1835 bust half

Pnies20

Is it just me or are there a lot of lackluster 1835-36 bust halves? I haven’t seen too many that were WOW coins. A few I really liked have come through auctions and went for very strong money. I finally found one that I liked and was at a price I didn’t have to think twice about.

It is graded 55. It has proof-like fields and some nice album toning. The strike is hammered and the only reason this didn’t get 58, IMO is the few stray hairlines in the fields. The reverse is uncirculated. I love it!

Post a great 1835 or 36 if you’ve got one.

jesbroken

Nothing here not to like.
Jim

LanceNewmanOCC

it is a nice coin with a good look but what probably held it back from 58 were the scratches/strong and long contact marks around the middle of the obv field, face and neck and a couple/few on the rev.

that said, from the TV, it is a coin i'd buy.

golden

Well done.

Pnies20

@LanceNewmanOCC said:
it is a nice coin with a good look but what probably held it back from 58 were the scratches/strong and long contact marks around the middle of the obv field, face and neck and a couple/few on the rev.

that said, from the TV, it is a coin i'd buy.

I agree. Though they are a bit more pronounced in the TV than in hand.

spyglassdesign

Very nice! Nicest bust half I've seen in a while (other than on Coinfacts)!

habaraca

A get well present to yourself??

Sweet looker

lilolme

@Pnies20 said:

@LanceNewmanOCC said:
it is a nice coin with a good look but what probably held it back from 58 were the scratches/strong and long contact marks around the middle of the obv field, face and neck and a couple/few on the rev.

that said, from the TV, it is a coin i'd buy.

I agree. Though they are a bit more pronounced in the TV than in hand.

.
I know just what you are saying. I got a TV for an 1823 and a light scratch in hand just shined on the TV. Sometimes the photo can accentuate or hide things and occasionally get it just right.

I have an 1835 that I like and think is okay but it would not make the 'great 1835' for posting.

Pnies20

@habaraca said:
A get well present to yourself??

Sweet looker

Yes still down hard in bed.

johnny9434

nice, enjoy

pursuitofliberty

I agree 35's and especially 36's can be hard to find nice from what I've seen too.

Hope you're not too sick

Hopefully this one can cheer you up a bit

1835 O-108 P58 "Planchet Crack"

lilolme

@pursuitofliberty
Can you describe that planchet crack a little? The obverse looks to have a piece missing through the rim sort of like a lamination but that is looking through the holder prong at the color change. The reverse I can't tell if that is just a raised crack or if again there is some loss at the surface but the rim looks to be nearly full (again through the prong).

pursuitofliberty

@lilolme said:
@pursuitofliberty
Can you describe that planchet crack a little? The obverse looks to have a piece missing through the rim sort of like a lamination but that is looking through the holder prong at the color change. The reverse I can't tell if that is just a raised crack or if again there is some loss at the surface but the rim looks to be nearly full (again through the prong).

I could consider it a cracked planchet or an incomplete planchet, depending on which way I think about it. It is a missing piece at the rim, or a crack, again depending on your point of view. Both sides are indented, not raised.

Is a picture worth a 1000 words? Take a look at another picture I took after I bought her ... from the reverse, looking through the "crack"

habaraca

PLANCHET CRACK

lilolme

@pursuitofliberty said:

@lilolme said:
@pursuitofliberty
Can you describe that planchet crack a little? The obverse looks to have a piece missing through the rim sort of like a lamination but that is looking through the holder prong at the color change. The reverse I can't tell if that is just a raised crack or if again there is some loss at the surface but the rim looks to be nearly full (again through the prong).

I could consider it a cracked planchet or an incomplete planchet, depending on which way I think about it. It is a missing piece at the rim, or a crack, again depending on your point of view. Both sides are indented, not raised.

Is a picture worth a 1000 words? Take a look at another picture I took after I bought her ... from the reverse, looking through the "crack"

Cool. Now it makes sense with that view/photo. Thanks.

ElmerFusterpuck

Of the so-called "common" dates of the 1830's, the 1835 was the toughest one for me to find nice, no matter the grade. It took me ages to find a nice example of the 1836 with the 50/00 variety. Makes me wonder if more of these dates hit the melting pot later?

logger7

The op's coin is nice, but not enough pl reflectivity to get the designation. I had an 1829 50c that I looked a little "cleaned" but turned out it had the right characteristics to grade AU58PL. For some reason the 1829 has more prooflikes at least graded by NGC than any other year.

Pnies20

@logger7 said:
The op's coin is nice, but not enough pl reflectivity to get the designation. I had an 1829 50c that I looked a little "cleaned" but turned out it had the right characteristics to grade AU58PL. For some reason the 1829 has more prooflikes at least graded by NGC than any other year.

NGC is definitely a little more liberal with their PL designations on type coins.

logger7

I'd agree that PCGS grades Bust coins quite conservatively most of the time. And for a long time they did not grant "PL" to any AU business strike coin.

jacrispies

Nice coin OP! 1835 and 1836 are dates certainly difficult to find nice, and your example looks nice. I personally think, with the toning pattern and color, that the coin was cleaned/dipped and retoned. It is an early die state so it could originally have PL fields, but I think cleaning was a factor in the PL appearance.

Pnies20

Very interesting, @pursuitofliberty. I've seen you post this coin before but looking again, it's just really cool.

lkeigwin

@logger7 said:
I'd agree that PCGS grades Bust coins quite conservatively most of the time. And for a long time they did not grant "PL" to any AU business strike coin.

Unless I'm mistaken PCGS still does not grant PL below MS.

I don't think 1835 is a particularly tough year for pretty, lustrous bust halves. Maybe I need to pay more attention.

I do like OP's '35, though the neck cuts are a little unfortunate. I'll bet the TV lighting angle makes them appear more prominent than they are.

I agree that 1836 is difficult. Not sure why. I'm happy with a few I've found but it took much longer than I expected.
Lance.

lkeigwin

@Pnies20 said:
Post a great 1835 or 36 if you’ve got one.

Cameonut

Love the OP's 1835 and agree that they tend to be lackluster. Mine is posted below - it fills a slot and looking for a nicer AU.

My 1836 is below and is more what I am looking for.

Pnies20

@lkeigwin said:

@logger7 said:
I'd agree that PCGS grades Bust coins quite conservatively most of the time. And for a long time they did not grant "PL" to any AU business strike coin.

Unless I'm mistaken PCGS still does not grant PL below MS.

I don't think 1835 is a particularly tough year for pretty, lustrous bust halves. Maybe I need to pay more attention.

I do like OP's '35, though the neck cuts are a little unfortunate. I'll bet the TV lighting angle makes them appear more prominent than they are.

I agree that 1836 is difficult. Not sure why. I'm happy with a few I've found but it took much longer than I expected.
Lance.

I’ve just had a hard time finding one. Not sure if that’s true overall. I really liked a few of the 1836s in Sheridan’s last mail bid and they were too strong for me (not saying much)

logger7

@lkeigwin said:

@logger7 said:
I'd agree that PCGS grades Bust coins quite conservatively most of the time. And for a long time they did not grant "PL" to any AU business strike coin.

Unless I'm mistaken PCGS still does not grant PL below MS.

I don't think 1835 is a particularly tough year for pretty, lustrous bust halves. Maybe I need to pay more attention.

I do like OP's '35, though the neck cuts are a little unfortunate. I'll bet the TV lighting angle makes them appear more prominent than they are.

I agree that 1836 is difficult. Not sure why. I'm happy with a few I've found but it took much longer than I expected.
Lance.

I can understand why; though if you can get NGC to assign a PL designation to a Bust half it easily adds $1000 to potential selling price.

lilolme

I posted mine previously but was part of my lengthy post on the 1834 change to the 'small bust'. So one more time. One of many bust halves purchased years ago raw. Was happy after it got graded.

Herb_T

My 1835’s that I have TVs

pmh1nic

Beautiful coin!

ThreeCentSilverFL

Here’s my 1835, similar EDS surfaces

pmh1nic

@LanceNewmanOCC said:
it is a nice coin with a good look but what probably held it back from 58 were the scratches/strong and long contact marks around the middle of the obv field, face and neck and a couple/few on the rev.

that said, from the TV, it is a coin i'd buy.

I was schooled a while back that with respect to AU-58 it's all about wear and luster. The coin could be banged up but if it only has the slightest bit of wear and almost full luster it can get a 58 designation in spite of the dings. That is opposite of what I learned early on where a 58 had to have near full luster, only the slightest wear and no distracting marks. It would be an MS-64/65 but for slight wear. I liked the older criteria but things have moved on based on what I was told.

breakdown

Owned this 1836 for a while. It was even better in hand: