My old icon coin is going for MOON money at B&M...

coinlieutenant

1818 PCGS AU58. I just put it in auction at Goldberg in February. It brought 2400ish dollars.

Cladiator

Maybe the Sperb is bidding on it

Broadstruck

The B&M auction is insane... just saw a coin that couldn't sell in 3 - 10day tours on Ebay for $1750 BIN hammer $3100 at B&M before the 15% Juice.

pharmer

Thanks for the reminder. Forgot it was this am, and just saw that my max bid was successful.

BECOKA

Hmmm, I still have to wait till tonight. Wish they would do gold during working hours.

jdillane

<< <i>1818 PCGS AU58. I just put it in auction at Goldberg in February. It brought 2400ish dollars. >>



do you have a link? I could not find it.

slumlord98

That is insanity! I passed on this at $1350 a while back!

moon money

Broadstruck

Strong auction prices and that Half is really sweet for a AU58... like a PQ AU63. B&M's auction photo's normally suck, that 1818 50c looks dreamy. At $1350 you should have snapped it up... hammered at $4830 well that's hard to swallow

ziggy29

What's with all these rumors of a soft market?

slumlord98

<< <i>like a PQ AU63 >>



It was actually about 3-4 years ago that this coin was offered by Numisma and at that time, I regarded it is a cleaned and retoned AU50, and it was 2 years after the Benson sale, which seems to have launched the album toning craze.

Broadstruck

That coin has a lot of meat left on it for a AU50 and luster too for having been cleaned... are those B&M pics Juiced as that doesn't look like secondary toning?

slumlord98

The coin is wildly toned from spending years in an album where it reacted to the sulphur in the paper. What appears to be luster in the image is irridescent toning which cartwheels like and is often confused for luster. Also, grading standards have changed over the years. Not everyone will agree with my assessment; I was taught a different standard of grading and what was considered 'natural'. Old silver coins don't tone like that without help.

Broadstruck

What appears to be luster in the image is irridescent toning which cartwheels like and is often confused for luster.

Toning irridescent or not, can not do cartwheels on flat dead surfaces without luster.

bidask

that coin looks 50 to me....to much rub around brow, hair and breast for a 58 grade

coinlieutenant

That coin is not a cleaned AU50. And the luster is not from irridescence. It is fully lustrous. You must be thinking of a different coin Brad.

Ask Dennis his assessment of the coin.

Now, I do think that 5K+ is way excessive, this coin is not a dog.

BTW, I submitted this coin in the NGC AU58 holder for cross...it crossed at PCGS AU55. I sent it in three more times for regrade...I thought it was a 58. It wouldnt upgrade any of the three times. Until Don bought it and then it magically appeared in a 58 holder.

Here are some pics from Mark Goodman.

AU58WALKERS

damn, I surely am NOT an expert on bust halves, but au 58 on that coin looks like a gift

slumlord98

John,

Remember the operative words are 'different standards'. Also, I never said the coin was ugly or a dog, just not my style. Some think that 'original' coins are ugly, and some certainly are.

The reason I graded it so can be seen mostly on the portrait. There is considerable rub on the face and neck. Notice that there is reflectivity only in the deeper spots around the eye and nose and around the deepest recesses by the top curls. All along the neck is wear down to the deep recesses of the lower curls and at the front of the bust. The way I was taught to grade, this is AU50. In the open spots on the fields, you can see the same look, flat color w/luster (in this case, it IS luster) close to the devices. I'll take your word that the fields are lustrous under the toning because I don't remember that much from several years ago. However, when you come across a coin w/no luster in the mid-fields, then you are down to the EF range. Remember the old definition of AU- wear on the high points only, i.e., the devices.

We all know that the TPGs grade to a different standard. They often grade coins w/considerable wear in the MS range; the Eliasberg 1814 O.107 has a bright rub spot on the cheek, but is graded NGC66. This is what TDN once referred to ~ as the limitation of the Sheldon scale.

I apologize for my undiplomatic choice of words, John.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>That coin is not a cleaned AU50. And the luster is not from irridescence. It is fully lustrous. You must be thinking of a different coin Brad.

Ask Dennis his assessment of the coin.

Now, I do think that 5K+ is way excessive, this coin is not a dog.

BTW, I submitted this coin in the NGC AU58 holder for cross...it crossed at PCGS AU55. I sent it in three more times for regrade...I thought it was a 58. It wouldnt upgrade any of the three times. Until Don bought it and then it magically appeared in a 58 holder.

Here are some pics from Mark Goodman.




>>



Simply another example of nice coins aren't cheap and cheap coins aren't nice... generally speaking.
That's one of the best looking CBH's I've ever seen John.

dizzyfoxx

That's the only CBH I've ever seen with conjunctivitis (otherwise known as "pink eye")

roadrunner

The way I was taught to grade, this is AU50. In the open spots on the fields, you can see the same look, flat color w/luster (in this case, it IS luster) close to the devices. I'll take your word that the fields are lustrous under the toning because I don't remember that much from several years ago. However, when you come across a coin w/no luster in the mid-fields, then you are down to the EF range. Remember the old definition of AU- wear on the high points only, i.e., the devices.

The abrupt color change from the peripherals around the stars to the open fields indicates that the open fields have very little to no luster remaining. I would agree with the AU55 grade but to me that means a coin with about 50% luster left, which is in the ball park for this coin. To the casual eye (and even TPG graders at times), iridescent toning can be easily mistaken for luster. Just this past weekend I saw an NGC MS63 bustie with zero luster in the open obv fields (ie technically AU55 at best). Yet the blast of iridescent colors around the devices gave the appearance of "luster." The coin was heavily rubbed as well. It was not much different overall from this 1818. Both are still AU's.

roadrunner

coinlieutenant

Brad,

No worries here. I didnt think you were undiplomatic. I just strenuously disagee.

The coin must be seen in hand. There is a lot more luster than the pic really shows. I had Mark shoot that to show color...not luster.


John

mozin

I think the Premium Numismatics Bust Half Dollar collection offered by B & M was highly promoted to the right collectors. Many of us prefer PCGS 58 graded Busties, and it only takes two bidders to reach moon money. There are quite a number of collectors with very deep pockets, surely many bidding on this once in a lifetime auction.

Almost every one of Don's Busties met reserve. I expect the PCGS web site retail prices on PCGS 58 Busties will be full of green on Monday update.

AU58WALKERS

<< <i>I think the Premium Numismatics Bust Half Dollar collection offered by B & M was highly promoted to the right collectors. Many of us prefer PCGS 58 graded Busties, and it only takes two bidders to reach moon money. There are quite a number of collectors with very deep pockets, surely many bidding on this once in a lifetime auction.

Almost every one of Don's Busties met reserve. I expect the PCGS web site retail prices on PCGS 58 Busties will be full of green on Monday update. >>



....and a bunch went off the charts.