Feedback appreciated: 201 years ago this coin was minted...

dizzyfoxx

And 201 years later it shows up on my doorstep.

tahoe98

at'd


i am

tahoe98

very very nice!

rainbowroosie

Super nice coin!

BRdude

Very nice, hope ya don't have to wait ANOTHER 200 for another one!!

TomB

You are zero-for-two on early half dollars with me, in my opinion. However, they would make an excellent pair of unoriginal, worked on pieces. Sort of like gargoyle bookends.

coinlieutenant

That one I dont care for...

Kennewickman

The mail lady just delivered this one, only 185 years old.

coinkat

I would like to see this one in hand. The strike seems to be weak and what I liked about the other one posted which was 1807, was the contrast exhibited by the pattern of wear. In this instance it is not as pronounced. I think this one was very likely enhanced (dipped) at some point years ago and the album toning has run its course. While I appreciate the difference in the series, quality of the strike and the high points of the design, this coin does not have the same characteristics of the 1807. I would wait for a better example for this date

grip

The hair looks regraved.

Al

coinkat

And that has to do with the uneven strikes that are quite common for this series

stman

stman

Before I comment, is there a story of some sort that goes with this one? Heh heh

Scioto

As ugly as an Aztek. Take the bus!

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>You are zero-for-two on early half dollars with me, in my opinion. However, they would make an excellent pair of unoriginal, worked on pieces. Sort of like gargoyle bookends. >>



Tom, I'm beginning to think that any early bust with nice eye appeal and decent toning is a "worked on, unoriginal, problem" coin. This may be true, this may be way off base, it really doesn't matter because unless this coin was in your possession for the last 201 years, absolutely no one can say for sure what it has experienced during its' existence. There is no way that everyone is going to agree on any given coin's provenance. Therefore we're left with a few options. 1.) Buy and enjoy a BEAUTIFUL looking coin that a TPG has deemed worthy of grading and slabbing that some may feel is not TOTALLY original. 2.) Buy and try to enjoy an ugly looking coin that a TPG has deemed worthy of grading and slabbing that some may feel is not TOTALLY original. 3.) Or buy and try to enjoy a beautiful or ugly looking coin that is raw and not graded by a TPG that some may feel is not TOTALLY original.

I'll stick with #1.)

tradedollarnut

IMO, almost every coin is a compromise in one way or another - each has positive and negative features associated with it. The trick to successful collecting is to find the coin whose positive features that YOU value outweigh the negative features that YOU care less about. For instance, I value luster and don't value that last little bit of strike - therefore I seek out and find those coins who have been net graded a bit for their strike but possess outstanding luster - to me that is a PQ coin.

So don't worry so much that others net grade your coins a little differently than YOU do ... collect what you like and be happy!

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>IMO, almost every coin is a compromise in one way or another - each has positive and negative features associated with it. The trick to successful collecting is to find the coin whose positive features that YOU value outweigh the negative features that YOU care less about. For instance, I value luster and don't value that last little bit of strike - therefore I seek out and find those coins who have been net graded a bit for their strike but possess outstanding luster - to me that is a PQ coin.

So don't worry so much that others net grade your coins a little differently than YOU do ... collect what you like and be happy! >>



Very well stated TDN.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>

<< <i>You are zero-for-two on early half dollars with me, in my opinion. However, they would make an excellent pair of unoriginal, worked on pieces. Sort of like gargoyle bookends. >>



Tom, I'm beginning to think that any early bust with nice eye appeal and decent toning is a "worked on, unoriginal, problem" coin. This may be true, this may be way off base, it really doesn't matter because unless this coin was in your possession for the last 201 years, absolutely no one can say for sure what it has experienced during its' existence. There is no way that everyone is going to agree on any given coin's provenance. Therefore we're left with a few options. 1.) Buy and enjoy a BEAUTIFUL looking coin that a TPG has deemed worthy of grading and slabbing that some may feel is not TOTALLY original. 2.) Buy and try to enjoy an ugly looking coin that a TPG has deemed worthy of grading and slabbing that some may feel is not TOTALLY original. 3.) Or buy and try to enjoy a beautiful or ugly looking coin that is raw and not graded by a TPG that some may feel is not TOTALLY original.

I'll stick with #1.) >>



I want to follow up this post with saying that I definitely respect everyone's opinion -and no one's opinion more than TomB (otherwise I wouldn't spend time here on the forum). I agree with TDN that every coin has its' positives and negatives and we should just simply collect what makes us

Russ

Dizzy,

You're right. Don't listen to Tom. Just keep going on about your merry way and make those dealers happy.

Russ, NCNE

EagleEye

This coin was in circulation until 1837, when it was put away as someone's savings. Years later, in 1947 it was sold and the deep, deep grime that accumulated on it was removed . It was bright and dusky grey then. It was put into popular album and over the next 60 years toned with neat colors around the edges. Now, 201 years later, Dizzyfoxx got it.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>Dizzy,

You're right. Don't listen to Tom. Just keep going on about your merry way and make those dealers happy.

Russ, NCNE >>



If we all listened and adhered to everyone's opinion and what everyone has to say about every given coin, this place would be pretty boring and inconsequential. In other words, to every fellow collector who spends time here, collect what you enjoy and makes you happy. And if this makes dealers happy, then it's a win-win situation.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>This coin was in circulation until 1837, when it was put away as someone's savings. Years later, in 1947 it was sold and the deep, deep grime that accumulated on it was removed . It was bright and dusky grey then. It was put into popular album and over the next 60 years toned with neat colors around the edges. Now, 201 years later, Dizzyfoxx got it. >>



That's about as feasible as any other possible or fathomable provenance explanation.

TomB

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>You are zero-for-two on early half dollars with me, in my opinion. However, they would make an excellent pair of unoriginal, worked on pieces. Sort of like gargoyle bookends. >>



Tom, I'm beginning to think that any early bust with nice eye appeal and decent toning is a "worked on, unoriginal, problem" coin. This may be true, this may be way off base, it really doesn't matter because unless this coin was in your possession for the last 201 years, absolutely no one can say for sure what it has experienced during its' existence. There is no way that everyone is going to agree on any given coin's provenance. Therefore we're left with a few options. 1.) Buy and enjoy a BEAUTIFUL looking coin that a TPG has deemed worthy of grading and slabbing that some may feel is not TOTALLY original. 2.) Buy and try to enjoy an ugly looking coin that a TPG has deemed worthy of grading and slabbing that some may feel is not TOTALLY original. 3.) Or buy and try to enjoy a beautiful or ugly looking coin that is raw and not graded by a TPG that some may feel is not TOTALLY original.

I'll stick with #1.) >>




I want to follow up this post with saying that I definitely respect everyone's opinion -and no one's opinion more than TomB (otherwise I wouldn't spend time here on the forum). I agree with TDN that every coin has its' positives and negatives and we should just simply collect what makes us >>



DF, I simply gave you the feedback that you solicited in the title of your thread. Of course, you are correct when you assume that one cannot know the entire history of a 201-year old coin, however, some coins scream that their surfaces have been intentionally manipulated and this is one of them. These coins, such as the subject coin in this thread, appear obviously manipulated to most folks who have more than a little experience in the field. What happened to this coin? My guess, based upon the single set of images, is that it was dipped at least one time in an attempt to either sell the coin as a higher grade than it was or because the then-owner liked his/her silver to be untoned. Both of these possibilities were common practice, moreso in the past than present, and this is one reason why we currently have so many older coins that have lost their skins. The coin then likely spent a number of years in an album where it acquired its toning pattern. Most likely it has never been cleaned with anything abrassive so any hairlines on it would be due to circulation and not mistreatment. The respected TPGs do not care, up to a point, if a coin of this era has obviously been manipulated or not. They are, after all, businesses with a vested interest in encapsulating as many coins as possible while still retaining the appearance of brand superiority. The line that they drew in the sand many years ago regarding coinage of this era clearly allows obviously non-original pieces in their holders. This is okay and I am not on a crusade against such pieces. However, when someone solicits feedback and claimes that it is appreciated then I believe that it is at times proper to point out a coin for what it is. After all, there are many folks who read this forum who do not have the same level of experience and knowledge. Obviously, there is nothing personal about my interpretation of the images and I actually feel somewhat badly for writing comments such as those that I have left, but the truth is what the truth is.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>You are zero-for-two on early half dollars with me, in my opinion. However, they would make an excellent pair of unoriginal, worked on pieces. Sort of like gargoyle bookends. >>



Tom, I'm beginning to think that any early bust with nice eye appeal and decent toning is a "worked on, unoriginal, problem" coin. This may be true, this may be way off base, it really doesn't matter because unless this coin was in your possession for the last 201 years, absolutely no one can say for sure what it has experienced during its' existence. There is no way that everyone is going to agree on any given coin's provenance. Therefore we're left with a few options. 1.) Buy and enjoy a BEAUTIFUL looking coin that a TPG has deemed worthy of grading and slabbing that some may feel is not TOTALLY original. 2.) Buy and try to enjoy an ugly looking coin that a TPG has deemed worthy of grading and slabbing that some may feel is not TOTALLY original. 3.) Or buy and try to enjoy a beautiful or ugly looking coin that is raw and not graded by a TPG that some may feel is not TOTALLY original.

I'll stick with #1.) >>




I want to follow up this post with saying that I definitely respect everyone's opinion -and no one's opinion more than TomB (otherwise I wouldn't spend time here on the forum). I agree with TDN that every coin has its' positives and negatives and we should just simply collect what makes us >>



DF, I simply gave you the feedback that you solicited in the title of your thread. Of course, you are correct when you assume that one cannot know the entire history of a 201-year old coin, however, some coins scream that their surfaces have been intentionally manipulated and this is one of them. These coins, such as the subject coin in this thread, appear obviously manipulated to most folks who have more than a little experience in the field. What happened to this coin? My guess, based upon the single set of images, is that it was dipped at least one time in an attempt to either sell the coin as a higher grade than it was or because the then-owner liked his/her silver to be untoned. Both of these possibilities were common practice, moreso in the past than present, and this is one reason why we currently have so many older coins that have lost their skins. The coin then likely spent a number of years in an album where it acquired its toning pattern. Most likely it has never been cleaned with anything abrassive so any hairlines on it would be due to circulation and not mistreatment. The respected TPGs do not care, up to a point, if a coin of this era has obviously been manipulated or not. They are, after all, businesses with a vested interest in encapsulating as many coins as possible while still retaining the appearance of brand superiority. The line that they drew in the sand many years ago regarding coinage of this era clearly allows obviously non-original pieces in their holders. This is okay and I am not on a crusade against such pieces. However, when someone solicits feedback and claimes that it is appreciated then I believe that it is at times proper to point out a coin for what it is. After all, there are many folks who read this forum who do not have the same level of experience and knowledge. Obviously, there is nothing personal about my interpretation of the images and I actually feel somewhat badly for writing comments such as those that I have left, but the truth is what the truth is. >>



Tom, your explanation of your opinion of the coin's possible history is 100% ok with me as a collector and most likely spot on. As far as "feeling somewhat badly for writing comments such as those that you have left ... Don't even for a second. There are some on this forum who's comments and feedback carry MUCH more weight than others and FYI, yours carries some significant weight IMHO.

dizzyfoxx

For those who may be interested...

LeeG

Alot of good information thoroughout this thread. Thanks for sharing

coinkat

I still see a big difference or perhaps a better way of saying it is an obvious difference between the 1807 and the 1806.