Would someone please post a picture of a AU capped bust half that is uncleaned, not dipped and with
AU58WALKERS
Posts: 3,562 ✭
I would like to see what one realy looks like.
"Everyday above ground is a good day"
0
Comments
Harlan J. Berk, Ltd.
https://hjbltd.com/#!/department/us-coins
<< <i>
I Love this coin...............
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
What you are looking for in an AU CBH is good remaining luster, a lack of marks, good strike and attractive toning if that's your bag.
You're never going to be certain if it's really unmolested but you can sure usually tell a nice one from a crappy one.
One member here has consistently posted pics of heavily hairlined CBH's as being "original."
I have seen several PCGS AU58's with outstanding luster and nary a mark with Morgan Dollar quality toning. Is that "original'? Somehow, the idea started that "crusty" meant "original" and it to me does not. Plenty of "crusty" CBH's are cleaned and obviously so.
<< <i>I think that looking for "uncleaned, not dipped and with original toning" is optimistic if not unrealistic.
What you are looking for in an AU CBH is good remaining luster, a lack of marks, good strike and attractive toning if that's your bag.
You're never going to be certain if it's really unmolested but you can sure usually tell a nice one from a crappy one. >>
First answear that I agree with!
<< <i>I would like to see what one realy looks like. >>
So would I. I've been seriously collecting bust halves since the early 1970s and have YET to see one. I have seen many that are what one board member here refers to as "original now" (at least from the pics including a couple of the coins referenced above) but never one that I would be willing to state unequivacally had never been dipped/cleaned and then retoned.
<< <i>Would someone please post a picture of a AU capped bust half that is uncleaned, not dipped and with original toning?
I would like to see what one realy looks like. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Would someone please post a picture of a AU capped bust half that is uncleaned, not dipped and with original toning?
I would like to see what one realy looks like. >>
Great contribution Frankcoins
I assume you are a dealer--what series do you deal with?
<< <i>Here's one that shows no signs of cleaning or dipping that I can see. It's in a PCGS AU58 holder.
You just need to look a little bit harder
We need stman and slumlord to throw a few original coins into this thread.
This one is close
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's one that shows no signs of cleaning or dipping that I can see. It's in a PCGS AU58 holder.
You just need to look a little bit harder
Educate me what do you look for?
what do you see?
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Take a look at this 1812 (sorry to make your coin an example stev32k)
First off, it is too white--these silver bust halves do tone with this much age--another hint- maybe-just maybe if this was a high end MS piece that had been stored in a unique way for almost 200 years it might still retain some of its original white (silver) color, but this is a circulated piece--it circulated--no way could it still be this white.
Secondly - you can still see traces of older original dirt around some of the devices, like the stars and date, and you can also see where some of the old dirt has not been removed from the incuse areas, like in the word LIBERTY, the IGWT and the shield.
Looking for some of that original dirt that was not cleaned off (luckily on this coin) too aggressively (and is only there in the deep creases and nooks and crannies) is always a hint that the coin has had dirt removed and therefor cleaned.
Tom
<< <i>Sure AU58walkers,
Take a look at this 1812 (sorry to make your coin an example stev32k)
First off, it is too white--these silver bust halves do tone with this much age--another hint- maybe-just maybe if this was a high end MS piece that had been stored in a unique way for almost 200 years it might still retain some of its original white (silver) color, but this is a circulated piece--it circulated--no way could it still be this white.
Secondly - you can still see traces of older original dirt around some of the devices, like the stars and date, and you can also see where some of the old dirt has not been removed from the incuse areas, like in the word LIBERTY, the IGWT and the shield.
Looking for some of that original dirt that was not cleaned off (luckily on this coin) too aggressively (and is only there in the deep creases and nooks and crannies) is always a hint that the coin has had dirt removed and therefor cleaned. >>
I believe that is pure speculation. If you check the Heritage site and look at the AU58 Bust Halves they are all "too white". If they are not "too white" they are AU50, or AU55. One of the accepted measures of an AU coin is how much luster it retains - the more luster the higher the grade. Secondly there is no way one can determine what is original dirt vs dirt that was added last week, and just because a coin circulates does not mean it will turn dark.
<< <i>I believe that is pure speculation. If you check the Heritage site and look at the AU58 Bust Halves they are all "too white". If they are not "too white" they are AU50, or AU55 >>
Huh, and this would mean/prove what?
And the coin ain't bad either.
Your 17 ain't too shabby either
But I agree with you on NIC's 07--- major drool over that little lady...
Experts like slumlord and such swear that the only truly original busties are those that are "powdery" grey/brown. Early gold pieces have this kind of greenish powdery "gold dust" look to them as well if original. There is a certain skin that appears on these type of coins that is a near certain indicator of true virginity. Probably less than 1 tenth of 1% of all bust halves actually have this skin. So difficult to find. Most everyone will agree that these coins are virgin original. The 1814 in AU55 below falls into that category IMO.
Then there are the coins that are debatable. These have some other color or toning other than the type mentioned above. They have thick original skin with color or monochromatic toning that is often time even. The skin is still the key here by my standards. It must be thick and there must be luster under the toning that is rich. It can be subdued but not weak. The difference in words escapes me, but there is a difference. I have posted two coins that fall into that category by my standards. The 1823 has such rich thick skin, I believe it to be fully original. It is a one of kind coin to be sure. The coin is a bit darker than the truview pic. The 1814/3 is another. Different characteristics but still very thick. The luster rolls off this coin, and as an XF45, it is unbeatable.
Then there are the original for now coins, coins that were most likely lightened, but not wiped or messed with that have retoned. They should still have thick luster, but it is difficult to say that these are original because these coins dont tone like Morgan dollars given the way they were stored from the time they were minted. Therefore, their toning with wild colors especially raises doubt...and are mostly like candidates of a dip and natural retone. The 1818 falls into this category as does the 1825 below.
Hope this helps. Some will probably disagree with me ,but that is why I started the post how I did.
siliconvalleycoins.com
This one just said no to a cleaning.
Sorry for the scratched slab- someday I will get this one in a fresh slab or just free her.
Even this one AU58walkers could have seen an old cleaning back in the day, but it is still high on the "uncleaned scale". There are a lot of little clues to look at. Slumlord has posted the only one that I would feel good saying is 100% virgin, hope he can add his here to embarass my examples.
Did I mention the incredible luster on this one ???
Very nice pictures!
The 1812 is not mine. All of mine are in the thrities. If I could take decent pictures, I would post them.
some very nice busties posted here.
This is an example of an 1824 bustie that's been dipped AND cleaned/wiped. How do I know. First, the center is very very lightly toned, very silvery and therefore highly suggestive of dipping, despite the crusty retoning at the periphery. It's actually a very nice looking coin, and I bought it sight unseen (only saw a photo) and didn't notice the hairlines. The photo following this one is a zoomed in view of the hairlines. The hairlines come from actually wiping the coin, a not uncommon practice years ago, and the ruin of many bust halves. Indeed, if you really examine what's out there, you will be floored at how many of those that have been wiped. There are a couple of wiped busties already posted in this thread. Can you pick them out? You should. And I'm not pointing them out of deference to the owners, who are proud of their coins. However, you must learn, as I must learn, and I am not embarrassed in the least that I have this coin in my collection that sports a multitude of hairlines. It is a coin that I will be upgrading...someday.
and the zoom:
Now, I also want to say that these hairlines are only visible if you turn the coin in such a way that they become clearly visible, depending on the way the light hits them . This is why, when grading your coins, you need to rotate the coin, in hand, under a good light source. Additionally, sometimes these hairlines become apparent in your photos, when you didn't see them in hand. So something to look for in REJECTING a coin and not buying it (unless of course, nothing better exists).
edited to also add: And don't believe that you must settle for a hairlined coin because of budgetary things. Not true at all. You can spend thousands of dollars on a hairlined coin and you can spend only a couple of hundred on a coin with superior surfaces i.e., with respect to this zealous wiping/hairline routine. Don't be fooled, and don't trust anyone but yourself in figuring this out.
It now resides in a pcgs holder. (photo taken in an ngc holder).
As most busties have been dipped, and this toning is 'market acceptable' as well a beautiful, the uneducated will think this is original toning. It is not. It is natural, probably acquired over time, and there's no evidence of wiping (no hairlines), and overal quite a coin. Try to find one like this or nicer. That would be quite a hard task. It reminds me of the 1812 posted here. I think the 1812 is a stupendous coin, granted, dipped and retoned, with likely old residual toning around the recesses.
I love this coin and think no less of it because it's been dipped and retoned. Note, this is not 'Artificial Toning'
edited to add: remember, over dipping dissolves the outer layer and therefore detroys the flow line responsible for cartwheeling luster. So while dipping can be acceptable, overdipping is not, it ruins the coin. Also, improperly dipped coins will yellow. A lot of 'blast white' coins are already turning yellow. Just look at them . Don't buy them. You take your chances.
For the uninitiated (as I myself may very well be), I'm only posting theses hairlined and/or dipped coins to help you out and guide you in what to look for or avoid. The hairline issue is a big one, and often missed. Only trust your own eyes and/or camera.
Slumlords description of powdery grey/brown to be original is the best I have seen. These coins always bring super high prices at auction.
None of the pictured coins so far in this thread have me convinced they are totally original. Coinlieutentant's first two coins might possibly qualify.JMHO
Capped Bust Halves do not need to be original in order to be beautiful.
Probably closer to an AU-55PQ.