1837 RE Capped Bust Half - PCGS AU-58 (Not My Coin)

Stuart

This beautiful 1837 RE Capped Bust Half sold tonight on TT. I was a bidder for a while, but the price got a bit too lofty for my blood. What do you CBH specialists think about it? I thought that it was one of the prettiest ones that I have seen.

1837 RE Capped Bust Half - PCGS AU-58 (Not My Coin)

LindeDad

Sweet 37 even with the spot.
How rare is that baby?

Stuart

<< How rare is that baby? >>

LindeDad: Since the 1836 is very scarce, it's essentially a one year type with the following pops. But if you check the auction photo archives, they don't typically look this attractive with this strong a strike.

PCGS: 141 / 315
NGC: 229 / 406

Barbercoin

excellent looking coin.

TomB

I am a broken record, but will answer your question anyway by writing that it appears to be a monstrosity to my eyes because of the obvious doctoring of the surfaces.

scoobydeux

Stuart,

I don't care for it.

Although blast white dipped out bust halves are admittedly charming, in a way, my own feeling is that if I wanted to collect headlights, I'd collect Walkers or Franklins.

itsnotjustme

TomB,
Help me out. What do you see that is obvious doctoring? I see the chatter in the neck and cheek, but nothing not common on MS63 to 64 coins. It is hard to judge the luster in the photos.

JRocco

Hi Stuart,
This coin needs to be set free and given at least a half dozen years to get some kind of skin back.
Problem is, the coin collecting community has moved so far into the plastic collecting community that
a coin like this will never be allowed to age as it should...unless a real coin collector buys it of course

Stuart

John: The coin currently resides in a PCGS Gen-2 holder, so it has not recently been processed. I have found that coins in this type of holder are often very conservatively graded.

TomB

<< <i>TomB,
Help me out. What do you see that is obvious doctoring? I see the chatter in the neck and cheek, but nothing not common on MS63 to 64 coins. It is hard to judge the luster in the photos. >>


The hobby-industry largely accepts and ignores dipping. However, if one defines doctoring of surfaces to mean the intentional changing of a surface on demand to improve eye appeal, infer a higher grade or gain more for the coin upon sale then dipping certainly and neatly fits the definition. I am but a very small minority of those in the hobby-industry who consider dipping for these reasons to be doctoring and I will not attempt to persuade or convince others of my correctness.

Barndog

the more I view coins and perhaps mature as a collector, the more sensitive I have become to spots. Some spots "kill it" for me. That spot on the shield makes that coin not one I would pursue.

I recognize the spot is tiny and is accentuated by the images, but I think I am fairly typical in that my coins are safeguarded nearly 24/7 in a bank so I tend to appreciate my coins more frequently via images. Thus, it would not be a coin for me.

COALPORTER

I like it and don't disagree with the grade. Old holders are not conservative graded, they are correct grading. Modern grading is getting way too slopy, so everyone is forgetting how to grade. I don't think that coin would ever pass, even now, as MS, therefore it is not overgraded.

Not to rob the topic, but here are a couple of coins in old ANACS holders that, imho, would grade higher by today's (lacking)standards

scoobydeux

<< <i>

<< <i>TomB,
Help me out. What do you see that is obvious doctoring? I see the chatter in the neck and cheek, but nothing not common on MS63 to 64 coins. It is hard to judge the luster in the photos. >>


The hobby-industry largely accepts and ignores dipping. However, if one defines doctoring of surfaces to mean the intentional changing of a surface on demand to improve eye appeal, infer a higher grade or gain more for the coin upon sale then dipping certainly and neatly fits the definition. I am but a very small minority of those in the hobby-industry who consider dipping for these reasons to be doctoring and I will not attempt to persuade or convince others of my correctness. >>



TomB--the "very small minority" has another member...

morgandollar1878

I saw that half on TT and would have been a bidder. I think it looks great even with the spot, but I don't have the moo-lah right now.

jhdfla

<< <i>

<< <i>TomB,
Help me out. What do you see that is obvious doctoring? I see the chatter in the neck and cheek, but nothing not common on MS63 to 64 coins. It is hard to judge the luster in the photos. >>


The hobby-industry largely accepts and ignores dipping. However, if one defines doctoring of surfaces to mean the intentional changing of a surface on demand to improve eye appeal, infer a higher grade or gain more for the coin upon sale then dipping certainly and neatly fits the definition. I am but a very small minority of those in the hobby-industry who consider dipping for these reasons to be doctoring and I will not attempt to persuade or convince others of my correctness. >>



I'm another broken record, dipping is doctoring whether it is industry accepted or not. In last night's Teletrade auction, I liked this coin:



Different series of course and not as rare as the RE half, but desirable as an original coin and a good price as well, IMHO. To each his own.

john

Broadstruck

I used to own this example which was what I considered a super slider, the example at TT tonight although DTD (dipped to death) has even less rub.

lordmarcovan

I can tell it has some luster on the reverse.

Very nice, Stuart.

(As usual.)

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lordmarcovan

Wow, tuff crowd.

Would I rather have a toned piece like Broadstruck posted? Yeah, sure.

But I still think the coin in the OP is very, very nice.

Stuart

Just to clarify, I did not purchase this coin during the TeleTrade auction, however I was a strong bidder who bailed out towards the very end because of the lofty price that it fetched.

1837 RE Capped Bust Half - PCGS AU-58 (Not My Coin)


I do appreciate everyone's comments to give me more to think about for my future purchases. I thought that this was a stunningly beautiful, lustrous RE CBH with a hammered strike, and exceedingly nicely preserved as a super-slider AU-58.

Eye appeal is obviously in the eye of the beholder -- which I respect and fully understand. If the coin and the luster are all there, I can appreciate both toned and untoned coins. You all bring up valid points that are informative, educational and thought provoking, so keep up the good work.

PS -- Those of you who don't like the coin are making me feel a little bit less remorse for letting it go. Those of you who do like the coin are helping to validate the aesthetics that attracted me to this coin.


This coin is in my collection for which I believe there will be more consistent consensus from my fellow forum members. I will have to do a better job of more accurately imaging it in the future.

1837 RE Capped Bust Half Dollar - PCGS AU-58

coinguy1

My general rule of thumb is: The older a coin/coin type is, the less desirable/sillier it looks if it's color-free or nearly so.

The coin in question is too light/unoriginal looking for my personal taste. Still, I'm a firm believer in the idea of "to each his own".

doh

<< <i>TomB--the "very small minority" has another member... >>


+1

jdillane

An old dip, to be sure. But, from the images I do not discern the flatness seen with repeated dipping. She may well need the attention suggested by JRocco. If she was mine, I would not hesitate to crack her out and put her in an album.

I like her. I like the others shown below more. (I will confess to dipping Morgans in Tarn-X in the early 70s.) But, I was an adolescent and would like to have my record expunged.