Heritage Auction: No surprise it was won via "mail/fax" (bust half dime)

Barndog

on my watch list for the Heritage FUN auction was an 1836 half dime, PCGS MS64, attributed as an 1836 LM-1.1 (which is an R-5 remarriage). I fully intended to view the coin in hand and bid strongly on it if the coin warranted it. My current set piece is an AU55 and I thought it might be nice to upgrade.

So I went to lot viewing and examined the coin. First impression (no magnification) was the surfaces seemed to have a prooflike appearance. The coin was weakly struck, perhaps more so on the reverse than other examples I had seen of this particular die remarriage. There was some sort of funkiness on the obverse too...near the cap/hair area. Once I put the coin under a simple 5x magnifier, I was really taken aback. Hairlines were everywhere, how awful! Plenty of hairlines on the obverse, plenty of hairlines on the reverse. The coin may not have been scrubbed, but during its time it had seen some unfortunate and possibly intentional mistreatment. I had hoped that the HA.com images just showed marks on the holder, but in-hand inspection revealed the marks were on the coin. The more I tilted the coin in the light and viewed it at various angles, the more horrific it appeared. It really does pay to view coins in hand!

I discussed the coin with other half dime collectors/specialists who had also viewed it in hand. They too were very disappointed at the state of the coin and indicated an unwillingness to add such a coin to their collections. So despite that many of us "arrived loaded for bear" to prepare for this coin, none of us even got involved in the bidding. We dismissed the idea that the coin was somehow a misattributed Proof.

I was not at all surprised to see on the HA.com site that the coin was won by a "mail/fax" bidder...likely someone who had either seen the coin online only or only in a printed catalog. I hope that person is happy with the coin, for I was not. With the juice, it sold for $6,900, which is about five to six times type price. I think someone bought the label, not the coin.

A link to the lot number: LINK to 1836 H10C

Heritage's images of the coin:




And last, for comparison purposes and to show why I didn't feel the coin was an upgrade from my set piece, here is a Mark Goodman image of my coin:

Sonorandesertrat

I think that your coin has much better eye appeal. I would have had a hard time generating enough enthusiasm to bid on the '64', even if it were not badly hairlined.

The lot description also fails to note the extensive hairlining, which is not consistent with the grade. This is a poster child for why bidders need to physically see what they intend to bid on (or have a representative do this).

STONE

To me, based upon the Heritage Images, the 1836 PCGS-64 appears to be the LM-1.2 not the earlier 1.1.

To me, although not an expert like Barndog, the reverse Cud appears to be at the retained stage, and more advanced than the die cracks of the piece he was showing below.
Of course, I'm not well versed on the precise differences between a 1.1 and 1.2, but I just assumed the 1.1 was just the die cracks, and the 1.2 was the retained cud stage.

Either way, I too am disappointed about the funkyness and hairlines of the PCGS piece; sad to see coins like this slabbed by the TPG's

RYK

On the Heritage image, I see lines galore and the portrait looks to white for my taste. For the same money, I like the Barndog piece better, regardless of what the holder says. Higher grade does not necessarily equate to more desirable coin in my world.

Sonorandesertrat

"....Higher grade does not necessarily equate to more desirable coin in my world."


Amen

Broadstruck

Auction in hand lot viewing is crucial as bidding based only a digital picture of a coin might very well be worth a thousand profane words once you have it in hand.

There was a token I was outbid on at Stacks in early 08, then outbid again at Bowers in late 08... Neither time I'd seen it in hand. Stacks/Bowers had it again at Philly Whitman last September and I finally had a chance to see it in hand a thanked my lucky stars I never won it. The funny part is the Stacks, Bowers, and Stacks/Bowers three images where so different from one another and still NONE of them actually represented what the token actually looked like in hand. It sold for almost double 08 price last fall and was quickly tossed back into the Stacks/Bowers Jan Americana sale later this month as I feel the lucky internet bidder was in for a rude awakening when he saw it in hand.

Barndog

<< <i>To me, based upon the Heritage Images, the 1836 PCGS-64 appears to be the LM-1.2 not the earlier 1.1.

To me, although not an expert like Barndog, the reverse Cud appears to be at the retained stage, and more advanced than the die cracks of the piece he was showing below.
Of course, I'm not well versed on the precise differences between a 1.1 and 1.2, but I just assumed the 1.1 was just the die cracks, and the 1.2 was the retained cud stage.

Either way, I too am disappointed about the funkyness and hairlines of the PCGS piece; sad to see coins like this slabbed by the TPG's >>



this is a good point, STONE. The first time I viewed the coin online, I figured it was a 1.1. When I viewed the coin in hand for the first time, I inspected for condition only, not attribution. In fact, after discussion with others, I went back to view the coin in hand for a second time! This time I went to confirm the attribution (and see if I was wrong about my impression of condition the first time I saw it). The key difference between the 1836 LM-1.1 and the 1836 LM-1.2 is that between the striking of these two remarriages, the 1835 LM-9.2 was struck...so (as you point out), a cud should be present for a coin to be judged 1836 LM-1.2. I carefully inspected the surfaces surrounding the area of interest (TED of UNITED) and saw no shift in the plane that would indicate that a retained cud had developed. Further, one would expect to see a second area of die cracks on an 1836 LM-1.2 -- those beginning to encompass STAT of STATES. Those cracks are not there. I was certain it is an 1836 LM-1.1.

If it was the more common 1836 LM-1.2 it would have been incredibly overpriced at the final bid.

STONE

Thanks Barndog

Unknown

This content has been removed.