1852 Seated half dollar

coolest

1852 50 cent


I would like some opinions on the quality and rarity of this coin please.

Thanks!

RedHerring

Nice piece that looks like a solid 63 in the images. $500 over-priced IMHO.

Not a rare date but not often seen over 63.

PQueue

I don't buy off ebay, but does not appear overpriced to me.

Barberian

I think it's a great coin for a great price! Some stars are a bit flat, but the reverse looks good with all feathers sharp tipped (I like the reverse sharp). Nice toning, too! Obviously others thought it was worth bidding beyond $2250. Congrats on landing a really nice coin!

(Edited to throw a barb at the wet blanket people...one must fight them at every turn!)

AnkurJ

You can probably get it cheaper if you contact Dave Wygent directly.

Edit to add, its $2550 on his website. So an even better deal for you!

roadrunner

Sold for $2185 at the Dick Osburn sale. Luster looks slightly weak in the fields, esp. the right obv and the upper reverse. But the high points look ok.

A decent number of MS62-65 1852 halves have survived over time essentially making it available enough to the few seated collectors building
choice or gem unc sets. It shows up as frequently in choice and gem unc than the much higher mintage P mints of the 1841-1851 period. The current asking price of $2750
isn't that far from 64 money imo. Low end 65's have been fetching in the $4500-$5500 range. A great date in Fine-XF that is probably high on the want lists of many
seated half dollar collectors. Price is basically compressed in a tight range of $1500-$2500 for grades of F15 to MS63 because of the higher interest and rarity of nice circs.
Very low 77K mintage for a half dollar of this period. In fact you have to go to the 66s no motto or 70-cc to find one lower. And that and the silver hoarding of that period
probably explains how some uncs got put away at time of issue. A key date that has always been popular because of the miniscule mintage.

I owned a very nice NGC 64 two years ago that only fetched $3000 at auction. The coin had full luster, great strike, totally original, and had the mark free surfaces of a 65.
But the toning was a bit too deep (brown/gray) and unattractive to most. A sticker was denied but would have added $500-$1000 to the price. A lot of the 64 or higher pieces
are dipped out. It's somewhat hard to find a totally original and eye appealing choice or gem example of this date.

enlarged photos from 2011 ANA auction

roadrunner

coolest

Here is a coin that I bought from Dick Feb. 2008
Does that mean that He preferred the one for sale now?

roadrunner

I prefer the 2nd one as the coin looks more even overall. Probably would be a 64 if that deeper toning didn't mute the luster a bit.

roadrunner

Raybo

<< <i>I prefer the 2nd one as the coin looks more even overall. Probably would be a 64 if that deeper toning didn't mute the luster a bit.

roadrunner >>



You're kidding............right?

coinhunters

That is a solid grade for this issue. The coin in my opinion is absolutely wonderful . I have no problem with the asking price, but I'm sure there is room for negotiation with this seller, if they truly want to move this piece.

roadrunner

<< <i>

<< <i>I prefer the 2nd one as the coin looks more even overall. Probably would be a 64 if that deeper toning didn't mute the luster a bit.

roadrunner >>



You're kidding............right? >>



No, I'm not kidding. Based on the high resolution auction photos of the first coin shown (ie much luster seemingly missing in the right obv field) I would choose the 2nd coin.
Fwiw the eBay photo of the coin makes it look a lot better to me than the auction photo. Considering that they're both 63's, the NGC coin was not stickered, and PCGS does
tend to be tougher on seated material in 63, I would most certainly lean to the PCGS 63 coin. Besides, there's nothing in the photo that would tell me the NGC coin is any better.
An in-hand comparison might produce different results. But both coins are 63's, so I don't feel we're inside the "you're kidding" territory. That's usually reserved for coins that
are wildly different in quality. Based on what unstickered NGC seated coins bring these days, I'd take a roughly equivalent PCGS coin any day.

But I will admit that the eBay photo looks very good, much better than the auction photo, and much better than the PCGS coin photo. But I don't think the PCGS photo is really showing
the coin properly since it looks very dullish. All I know is that surfaces look more even and original with deep areas of crust. Usually that means luster is underneath there as well.

roadrunner

BillJones

Using Gray Sheet numbers (MS-63 $2,100, MS-64 $3,200) the looks like a nice, original MS-63 with fewer distractions that you sometimes see for the grade. The $2,750 price is at the retail level, but coin is nice for the grade. You might get it for less with some negociations.

These pre 1853 silver coins are scarcer than you might think. A lot of them went to the melting pot after California gold strike changed the price differential between gold and silver to the point where these coins had a melt value over their face value. That was the whole reason behind the Arrows and Rays type coins. The arrows pointed out the coins with those marks were not worth melting. The ones issued before 1853 were worth melting.

walkerman

<< <i>I don't buy off ebay, but does not appear overpriced to me. >>




This is a curiosity I have never been able to get my head around. Why would some people prefer to pay $300 in ebay and paypal fees? This coin is marked up 15% on my website but 22.5% on my ebay listing to cover all the fees. Some people will gladly buy from a seller with no return policy and pay the exorbitant fees rather than "take a chance" buying from a website with no ebay and paypal protection. Even if the seller has over 1000 positive feedbacks. Doesn't figure. Dave W


David J Weygant Rare Coins www.djwcoin.com

coolest

Actually the coin in the NGC holder looks polished to me.

As far as the price goes with, what is being paid for circulated and damaged coins, and being a key date of the type, I think $2800 is not unreasonable.

stealer

<< <i>

<< <i>I prefer the 2nd one as the coin looks more even overall. Probably would be a 64 if that deeper toning didn't mute the luster a bit.

roadrunner >>



You're kidding............right? >>


I don't collect seated material but if I were given the choice of buying either coin for the same price I would pick the second one as well.

Justlooking

<< <i>

<< <i>I don't buy off ebay, but does not appear overpriced to me. >>




This is a curiosity I have never been able to get my head around. Why would some people prefer to pay $300 in ebay and paypal fees? This coin is marked up 15% on my website but 22.5% on my ebay listing to cover all the fees. Some people will gladly buy from a seller with no return policy and pay the exorbitant fees rather than "take a chance" buying from a website with no ebay and paypal protection. Even if the seller has over 1000 positive feedbacks. Doesn't figure. Dave W


David J Weygant Rare Coins www.djwcoin.com >>



Can't people use paypal when buying something from your site?

walkerman

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I don't buy off ebay, but does not appear overpriced to me. >>




This is a curiosity I have never been able to get my head around. Why would some people prefer to pay $300 in ebay and paypal fees? This coin is marked up 15% on my website but 22.5% on my ebay listing to cover all the fees. Some people will gladly buy from a seller with no return policy and pay the exorbitant fees rather than "take a chance" buying from a website with no ebay and paypal protection. Even if the seller has over 1000 positive feedbacks. Doesn't figure. Dave W


David J Weygant Rare Coins www.djwcoin.com >>



Can't people use paypal when buying something from your site? >>



Sure, if they are willing to add 3% to the listed price.