<< <i>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. >>
You have just uncovered one of Overton collectors dirty little secrets. Overton's descriptions can easily be taken a couple of ways (and he isn't at all consistent) when deciding whether one should look at the entire stand of the T or merely the bottom (or even the top). All this means is that it takes practice. (and a lot of being wrong--we all go through it)
A great on-line site with examples of nearly all the different die marriages can be found here on CoinZip. More and much better (at least when not refering to mine) pics along with attribution hints often not listed in Overton.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
Okay Chris, let me dig that worthless piece of junk out of the trash, and just for laughs, I'll give it a shot using the poor photos only, as the accompanying words are not worth the paper they were printed on. Yeah, I am mad. (I paid money for this 'book').
Yes, using the pictures only Jim, it is indeed 122. If I ignore the verbiage, and strain my eyes to the breaking point, looking only at the pictures, it becomes easier to comprehend.
"I is centered under right side of T." (Whose chart is this anyway?).
"Many crossbars extend far into the left wing." (Now this was a mistake on 'my' part. I was unaware that the author did not know left from right).
It's back in the trash!!! Throughout the whole thing, sometimes left=left, sometimes left=right..........what an absolute gem. Now I understand why you guys are referred to as "nuts".
"Nuts" is a noun or an adjective? (edited for feeling / meaning).
<< <i>It's back in the trash!!! Throughout the whole thing, sometimes left=left, sometimes left=right..........what an absolute gem. Now I understand why you guys are referred to as "nuts". >>
Left refers to your left not the eagles. Thus, when refering to the eagles "left" wing he is actually talking about its right. See how easy that is.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
Just wait until you start trying to check the A to milling relationship on the reverse....or for that matter, try to measure the distance between 50 and C in mm.
Edit to add: It really does get easier though. And yes, many of us ARE nuts--both as a noun and an adjective!
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
Yes, I read the entire book, once will be enough, thank you. I think that I will be better off without it. I shall hunt down a copy of the 'Bust Fever' book that everyone recommends.
The entire concept of the 'eagles left wing' somehow equating to 'my left wing' requires a gigantic leap into a dimension that revolves around quantum mechanics (and maybe some other crap too). Maybe I am just too small and young to fully understand right now, but I am learning and growing, so the world of CBH had better watch out!
Lewy take a look at your 4th editon Oveton again and look closely at the picture listed for the O110 reverse for the 1826 I posted. Look at the S in states relationship to the P in pluribus.
The 4th edition has Rev K posted for what should be reverse J. They are very close dies and probably how they got messed up. If you have a 3rd and a 4th edition to compare the O110 and O111 you will see what I am talking about
<< <i>Lewy take a look at your 4th editon Oveton again and look closely at the picture listed for the O110 reverse for the 1826 I posted. Look at the S in states relationship to the P in pluribus.
The 4th edition has Rev K posted for what should be reverse J. They are very close dies and probably how they got messed up. If you have a 3rd and a 4th edition to compare the O110 and O111 you will see what I am talking about >>
Just one of the mistakes in the 4th edition. Others have been found also although admittedly the 3rd edition was far from perfect.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
So you were just setting me up for an impossible conclusion if I were to be thorough, Chris?
No, I have never seen a 3rd edition, but I 'did' have a 4th ed. for a few days.
I eliminated all obverses until I got to obverse 7, which left only 110 and 111. Only then did I defer to the verbiage of the two reverses as I could not 'see' a difference between J & K. The description for J matched your reverse, the description for K did not.
As for what letter matches which picture is beyond me, I have never looked at this sort of stuff before, but I can tell you this, the reverses pictured for 111 and 111a are not the same either.
<< <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? >>
This one is tough, Lewy. It is a LDS, with worn/missing denticles, and many of the attributes are hard to tell. 1836 had 38 different dies yielding 23 marriages/varieties.
The different varieties are ID'd by lots of recutting of stars and letters, sharpness and size of stars, the size, shape, spacing and placement of date numerals, 50c. And then all the usual diagnostics.
Sometimes you go mad over judging position. Is it between, center, lower/upper, edge/half? Cripes, it changes as you move the coin. But this is part of the fun and why CBH lovers are raving lunatics.
I often do a fast scan of the book images, paying particular attention to the date, 50c, arrowheads and T-I. That can often result in a quick hit. If not, I write down my position judgment and then browse the varieties, allowing for a small error. (I too made the mistake of buying the 4th edition but dammit, I'm going to get my money's worth!)
We all have our methods. But the important thing to remember is that our judgment may be slightly different and that's okay. Allow for it.
Anyway, to the matter at heart -- the 1836. If it took me almost an hour so there is a reasonable possibility I am wrong. I chose O.122. Here's why.
Obv: Stars are sharp and well clear of milling. The 6 is higher than 183. The dot to the right of 6 (opposite center of loop) is barely perceptible but it's there (this is one of those things you can convince yourself about when you are plainly wrong).
Rev (unique to this marriage): 50c is high but well formed, uniform in size and alignment. "I centered under right side of T" is very close (margin of error ok). Crossbars into visual-left wing.
Here's another reason. I went through every other damned variety, taking notes, and eliminated each of them. So when you have eliminated all reasonable possibilities, whatever remains -- however improbable, must be correct. (That sounds familiar. I thought for a second that I made it up.)
Thanks for playing! Lance.
P.S. If someone, including Lewy, has another idea please tell me!
Now that was another one of my stupid questions that I just hadn't gotten around to asking yet Lance. I was wondering if there was a better way of starting out on the attribution trip other than the process of elimination which is how I have been attempting to go about it.
I would first match the TI relationship which would eliminate 80% of the varieties right off the bat, then I would go to the date digits and narrow things down a bit further, then start wading through the wording.
I have both the 3rd and 4th edition. I usually use the 4th to attribute because the pics are better, and until I ran into the 1826 O110, never had a problem. I never look at the wording, just use the pictures.
Well are you guys happy, this thread has just caused me to buy yet another bustie I have been eyeing.
You guys are all bad influences. I will post pics when it gets here. And by the way, when the wife asked why I needed another lady, I am blaming all of you
Thanks Bully, kinda cute but it is rather hard to tell much from just a picture. This is sorta like a dating site all of a sudden. How do I make contact?
Don't blame anyone here Chris ! (Blame it on the Beaver). She'll understand......and you will also understand when those new outfits / shoes start appearing in her closet.
I'll say 117 Jim, but that date looks rather squirrely as does the second T in states. Everything else looks okay though, so that is my story and I'm stickin' to it...... (117).
I'm entertaining right now, but I will get it done within the next 30-45 minutes. Thanks for the 'thumbnails' by the way, I always love being handicapped when faced with new challenges.
<< <i>I'm entertaining right now, but I will get it done within the next 30-45 minutes. Thanks for the 'thumbnails' by the way, I always love being handicapped when faced with new challenges. >>
I'm entertaining right now
Tell her hello from Gbully......is she wearing a cap???
<< <i>Well are you guys happy, this thread has just caused me to buy yet another bustie I have been eyeing.
You guys are all bad influences. I will post pics when it gets here. And by the way, when the wife asked why I needed another lady, I am blaming all of you >>
Since when are women complaining about those "other woman coins?"
<< <i>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.
>>
Hey Lewy, You really will drive yourself nuts like this. Don't imagine parallel lines as above, the reference line is from the outer edge (rim) to the center of the coin. Imagine the spokes on a wheel. That will help line things up better.
Here is how I determine Overton marriages. First, check the I under T. Second, check the right end of the banner under AM. Third, Check the left end of the banner under ED. Fourth, check E under D. By this time, you either know the reverse, or you might as well throw the book away.
I collect Capped Bust series by variety in PCGS AU/MS grades.
O too have used the banner at AM with good results, but I do like your methods Mozin. I do believe it will be my method from now on. I like it very much.
I really am only interested in the earlier years (1807-1818), seems that the most cracks, breaks, and unusual features are located there, so I guess that I just don't have the fever.
Don't kid yourself L. You have the fever. Face it--embrace it. As for the early dates I suspect that most of us do prefer their different personalities.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
<< <i>Don't kid yourself L. You have the fever. Face it--embrace it. As for the early dates I suspect that most of us do prefer their different personalities. >>
I agree, the early dates are in a HOLE class of their own...
Dave maibockaddict, that first 1813 that you posted today has some very interesting markings under the chin on the obverse. At first I thought that they must be clash marks from the eagle's secondary flight feathers, but I really don't think so now. What are those marks, do you know?
Bought from JJ Teaparty raw AU55......graded AU55 w/PCGS. Attribute this purdy lady if you wish, Lewy!!! BTW, you'll be happy to know I haven't too many more to post.
Wow, you go away for a few days and you have to scroll through so many more pages just to catch up.......AMAZING CBHS everyone!!!! This thread is heading to MONSTER status.
I have a question for the CBH folks and was planning on starting a new thread but figured THIS is the thread to ask it as anyone and everyone who happens to have an interest in CBHs seems to be posting to it, so here it goes......
How tough is the 1828 Large 8 Redbook variety (O-108 and O-109) to acquire in say AU55 and 58? The reason I ask is because one (O-108 PCGS AU58) recently sold on ebay for moon money and I was trying to figure out why. The only reason I could come up with is that the coin looked PQ for the grade and likley had a good shot at upgrading. I happen to have bought quite a few CBHs from this seller who is a very well respected collector and in my opinion expert on CBHs.
Hey DDM, To the best of my knowledge I believe that I have seen quite a few 108's and 109's in AU plastic. But I am not sure they were 58's. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Here is my raw 28 O-108 with a close-up on the date showing the first recut 8
I think the 58 you linked is very PQ. That coin would have been in an MS slab not too long ago in my opinion. With that said the coin went for crazy money in a 58 slab. Now if the buyer has the intention of holding this coin for a while I see 2 possible outcomes. The coin will get into MS plastic after some market mergers, or the coin will be worth MS money after the third parties go the way of the buggy whip.
Any thoughts on how this coin came out like this would be fun to hear! I'm especially interested in hearing thoughts on the double row of dentilation on the obverse. 1811 O.107
a close up of the difference in size (the O. 107 is under another normal sized CBH)
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
You have just uncovered one of Overton collectors dirty little secrets. Overton's descriptions can easily be taken a couple of ways (and he isn't at all consistent) when deciding whether one should look at the entire stand of the T or merely the bottom (or even the top). All this means is that it takes practice. (and a lot of being wrong--we all go through it)
A great on-line site with examples of nearly all the different die marriages can be found here on CoinZip. More and much better (at least when not refering to mine) pics along with attribution hints often not listed in Overton.
Yes, using the pictures only Jim, it is indeed 122. If I ignore the verbiage, and strain my eyes to the breaking point, looking only at the pictures, it becomes easier to comprehend.
"I is centered under right side of T." (Whose chart is this anyway?).
"Many crossbars extend far into the left wing." (Now this was a mistake on 'my' part. I was unaware that the author did not know left from right).
It's back in the trash!!! Throughout the whole thing, sometimes left=left, sometimes left=right..........what an absolute gem. Now I understand why you guys are referred to as "nuts".
"Nuts" is a noun or an adjective? (edited for feeling / meaning).
<< <i>1826=110 >>
Now see.
<< <i>It's back in the trash!!! Throughout the whole thing, sometimes left=left, sometimes left=right..........what an absolute gem. Now I understand why you guys are referred to as "nuts". >>
Left refers to your left not the eagles. Thus, when refering to the eagles "left" wing he is actually talking about its right. See how easy that is.
Edit to add: It really does get easier though. And yes, many of us ARE nuts--both as a noun and an adjective!
The entire concept of the 'eagles left wing' somehow equating to 'my left wing' requires a gigantic leap into a dimension that revolves around quantum mechanics (and maybe some other crap too). Maybe I am just too small and young to fully understand right now, but I am learning and growing, so the world of CBH had better watch out!
Look at the S in states relationship to the P in pluribus.
The 4th edition has Rev K posted for what should be reverse J. They are very close dies and probably how they got messed up.
If you have a 3rd and a 4th edition to compare the O110 and O111 you will see what I am talking about
<< <i>Lewy take a look at your 4th editon Oveton again and look closely at the picture listed for the O110 reverse for the 1826 I posted.
Look at the S in states relationship to the P in pluribus.
The 4th edition has Rev K posted for what should be reverse J. They are very close dies and probably how they got messed up.
If you have a 3rd and a 4th edition to compare the O110 and O111 you will see what I am talking about >>
Just one of the mistakes in the 4th edition.
Others have been found also although admittedly the 3rd edition was far from perfect.
No, I have never seen a 3rd edition, but I 'did' have a 4th ed. for a few days.
I eliminated all obverses until I got to obverse 7, which left only 110 and 111. Only then did I defer to the verbiage of the two reverses as I could not 'see' a difference between J & K. The description for J matched your reverse, the description for K did not.
As for what letter matches which picture is beyond me, I have never looked at this sort of stuff before, but I can tell you this, the reverses pictured for 111 and 111a are not the same either.
This book has no place in my house.
<< <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? >>
This one is tough, Lewy. It is a LDS, with worn/missing denticles, and many of the attributes are hard to tell. 1836 had 38 different dies yielding 23 marriages/varieties.
The different varieties are ID'd by lots of recutting of stars and letters, sharpness and size of stars, the size, shape, spacing and placement of date numerals, 50c. And then all the usual diagnostics.
Sometimes you go mad over judging position. Is it between, center, lower/upper, edge/half? Cripes, it changes as you move the coin. But this is part of the fun and why CBH lovers are raving lunatics.
I often do a fast scan of the book images, paying particular attention to the date, 50c, arrowheads and T-I. That can often result in a quick hit. If not, I write down my position judgment and then browse the varieties, allowing for a small error. (I too made the mistake of buying the 4th edition but dammit, I'm going to get my money's worth!)
We all have our methods. But the important thing to remember is that our judgment may be slightly different and that's okay. Allow for it.
Anyway, to the matter at heart -- the 1836. If it took me almost an hour so there is a reasonable possibility I am wrong. I chose O.122. Here's why.
Obv: Stars are sharp and well clear of milling. The 6 is higher than 183. The dot to the right of 6 (opposite center of loop) is barely perceptible but it's there (this is one of those things you can convince yourself about when you are plainly wrong).
Rev (unique to this marriage): 50c is high but well formed, uniform in size and alignment. "I centered under right side of T" is very close (margin of error ok). Crossbars into visual-left wing.
Here's another reason. I went through every other damned variety, taking notes, and eliminated each of them. So when you have eliminated all reasonable possibilities, whatever remains -- however improbable, must be correct. (That sounds familiar. I thought for a second that I made it up.)
Thanks for playing!
Lance.
P.S. If someone, including Lewy, has another idea please tell me!
I would first match the TI relationship which would eliminate 80% of the varieties right off the bat, then I would go to the date digits and narrow things down a bit further, then start wading through the wording.
Your T-I method, Lewy, sounds fine if you allow a little slop in position judgment.
Lance.
AU53
Lewy, how about an attribution??
<< <i>That is O-118 Bully.
Here's a friend for you......
You guys are all bad influences. I will post pics when it gets here. And by the way, when the wife asked why I needed another
lady, I am blaming all of you
<< <i>That is O-118 Bully.
Here's another for you.
Don't blame anyone here Chris ! (Blame it on the Beaver). She'll understand......and you will also understand when those new outfits / shoes start appearing in her closet.
Now that you have the 26's figured out you need to start on the 27's
<< <i>I'm entertaining right now, but I will get it done within the next 30-45 minutes. Thanks for the 'thumbnails' by the way, I always love being handicapped when faced with new challenges. >>
I'm entertaining right now
Tell her hello from Gbully......is she wearing a cap???
<< <i>Well are you guys happy, this thread has just caused me to buy yet another bustie I have been eyeing.
You guys are all bad influences. I will post pics when it gets here. And by the way, when the wife asked why I needed another
lady, I am blaming all of you >>
Since when are women complaining about those "other woman coins?"
<< <i>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.
Hey Lewy,
You really will drive yourself nuts like this. Don't imagine parallel lines as above, the reference
line is from the outer edge (rim) to the center of the coin. Imagine the spokes on a wheel. That will help line things
up better.
And check out some of those deformed stars
Thanks for the tip John, I 'will' apply that. Time for me to toddle off to bed, it is early, but that is how it is working out.
I really am only interested in the earlier years (1807-1818), seems that the most cracks, breaks, and unusual features are located there, so I guess that I just don't have the fever.
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
<< <i>Don't kid yourself L. You have the fever. Face it--embrace it. As for the early dates I suspect that most of us do prefer their different personalities. >>
I agree, the early dates are in a HOLE class of their own...
BHNC member # 184!
http://www.busthalfaddict.com
What are those marks, do you know?
Bought from JJ Teaparty raw AU55......graded AU55 w/PCGS.
Attribute this purdy lady if you wish, Lewy!!!
BTW, you'll be happy to know I haven't too many more to post.
<< <i>109 Bully! >>
Dead on again, Lewy!!!!
You are good!!
I have a question for the CBH folks and was planning on starting a new thread but figured THIS is the thread to ask it as anyone and everyone who happens to have an interest in CBHs seems to be posting to it, so here it goes......
How tough is the 1828 Large 8 Redbook variety (O-108 and O-109) to acquire in say AU55 and 58? The reason I ask is because one (O-108 PCGS AU58) recently sold on ebay for moon money and I was trying to figure out why. The only reason I could come up with is that the coin looked PQ for the grade and likley had a good shot at upgrading. I happen to have bought quite a few CBHs from this seller who is a very well respected collector and in my opinion expert on CBHs.
Here is the link in case anyone was wondering.....1828 O-108 PCGS AU58
Thanks to everyone who cares to respond.
To the best of my knowledge I believe that I have seen quite a few 108's and 109's in AU plastic.
But I am not sure they were 58's. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
Here is my raw 28 O-108 with a close-up on the date showing the first recut 8
I searched for others on Heritage, Stacks, Bowers, etc and it looks quite nice for an AU58, perhaps even 62 by today's standards.
Just curious as to your thoughts and anyone else who has an opinion on this variety (1828 O-108) and why some think it may be a tough Redbook variety.
Thanks
That coin would have been in an MS slab not too long ago in my opinion.
With that said the coin went for crazy money in a 58 slab. Now if the buyer
has the intention of holding this coin for a while I see 2 possible outcomes.
The coin will get into MS plastic after some market mergers, or the coin will
be worth MS money after the third parties go the way of the buggy whip.
Any thoughts on how this coin came out like this would be fun to hear! I'm especially interested in hearing thoughts on the double row of dentilation on the obverse.
1811 O.107
a close up of the difference in size (the O. 107 is under another normal sized CBH)
a nice die crack
zap
102 capped bust half dollars - 100 die marriages
BHNC #198