Bust Half: Will PCGS take the time to attribute it?
coin22lover
Posts: 3,542 ✭✭✭
After extensive study and consulting with a couple of sources, I've concluded the O-148 attribution of this coin https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1012790. The attribution in this case is made by narrowing down to the varieties with correct star positions, and then noting that the 2nd vertical stripe on the shield is narrow...plus scroll and 50c being in the proper position. As far as the dot above the beak goes, not all O-148's have the dot, or on many is weak, and certainly the lack of being able to see it clearly here means nothing with this amount of wear (most of the edge lettering is not even visible on this coin or other poor/fair CBH's). If you really want to take the time to confirm it to yourself, scroll through the 49 varieties and see for yourself here: maibockaddict.com/1827-o-101-r2-capped-bust-half-dollar.shtml
So what do you think...is asking for an attribution a waste of time and money?
Comments
Show your evidence. Post the overlay.
I don't have the skills to do that, but I was able to do it partially on the other thread.
I am trying to help. The coin is either 148, or not, an overlay is the only method to conclusively prove it.
I know, but I just don't have the skills to do it, and no one has done it for me. It's been proven otherwise, though. No other variety has the 2nd vertical stripe narrow with the same star and 50c-stem positions, or even close. There's also a tiny scratch right across there the dot could be, if it's not worn off.
Well, as to the validity of your attribution, without photos it's impossible to tell.
As far as your primary question, if you pay for attribution, they will attribute it. If you don't, they won't. Historically the accuracy of these attributions hasn't always been perfect, but I understand there have been many personnel changes recently and perhaps things are better now.
I'm not sure "spending time" is important as an expert can correctly assign an attribution in 30 seconds while a novice might determine an incorrect attribution after staring at it for three months.
Go to the link in my first post...several pics are there, scroll down.
If you pay for attribution at a TPGS you will get it.
EXCEPT: the cases where it is taking too long to attribute a common coin with a hundred VAMS. Then you get a refund.
At some TPGS, the attribution is done as a gift, especially when the submitter did not know he had something "special" like a Top 100 VAM.
I think unfortunately if you send it in you will get back some sort of "attribution not possible due to condition"
You'll have a better shot by sending in any supporting docs, the best being an attribution signed by a known expert in the series, but barring that I would not have high hopes.
@coin22lover
OK, somehow I missed the link the first time I read through this. If I get a minute tonight I'll do an overlay from the photos in the other thread. It's not that difficult to do. I don't have a good Overton reference book available, but maybe that will be helpful.
I agree that a letter from Sheridan or Dave Kahn to go along with your submission will grease the skids.
The graders only spend a few seconds grading each coin, and I don't think they are going to spend that much more on a variety attribution - maybe a minute or two. Good luck!
If you pay the variety attribution fee, they’ll attribute it. If you don’t, they won’t. As others have mentioned, you will be met with greater success if you first send it off to an expert for their written opinion on it.
After looking at it, I’m fairly convinced it is O-148 (I was the one who first mentioned the second stripe being narrow on CoinTalk, and that pretty much clinched it for me). Hopefully everything turns out well!
It's O-148. I'm sure of it. But I don't work for PCGS, and I can't say they will feel the same. In this case I think the process of elimination will work in your favor, i.e. the varieties that it is not will prove what variety it must be, assuming it's not a new variety.
@coin22lover
Arright. So I did some overlays, but I don't think you'll like what I came up with. First, I think the obverse die is the same, but I don't think the reverse die is. As the coin is quite worn, it's difficult to compare on a single image. The worn devices aren't sharp enough to stand out against the comparison.
I took the image you provided in your other linked post and combined it with your images and did an animation. Take a look.
For the obverse, I think it's OK, at least as close as I could match rotation and size without getting too finicky. In real-time as I moved it around on the screen it seemed to be a match.
For the reverse, I picked a couple of reference points to match overall size and rotation. I picked the base of the second "T" in "STATES" and the top serif of the "C" after "50". These points are constant, but I can't get the olive leaves or the eagle to match perfectly. I don't think the reverse die is a match.
Being mostly unfamiliar with the particular dies used for the 1827, is there another possibility of a shared obverse, but different reverse?
There is some possibility I'm wrong..... for instance if one of the coins was photographed obliquely instead of straight-on. I will admit that some of the elements line up very nicely... for instance, the text of "AMERICA" while "UNITED" and the left half of the eagle are off by roughly the same rotational factor everywhere....... my ability to match things is based on the assumption that the images are orthogonal.
Edited:
OK, now that I have studied it a bit more, I think maybe you're OK here. There is some distortion, but it's pretty consistent. Everything is off in the same direction by roughly the same amount. It's late, and I've got other things to do, so I'll let everyone mull on this a bit. If you haven't ever tried to make an overlay it's pretty easy when the photos are shot straight-on, but devilishly hard when they're shot at an angle. Even a little obliquity makes it hard to match any 2 points.
it's also interesting to consider how poorly centered the planchets were at the time of various strikings. This is cool by itself.
Arright. One more try. I think I'm slowly convincing myself that you're good. For this one, I just tried to match the eagle, arrows, and olive branches. Everything fits pretty well spacing-wise, but the elements at the top are all off by about the same degree. With respect to neighboring elements, they look OK spacing-wise, just an overall distortion that could just be a slight angle difference in the photos:
Presenting evidence should help. Not presenting evidence in this case will probably get you an unattributed coin back, saying it's inconclusive. Exactly how to present that evidence to PCGS is not clear. I've been told that no additional paperwork submitted finds its way to the grading room, so I would check with Powers That Be in this case.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution