I am torn, but... if off eBay and was looking and I had to make a call, I see an over processed commercial 62 that is strike and luster limited with avg to minus eye appeal. It would need further discounting if in a not collectible NGC or ANACS holder. Cool Holder could bump it up a bit in the liquidity dept.
In hand it could be a decent 58 but I could see a generous 63 depending on when it was holdered
I’m blowing these pics up on my IPad and I’m not seeing the whizzing. Does look like it has seen one too many dips with muted luster. 58-62 if it straight grades.
@amwldcoin said:
Looks buffed or lightly whizzed from the pictures. AU Details.
My first impression as well. If the surface has not been altered, it has been "over dipped." Seems to have the appearance of a "Choice BU" Barber half from one of those multipage ads in Coin World.
Edited to remove duplicate quote ...
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I agree with the 'over dipped' assessment....It gives the surface a 'flat' appearance with muted luster. Probably was covered with ugly tarnish pre dipping. Cheers, RickO
What kind of lighting was used for the images? Was it a fluorescent or ring light? I ask because the images are showing a really muted or low amount of luster and the surfaces "feel" soft. I'd guess anywhere from AU55 (for a true AU58 with very over-dipped surfaces) all the way up to MS62 (for a dipped, otherwise clean coin with mushy strike). I really can't get a handle on the surfaces, however, other than they are not original.
@TomB said:
What kind of lighting was used for the images? Was it a fluorescent or ring light? I ask because the images are showing a really muted or low amount of luster and the surfaces "feel" soft. I'd guess anywhere from AU55 (for a true AU58 with very over-dipped surfaces) all the way up to MS62 (for a dipped, otherwise clean coin with mushy strike). I really can't get a handle on the surfaces, however, other than they are not original.
Seller images, so I cannot make them any better. Who knows what sort of lighting they used.
@TomB said:
What kind of lighting was used for the images? Was it a fluorescent or ring light? I ask because the images are showing a really muted or low amount of luster and the surfaces "feel" soft. I'd guess anywhere from AU55 (for a true AU58 with very over-dipped surfaces) all the way up to MS62 (for a dipped, otherwise clean coin with mushy strike). I really can't get a handle on the surfaces, however, other than they are not original.
Seller images, so I cannot make them any better. Who knows what sort of lighting they used.
You asked for opinions on the coin. Mine is that it merits a pass.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TomB said:
What kind of lighting was used for the images? Was it a fluorescent or ring light? I ask because the images are showing a really muted or low amount of luster and the surfaces "feel" soft. I'd guess anywhere from AU55 (for a true AU58 with very over-dipped surfaces) all the way up to MS62 (for a dipped, otherwise clean coin with mushy strike). I really can't get a handle on the surfaces, however, other than they are not original.
The type of lighting has nothing to do with the results as long as the white balance is close to bring correct.
OTOH, I agree that the surfaces are not original.
erwindoc
Posts: 4,768 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Looks buffed or lightly whizzed from the pictures. AU Details.
I am torn, but... if off eBay and was looking and I had to make a call, I see an over processed commercial 62 that is strike and luster limited with avg to minus eye appeal. It would need further discounting if in a not collectible NGC or ANACS holder. Cool Holder could bump it up a bit in the liquidity dept.
In hand it could be a decent 58 but I could see a generous 63 depending on when it was holdered
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I’m blowing these pics up on my IPad and I’m not seeing the whizzing. Does look like it has seen one too many dips with muted luster. 58-62 if it straight grades.
Seems 58-61 by details.
My first impression as well. If the surface has not been altered, it has been "over dipped." Seems to have the appearance of a "Choice BU" Barber half from one of those multipage ads in Coin World.
Edited to remove duplicate quote ...
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
A typical overdipped AU. Sooooooooo many Barber Halves have suffered this fate.
I agree with the 'over dipped' assessment....It gives the surface a 'flat' appearance with muted luster. Probably was covered with ugly tarnish pre dipping. Cheers, RickO
58
AU/Unc details. Cleaned. Looks slightly wizzed and/or over-dipped
What kind of lighting was used for the images? Was it a fluorescent or ring light? I ask because the images are showing a really muted or low amount of luster and the surfaces "feel" soft. I'd guess anywhere from AU55 (for a true AU58 with very over-dipped surfaces) all the way up to MS62 (for a dipped, otherwise clean coin with mushy strike). I really can't get a handle on the surfaces, however, other than they are not original.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Seller images, so I cannot make them any better. Who knows what sort of lighting they used.
You asked for opinions on the coin. Mine is that it merits a pass.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
AU58ish, dipped out = problem coin run
I’m with the emerging consensus-a not particularly attractive AU58, though probably it would straight grade.
Au 55 cleaned
While not a fan of the half I would love to buy some of your coins based off your grading.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The type of lighting has nothing to do with the results as long as the white balance is close to bring correct.
OTOH, I agree that the surfaces are not original.
No expert but AU money seems right.
My first thought was 58.