1832 Bust Half Inquiry

Cladiator

There seems to be but one rarity among the 30 described Overton coins for 1832. The O.123 which is rated as an R7 and only available in proof or specimen. My question is; Is the 1832 O.123 still considered an R7 and have any business strikes been located? Also, does anyone know of any that have recently been auctioned?

Barndog

BHNC still calls it R7

CoinAddict

Here is some more information about the one that was in the Russ Logan Collection.

Barndog

and that Logan one sold for $42,000!

CoinAddict

There was a PCGS PR65 in the Superior Galleries - Pre-Long Beach May 2006 sale but according to the prices realized it did not sale. Here is the obverse pic of that coin.

Barndog

<< <i>There was a PCGS PR65 in the Superior Galleries - Pre-Long Beach May 2006 sale but accroding to the prices realized it did not sale. Here is the obverse pic of that coin >>


Was that one of the $100 Buy it Now items in SGBH's recent ebay fiasco?

Cladiator

Ok, thanks for the info guys. So I can take this one off the list it looks like LOL

Barndog

<< <i>So I can take this one off the list it looks like >>


To the contrary! I think this one should be high on your list of "coins I will never own"

slumlord98

There are 5 known of this most curious die marriage. There is the PF 68 from the Eliasberg collection, a miracle coin if ever there was one, the Logan coin, which is a magnificent cameo proof now in the Overton collection, two impaired examples, and a weird, really impaired one that turned up at the ANA in Atlanta in '01. This coin looked like it was buried and heavily corroded. Some thought it a bogus. However, after Logan bought his coin in Downey's sale that day, he cracked it out of its PCGS slab (a brave move!) and compared the edge of the new specimen to his, and pronounced it genuine. It was promptly sold to the Tidwells.

When Tidwell sold his coins a few years ago, I considered buying that specimen, but couldn't get past its utter fugliness, as well as concerns of authenticity. The coin sat in Downey's inventory for a few months and he ended up sending it to Chris Pilliod who ran some tests on the coin and discovered that it had been dipped in mercury, which ate away at the silver. The coin then sold to "an unknown (to most) collector". The coin pictured by CoinAddict is not a 123; it should have a pronounced dash in front of the 1.

This die marriage was discovered by the late Olie Carter in Stu Keen's inventory. Stu's eyesight isn't that sharp, and he mistook the dash date for the common 112, which uses the same obverse die as 123. Needless to say, Stu was not happy, and if you remind him of it even today, well, just don't do it. Stu is a real gentleman, and we all have a dark side.

Edited to add- the Eliasberg coin was sold to a collector and has fallen off the radar. The Logan coin can be considered 'off the market' as well as the other examples. It may be a long time before one surfaces again.

Cladiator

Wow, thanks for the history slumlord! Do you happen to know what the "fugly" example sold for when it went to the "unknown collector"?

slumlord98

<< <i>Do you happen to know what the "fugly" example sold for >>



Yep.

CoinAddict

My mistake posting the pic of the second one. I didn't look in the Overton for the diagnostics. I just figured all of the proofs were from the same dies.

slumlord98

CoinAddict,

Was there another? The one you posted isn't a proof. If there is another, can you post the image?

CoinAddict

That was the only one in that auction. Here is the website I found it on. It is lot 582.

OKbustchaser

Superior's catalog description...


<< <i>1832 Capped Bust Half Dollar. NGC graded Proof 65. A mirror-fresh beauty, and by all measures, a strikingly beautiful Gem. Level, rolling mirrors with splashes of rich "old silver" color mingle on the smooth surfaces. For their part, the devices are well detailed and offer contrast from the way the dies imparted light satiny frost to this area of the design. A jewel for the advanced collector of the series. >>



Looks like NGC may have been fooled by the extra nice strike for a '32. Wish there was a pic of the reverse.

slumlord98

Most of what is called "proof" by the services, by Stacks, and others, aren't proofs. They are merely first strikes. Not actually the very first coin to fall from a new pair of dies, but maybe the first 10 or so. John Pittman pursued early "proofs" from early in his collecting days when he was advised by a dealer that no one really wanted these coins and that it was a wide open field; he pursued coins that tended to be deeply mirrored with superior strikes. That does not make it a proof. That makes a coin a PL with (often, but not always) superior eye appeal, flashy mirrors, etc. That does not make it a proof. A coin can exhibit PL characteristics and yet be struck from dies that are falling apart. The reason for that is that dies were often polished (lapped) during use to remove minor nicks or scrapes. This could leave the dies with amazing deep mirrors, and because metal had been removed from the high spots of the dies, the low spots, which is where the detail is, were newly accessible and sometimes brought up detail on the resultant strikes for the first time. This is why late state coins can show better strike than early die state coins; it doesn't always happen, but it can. The good folks at the Gallery Mint Museum have demonstrated that these mirrored surfaces can last for up to 25 strikes before the heat and friction wear them away.

Because a coin was sold twenty or fifty years ago as a proof, the seller might have a tough time explaining to the past buyer why that coin would no longer be cataloged as a proof, and there may be some financial loss. So the illusion keeps on playing. This is a very controversial subject, and can lead to heated debate among those with an agenda, and they find that it is easier to dismiss than to debate. Bowers and ANR catalogs have touched on this subject over the years without taking sides in print. But among early half dollars, the earliest proof I am aware of is 32 123. Remember that proof is a method of manufacture, not a grade, not a 'condition', if you will.

mozin

I have no problem when searching for proof coins to buy. I simply do not buy proofs.

slumlord98 is so filled with Bustie information, I wish he started more threads on CU. Too bad his current interest is on Capless Busties.

Cladiator

He is a veritable gold mine of info ain't he!

slumlord98

<< <i>He is a veritable gold mine of info ain't he! >>



<< <i>slumlord98 is so filled with Bustie information >>



Some would say filled with something else, but that is for another day. Read Downey's description for lot 74 in his upcoming mail bid sale- "The obverse is fully prooflike with a cameo portrait. Now read that sentence again and remind yourself again that this is an R5 die marriage" The obverse of this coin looks like a cameo proof, and may well have been sold as such sometime in its life. Remember Breen's 'one-sided proof'? He was talking about coins just like this. cmanbb saw this coin at FUN and can testify as to the stunning look. This is a coin I'd sell my kids into slavery to own, but they're too old to fool like that anymore.

http://www.sheridanscoins.com/images/Photos - Mail Bid Sale 32/Lot 074 1826-115 PCGS 63.jpg This is the URL to the sorry image of the coin.

Another early "proof" is this, http://www.anrcoin.com/lotdetail.aspx?lrid=AN00023893 , another coin that may have been called a "proof" at some time in the past. It is an earlier die state than the earliest described by Overton, deeply mirrored, cameo portrait, and exhibits very fine raised die finishing lines around the date. It was, in my feeble mind, among the first half dozen or so 14 107s struck. This coin isn't as awesome as the deOlden coin, but still a wonder. It is also impossible to image properly with a scanner, the reflective fields cause glare.

Cladiator

Here ya go...

I just got the Downey catalogue Monday and was blown away by some of those coins!