Feedback appreciated on a Draped Bust Half...
dizzyfoxx
Posts: 9,823 ✭✭✭
dizzyfoxx
Posts: 9,823 ✭✭✭
dizzyfoxx
Posts: 9,823 ✭✭✭
...There's always time for coin collecting. 
Comments
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>What would you like to know? >>
OK, times up
<< <i>
<< <i>What would you like to know? >>
OK, times up
No, no, no, WAIT Steve!
and your input on it as far as toning, originality, etc....
The surfaces are fairly "lively" considering the amount of wear and condition of the piece. It has those colors as I remember.
But don't think it's a monster toner or anything. Matter fact, if you see one of these that you think, or it looks like a monster toner I'd suggest to run.
These ain't supposed to be, or look like monster toners. I take that back, they should be monster crusty toners. Heh
It's a key date, and an attractive coin. It's a bit light in color, like the brown and such. I have a scan somewhere that kinda shows what it looks like head on, but folks don't like seeing those. I didn't sell it to these folks, but after I sold it I've seen it come up a few places across the country.
The places I've seen it come up at are dealers. So it looks like it's bounced around to a couple dealers at least. As many coins do.
Just my worthless opinion.
Me too.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>" For that kind of money, I would prefer a coin in a higher grade."
Me too. >>
Mee three!
Edited to say that among advanced collectors in the old days, this coin would be a joke. But since it's a better date and has this color, which pleases the "color people" the seller can put this kind of price on it.
Edit to add , when tilted the coin takes on an iridescence of the colors.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
To an advanced collector the color in the above scan is OK. The stuff in the seller's pictures is not.
<< <i>I'm suprised I didn't hear the obvious, cleaned, bathed, dipped, washed (take your pick) & retoned. Especially in such a lower grade!! >>
If you're talking to me (taking a shot) I believe I mentioned what I thought here in the below quote. I try to explain my thinking sometimes.
<< <i>I wouldn't call it completely original, but I don't think anything abrasive has hit the surfaces as I recall. >>
<< <i>It looks better in the scan. It's obvious that the seller is playing with the pictures to get the "color people" going. As it is the coin looks presentable. The color that is showing in that picture could be from original surfaces, but it would be unusual if it is.
To an advanced collector the color in the above scan is OK. The stuff in the seller's pictures is not. >>
I agree that the scan of it looks good but it doesn't come close to showing the attractive color this piece exhibits. The scan is also a tad bit on the dark side. While my image is a bit grainy, like I mentioned in the listing, it does show the color accurately. The picture is not "played with" so make your own opinions from the evidence given. Just because you don't agree with how a coin "should" look in an image, that doesn't give you the right to say the image was "played with".
Edited to say that among advanced collectors in the old days, this coin would be a joke. But since it's a better date and has this color, which pleases the "color people" the seller can put this kind of price on it.
I think this coin appeals to more than just the "color people". It's a difficult date and it's got great eye appeal. I'll try to get more accurate photographs in the future.
Let's put it this way. If this were a Bust, Seated, Barber or Walking Libety half with these colors in a VF, would anyone be excieted about it? Not many who know what they are doing.
You guys are asking $5,000 for a coin that lists in Coin Prices at $3,500. When you are looking for premiums like that for a piece that has no chance for an upgrade, unless they lower the standards, you can expect people to be critical of it.
<< <i> It's obvious that the seller is playing with the pictures to get the "color people" going. >>
And voila, this thread..............
For $5000 I'd take an XF 1872-s quarter of which probably no more than 100 pieces survive in all grades. It is the rarest regular US minted quarter from 1796-date. The 1872-s should never go down in price but I see potential downside to 1802 halves.
roadrunner
<< <i>Sorry, but the coin in the ad looks retoned after a pretty hash cleaning. Original silver coins from 1802 in VF do not look like that. The coin in the scan looks more natual.
Let's put it this way. If this were a Bust, Seated, Barber or Walking Libety half with these colors in a VF, would anyone be excieted about it? Not many who know what they are doing.
You guys are asking $5,000 for a coin that lists in Coin Prices at $3,500. When you are looking for premiums like that for a piece that has no chance for upgrade, unless they lower the standards, you can expect people to be critical of it. >>
All fine comments but what I was adressing in my post was your blatant accusation that I "played with" the photo. You might want to see the coin in-hand before you go and side with a picture you "think" is right and accuse me of "playing with" a photo.
<< <i>Personally, I like the 1802 and would have bought it at a more palatable price >$4k. >>
Agreed, and you might not remember but last year at the SF ANA I showed you this coin. I'm the one when you asked where I got it I replied......
"Do you have to know everything."
Do you think anyone would pay 42% over the a listed retail price for a run of the mill looking VF? The color enhancement is the only chance you have of getting a premium like that for that coin. Although few advanced collectors would pay that premium for a brightly toned coin in VF. They know that it's not natural.
Thanks for posting your scan of this coin. I would consider this piece (if the price were right) based on your images, I would not based on the images in the OP's link. I would not want to commit to this coin based on pics/scans alone, but once again- your scan stman is much more appealing. I don't like iridescent anything on a circulated coin like this usually.
<< <i>"Do you have to know everything." >>
Yeah, Mr. Happy, I remember.
<< <i>Here is a scan that is close to looking at it head on....... IMWO
Edit to add , when tilted the coin takes on an iridescence of the colors. >>
You should know a scan is not going to depict a coin in it's best light. It shows basically what it looks like head on. I agree the scan may be a bit dark.
I'm sorry I ever replied to this thread. I just call them as I see them and am in no way a promoter for this seller, or any seller for that matter.
<< <i>The scan and the photo look like two different coins. Given that, what conclusion would you have me make? >>
An intelligent person would take a composite of both images and come to a conclusion that the coin looks somewhere in-between. A straight on scan like stman's and a tilted, angled shot like the one I provided are two different perspectives of the same coin and they represent what the coin looks like in different angles of light. If you like one image better than the other, cool, everybody has a preference, but to take one perspective of a coin and call it outright "played with" just because it isn't the perspective you "like" is not only obtuse, it's rude.
It doesn't bother me that you don't agree with our asking price, but I try very hard to accurately represent the coins we sell and I do not at all appreciate someone saying I "play with" photos.
I know, each coin has to be viewed, graded in hand, etc. before jumping to any conclusions AND auction prices are not necessarily representative of the day-to-day market, but if the coin is considered to be desirable and nice for the grade, $4500does not seem out of the ballpark.
Disclaimer: I do not know these coins and am at no risk of putting my money where my mouth is.
<< <i>Disclaimer: I do not know these coins and am at no risk of putting my money where my mouth is. >>
If the color depicted on the seller's website is accurate, this is not a desirable coin for the VF grade.
And I would FAR more comfortable paying $7,500 for an accurately graded 1802 half in EF-45 than $4,500 for a VF. In fact of the EF-45 were a PQ coin, it might be a bargain.
But regardless of what Heritage got for these, or what 1916 quarters now bring, I think they are all over-priced and at some point will trade for significantly lower money. Just mho. Now an 1804 dime or 1874-cc dime....those are money in the bank.
roadrunner
<< <i>
but to take one perspective of a coin and call it outright "played with" just because it isn't the perspective you "like" is not only obtuse, it's rude.
It doesn't bother me that you don't agree with our asking price, but I try very hard to accurately represent the coins we sell and I do not at all appreciate someone saying I "play with" photos. >>
Sensitive are we??
He only suggested that you played with the photo--you suggested that I played with myself, in an offensive and derogatory manner right here on this public forum!
Now, who's rude???
<< <i>
<< <i>
but to take one perspective of a coin and call it outright "played with" just because it isn't the perspective you "like" is not only obtuse, it's rude.
It doesn't bother me that you don't agree with our asking price, but I try very hard to accurately represent the coins we sell and I do not at all appreciate someone saying I "play with" photos. >>
Sensitive are we??
He only suggested that you played with the photo--you suggested that I played with myself, in an offensive and derogatory manner right here on this public forum!
Now, who's rude??? >>
Back 2-4 years ago, few 1801's and 1802's were on the market. They would last only a day or two on websites and FPL's, as prices had not caught up to demand. I bought an 1801 VF for $1100 and an 1802 VF for $1400 the first day they were listed in back in 2003, since then I traded up to PCGS VF 35's that should go XF with the next round of grade inflation
<< <i>If you're talking to me (taking a shot) I believe I mentioned what I thought here in the below quote. I try to explain my thinking sometimes. >>
No shots being taken here stman....................
<< <i>I try to explain my thinking sometimes. >>
You explained it very clear, I was just bringing the obviuos to the conversation.
<< <i>For those who are harping on the price, recent Heritage auctions (this summer) have an ANACS F-12 selling for $2400, a PCGS XF-45 selling for $7500, and a PCGS VF-25 (same grade as this coin) selling for $4200, is the $4500 asking price for this coin so far off? >>
The price for this coin was $5k when I looked, and I consider that to be pretty strong. 1801 and 1802 are not rare dates, and price support at current levels has mainly been by dealers, who may be watching their inventories grow. I offered an 1801 45 to a number of dealers at both Baltimore and Central States, and all passed because they were already well stocked. It's a thin market at current price levels, and I was told by a dealer I respect above all others that now is a good time to sell, and look at re-acquiring in the future. Notice how common 1794 halves are lately? A dozen at the various ANA sales, another half dozen at LB. Anyone wonder where these are coming from?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
but to take one perspective of a coin and call it outright "played with" just because it isn't the perspective you "like" is not only obtuse, it's rude.
It doesn't bother me that you don't agree with our asking price, but I try very hard to accurately represent the coins we sell and I do not at all appreciate someone saying I "play with" photos. >>
Sensitive are we??
He only suggested that you played with the photo--you suggested that I played with myself, in an offensive and derogatory manner right here on this public forum!
Now, who's rude??? >>
Funny my arse.
I'm still sufering mental anguish form your derogatory remarks and your apology did little to ameliorate the pain, suffering and agony you created with a few strokes of your vicious keyboard.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
but to take one perspective of a coin and call it outright "played with" just because it isn't the perspective you "like" is not only obtuse, it's rude.
It doesn't bother me that you don't agree with our asking price, but I try very hard to accurately represent the coins we sell and I do not at all appreciate someone saying I "play with" photos. >>
Sensitive are we??
He only suggested that you played with the photo--you suggested that I played with myself, in an offensive and derogatory manner right here on this public forum!
Now, who's rude??? >>
Funny my arse.
I'm still sufering mental anguish form your derogatory remarks and your apology did little to ameliorate the pain, suffering and agony you created with a few strokes of your vicious keyboard. >>
Easy cowboy! You should know better than to be typing about strokes.
I feel the Coin Values listing for an attractive coin like that is simply too low.
Coin Rarities Online