I don't want to mention the coins that I won, but they were specific varieties that I needed for my collection. Overall, my high bids were OK, although the $25 minimum bidding increments made me miss on more coins I wanted.
Unfortunately, since I got in so late, I couldn't read the terms very carefully and missed out on shipping via UPS only. For what the UPS shipping is costing me, I could have gotten much more secure USPS Registered shipping.
Had I realized it was UPS shipping only, I likely would not have bid. Crossing fingers that I actually receive my purchases....
Here is the 2007 BST link to Barry's complete date set that I mentioned earlier. A very rare occurrence, maybe the only complete Bust dime date set since the 2006 Jules Reiver auction. I also recall I think @RichieURich mentioning a known hoard of 1804 dimes, wondering if this auction could be from that hoard.
Had I realized it was UPS shipping only, I likely would not have bid. Crossing fingers that I actually receive my purchases....
I wanted to be fair and follow up with a successful status. I communicated with the UPS store and requested and paid extra for "signature required". The coins arrived today and I am happy with their quality, as well as the unexpectedly speedy shipment.
@Bikergeek said:
... This 1802 is the kind of coin I fantasize about finding in a dealer's junk box. hey, a guy can dream, right?
Certainly a great dream!
Decades ago, I bought a dateless draped bust half dime on ebay for around $100.
I managed to use my Logan-McCloskey book to attribute the reverse, which determined it was ..... an 1801.
Though not an 1802, it is still a coin I like a lot.
@Bikergeek said: @HoledandCreative nice research! I wonder if terms like "battered" were broadly used back then, or if this was one cataloger exercising their creative writing skills. But your work to try to find this coin - and not being able to - suggests that this may be new to the population, which in itself is exciting. Looking at the appearances over the decades, and seeing the count go from "three known" (1863) to "now some 15 in the hands of collectors" (1888) to "somewhere between 35 and 45 [specimens]".
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Smart consignors get coins like this certified at PCGS or NGC, and good job PCGS to make these coins fully marketable. The results would have no doubt been better at GC with lower fees for bidders and sellers.
What about the San Francisco Assay bar indicated that it was a "copy" ?
.
I saw no indication that is was a copy from the images other that it had been defaced, with the lot number/bar number nearly obliterated with a new number stamped over the old.
When the auction was live , I completely passed over the word copy in my brain , didnt even see it in the description as the bar appeared authentic to me. It was when I came back to this thread and saw a CU member state it was a copy that my heart sunk a bit, but by that time I had the high bid and went and found the fine print of no bid retractions. But the more I looked at the bar, the more I was convinced it was genuine
I got that 'acceptance' moment where I told myself If i were to win, I was getting either a turd, or Gold (well Silver)
Auction Image
Its in hand now, and appears authentic , the 844 'overstamps' look period and whatever was once on the top reverse has been completely obliterated with no trace of stamping left. Also the weight is correct on my digital scale. The top left corner on the reverse looks to have been clipped which could have been for assay testing and lot reassignment from 577 to 844- my speculation.
Assuming this all happened in house, I think this might be a genuine error bar what do you think?
I was the member who posted that I didn't like it and I still don't. Compare to this one here.
Look at the irregular curved line in the seal on yours and the variable distance between the lettering and and the curved line and compare to the other S.F. seal. Letter and number punches vary, too, but that could be because slightly different punches were used. But I would think that the S.F. Mint seal should be pretty uniform, even if different punches were used, they would be from the same master. But I don't know this with certainty. It's speculation.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
Comments
I don't want to mention the coins that I won, but they were specific varieties that I needed for my collection. Overall, my high bids were OK, although the $25 minimum bidding increments made me miss on more coins I wanted.
Unfortunately, since I got in so late, I couldn't read the terms very carefully and missed out on shipping via UPS only. For what the UPS shipping is costing me, I could have gotten much more secure USPS Registered shipping.
Had I realized it was UPS shipping only, I likely would not have bid. Crossing fingers that I actually receive my purchases....
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
Here is the 2007 BST link to Barry's complete date set that I mentioned earlier. A very rare occurrence, maybe the only complete Bust dime date set since the 2006 Jules Reiver auction. I also recall I think @RichieURich mentioning a known hoard of 1804 dimes, wondering if this auction could be from that hoard.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/567022/fsh-bust-dimes-1796-1837
I wanted to be fair and follow up with a successful status. I communicated with the UPS store and requested and paid extra for "signature required". The coins arrived today and I am happy with their quality, as well as the unexpectedly speedy shipment.
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
Certainly a great dream!
Decades ago, I bought a dateless draped bust half dime on ebay for around $100.
I managed to use my Logan-McCloskey book to attribute the reverse, which determined it was ..... an 1801.
Though not an 1802, it is still a coin I like a lot.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Smart consignors get coins like this certified at PCGS or NGC, and good job PCGS to make these coins fully marketable. The results would have no doubt been better at GC with lower fees for bidders and sellers.
@dcarr said:
I saw no indication that is was a copy from the images other that it had been defaced, with the lot number/bar number nearly obliterated with a new number stamped over the old.
When the auction was live , I completely passed over the word copy in my brain , didnt even see it in the description as the bar appeared authentic to me. It was when I came back to this thread and saw a CU member state it was a copy that my heart sunk a bit, but by that time I had the high bid and went and found the fine print of no bid retractions. But the more I looked at the bar, the more I was convinced it was genuine
I got that 'acceptance' moment where I told myself If i were to win, I was getting either a turd, or Gold (well Silver)
Auction Image
Its in hand now, and appears authentic , the 844 'overstamps' look period and whatever was once on the top reverse has been completely obliterated with no trace of stamping left. Also the weight is correct on my digital scale. The top left corner on the reverse looks to have been clipped which could have been for assay testing and lot reassignment from 577 to 844- my speculation.
Assuming this all happened in house, I think this might be a genuine error bar what do you think?
It's all about what the people want...
I was the member who posted that I didn't like it and I still don't. Compare to this one here.
Look at the irregular curved line in the seal on yours and the variable distance between the lettering and and the curved line and compare to the other S.F. seal. Letter and number punches vary, too, but that could be because slightly different punches were used. But I would think that the S.F. Mint seal should be pretty uniform, even if different punches were used, they would be from the same master. But I don't know this with certainty. It's speculation.