I just got back the grades on an exciting submission of odds and ends. Stuff like Barbers, including a counterstamped 1892-O, a dozen seated halves including a chopmarked rarity, four circulated commemoratives, three cherry-picks, and even a 14-D Lincoln cent.
1853-O VF-details scratch. Beautiful coin, one of my first SLHs, I bought it knowing it had those scratches. It's a problem coin with such beautiful deep toning that I bought it.
1856-S WB3, Large S, F15 - $170, Correction: $135.50 in June 2007. with no returns from the Philippines. It took a month to arrive.
1859-O WB12, Large O EF45 - a nice early find that kept me chasing nice, raw SLHs.
1864-S WB4 VF35
1889 VF25 - I don't recall where I got this coin, but it is a beautiful coin.
@Barberian said:
I just got back the grades on an exciting submission of odds and ends. Stuff like Barbers, including a counterstamped 1892-O, a chopmarked SLH, a dozen seated halves including a chopmarked rarity, four circulated commemoratives, three cherry-picks, and even a 14-D Lincoln cent.
@Barberian said:
I just got back the grades on an exciting submission of odds and ends. Stuff like Barbers, including a counterstamped 1892-O.....
I didn't know they would grade counterstamps... I have seen graded chopmarked Trade Dollars...
Are there any situations where counterstamps would not be given a Details grade? I think it would in every instance. I can see the '92-O counterstamp on the Hayes thread so thanks @Barberian !!!
Tim
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
@Barberian said:
I just got back the grades on an exciting submission of odds and ends. Stuff like Barbers, including a counterstamped 1892-O, a dozen seated halves including a chopmarked rarity, four circulated commemoratives, three cherry-picks, and even a 14-D Lincoln cent.
Let's see the chops!!!
You've seen it before, just not the TrueView.
1857-S WB-3, "Medium S, Blundered Date" - [I love the blundered date]
@Barberian said:
I just got back the grades on an exciting submission of odds and ends. Stuff like Barbers, including a counterstamped 1892-O.....
I didn't know they would grade counterstamps... I have seen graded chopmarked Trade Dollars...
Are there any situations where counterstamps would not be given a Details grade? I think it would in every instance. I can see the '92-O counterstamp on the Hayes thread so thanks @Barberian !!!
Tim
Here's the coin. I anticipate the holder will be labeled: "1892-O Fine-details Counterstamp R"
I don't think they're going to quibble over whether it's a Fine12 or an Fine15, or whether it's a Fine15/VeryFine25 by obverse/reverse grading, and that's 'Fine' by me. The coin has been damaged for reasons other than assessing its bullion value.
What makes this coin special is the date and mintmark, and its fine overall look and color. IMO, it's one of the most eye-catching, beautiful, circulated Barber halves I've ever seen, and it's a 92-O! The trail of nice stories from its admirers is special as well. For full disclosure, I should add that "R" is my first initial, same as it's last owner, though I doubt that played much of a role in its ownership in both cases, despite the heckling from the peanut gallery.
@Leeroybrown said:
Wow…. All are great coins…. The 1889 is my favorite!
I looked up my notes on the 1889. It says, "light clean, VF30." I haven't looked at it much, but thought it looked nice and had toned beautifully on the reverse when I added it to the submission. The TrueView to me suggests it's a strong VF25 with some evidence of light cleaning or wiping in the obverse (streaky toning, likely very light hairlining, and from the effort made on the obverse, I would expect a few light hairlines under that nice toning on the reverse. This criticism may sound harsh, but I'm being very picky here. Keep in mind that three of my 'sure thing' AUs have graded MS63 and 64. It's a nice-looking coin and I had little doubt that PCGS would straight grade it.
Took my seated half outside for the first time and saw what I think is a die crack on the reverse going vertically from the L in DOL. Checked various archives and haven't seen anything similar. Have had this coin for several years and never noticed before.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
@seatedlib3991 said:
The coin pictured is an 1865-S but I would guess fine 15. I have an 1864-S that looks almost identical. my coin is in a PCGS holder. james
Thanks for the correction.
Why Fine 15? Aside from the head and bust, the obverse grades around VF25. The reverse is VF30! So VF25/VF30 = F15?
Whatever caused the advanced wear on the breast and head most likely wasn't simply wear. Is this another instance where a poor or problematic die hurts the coin's grade?
VF35
Fine15
I didn't do a comprehensive analysis. I just had my Seated Half dollar coins out at the time and did a visual comparison to the 1864-S I have. I will tell you this though. I have several coins I grade higher or lower than the holder grade indicates. What is more, I have a couple ICG coins that have far more detail than their PCGS /NGC counterparts of the same grade, yet everyone complains they are the faulty service. James
@seatedlib3991 said:
I didn't do a comprehensive analysis. I just had my Seated Half dollar coins out at the time and did a visual comparison to the 1864-S I have. I will tell you this though. I have several coins I grade higher or lower than the holder grade indicates. What is more, I have a couple ICG coins that have far more detail than their PCGS /NGC counterparts of the same grade, yet everyone complains they are the faulty service. James
Does yours have a weak upper Liberty? Other than the weak upper torso and head of Liberty, I grade this 25/30-35. The grade it received (F15) needs to be explained to me because I don't understand this penalizing a coin for something that seems to have happened in the coining process.
I have a 42-O small date half with a full LIBERTY (E is weak), strong drapery, and the feathered wings of a VF20, yet it's a WB-1 with its characteristic horrible strike and is graded VG10. Both coins seem like crack-out and crossover candidates, but I have to be certain I'm not overlooking something in my grading.
I wish I was one of those camera guys. Unfortunately not. The key difference between my coin and yours is that yours has a fuller Liberty. My coin features a Liberty that has a faint E and strong top halfs to R and T but lacks bottom halfs. The head detail, shoulder and upper half gown detail on my coin are an exact match to yours. My coin has strong lower detail including more leg roll and a fully split sandal. the reverse only differs in that my coin shows less arrow fletching and less lower left leg detail.
However, I think you might be just mixing up pictures. You posted an 1865-s, but you also posted an 1864-S. You asked about a GTG that you originally listed as a 1864-s but pictured a 1865-s. I mentioned this to you so I assume you went back and fixed the post. the coin I have been doing a comparison to is the 1865-s originally posted. james
@seatedlib3991 said:
I wish I was one of those camera guys. Unfortunately not. The key difference between my coin and yours is that yours has a fuller Liberty. My coin features a Liberty that has a faint E and strong top halfs to R and T but lacks bottom halfs. The head detail, shoulder and upper half gown detail on my coin are an exact match to yours. My coin has strong lower detail including more leg roll and a fully split sandal. the reverse only differs in that my coin shows less arrow fletching and less lower left leg detail.
However, I think you might be just mixing up pictures. You posted an 1865-s, but you also posted an 1864-S. You asked about a GTG that you originally listed as a 1864-s but pictured a 1865-s. I mentioned this to you so I assume you went back and fixed the post. the coin I have been doing a comparison to is the 1865-s originally posted. james
Sorry to put you through all this writing. It's the 65-S. It still looks undergraded to me as I think that's grease in the die or something related to its mintage causing that "wear."
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Just bought this as an upgrade for my VG8. It's not in hand yet but I thought I'd post the Trueview. Nice original coin graded VF25. I can see this in a 30 holder someday.
I have this in hand now. The Trueview is pretty much spot on. Choice original gray coin. Now I have to upgrade my 70-cc G6 and 71-cc VF details. I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Even if I had the funds, the coins are almost nonexistent.
I can't believe this coin doesn't have at least 50 likes.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
Just bought this as an upgrade for my VG8. It's not in hand yet but I thought I'd post the Trueview. Nice original coin graded VF25. I can see this in a 30 holder someday.
I have this in hand now. The Trueview is pretty much spot on. Choice original gray coin. Now I have to upgrade my 70-cc G6 and 71-cc VF details. I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Even if I had the funds, the coins are almost nonexistent.
I can't believe this coin doesn't have at least 50 likes.
Thanks! It's the centerpiece of my collection right now.
@Leeroybrown excellent looking 1840-O. Evenly balanced wear and color for both sides and I love the myriad of die cracks on the reverse, it appears to be WB-3 (R-5). Congrats.
One of my favorite coins. According to Breen that medium O mintmark was used to strike the first 50,000 mint marked coins. Then was never used again. One of my favorite coins. james
Wear-wise, that is at least a EF45. Nice strike as well.
1868 is another sleeper coin that made a fool out of me. I debated with the seller over the stated grade while being completely oblivious of the outstanding price he was asking for the coin. Dumb.
It is a sleeper coin, the POP's are overstated to say the least.
Comments
1859-S $1 CACG XF40
The cherry harvest was good last year.
Edited to add a better color-edited version of the second TV to look more like the coin in hand. The TVs were slightly overexposed.
1855 over 854 VF30
1855 over 854 VF20
1855 over 854 VF20
I just got back the grades on an exciting submission of odds and ends. Stuff like Barbers, including a counterstamped 1892-O, a dozen seated halves including a chopmarked rarity, four circulated commemoratives, three cherry-picks, and even a 14-D Lincoln cent.
1853-O VF-details scratch. Beautiful coin, one of my first SLHs, I bought it knowing it had those scratches. It's a problem coin with such beautiful deep toning that I bought it.
1856-S WB3, Large S, F15 - $170, Correction: $135.50 in June 2007. with no returns from the Philippines. It took a month to arrive.
1859-O WB12, Large O EF45 - a nice early find that kept me chasing nice, raw SLHs.
1864-S WB4 VF35
1889 VF25 - I don't recall where I got this coin, but it is a beautiful coin.
Wow…. All are great coins…. The 1889 is my favorite!
Let's see the chops!!!
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
I didn't know they would grade counterstamps... I have seen graded chopmarked Trade Dollars...
Are there any situations where counterstamps would not be given a Details grade? I think it would in every instance. I can see the '92-O counterstamp on the Hayes thread so thanks @Barberian !!!
Tim
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
You've seen it before, just not the TrueView.
1857-S WB-3, "Medium S, Blundered Date" - [I love the blundered date]
Here's the coin. I anticipate the holder will be labeled: "1892-O Fine-details Counterstamp R"
I don't think they're going to quibble over whether it's a Fine12 or an Fine15, or whether it's a Fine15/VeryFine25 by obverse/reverse grading, and that's 'Fine' by me. The coin has been damaged for reasons other than assessing its bullion value.
What makes this coin special is the date and mintmark, and its fine overall look and color. IMO, it's one of the most eye-catching, beautiful, circulated Barber halves I've ever seen, and it's a 92-O! The trail of nice stories from its admirers is special as well. For full disclosure, I should add that "R" is my first initial, same as it's last owner, though I doubt that played much of a role in its ownership in both cases, despite the heckling from the peanut gallery.
I looked up my notes on the 1889. It says, "light clean, VF30." I haven't looked at it much, but thought it looked nice and had toned beautifully on the reverse when I added it to the submission. The TrueView to me suggests it's a strong VF25 with some evidence of light cleaning or wiping in the obverse (streaky toning, likely very light hairlining, and from the effort made on the obverse, I would expect a few light hairlines under that nice toning on the reverse. This criticism may sound harsh, but I'm being very picky here. Keep in mind that three of my 'sure thing' AUs have graded MS63 and 64. It's a nice-looking coin and I had little doubt that PCGS would straight grade it.
Common coin (VF30) but it's an upgrade for my VF20.
Here are some leftover SLHs.
1865-S WB1, Guess the grade.
1866-S No Motto WB7 VF35 - more contrast and slightly darker in hand
1883 Seller's photos showing how coin looks in hand
Same coin (now PCGS VF25) with light reflecting directly off the coin to the camera.
All the TrueViews in this batch were brightly lit.
This is the same coin in a well-lit TrueView (graded VF25). In hand, it looks like the upper picture until you focus a light on the coin.
Took my seated half outside for the first time and saw what I think is a die crack on the reverse going vertically from the L in DOL. Checked various archives and haven't seen anything similar. Have had this coin for several years and never noticed before.
The coin pictured is an 1865-S but I would guess fine 15. I have an 1864-S that looks almost identical. my coin is in a PCGS holder. james
...
Thanks for the correction.
Why Fine 15? Aside from the head and bust, the obverse grades around VF25. The reverse is VF30! So VF25/VF30 = F15?
Whatever caused the advanced wear on the breast and head most likely wasn't simply wear. Is this another instance where a poor or problematic die hurts the coin's grade?
VF35
Fine15
I didn't do a comprehensive analysis. I just had my Seated Half dollar coins out at the time and did a visual comparison to the 1864-S I have. I will tell you this though. I have several coins I grade higher or lower than the holder grade indicates. What is more, I have a couple ICG coins that have far more detail than their PCGS /NGC counterparts of the same grade, yet everyone complains they are the faulty service. James
Does yours have a weak upper Liberty? Other than the weak upper torso and head of Liberty, I grade this 25/30-35. The grade it received (F15) needs to be explained to me because I don't understand this penalizing a coin for something that seems to have happened in the coining process.
I have a 42-O small date half with a full LIBERTY (E is weak), strong drapery, and the feathered wings of a VF20, yet it's a WB-1 with its characteristic horrible strike and is graded VG10. Both coins seem like crack-out and crossover candidates, but I have to be certain I'm not overlooking something in my grading.
I wish I was one of those camera guys. Unfortunately not. The key difference between my coin and yours is that yours has a fuller Liberty. My coin features a Liberty that has a faint E and strong top halfs to R and T but lacks bottom halfs. The head detail, shoulder and upper half gown detail on my coin are an exact match to yours. My coin has strong lower detail including more leg roll and a fully split sandal. the reverse only differs in that my coin shows less arrow fletching and less lower left leg detail.
However, I think you might be just mixing up pictures. You posted an 1865-s, but you also posted an 1864-S. You asked about a GTG that you originally listed as a 1864-s but pictured a 1865-s. I mentioned this to you so I assume you went back and fixed the post. the coin I have been doing a comparison to is the 1865-s originally posted. james
Sorry to put you through all this writing. It's the 65-S. It still looks undergraded to me as I think that's grease in the die or something related to its mintage causing that "wear."
1861 OC-1 R-5+ $1
A freshly imaged dollar. PCGS 45 CAC.
I can't believe this coin doesn't have at least 50 likes.
Thanks! It's the centerpiece of my collection right now.
Just WOW!!!!!!!
Thanks.
The dime was from Heritage's recent sale: 'Attractively Toned US Coin Showcase Auction' .
It is.
Cool-looking colorful dimes @JBN... seems our hosts have a camera setting that allows colors to pop like that
My '61-P dime has color to a smaller extent but it is difficult to draw it out correctly by way of digital image...
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
This is a nice example of the 1843 V-9,
with the repunched 1 South just barely visible.
My new purchase…. Would love thoughts on her…
@Leeroybrown excellent looking 1840-O. Evenly balanced wear and color for both sides and I love the myriad of die cracks on the reverse, it appears to be WB-3 (R-5). Congrats.
Thank you @LJenkins11 …. I love the look on her.
I’m glad to add this 40-O to the set…
One of my favorite coins. According to Breen that medium O mintmark was used to strike the first 50,000 mint marked coins. Then was never used again. One of my favorite coins. james
DC SL$
.
.
Some quick photos of my 1886 SLH. Not too bad, it picked up some of the subtle toning. This coin needs to be professionally photographed.
It is a sleeper coin, the POP's are overstated to say the least.
PCGS XF45 CAC
XF45. Upgraded my VF30.
Very nice Don!
Holy cow - is that yours? Wholesome.
Love that coin @JBN 👍👍Great eye appeal and a low mintage issue.
New upgrade.
Newp!
@Catbert That's one of those coins that magically lifted the money out of my wallet!