Same Coin / Different Price (MS-66 1869-S Half Dime)

rhedden

Searching through the Heritage archives, I found an 1869-S H10c in NGC MS-66, with original toning, that brought $3737.50 in Feb. 2006. Here is a link if you're a Heritage member.

NGC MS-66


Now take a look at this PCGS MS-66, BLAST white, sold August 2006 for $8,050. Same coin- no argument. Look at the small carbon flecks and the fine diagonal line running across the obverse.

1869-S PCGS MS-66


While I would enjoy grossing that kind of profit for taking 30 seconds to dip the original toning off a coin, I liked it a lot better with the original skin, and I sure wish people would quit doing this kind of sinful thing. I hope the new owner of this coin sees this thread.

jayboxx

Great, all the coins I buy tend to be More expensive because they have toning/originality and are not white and dipped....

rhedden

Great, all the coins I buy tend to be More expensive because they have toning/originality and are not white and dipped....

Sell them to me. I'll dip the fugly little rascals and sell them back to you for 2X the price.

a039

jayboxx

Sell them to me. I'll dip the fugly little rascals and sell them back to you for 2X the price.

Heck no, I am going to do that.

I have to admit though that Half dime actually looks better...

aficionado

I like patina. A 100 year old blast white coins just doesn't do it for me.

Mark my words, years from now, NON dipped coins will be bringing the big bucks.

Just like old cars, wood tables, whatever, you hear it all the time, if they wouldn't have refinished it, it would be worth 5 times as much.

The price increase is also due to the new PCGS holder. I wonder if PCGS would have graded it 66 without a dip. If so the price would probably be comparable, might not have been any real need to ruin a coin.


It will be the year 2143 before that coin gets its patina back !!!

291fifth

I suspect that the coin in the first photos was not original, but had been dipped at some time in the past.

rhedden

I suspect that the coin in the first photos was not original, but had been dipped at some time in the past.

Good observation- I bet you're right. I'd still hate to be the present owner in about 2 years if/when brown "water marks" appear on the coin inside the slab. (Even a carefully rinsed, dipped coin can do that in anybody's holder, although not all of them "turn.").

relicsncoins

.........and so the cycle continues. I've seen first hand that when you dip the skin off of a coin it makes the coin surfaces very unstable and suseptable to toning. If a few years this coin may develope some ugly toning and it will be cracked and dipped again and on it goes until the luster starts to take a hit and the coin gets downgraded.

JJ

Frankcoins

How does one explain the differing thickness of the pole, the hit on arm, the differing gown detail to the left of the pole, and the crumbly AMERICA on the white coin?

options26

I would tend to go with the last post until I saw the same corbon spots on the reverse under the s, same coin.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

the money jump is because the coin got into a PCGS holder as an MS66

Frankcoins

<< <i>I would tend to go with the last post until I saw the same corbon spots on the reverse under the s, same coin. >>



It's almost impossible to be sure without looking at the coin under a stereo microscope. Some die pits or imperfections can pick up gritty dirt and
pound it into the planchet making what appears to be impossibly identical carbon spots.

roadrunner

Along with dipping these coins is the possibility of puttying the fields to hide some minute hairlines or chatter. Sometimes a dip ain't enough.

I also find it interesting that for years PCGS would not grade an 1877 Philly trade dollar as MS65 due to some weak stars on most all examples, yet they'll grade this half dime 66 with a major weakness in the shield/reverse wreath.

roadrunner