Poll: Rate the originality of this Bust Half 1-10

coin22lover · October 31, 2014 8:19AM

Please vote, with 10 being the most original.

stealer · October 31, 2014 8:26AM

its either original or it's not...

BustHalfBrian · October 31, 2014 8:39AM

<< its either original or it's not... >>

Yeah, pretty much this

maibockaddict · October 31, 2014 8:59AM

I like it...

lasvegasteddy · October 31, 2014 9:26AM

it has a market acceptable look about it

did someone mess with it in the past and carry it as a pocket piece for a year or 2 to cover his tracks
who knows

i like the looks

gave her a 7 as different hues or shades always make me a lil suspect

DollarAfterDollar · October 31, 2014 9:31AM

I'm not nuts about it being darker near the rims either. That white spot (about 5:00) on the rim looks like cleaning.

crypto79 · October 31, 2014 9:36AM

Looks to have had a soap bath or mineral oil rub down. Where is all the gunk? Look at junk box/drawer coins if you want to learn what unmolested looks like

stealer · October 31, 2014 9:54AM

<< Looks to have had a soap bath or mineral oil rub down. Where is all the gunk? Look at junk box/drawer coins if you want to learn what unmolested looks like >>

The reverse is no doubt no good.

lkeigwin · October 31, 2014 12:03PM

Show me a 200 year old silver coin that is not black and I'll show you one that's been cleaned.

Exaggeration? Maybe a little.
Lance.

410a · October 31, 2014 12:06PM

The wipe on the reverse is the problem...........3...............

DIMEMAN · October 31, 2014 12:41PM

It's OK at best to me. Not totally original at all.

jayPem · October 31, 2014 1:06PM

No need for the latex gloves with that one....might even "get" a bit more original handling it some

Baley · October 31, 2014 1:15PM

<< its either original or it's not... >>

I disagree with that, and voted 7

MrEureka · October 31, 2014 1:57PM

Tough crowd!

I like the coin and think it's reasonably original.

MrEureka · October 31, 2014 2:00PM

Show me a 200 year old silver coin that is not black and I'll show you one that's been cleaned.

Shall we post images of TDN's Early Dollars to illustrate your point?

CoinJunkie · October 31, 2014 2:03PM

<< Show me a 200 year old silver coin that is not black and I'll show you one that's been cleaned.

Shall we post images of TDN's Early Dollars to illustrate your point?

>>

He probably should have said "200 year old circulated silver coin".

Kove · October 31, 2014 2:23PM

Of course there are different levels of originality. Especially considering that none of us knows exactly where a coin has been, or knows for certain how it's been stored or what's been done to it. A 100-year-old light cleaning is different from last week's thorough polishing.

There are a lot less original coins out there than that one. However, there are coins with a lot more originality, too. I'm in the middle of the pack on it.

Boosibri · October 31, 2014 5:58PM

Can't believe anyone voted 9 or 10

GrumpyEd · October 31, 2014 6:39PM

I give it a 4.

I see it as not original but it could be worse so it's the high end of the not originals.

TwoSides2aCoin · October 31, 2014 7:35PM

5, Plus or minus 1 (the circle of fifths)

Yeah yeah…. THIS EYE can't be on the fence, though I am.

Every picture tells a story. It's authentic. It's got some originality. It's been used, abused, dropped, and spent. Rubbed, retoned, loved and hated. It's been through many a hand and for some it was work, for others it was food. Some saw it as folly and some hold it in high esteem. I'd suspect the majority of us responding are of the crowd that cares most likely. After all, we responded in that we take it seriously.
Some of it's originality was never removed.

Since there are 2 sides to this, we may as well see it with both eyes open.
The reverse shows serious signs of the loss of originality in the fields. Don't ask me why I think this. These are MY EYES viewing it and my brain reacting to that " vision in my brain. It still remains within __ ________ __ _________.

lava · November 1, 2014 7:40AM

<< 

<< its either original or it's not... >>

Yeah, pretty much this >>

I generally agree. It is like asking if someone has had plastic surgery, it is a yes or no question.

I also recognize that original may mean different things to different people. I've seen a lot of old CBHs that have not been tampered with aside from an old X scratch into the surface probably 175-200 years ago because the merchant didn't want to be cheated with a fake or the customer didn't want to be cheated in the change received. A lot of those have retoned nicely and have an appealing, original look, if you can get past the X. PCGS has graded a bunch of those too, but that is a different matter altogether.

roadrunner · November 1, 2014 11:57AM

I'd have figured 4,5, and 6 would be the most selected grades. Original bust coins are quite scarce. So probably 90% of what's out there today would be a 7 or less. Coins ranking 8, 9, and 10 are not often run across. I'd almost call those premium quality. This doesn't change the fact that coins in the 3-6 range can't be perfectly acceptable to most collectors (and market acceptable to the TPG's). Looks like I was on the higher side of the poll with a 5. My first thought was 6 but then figured everyone would assault that wiped reverse. If this coin is a 1, then that would probably put 30-50% of all bust coins in the 0 (uncollectible) category. Agree.....tough crowd today.

The 10 point spread is just like what PCGS uses for MS high end (9,8,7), average (4,5,6), low end (1,2,3). I don't see any problem with this coin being average or typical for the year compared to extant coinage.

vplite99 · November 1, 2014 12:35PM

Genuine.

TwoSides2aCoin · November 1, 2014 12:46PM

<< Genuine. >>

net grade ?

BillJones · November 1, 2014 10:48PM

This coin is okay, and for something like this, it is "reasonably original." If a coin like this had been left completely alone though out its existence, chances are it would now be as black as a piece and coal. No one would want it, not even those who are totally obsessed with original surfaces.

This is why I get so irritated by those who want every coin that has ever had anything done to it declared "cleaned" and therefore marked as a less desirable coin. Many of the people who advocate this can't tell the difference between original surfaces and surfaces that have re-toned. In fact in many cases the experts can't tell the difference.

If you want coins that totally original, then buy them. If others want coins that have been conserved to a level of market acceptability, then they should be able to enjoy them. The originality crowd should not be allowed to dump in other people's spaces.

For the record, I voted "4." The reverse has an obviously conserved look.

291fifth · November 1, 2014 11:32PM

Burnished.

rmpsrpms · November 1, 2014 11:59PM

What is "original" for a circulated coin? Can anyone say when this coin would have been pulled from circulation, and for what reason? It certainly circulated for 20+ years to develop the wear it exhibits, but when and why was it removed from circulation? From there it was passed on through the generations, and each generation probably took a stab at cleaning it up a bit. Perhaps in the last 50-75 years it was not cleaned, and developed a decent patina. Isn't this pretty much the norm for a coin like this?

BillJones · November 2, 2014 12:27AM

<< Burnished. >>

"Burnished" means polished to make the item shiny. That coin has not been burnished.

maibockaddict · November 2, 2014 12:49AM

<< Show me a 200 year old silver coin that is not black and I'll show you one that's been cleaned.

Exaggeration? Maybe a little.
Lance. >>

Right and wrong. Coins that have been stored in a metal container will not tone very much if at all. Like silver ship wreck coins that were touching a cannon, or this

This penny is as un-oxidized as the day it was minted, and I often carry this around in my pocket. I remember a Sheridan auction from some years ago with 3 busties that were recovered from a safe that had not been opened for 150 years and they definitely were not very toned (Mike King bought them then sold them way back when).

DeepCoin · November 2, 2014 12:58AM

I gave it a 3, as it is original in terms of not being fake, but it has had a few too many hands on it in the past. Doesn't mean its a bad coin, just means that it has had a hard life.

MrEureka · November 2, 2014 1:56AM

I think many people are missing something with respect to toning (and "dirt") on circulated coins. As a coin circulates, it picks up toning and/or all kinds of crud/dirt. However, in the normal process of circulation it also loses some of the same, as the surfaces of the coin are slowly stripped down through wear. This, of course, is how "circulated cameos" come to be. The high points of a dirty, toned, circulated coins, are the first to wear further.

The point is that when you see a circulated coin that has some lighter areas, you cannot assume that it has been cleaned. It may be perfectly "original", in the normal sense of the word.

And FWIW, I voted "8".

TPRC · November 2, 2014 2:05AM

<< Tough crowd!

I like the coin and think it's reasonably original. >>

+1

Nice old coin. I'm a 7 on this one.

jayPem · November 2, 2014 2:26AM

I'm looking for this very exact coin actually ( at the right price..), to pop into an album of G-VF busties....it looks ok in the large pics and probably looks way better in hand/album.

Is this one closer to the "original " look we're talking about ? Don't ask me...for all I know this coin may have been stripped white 40 years back and now looks it's 200+ years

291fifth · November 2, 2014 2:34AM

<< 

<< Burnished. >>

"Burnished" means polished to make the item shiny. That coin has not been burnished. >>

I disagree with your definition of burnished. To me a coin is burnished when it has been rubbed with a cloth to remove tarnish on the raised surfaces of the coin, thus giving it a 3-D effect. Burnishing, by this definition, does not necessarily result in a "polished" look. This coin has not been taken to the level of appearing "polished".

roadrunner · November 2, 2014 8:17AM

bur·nish
ˈbərniSH/
verb
past tense: burnished; past participle: burnished

polish (something, especially metal) by rubbing.
"highly burnished armor"
synonyms: polish, shine, buff, rub, gloss
"marks can be removed by burnishing the metal"

BustHalfBrian · November 2, 2014 8:34AM

<< 

<< 

<< Burnished. >>

"Burnished" means polished to make the item shiny. That coin has not been burnished. >>

I disagree with your definition of burnished. To me a coin is burnished when it has been rubbed with a cloth to remove tarnish on the raised surfaces of the coin, thus giving it a 3-D effect. Burnishing, by this definition, does not necessarily result in a "polished" look. This coin has not been taken to the level of appearing "polished". >>

It's not "his" definition it's the definition...

OP's coin has not been burnished.

291fifth · November 2, 2014 9:12AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Burnished. >>

"Burnished" means polished to make the item shiny. That coin has not been burnished. >>

I disagree with your definition of burnished. To me a coin is burnished when it has been rubbed with a cloth to remove tarnish on the raised surfaces of the coin, thus giving it a 3-D effect. Burnishing, by this definition, does not necessarily result in a "polished" look. This coin has not been taken to the level of appearing "polished". >>

It's not "his" definition it's the definition...

OP's coin has not been burnished. >>

Think what you wish.

keets · November 3, 2014 2:04AM

...............and I can't believe I'm with 291fifth on this one. why do the "Burnished" ASE's look Matte-like in appearance instead of PL since the planchets are polished??

Ajjohnson77 · November 3, 2014 2:55AM

The obverse surfaces do not seem to match the reverse surfaces.

AMRC · November 3, 2014 2:57AM

Is this like being kind of pregnant?

Baley · November 3, 2014 4:15AM

<< Is this like being kind of pregnant? >>

No, IMO it is Nothing like that kind of binary determination, particularly for a heavily circulated coin, as Andy astutely points out. There are a lot of looks of a VG coin that are perfectly "original".

I think a lot of what folks are seeing on the reverse is reflected light, rather than overt surface alteration.

johnny9434 · November 3, 2014 5:08AM

i wish i was better with coins such as this. im learning best i can

lordmarcovan · November 3, 2014 7:13AM

Original?

Dunno.

Acceptable?

Definitely, to me.

I voted "8", not that that means anything.

Poll: Rate the originality of this Bust Half 1-10

Comments

Leave a Comment