Pleasant surprises...
ziggy29
Posts: 18,668 ✭✭✭
Ever get a coin you really liked, even "knowing" that it had some flaws, and the flaws turned out to be *not* real flaws in the coin valuation sense?
Last week, I ordered an 1854-O Seated half dollar, NGC AU-58, from Northeast Numismatics for my type set. Despite what looked to be a fair hit in the denticles at 6:00 on the reverse, and scratches in that general area and in a couple places on the obverse, I thought it was overall a nice, somewhat original-looking (if not completely original, since I suspect it had a careful and gentle dipping once upon a time but the toning since then is attractive) coin with even champagne toning, lots of luster and only a small trace of wear. Still well-worth the price I paid and still better than the vast majority of AU-58 seated halves with arrows.
When I got the coin this morning, I looked at it quickly, decided it was "as I thought" it was (which was acceptable given the rest of the coin also being as expected) and set it aside. But an hour ago, I grabbed it, looked at it under magnification and realized that almost all of the "damage" really wasn't.
The hit in the reverse denticles? Nope, a cud (see below -- I thought this was denticle damage when I bought it). Most of the "scratches" on the lower reverse between the letters? Die cracks. The big "scratch" my wife saw on the obverse from Liberty's foot to the 13th star at 4:00 on the obverse? Long die crack as well. The closeup below shows the cud and one of the die cracks, both of which I thought were "damage" when I bought the coin.
So overall, instead of being just a nice, better than average example of this type coin, it's a true "AU-62" in my opinion, seeing that these "flaws" in the coin clearly originated at the New Orleans Mint and not after the fact.
Isn't it great when a coin is better than you expected because what you thought was "damage" really wasn't?
Last week, I ordered an 1854-O Seated half dollar, NGC AU-58, from Northeast Numismatics for my type set. Despite what looked to be a fair hit in the denticles at 6:00 on the reverse, and scratches in that general area and in a couple places on the obverse, I thought it was overall a nice, somewhat original-looking (if not completely original, since I suspect it had a careful and gentle dipping once upon a time but the toning since then is attractive) coin with even champagne toning, lots of luster and only a small trace of wear. Still well-worth the price I paid and still better than the vast majority of AU-58 seated halves with arrows.
When I got the coin this morning, I looked at it quickly, decided it was "as I thought" it was (which was acceptable given the rest of the coin also being as expected) and set it aside. But an hour ago, I grabbed it, looked at it under magnification and realized that almost all of the "damage" really wasn't.
The hit in the reverse denticles? Nope, a cud (see below -- I thought this was denticle damage when I bought it). Most of the "scratches" on the lower reverse between the letters? Die cracks. The big "scratch" my wife saw on the obverse from Liberty's foot to the 13th star at 4:00 on the obverse? Long die crack as well. The closeup below shows the cud and one of the die cracks, both of which I thought were "damage" when I bought the coin.
So overall, instead of being just a nice, better than average example of this type coin, it's a true "AU-62" in my opinion, seeing that these "flaws" in the coin clearly originated at the New Orleans Mint and not after the fact.
Isn't it great when a coin is better than you expected because what you thought was "damage" really wasn't?
0
Comments
peacockcoins