Opinions And Grade On This Bust Half Please *GRADE POSTED*

stman

My "Scan" is pretty accurate of what the coin likes like head on. Thanks!

JrGMan2004

AU55ish... looks alright... not crusty though

Cladiator

high xf low au but agreed that it needs more crust

OKbustchaser

OK Stman, this is getting really irritating. Save some of the nice AU's for the rest of us.

Jim

coinlieutenant

Yeah...no kidding...

Stuart

stman: Nice bust half. Looks AU-55-ish to me. Pretty Coin!

Purple73

Au 55........Needs more wear

DNADave

I also would go AU on it.

Is that the broken 3 varitey?

LeeG

"Very Nice" agree with low AU! Has some crustiness and some light toning, can't be beat. Great Combination!

Stuart

DNADave: Here's an example of the 1823 "Broken 3" variety for reference comparison purposes...

DNADave

Thanks, I'm a closet bust half nut with too many other things going right now to pursue it. Once I'm ready, I'm sure the prices will skyrocket.

Edited to add: BTW, beautiful coin.

Baley

never circulated, original dirt and crud on it, bit of cabinet friction on the reverse.

Call it AU61

coinbuf

Very nice bust. Looks like an AU/BU slider to me. BTW did I say VERY NICE COIN!!

Chris

TomB

The apparent lack of crust on this coin does not bother me as the piece looks like it has a nice, healthy patina. By the way, you never guessed an Overton variety on my thread over at NGC!

stman

<< <i>By the way, you never guessed an Overton variety on my thread over at NGC! >>



Sorry Tom, I will have to plead being too lazy when I replied to your thread on the NGC board.
And didn't try and attribute your coin. I have to be in the right mood to drive myself nuts with the Overton book.

stman

Thanks for the replies folks. This piece is in an old greet tag PCGS holder AU-55.
It has a decent look to it but has subdued luster more appropriate of an AU-50.

The coin was described as "Deep Originality" and in my opinion this coin is NOT totally original.
I believe it has been lightly wiped long ago. I am returning this for two reasons.
The main reason being the subdued luster, and the other reason being I paid fairly strong and
I don't believe this coin has original surfaces.

Varlis

I still think it's a pretty coin. What made you determine it had been wiped? Was there a give-away once you got it in hand?

stman

<< <i>What made you determine it had been wiped? Was there a give-away once you got it in hand? >>



The dead giveaway imo of it being wiped is under the motto on the reverse. The very light hairlines are very obvious and it isn't from circulation.
Very apparent of re-toning in that area as well.

K6AZ

That didn't look like your kind of Bust half to me. I'm not surprised you're sending it back.

stman

<< <i>That didn't look like your kind of Bust half to me. I'm not surprised you're sending it back. >>



Yeah, I actually like the look of it. And like TomB mentioned it does have some healthy patina, if the luster
had been there I'd probably keep it as it looks nicer than many out there. But it's a common date and there are nicer
ones to find.

K6AZ

I still haven't found a nice one, but I did buy an 1835 recently cheap. I'll dig it out and post it.

roadrunner

Based on those hairlines and the shiny wingtip, wing, and arrow
head, it does appear the whole reverse was lightly wiped not long ago. The obv is pretty crusty though.

roadrunner

ARCO

Great looking half with a rich unmolested patina. I say AU55 to 58.

Tyler

mozin

Hard to tell from the pictures but to me it looks like it lacks luster to be called AU.

After reading your later comment on this coin I personally would send the coin back. Since it is in a PCGS AU 55 holder the coin is still very saleable.