WITH THE OVERTON

 

[rbrown4]

Have you checked to see if it is an O-111.

 

Rey

[jtryka]

To me, it looks like either an O-101 or O-102, large date, large letters. Can you get a close up of the date? The 102 has a recut 3. From the shape of the arrow heads and the position of the I under the T, it looks to me like an O-101.

[TomB]

I'll go with O.102.

[MunkyMan95]

I'll go with O.Ihavenoidea

[rbrown4]

Another smile from me tonite

[MBA101]

Stop all the nonesense!

 

This is a O-101

 

And I will stake my rep on it!

 

[jtryka]

So what is the problem? Is it misattributed as a small date or small letters variety?

[MikeKing]

I don't know, there's no attribution on the holder. I emailed them. I agree with you both, it's a 101. Tom, I don't think it's a 102 because the 3 isn't recut, and Rey, I don't think it's a 111 because it lacks the recut upper right points of stars 6 and 7 that the O 111 should have, also in the 111 the T (1) in STATES is lower than the A.

 

What goes with the 101 is the forecurls being joined by a curved line

 

and the upright of 5 being recut with the original cutting to the left.

 

[jesbroken]

It seems to fit the O-102 description best. What was it attributed as?

[MBA101]

101, doofus!

[TomB]

I had been looking at your topmost, darker images when I attributed the coin, and the joined forecurl appeared to me to be seperated and simply darkly toned. Of course, I couldn't tell anything about recutting on the numbers. The apparent split of the forecurl was what made me eliminate the O.101. Of course, the newest images clearly show that it is joined and I agree that the O.101 designation is correct.

[MBA101]

[WinstonWare]

Without question an 1834

[GAB]

DEFINITELY an O-101.

And a very nice one at that!