Two very difficult bust halves to grade....the dreaded weak strike.
coinlieutenant
Posts: 9,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have attached a collage of two early bust half dollars, an 1809 and an 1814/3.
From a luster standpoint, the 1809 has luster surrounding all devices on both obverse and reverse, but is broken between each device that is spaced too far away...in other words, it has luster in all the protected areas.
For the 1813, it still cartwheels uninterrupted on both obverse and reverse. The wear pattern on the obverse is obvious with lighter patches showing the wear. Reverse is a bit more difficult to see actual wear.
So, the question at hand is, how do you grade the coins? How do you take strike into account? How do you think PCGS will grade the coins? Think this could be some great discussion.
From a luster standpoint, the 1809 has luster surrounding all devices on both obverse and reverse, but is broken between each device that is spaced too far away...in other words, it has luster in all the protected areas.
For the 1813, it still cartwheels uninterrupted on both obverse and reverse. The wear pattern on the obverse is obvious with lighter patches showing the wear. Reverse is a bit more difficult to see actual wear.
So, the question at hand is, how do you grade the coins? How do you take strike into account? How do you think PCGS will grade the coins? Think this could be some great discussion.
0
Comments
siliconvalleycoins.com
and the 1809 A Vf-30
1814/13- AU53
https://www.ebay.com/mys/active
The 1814/3 looks to me like a 50-53. Really nice coin.
Weak strike----man does this give trouble to the TPG's as well as many newbies. I posted a nice 1817/3 bust here--- I think it is a nice AU50 coin. The 1817/3 is known for the weakest strike out of ALL the overdates in the bust half series---the weakest on average. No question-the weakest. Here is the coin.
This has FULL cartwheel luster obv and rev---FULL
Many see this coin as a 40-some even 35-----You have to scratch your head. Debate with me if it is a high end 45-OK- lets debate, but the sad part is- I expect that kind of grading from a newb, but not a TPG. On some days---when the coffee wasn't brewed at full strength maybe--- coins like this as well as some of the other early coins--get severly undergraded.
These coins were pressed WITHOUT a retaining collar. The designers DID NOT understand metal flow, and in some cases, it took them years of tinkering to get the coins to strike up properly. Look at how many design changes these bust halves went thru to try to get those hair curls, the clasp and that darn left wing to look sharp.
Find an AU 1817/3 or 1814/3 with a sharp head and left wing and you have a true rarity---hold it tightly and never sell it
Great thread John
Regarding the 1814/3, you are confusing weak strike with late die state. When that coin was struck, both dies were mush. If you could have pulled them from the press immediately after that coin was struck, you would have seen practically no detail left on them. Metal is flowing into the large cracks instead of into the devices, the dies have been lapped multiple times in repeated attempts to remove many clash marks, leaving them very shallow with practically no relief left. If that coin had received multiple strikes, it would not have brought up the detail any better. However, that coin would still have had full, but thin, luster over the entire surface of both sides. Since that luster has worn off all the high points, as well as the fields in places, I'd grade it 40-45 unless it has surface issues, which would lower the grade a bit more.
If you look at the coin between NIT (UNITED) and the left (facing) wing, it is evident that luster has worn off. Also, on the obverse, look inside stars 1-4 and you can see another spot lacking luster. AU was once defined as "wear on the high points only", so conversely, wear on the low points (fields) should drop it to EF.
Regarding the 1809, different issues were plaguing the metallurgists at the mint. Later, in 1813 and 1814, the problem would be a jamming feeder mechanism, resulting in severely clashed dies. Although this is regarded now as resulting in more interesting coins from those years, in the day it was driving mint workers nuts. Ask the folks at Gallery Mint how they feel about clashed dies and you will get an insight into the travails of mint workers from that time. In 1809, the issue was sinking of the dies. The new master hub in 1809 produced dies that made better struck coins, but there was a severe problem with the centers of the dies caving in after a relatively few strikes. On 1809 O.105, it is most dramatic. Early state coins will have a fully struck wing on the reverse and a fully struck chin on the obverse. Late state coins will show a big slick spot where the eagle's left wing and head should be, and Liberty will have no chin on the obverse. The obverse die that struck 1809 O.108, 109 and 110 still exists and appeared at a show a few years back. I set an O.110 face down into the die for a reunion of sorts and it would barely "seat" in the die that had struck it long ago because the die was so shallow and worn from use.
That's a cool anecdote!
My thoughts were ef40 for the 1809, and au50 for the 1814/3....
Great posts. Brad, understand the difference between the two and the die cracks certainly support it. I was being too broad I suppose in my "weak strike" argument, but the end result from either lapping, lack of striking pressure, or cracked dies leaves the visual appearance generally the same...poor detail.
I expect PCGS to call these coins VF35 and XF45 respectively. Not saying I disagree or agree, just wanted to spark some discussion.
V.r,
John
siliconvalleycoins.com
With the 1809, these can be a bit tougher to decipher. I'd say your coin grades vf/35.
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
David
<< <i>14/3's always have a weak reverse >>
Not necessarily. Early die state coins show a normal strike. This is an image of one from the Mohawk River Valley hoard. It has decent wing detail, and still shows the bucktooth dentils above the second T in STATES. I have a true prime at the bank, but will make images and post at a later date.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
J
siliconvalleycoins.com
<< <i>I think the 1809 is vf25-30 and the 1814/3 vf35. I am not a newbie on bust halves having collected them for many years- years ago..i think the 1817/3 is vf35. i could be wrong as grading has changed a lot from 25 years ago.--Been collecting over 45 years and still have a lot to learn. JMHO Bob >>
Are you taking the weak strikes on these into account Bob? Got to think what these coins looked like straight out of the press- while they were still MS coins---they still had a lot of flat spots, but would still grade high MS.
I agree with John in that that is a great example of an EDS Brad. You can see that bucktooth from across the room
Now don't forget that we all really really want to see that example you have in a safe place
As usual, Slumlord has stated it well.
coinlieutenant,
Thanks for starting another great Bustie thread.
Bust halves almost need a seperate grading scale for each year and perhaps even each die. All grading is just someone's opinion, even TPG's---Bob
you have to know strike characteristics,die states,etc to be able to correctly grade them, just like the EAC
guys understand copper,and RYK and the C and D mint gold guys understand strike issues in their respective
series.I get the feeling thats why some like their bust coins raw,because the person grading them
may not be an expert in the series,and does not have the time to spend in a 10 second look to
take all these factors into account.Having said all that,I like the look of those coins.I think the "flaws" add
character
to them,they are not just carbon-copies with different dates on them.
That was really well said
And rec78- I would love to see your collection some day- I am sure it is awesome- you sound like a real collector