I really cannot say that anyone else is wrong, I usually have that arena all locked up. Here is the obverse that I refer to and also the jawline (not chin) that strikes me as just a little too well defined, but I see strange things that nobody else does, (I hear little voices that nobody else hears sometimes as well).
By the way, here is a tally of all of the unique coins pictured so far in this thread (not including AU58 Walker's beautiful display case of 1807-1836 coins missing only the 1815, Bully's photo/ write ups on the 1829, 1829, & 1837 coins that he covets, Alegis' 1830, 1833 & 1838 coins that maybe should be included, and QN also has an 1833 that he felt rather dubious about).
I think the numbers are scewed. The bust halves from the 1830's are much more common. I think most of us like to show off our rarer early dates to impress the other collectors. I know I personally own many more post 1827 bust halves than pre 1827 halves
Yeah, I figured that, I just thought that it was rather interesting though. I also noticed that grade wise, most of those later dates were in very nice condition too.
While everyone was posting knockouts and rare coins, and a couple of folks were showing a few counterfeits for laughs, I was posting 'my treasures' in all seriousness, but ended up with the most laughs anyway. I am perfectly okay with that though, and am very happy just to see what I missed by not being around when these killer coins (that you guys now post) were available. This is my all time favorite thread on any forum, thanks to all of you show offs.
<< <i>Where is Bully ? I really hope that I haven't run him away with all of this showing off of my top drawer CBH. Come on Back Bully!!!!
>>
I'm still here Lewy, just investigating another caper. Is that your paw print on your 1817? You have some wonderful original ladies in your home. Lewy, you continue to be my favorite new forum member.....for now of course!
Thank goodness Bully. I really was concerned that you had jumped ship.
No, not my paw print, but if you notice some things that look like fibers and specks, that is probably just hair and dander. The weather is warming up a little, and I am starting to shed a bit.
Way to go JR !!! I was beginning to wonder when you might break out the quality. These are the ones that I go after. Someday, many, many, many years in the future, I'll complete a year set with coins like that. I'll likely be in my mid to late thirties by then though.
I spent about an hour trying to attribute this 1836. I'm slow and inept. But honestly, it was a challenge. LDS, weak denticles, and I suck at detecting recuts. Any guesses? (Really...I'm hoping someone agrees with me.)
Newy Lewy, don't embarrass me now or you'll never see that 1833! Lance.
I would say that JR's overdates are 101a & 102. I'll have a definitive answer for you in just a few minute on that 1836. I just have to conjure up a potion real quick first.
Lance, I can see that you are trying to steer toward 101, but I think I'll go with 116a... ....If, for some crazy reason, you decide that it is not 116a, then you probably just better send it along with that 1833 so I can examine it in hand.
This has turned into a FANTASTIC thread. Thanks, everyone. I'm learning a lot and enjoying the coins and the camaraderie. I wish I wasn't so busy at the moment.
Here's one from the Mohawk hoard - I don't recall if we had one from that interesting find yet or not in this thread.
It's an 1809 0.114a - I guess it's an R.5- now. I liked the story behind it, it's not all that common, AND... for being a dug coin, it's really in pretty good shape! It's known to have a weakly struck left wing.
Keep 'em coming! I've got about another 70 busties imaged so when things cool off I'll get some more up. zap
<< <i>Lance, I can see that you are trying to steer toward 101, but I think I'll go with 116a... ....If, for some crazy reason, you decide that it is not 116a, then you probably just better send it along with that 1833 so I can examine it in hand. >>
Nope, neither of those is my guess. Let's just say the reason it took me an hour is because I started and 101 and methodically worked my way up.
You're going to have to work harder for that 1933, Lewy. Lance.
Aww, gee, Lance. With all the extra pics you showed it becomes less of a challenge. (And yes, I agree with your attribution.)
Since a couple of PMs have told me that a pic is necessary for a post here's a worn out 1827. I paid roughly three times retail for this coin even though it is damaged. Plus my max bid was almost twice what I got it for. But it was the last (achievable by me) die marriage for my 1827 set. It's estimated that about 35 or so examples exist in any grade--most of which are damaged. I'd been looking for an affordable O-144 for the last 12 years.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
Wow zap!!! That is one heck of a coin. I can feel my heart beating faster when I look at it. I love stories about finds like that too. I had to google up the story. Very, very neat.
One of the coins that I already posted is supposedly from a find called the Upstate New York Cache. It has some paperwork accompanying it. I'll repost it again right now at the risk of being tacky. Yeah, I wish that you weren't so busy right now too. I will tell you this though, 'nobody' is learning more here than I am. I have a lot more room to grow than anyone else. (I am also having an absolute blast).
XF-45 on that 1825 Pairer ? Even though I know absolutely nothing about grading, I would still be furious, and set that gorgeous coin free of it's guilted holder using my bust nutcracker.
Lance & bustchaser, I give up. The date on the 1836 is not right for the 116/116a, but the 116/116a is the only reverse that I see that matches the TI relationship. Are you thinking that this is something new?
Lewy, the Upstate NY Cache and the Mohawk Hoard are the same find. A dealer who acquired some of the Cache sent them to NCS and trademarked a new name. I wrote NCS to protest the their failure to acknowledge that they only slabbed some of the hoard. They of course ignored me.
Your 1812 is one of perhaps a couple from the Cache that was not hallmarked.
<< <i>Lance & bustchaser, I give up. The date on the 1836 is not right for the 116/116a, but the 116/116a is the only reverse that I see that matches the TI relationship. Are you thinking that this is something new? >>
No, not a new marriage. Don't give up--you will get there. It simply takes looking at coin after coin after coin to get to the point where one can USUALLY accurately attribute by Overton--especially, IMO, on the later dates.
With Lance's 1836 look at the closeup pics that he shows. Sometimes it is difficult--especially from pictures to accurately determine the T/I relationship. For that matter, Overton didn't always get it right even in his text. This one is really "I centered under right side of T" not "Left side of T over Right side of I" as on the 116. The bigest give-a-ways are the pics of the date which show a dot (bar) to the right of the 6 and of the T/I and also shows a recut upper left serif on the E in STATES.
Jim
Edit to add another circulated 1813 to the bunch.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
Jdillane, I do not for one minute doubt your words. The 1812 came directly from a person who claimed to be the finder of the cache. He also had some stuff on the internet about it all. I will try to find the accompanying paperwork and dig up his name.
Jim, I must be looking at things wrong as you imply. I don't mind saying though, that this 4th edition book makes a better door stop than it does a reference guide. Please take a look at these two photos and please tell me where I have gone wrong. Thanks Louy.
Now, in my own defense, I did look (yesterday) for the lump to the right of the '6', but after blowing it up, it looked more like PMD than a lump, and still does from the picture. I usually can spot recutting ('re-engraving' as I call it), but I just don't see it on the 'E'.
This is still all new and wondrous to me though, so please enlighten me.
Every once in a while, I will waltz into the bathroom, look in the mirror, and ask myself this question:
In keeping with this theme, I have a couple of questions that have been troubling me:
1.) Why is the 4th edition inferior to the 3rd (Parsley vs Overton)? Are there erroneous revisions or additions, degraded photos, revamping of the info contained within, causing it to be difficult to decipher, or what?
2.) I have noticed that the main device features on both obverse and reverse seem to change from year to year on CBH. Were the working hubs (which should have lasted for several years), discarded at each years end?
Comments
Could your 1811 be missing the right sided obverse dentils?.......just stating the obvious, that's all.
<< <i>Dave,
Could your 1811 be missing the right sided obverse dentils?.......just stating the obvious, that's all. >>
Hee hee! That is not what I am speaking of...
Figure the overton...then you will be enlightened...
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
It must be the O-104'......what's the R value for the prime die state of the O-104.....R5?
<< <i>Sorry, I got it.......it's missing the obverse die crack.
It must be the O-104'......what's the R value for the prime die state of the O-104.....R5? >>
The AMBPR has it at an R6?
the coin I posted is ex-Mike Marker. It is cleaned, but supposedly spent 40 years in an envelope.
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
I was revisiting all of the fabulous coins in this thread, and somehow I missed the question OKbustchaser posed about his 1827 on page 4.
QuarterNut answered it, but I am not 100% sure that it was the answer that was sought.
The coin does look very odd to me in that it is the first one that I have seen where Liberty has a distinct 'jawline'.
<< <i>The coin does look very odd to me in that it is the first one that I have seen where Liberty has a distinct 'jawline'. >>
Lewy, I think that what you are seeing is an artifact of the individual coin--its wear pattern, combined with the toning, and even the scan itself.
Here's another one that looks like it has an over-developed jaw.
On the other hand, here is one that due to retouching of the die really does have a squared off, muscular chin.
1807-6
1808-17
1809-6
1810-11
1811-15
1812-12
1813-14
1814-13
1815-2
1817-22
1818-12
1819-8
1820-9
1821-3
1822-7
1823-17
1824-16
1825-3
1826-8
1827-30
1828-12
1829-6
1830-12
1831-2
1832-9
1833-8
1834-4
1835-4
1836-6
1837-0
1838-2
1839-0
1839o-3
I know that this does not relate to mintage or even extant population, but I would consider it an indicator of either popularity or afforability.
370324883226
like to show off our rarer early dates to impress the other collectors. I know I personally own many more post 1827
bust halves than pre 1827 halves
While everyone was posting knockouts and rare coins, and a couple of folks were showing a few counterfeits for laughs, I was posting 'my treasures' in all seriousness, but ended up with the most laughs anyway. I am perfectly okay with that though, and am very happy just to see what I missed by not being around when these killer coins (that you guys now post) were available. This is my all time favorite thread on any forum, thanks to all of you show offs.
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
here is one I got from forum member astrorat
<< <i>
1807-6
1808-17
1809-6
1810-11
1811-15
1812-12
1813-14
1814-13
1815-2
1817-22
1818-12
1819-8
1820-9
1821-3
1822-7
1823-17
1824-16
1825-3
1826-8
1827-30
1828-12
1829-6
1830-12
1831-2
1832-9
1833-8
1834-4
1835-4
1836-6
1837-0
1838-2
1839-0
1839o-3
>>
What? No 1837?
Lance.
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
Lance.
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
But that's what I like about you.
I know everyone is drooling, but;
All unsolicited offers to buy this coin will be ignored.
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
<< <i>Where is Bully ? I really hope that I haven't run him away with all of this showing off of my top drawer CBH. Come on Back Bully!!!!
I'm still here Lewy, just investigating another caper.
Is that your paw print on your 1817?
You have some wonderful original ladies in your home.
Lewy, you continue to be my favorite new forum member.....for now of course!
Here is a nice well worn O-112a
No, not my paw print, but if you notice some things that look like fibers and specks, that is probably just hair and dander. The weather is warming up a little, and I am starting to shed a bit.
Here are 2 overdates I haven't posted.
Newy Lewy, don't embarrass me now or you'll never see that 1833!
Lance.
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
"low grade and cleaned" Chris? I prefer to call it graceful aging.
Here's one from the Mohawk hoard - I don't recall if we had one from that interesting find yet or not in this thread.
It's an 1809 0.114a - I guess it's an R.5- now. I liked the story behind it, it's not all that common, AND... for being a dug coin, it's really in pretty good shape! It's known to have a weakly struck left wing.
Keep 'em coming! I've got about another 70 busties imaged so when things cool off I'll get some more up.
zap
102 capped bust half dollars - 100 die marriages
BHNC #198
<< <i>Lance, I can see that you are trying to steer toward 101, but I think I'll go with 116a... ....If, for some crazy reason, you decide that it is not 116a, then you probably just better send it along with that 1833 so I can examine it in hand. >>
Nope, neither of those is my guess. Let's just say the reason it took me an hour is because I started and 101 and methodically worked my way up.
You're going to have to work harder for that 1933, Lewy.
Lance.
Since a couple of PMs have told me that a pic is necessary for a post here's a worn out 1827. I paid roughly three times retail for this coin even though it is damaged. Plus my max bid was almost twice what I got it for. But it was the last (achievable by me) die marriage for my 1827 set. It's estimated that about 35 or so examples exist in any grade--most of which are damaged. I'd been looking for an affordable O-144 for the last 12 years.
One of the coins that I already posted is supposedly from a find called the Upstate New York Cache. It has some paperwork accompanying it. I'll repost it again right now at the risk of being tacky. Yeah, I wish that you weren't so busy right now too. I will tell you this though, 'nobody' is learning more here than I am. I have a lot more room to grow than anyone else. (I am also having an absolute blast).
XF-45 on that 1825 Pairer ? Even though I know absolutely nothing about grading, I would still be furious, and set that gorgeous coin free of it's guilted holder using my bust nutcracker.
Your 1812 is one of perhaps a couple from the Cache that was not hallmarked.
<< <i>Lance & bustchaser, I give up. The date on the 1836 is not right for the 116/116a, but the 116/116a is the only reverse that I see that matches the TI relationship. Are you thinking that this is something new? >>
No, not a new marriage. Don't give up--you will get there. It simply takes looking at coin after coin after coin to get to the point where one can USUALLY
With Lance's 1836 look at the closeup pics that he shows. Sometimes it is difficult--especially from pictures to accurately determine the T/I relationship. For that matter, Overton didn't always get it right even in his text. This one is really "I centered under right side of T" not "Left side of T over Right side of I" as on the 116. The bigest give-a-ways are the pics of the date which show a dot (bar) to the right of the 6 and of the T/I and also shows a recut upper left serif on the E in STATES.
Jim
Edit to add another circulated 1813 to the bunch.
Jim, I must be looking at things wrong as you imply. I don't mind saying though, that this 4th edition book makes a better door stop than it does a reference guide. Please take a look at these two photos and please tell me where I have gone wrong. Thanks Louy.
This is still all new and wondrous to me though, so please enlighten me.
Every once in a while, I will waltz into the bathroom, look in the mirror, and ask myself this question:
In keeping with this theme, I have a couple of questions that have been troubling me:
1.) Why is the 4th edition inferior to the 3rd (Parsley vs Overton)? Are there erroneous revisions or additions, degraded photos, revamping of the info contained within, causing it to be difficult to decipher, or what?
2.) I have noticed that the main device features on both obverse and reverse seem to change from year to year on CBH. Were the working hubs (which should have lasted for several years), discarded at each years end?