Selling raw coins on eBay

ccex

I used to buy and sell more raw coins on eBay than I do now. In the last two years eBay's reputation among knowledgeable coin collectors seems to have declined to the point that bidders who see any nice looking raw coin for auction there ask themselves why the coin was not slabbed by a respectable TPG service. Many sellers of raw coins compensate for bidder skepticism by overgrading, which just compounds the problem. Sellers of raw coins who grade accurately and mention every drawback are penalized for their honesty with low winning bids.

One of the very few eBay sellers of raw coins I trust posted this half dime. He has learned not to mention negatives of the coins he sells, but still has a stellar reputation, and usually sells his raw coins for CDN bid of one MS grade less than that in his auction titles. I wonder if he now has to call this one MS-63+ to sell it for better than MS-60 money. I loke the look but wonder how it might grade at PCGS or NGC.

dorkkarl

that's a slider unc, which means it might grade at pcgs or ngc anywhere between au-58 & ms-62.

but i do not like the toning, either. PASS

K S

kieferscoins

That coin would not grade MS @ PCGS.

Cameron Kiefer

JrGMan2004

<< <i>That coin would not grade MS @ PCGS.

Cameron Kiefer >>

I think it could... but, it's certainly not an UNC... I agree completely with Dorkkarl... except the color I rather like it

lathmach

Look at the left wing. That's wear.

Ray

Hedger

I have to agree. It wont get an MS grade from PCGS. Sure is a beauty.

sinin1

I don't think there is any luster left - for whatever reason ( over dipped? )

so I would call it XF

and not bid enough to get it

dorkkarl

<< <i>Look at the left wing. That's wear. >>

i disagree. it's typical striking weakness caused by that part of the rev. design being directly opposite liberty's bust on the obv., & because that's the thickest part of the design, there's less planchet to fill in the die detail. that weakness is FREQUENTLY present on half-dimes (& dimes), whether unc or not, & CANNOT be instantly considered "wear"

K S

OKbustchaser

Since when has a little wear made a difference to PCGS when grading Bust silver? As Karl said, somewhere between 58 and 62 at any of the TGP's.

Jim

cohodk

I like it. AU-58

airplanenut

Something about the toning on the top of the letters on the reverse looks funny... I almost wonder if it would slab at all... it could just be the picture, though.

KurtHorn

<< <i>Look at the left wing. That's wear. >>



That's a typical striking weakness. Hard to tell for sure from these pics. I would say MS61. PCGS is very tough on small coins.

kieferscoins

<< <i>

<< <i>Look at the left wing. That's wear. >>



That's a typical striking weakness. Hard to tell for sure from these pics. I would say MS61. PCGS is very tough on small coins. >>



Not MS in my opinion. If it slabs MS-60 or higher I'd pay the grading fees @ PCGS, whichever level he chooses. Wanna pay the grading fees Kurt if it slabs AU-58 or lower?

Cameron Kiefer

dthigpen

It's an AU-58, but I'd pay low MS money for it.

Russ

Bodybag, questionable color.

Russ, NCNE

Nysoto

Remember that grading services are inconsistent with grades and AT/NT assessments for coins that have been sent in multiple times, meaning that even a PCGS grader, if he saw the coin in person away from the grading room, could not give you an accurate forecast of the grade PCGS would assign if sent in for grading.

It appears to have rub on MOST of the high points, which is AU. No opinion on AT/NT, I am color blind, so my opinions on NT/AT are useless.

BigD5

I think it's au as well. I also think the coin has been cleaned and either retoned, or has had a AT job. I'm leaning towards someone giving the coin a bit of color help.

Only opinions from a scan.

JrGMan2004

Ok, my honest assessment of the coin...

Definately AU, though, it might slip through as "cabinet friction" and be called an MS62/MS63 at PCGS or NGC... it looks like it may have been cleaned and retoned, but that is hard to say without having the coin in hand... the toning looks natural to me, most likely from being in an album... the coin is an R2 marriage, and for the right price, sight-seen, I would probally buy it for my collection...

GoYankees

That's a nice coin!



Unfortunately, it's jokers (see link below) like this that give eBay raw coin dealers a bad name...

Boot to the Head (bag mark?!)

stev32k

I would really question that toning. It does not look natural to me at all. Looks like someone wiped a little sodium sulfite on the edges - placed it in a sealed container, pulled a vacuum on the container then put it in the muffle furnace for a couple of hours.

ccex

I did not post "guess the grade" on this coin, currently on eBay. I just wanted to show that an honest seller must claim that a controversial raw coin must put in the title a grade at the upper end of our grading guesses in the title to garner a winning bid that will let him break even on the coin.

Coppernicus

Here I go sounding like a broken record again, but: It's an early 19th century coin, XF/AU/MS "ish" possibly AT, possibly dipped/cleaned and retoning (naturally?), etc. If it were mine, I'd submit it for grading/authentication. PCGS or NGC if I was confident of the toning, lack of dipping/cleaning, etc., or to ANACS for net grading if I had some doubts about it.

As a buyer, I simply stay away from raw coins like this on ebay, as do many more knowledgable collectors. If I'm trying to sell this, why limit my market so much? Unless, of course, I know it's a problem coin and am just trying to cash out for anything I can get.

Mike

Mikey

Who cares how it grades, it's still pretty in my opinion.

ccex

eBay link

jonesy

I know that seller.

stman

I bought one coin from this seller. In my opinion he is a decent guy, but pushes the limit in his descriptions.
That means his description of what he calls original, never cleaned, and his grading as well. After I backed him in the
corner to on the surface admit this to me (and hear his stories) ..... I gave him a positive feedback.

Boom

Good points on all sides. Hard to tell for sure without seeing it in person whether it's NT or AT. The spot that concerns me

is behind the last number of the date. Obverse is sharp...Reverse is pretty much as it should be. That spot that looks like

wear probably is because mine doesn't show wear in that area. Nice piece though and if you like it, go for it. Not every

coin must be housed in plastic. JMHO