ANSWER POSTED! A tough "guess-the-grade" for an 1830 Capped Bust half....

[James_OldeTowne]

The coin lacks any luster, and the color depicted in the image is dead-on accurate. Care to guess the certified grade ?

 

[JKK]

Medium AU, like AU-55. Just a touch of high point wear, but a very pleasing bustie overall.

[MBA101]

I have one (an 1827) that lacks most luster yet hardly has wear, and NGC gave it an AU-50, so my guess would be AU-50...

 

That is a kick-*spoon* coin, btw...

[WinstonWare]

Which TPG is it James. That would influence my answer...

[okbustchaser]

MS-62.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(That doen't mean that I think it deserves it. It doesn't.)

[James_OldeTowne]

Which TPG is it James. That would influence my answer...

I didn't want to sway opinions, but it is ANACS....

[coinman1794]

Technically, I see Au58+ details and a good chance at an MS61, but that depends on whether or not this coin is original. To tell the grade, I would have to know if the luster is merely subdued or not there at all, and if it has been cleaned.

[relicsncoins]

AU details cleaned.

 

JJ

[WinstonWare]

AU-55

[rrantique]

net au-55 nice coin

[MarkFeld]

I love "tough" and will go with AU55 as my guess. My second guess would be higher, rather than lower.

[SkyMan]

I can't grade Busties for beans, but it looks nice to me.

[James_OldeTowne]

...and the answer is:

 

ANACS AU DETAILS, WHIZZED , NET EF-40 !

 

I must say that I am pretty confident about catching harsh cleanings, particularly when a coin is whizzed, but this coin just simply does not look it, and it has retoned (or been retoned) very nicely. I wonder if ANACS simply made an assumption that the surfaces must be lifeless due to whizzing. At any rate, thanks for all the guesses. It's easily the nicest-looking "whizzed" coin I've ever owned!

[MBA101]

Anacs did that to me once as well, with a decent XF/AU Seated Lib Half. I thought that it may have had some sort of old lite cleaning, but the toning was nice and you really had to magnify the coin in bright light to see hairlines. A big oh-well...

[relicsncoins]

...and the answer is:

 

ANACS AU DETAILS, WHIZZED , NET EF-40 !

 

I must say that I am pretty confident about catching harsh cleanings, particularly when a coin is whizzed, but this coin just simply does not look it, and it has retoned (or been retoned) very nicely. I wonder if ANACS simply made an assumption that the surfaces must be lifeless due to whizzing. At any rate, thanks for all the guesses. It's easily the nicest-looking "whizzed" coin I've ever owned!

 

I was close, doesn't look whizzed to me, but the surfaces don't look original either. The lack of "luster" would lead me to believe it's not whizzed. Afterall, the purpose of whizzing is to impart luster on a coin to make it look Unc. albeit fake luster, but luster none the less.

 

JJ

[coinman1794]

Hmmm, I really don't like how ANACS grades problem Bust halves. It seems like they don't put much effort into getting the details grade correct (nevermind the net grade, which fortunately has been discontinued). They could have easily called this AU58 or UNC details, net AU50; in fact, that's what I would grade it, assuming I could find evidence of cleaning.

[jesbroken]

That would be a great buy at EF pricing. Beautiful coin. I do not believe 'whizzed' is the proper term here-maybe old cleaning but not whizzed. I've never seen a whizzed coin look that demure. Regardless, I would be proud to have it in a collection.

[jtryka]

VF-35 is my guess.

[JRocco]

I am coming into this thread late so I am cheating, but I think this one was whizzed, just not everywhere. Look at the bird- I can see this whizzed right up to the bird and banner on the reverse. Now look at her face-most notably her mouth/chin area. I think that someone cleaned this one up a little, then let her tone back on the quick side. This one was not touched up to the stars either, just her face....

As for wear--mid AU wear, but no luster kills the AU grade if not for the touch up.

[MikeKing]

the fact that you said it had no luster would have made me think XF40, but it looks AU50-53 to me. However, the surfaces don't look normal, and I suspect environmental damage, not just whizzing (which I don't really see).

[just-john]

au58