I saw it the other day and was talking to my wife about the coin. This is a case where the case doesn't matter. I would take that thing in anybody's holder (if I could afford it).
Buy the coin not the holder!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
While it's probably true that anyone with the money to buy that coin will look beyond the holder, I don't see why, if it's damaged, they couldn't send it to NCS or ANACS for encapsulation. With people's views of NTC as they are, the plastic it's in surely won't help...
It boils down to the fact that those who purchase this coin will probably care more about authenticity and prestige rather than grade, so ask yourself how much of this is projected in an NTC holder. NTC is a cruel joke on the numismatic community.
A 1792 half disme in an NTC slab is like wrapping a Van Gogh or Rembrant painting in old, greasy cheeseburger wrappers.
Likewise, given sufficient funds, anyone would buy the Van Gogh or Rembrandt...and they would, most likely, remove the cheeseburger wrappers and get it into an appropriate frame
To their credit, they do regrade it and point out the damage/repair. Heritage is basically portraying the coin as raw with a nod towards authenticity
shouldn't we look at all coins in this manner?? as if there have never been threads here before about the other services missing problems or otherwise holdering coins with problems----can anyone say Legend???
i think one of the major points that collectors miss with the so-called third tier slabs is simple: you should really look at all holdered coins the way you look at them. what happens is that we get collectively lulled into believing that certain services are immune to certain things, primarily miss-grading.
What the heck does "repairs" mean? Did someone add silver to this coin? If so, it reminds me of the old adage, "This is my grandpaws axe. My dad replaced the handle, and I replaced the head, it's been in the family for years."
I wonder about the provenance of the coin. It should be easily traced given the rarity of the coin. Personally, I would prefer the original, damaged coin as to the repaired coin. But, its not like I could afford it anyway.
It looks a lot like this ANACS VF/Net 12 that they sold 2 years ago. Many of the flaws seem to match up. If so, it's interesting that in the previous sale they state "This piece is really much finer than one might be led to believe from the disclaimers on the ANACS insert. We cannot find evidence of any repair work on either side. We really have looked it over, but if a repair was made we can't find it."
Shylock is right, those are both the same coin. Very interesting. In 2002 when it is in an ANACS slab they go over it vry carefully nd can't find and repairs, but put it in an NTC slab and now they see extensive repairs on the reverse. Grade is going up too. From VF details net F, to XF detail repaired. Think if it gets put into a new slab, in two more years will it be AU details?
"This piece is really much finer than one might be led to believe from the disclaimers on the ANACS insert. We cannot find evidence of any repair work on either side. We really have looked it over, but if a repair was made we can't find it. And in regard to the whizzing...no. Cleaned, yes. Whizzed, no. Medium gray toning covers each side with deeper patina around the devices. Irregularly struck with better definition on the eagle than on the head of Liberty, there are a few small planchet flaws on each side, a trait that is found on almost all Half Dismes."
"Minor repairs were made on the obverse of this piece, but fairly extensive repair work was done to the reverse. The obverse shows uneven detailing on the central design of Liberty, most especially on the upper hair and upper portion of the face. The reverse shows slight softness on the eagle and there are a few small planchet voids also in the center, a minted flaw that is seen on most of the half dismes we have encountered. Pinkish-blue and deeper gray toning is seen over each side. A few short scratches are located above Liberty's hair, there are a couple of shallow planchet voids in the center portion of the obverse, and a couple of very shallow scratches are positioned to the left and through the eagle's left wing on the reverse."
<< <i>I know what you are saying Barry, but Heritage is basically portraying the coin as raw with a nod towards authenticity------------BigE >>
Yeah, I know this is a special case. I'll bet my Chain Cent you won't be seeing NTC MS67 Morgans showing up in Heritage auctions. I also believe that Hertiage tried to talk the consigner into sending it to ANACS or NCS, but he refused for some reason.
When you look at them side-by-side they're no doubt the same. At first I was going to give Heritage the benefit of the doubt -- it could have been worked on after being cracked out of the ANACS slab. But aside from image quality they look to be in the same condition. So my question to the experts is, which auction description is correct? I put more faith in ANACS' opinion (and Heritage's revised opinion). But for novices about coin repair like myself, where does this coin show repair work?
To sell the same coin twice with two totally different descriptions, I would say they do have some explaining to do, especially since they contradicted ANACS originally when the coin was in their slab, and yet again contradicted NTC when the coin was in the slab, going back and agreeing somewhat with ANACS original description. Of course, the coins aren't proven to be the same yet, and I could be pissing up the wrong tree, but I doubt it.
Tom, its only my opinion. Heritage is a great company. I have purchased currency and coins from them, and I will continue to do so in the future. This is an extremely rare coin, and, on top of that, it is a historic coin. How many were minted? 2000? The coin needs an accurate description, and a reason why it wasn't described correctly to begin with. IF it is indeed the same coin. ACG gets slammed giving in accurate descriptions. Heritage is better then that.
"If they are not the same coin, at least one of the two is counterfeit. That is certainly possible, BTW."
Interesting answer -- if they're not the same, then someone used one as a model to create the other, or a third to create both. Very unlikely, but a possibility most of us never would have considered. A coin like this would be a great candidate for a spark erosion counterfeit.
I thought in spark erosion that it would take several host coins to produce the dies which destroys the host coin. A very costly endeavor here. Now, if this was tooled, that could cover up imperfections. But would it have been struck without the collar? Interesting thought. I would expect that the coin would have been tested to see if it was a cast coin. But then again, I would expect that they would check for counterfeiting in any case.
Also, note the differences in the "STRY" of of "industry. But, as stated originally by ANACS, the coin had been repaired and whizzed. Who knows how many times. Enought details match up to certainly make the piece questionable. Detailed provenance could settle the matter, but none is offered, and I doubt any will be.
$28,500 before the juice is the fair market value for this coin given its problems in my opinion. I believe a no problem EF/XF went for $45,000.00 earlier this year in an auction. ( Edited to Note this opinion was expressed prior to comparison of the two Heritage offered coins side by side - which suggest a big question exists as to the coin being genuine as discussed in subsequent posts.)
Maybe the coin has been tooled and messed with repeatedly, including a couple in recent times
No. The coin being sold by Heritage has more detail than the other coin. The piece offered earlier might have been tooled to smooth the fields, but nobody was going to try to strengthen the hair and ear details so minimally.
Now, it's possible that the current Heritage coin is the real thing and the previously offered piece is a cast, but caution is advised.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If Eureka is right, one could either be a fake or was so overtooled as to change the numerals. Look at the 2 in 1792 and note the incomplete curl on the one compared to the other. Could they be from different dies? How many different dies would you expect for only 1500 to 2000 total coins minted? Wear does not seem to explain the difference as it only applies to a part of the numeral. Strike might be an explanation, but not likely in my opinion given the detail of the rest of the numeral on both. As far as I know there is no information to support there having been more than one die. Garrett's book on the 100 Greatest Coins depicts a half disme with a full curl on the numeral 2. More notable is that the Garrett photo fails to show the evident distinguishing feature similarities noted between these two Heritage offered coins which would tend to rule out same as die marks - unless of course there were multiple dies.
Upon further examination it appears that the suggested explanation these are both fakes from a casting of a third original coin has a lot of merit. The planchet placement and resulting border lettering placement of these two Heritage offered coins overap so closely as to be uncanny. The timing of these two pieces coming on the market and being so close in appearance suggests a single parent. If Andy's suspicion's hold true, expect more babies to be dribbled out as time goes on. It will be interesting to see if Heritage pulls this coin from the auction as even a company its size can ill afford a $50,000 liability exposure. At a minimum one would expect Heritage to perform some due diligence to trace back the prior sold coin and confirm if in fact it still exists as a separate coin held by its prior buyer.
Given the crudness of the dies back then, I think these are two seperate coins. MY opoinion
But back to the real question...Who the heck sent this coin to NTC to begin with? Now that would be a person who should be ashamed of themselves and flamed to no end!
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
Barry, what he means are lots that contain "other" coins in them, or a combination of "stuff" which isn't worth a photo or better description.
Some call them box lots. Some call them miscellaneous lots.
It's the way the cookie crumbles when you buy these lots and not a fair comparison to what's being discussed here.
With regards to a Half Disme as well as many other early coins, "authenticity" is the most important factor. Once that's acertained, then condition and "what's it worth" becomes the issues. I seriously doubt that Heritage or any other major auction company would allow a counterfeit coin of this importance to be auctioned without a reference to the possibilities that it may be fake. But certainly it's weird that the coin would not be in an Anacs, PCGS, NGC holder.
Comments
Buy the coin not the holder!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Eric
<< <i>I wonder if PCGS would make an exception to slabbing the coin, like they did the harshly cleaned "missing" 1913 Liberty nickel. >>
PCGS never slabbed that coin. It's still in the plastic case, currently in the ANA Money Museum in Coloardo Springs, CO.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Does this irritate anyone else as much as it does me?
If you can't give a usable estimate, why make one at all?
JimP
<< <i>Does this irritate anyone else as much as it does me?
If you can't give a usable estimate, why make one at all?
JimP >>
That was my thought exactly.
Hmm... somwhere between one and one million dollars. Gee, thanks, guys- that really narrows it down!
<< <i>apnut, thanks for the info, and fcloud, thanks for the guess. >>
No problem... I saw it it and the Bebee specimen just three days ago
Likewise, given sufficient funds, anyone would buy the Van Gogh or Rembrandt...and they would, most likely, remove the cheeseburger wrappers and get it into an appropriate frame
Heritage is basically portraying the coin as raw with a nod towards authenticity
shouldn't we look at all coins in this manner?? as if there have never been threads here before about the other services missing problems or otherwise holdering coins with problems----can anyone say Legend???
i think one of the major points that collectors miss with the so-called third tier slabs is simple: you should really look at all holdered coins the way you look at them. what happens is that we get collectively lulled into believing that certain services are immune to certain things, primarily miss-grading.
al h.
Eric
peacockcoins
Heritage then:
1792 H10C Half Disme, Judd-7, Pollock-7, R.3--Repaired, Whizzed--ANACS. VF Details, Net Fine12.
"This piece is really much finer than one might be led to believe from the disclaimers on the ANACS insert. We cannot find evidence of any repair work on either side. We really have looked it over, but if a repair was made we can't find it. And in regard to the whizzing...no. Cleaned, yes. Whizzed, no. Medium gray toning covers each side with deeper patina around the devices. Irregularly struck with better definition on the eagle than on the head of Liberty, there are a few small planchet flaws on each side, a trait that is found on almost all Half Dismes."
Heritage now:
1792 Half Disme, Judd-7, Pollock-7, R.4, AU50 NTC (XF DETAILS, REPAIRED).
"Minor repairs were made on the obverse of this piece, but fairly extensive repair work was done to the reverse. The obverse shows uneven detailing on the central design of Liberty, most especially on the upper hair and upper portion of the face. The reverse shows slight softness on the eagle and there are a few small planchet voids also in the center, a minted flaw that is seen on most of the half dismes we have encountered. Pinkish-blue and deeper gray toning is seen over each side. A few short scratches are located above Liberty's hair, there are a couple of shallow planchet voids in the center portion of the obverse, and a couple of very shallow scratches are positioned to the left and through the eagle's left wing on the reverse."
I'd give it XF40 (not considering any damage).
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
<< <i>I know what you are saying Barry, but Heritage is basically portraying the coin as raw with a nod towards authenticity------------BigE >>
Yeah, I know this is a special case. I'll bet my Chain Cent you won't be seeing NTC MS67 Morgans showing up in Heritage auctions. I also believe that Hertiage tried to talk the consigner into sending it to ANACS or NCS, but he refused for some reason.
SELL, SELLL,SELLLLLLLLL!!!!! That's how the auction houses make their money. HELLO!!!!!!!!
Bid up to $26,000 so far. Someone likes it. I thought it looked pretty darn nice.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>A high dollar coin with a questionable history/provenance. Heritage has some explaining to do. >>
Heritage doesn't have to explain anything. The coin will be sold and that will be that.
15G's is a lot of money though for that coin.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
To sell the same coin twice with two totally different descriptions, I would say they do have some explaining to do, especially since they contradicted ANACS originally when the coin was in their slab, and yet again contradicted NTC when the coin was in the slab, going back and agreeing somewhat with ANACS original description. Of course, the coins aren't proven to be the same yet, and I could be pissing up the wrong tree, but I doubt it.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Interesting answer -- if they're not the same, then someone used one as a model to create the other, or a third to create both. Very unlikely, but a possibility most of us never would have considered. A coin like this would be a great candidate for a spark erosion counterfeit.
Or a high quality cast.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
side by side photos
The difference is clear, isn't it? This can't be the same coin, can it? One or both has to be fake, right?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
No. The coin being sold by Heritage has more detail than the other coin. The piece offered earlier might have been tooled to smooth the fields, but nobody was going to try to strengthen the hair and ear details so minimally.
Now, it's possible that the current Heritage coin is the real thing and the previously offered piece is a cast, but caution is advised.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Surprising, considering they won't sell ACG coins >>
totally false, heritage has sold, & continues to sell numerous acg coins.
K S
<< <i>
<< <i>Surprising, considering they won't sell ACG coins >>
totally false, heritage has sold, & continues to sell numerous acg coins.
K S >>
Link to some examples in the last year?
But back to the real question...Who the heck sent this coin to NTC to begin with? Now that would be a person who should be ashamed of themselves and flamed to no end!
WS
<< <i>
<< Surprising, considering they won't sell ACG coins >>
totally false, heritage has sold, & continues to sell numerous acg coins.
K S >>
Link to some examples in the last year?
>>
i'll go you 1 better than that. take a look at the boxlot auctions for the last MONTH.
K S
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< Surprising, considering they won't sell ACG coins >>
totally false, heritage has sold, & continues to sell numerous acg coins.
K S >>
Link to some examples in the last year?
>>
i'll go you 1 better than that. take a look at the boxlot auctions for the last MONTH.
K S >>
I don't know what a boxlot is.
Please post a link or an auction number, so I can find what you're talking about.
Some call them box lots. Some call them miscellaneous lots.
It's the way the cookie crumbles when you buy these lots and not a fair comparison to what's being discussed here.
With regards to a Half Disme as well as many other early coins, "authenticity" is the most important factor. Once that's acertained, then condition and "what's it worth" becomes the issues. I seriously doubt that Heritage or any other major auction company would allow a counterfeit coin of this importance to be auctioned without a reference to the possibilities that it may be fake. But certainly it's weird that the coin would not be in an Anacs, PCGS, NGC holder.
It might as well be a raw coin in my opinion.
What a treasure to own in any case.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870