Great find... I might have bought this coin if I saw it for sale. 1864-S always has been a condition rarity in the series, and locating one above Fine is really tough.
This is a new piece (AU55) and is off to CAC stickering review. The TV accurately captures the subtle toning when tilted but the coin is pearlescent straight on. Will be curious to see if it passes. It has an excellent strike and in my opinion it is worthy. Despite the 3.1M mintage, this date isn't easy to find.
I was really curious how this coin would photograph and laughed when I saw the photos. This is a dark coin with a heavy toning that had been partially wiped away. I bought it for its look, rarity (circulated 82s are hard to find), and what I felt was a price I could live with. I worried about the wiping and how it might be judged by the graders, but the coin has likeability.
PCGS must have focused a bright light on it at the right angle to bring out that color. I appreciate their effort, but the coin doesn't look like this in-hand. It looks more like the seller's photos and my scans. To see all that color in the TV was amusing to me. It reminded me of @Catbert and his colorful coins. I considered teasing him with it. It's interesting to me how the light cuts through the toning, particularly on the lettering.
I've shown the Good Coins, other Coins, the @Catbert Coin. Now the Ugly Coins.
PCGS says "Details: cleaned" - all cleaning did is reveal the real problem, environmental damage. It does have a refreshing "industrial pastel" look to it, though. @Catbert!?
This was a disappointment. This was instructive as well. The coin always looked a bit off. Too much glossiness from polishing, which is hard to see in a Trueview.
@Leeroybrown said:
Wow Barberian! I really like that 1839 WD !!
Beautiful surfaces!!
I agree, but did you check Miss Liberty's lap? I bought this through someone on eBay who I believe used to post here. He was looking to sell it and pitched it to me in a PM. It came down to whether I could live without that nice reverse or not. I decided I couldn't. I grade this for wear at VF30-35, so maybe it will sticker.
@LJenkins11 said:
1872-S, XF40, WB-3, R-3+, total mintage for the year 257,000.
@LJenkins11, your 72-S is perfect, however, the mintage for the 72-S was 580,000. The mintage for the 72-CC was 257,000.
I'm also sorry that I felt compelled to post that correction, but I cannot control my OCD nerdiness sometimes.
Here are two 72-Ss that I like. The circ cameo WB-2 is being graded now, but the WB-3 is one of my favorite SLHs for its nice, hairline-free, "unmessed with" look and color for a well-worn coin. The perfect F02?
@Barberian Thank you for the correction and their is nothing wrong with a little OCD. Those are a great looking pair of 72-S you have there. It appears I found a typo in A Register of Liberty Seated Half Dollars Volume I San Francisco Branch Mint by Bill Bugert.
After checking both the Complete Guide to Liberty Seated Half Dollars 1993 by Wiley and Bugert as well as Coinfacts they each reflect the correct 580,000 mintage figure as you pointed out. I'm gonna have to go back thru and recheck all my coins now as I have been exclusively using Bill Bugerts new volumes.
I've decided that my F02 WB-3 72-S is going to get the full grading 'treatment' - Gold Shield protection, DM attribution (even though it's common), CAC submission, the works.
And CAC had better submit to the awesomeness of this coin and award it a green bean "lickety-split" or they will forever be banished to the centsless land of Numistrust in my mind. "Buckle up your chin strap, CAC. The 72-S is coming after you!" The pressure is rising. Will you produce an emerald? Or will the pipes burst? Either way, more silly jock analogies, grading results and TPG abuse to come.
@LJenkins11 said: @Barberian Thank you for the correction and their is nothing wrong with a little OCD. Those are a great looking pair of 72-S you have there. It appears I found a typo in A Register of Liberty Seated Half Dollars Volume I San Francisco Branch Mint by Bill Bugert.
After checking both the Complete Guide to Liberty Seated Half Dollars 1993 by Wiley and Bugert as well as Coinfacts they each reflect the correct 580,000 mintage figure as you pointed out. I'm gonna have to go back thru and recheck all my coins now as I have been exclusively using Bill Bugerts new volumes.
One small mistake. Of course, it's minor and of little consequence, but I'll bet that BB finds it very annoying. I don't use Wiley and Bugert 1993 and haven't noticed mistakes in his excellent guides. I use the Redbook for mintages and recently have been looking at mintage divisibility patterns and how they vary between mints, so I just happened to know the mintages.
Comments
Newp from eBay just arrived today. I'm pretty happy with this one, as the coin looks even better than the True View. 1858-0 graded PCGS VF35.
This one evidently good! Just back from host:
https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.net/pcgs/cert/48211877/275603044.jpg
Well, just Love coins, period.
@7Jaguars that is a very nice example of a tough date from San Francisco, congrats.
I was pleasantly surprised when hosts graded it as "63" as I was thinking maybe "62". Haven't seen too many as you've said.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Upgrade for my VG10
Upgrade for my VG10. I have no coins below Fine now, and only 5 in Fine. I have two VF details grade though.
Congrats Don!
The photos don’t capture the beauty of this coin with the fluorescent toning when tilting it.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Nice one Bob
Very pretty
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Thanks Mike. Was a Christmas present to myself.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Great find... I might have bought this coin if I saw it for sale. 1864-S always has been a condition rarity in the series, and locating one above Fine is really tough.
This is a new piece (AU55) and is off to CAC stickering review. The TV accurately captures the subtle toning when tilted but the coin is pearlescent straight on. Will be curious to see if it passes. It has an excellent strike and in my opinion it is worthy. Despite the 3.1M mintage, this date isn't easy to find.
Edited to add grade.
Here is one you don't see very often, 1876 50C Lg/Sm Date WB-106.
1840 WB-5 PCGS XF45
1841-O WB-5 PCGS VF30
1842 SD LL PCGS VF25
1882 PCGS VF20
1888 PCGS PR61
A few more from a recent submission. Color adjusted to resemble coin in hand.
One of my favorites. 1853 VF35 with planchet streak
1849 XF40
1871-CC G4
1888 F12
Wow!! It’s a Barberian Hoard !!
Alot of great SLHs shown here!! Very nice!
Here are a couple of my Newps as well.
Three more.
1839 WD VF25
1862-S XF40
Another 1840. This one is VF30. I like "Reverse of 39" SLHs. "Reverse of 38" as well.
Sweet coins @Barberian but that 1862 needs a dip
(just teasing)
I looked at the photos and thought the same thing. What do people use to gently remove that tar-like crud besides acetone? Mineral oil?
Wow Barberian! I really like that 1839 WD !!
Beautiful surfaces!!
@Barberian - I really like your 1882 VF20 as well.
I was really curious how this coin would photograph and laughed when I saw the photos. This is a dark coin with a heavy toning that had been partially wiped away. I bought it for its look, rarity (circulated 82s are hard to find), and what I felt was a price I could live with. I worried about the wiping and how it might be judged by the graders, but the coin has likeability.
PCGS must have focused a bright light on it at the right angle to bring out that color. I appreciate their effort, but the coin doesn't look like this in-hand. It looks more like the seller's photos and my scans. To see all that color in the TV was amusing to me. It reminded me of @Catbert and his colorful coins. I considered teasing him with it. It's interesting to me how the light cuts through the toning, particularly on the lettering.
Seller's photos -
My scans -
Trueview -
You know me too well, Mr Barberian!
I've shown the Good Coins, other Coins, the @Catbert Coin. Now the Ugly Coins.
PCGS says "Details: cleaned" - all cleaning did is reveal the real problem, environmental damage. It does have a refreshing "industrial pastel" look to it, though. @Catbert!?
This was a disappointment. This was instructive as well. The coin always looked a bit off. Too much glossiness from polishing, which is hard to see in a Trueview.
I agree, but did you check Miss Liberty's lap? I bought this through someone on eBay who I believe used to post here. He was looking to sell it and pitched it to me in a PM. It came down to whether I could live without that nice reverse or not. I decided I couldn't. I grade this for wear at VF30-35, so maybe it will sticker.
XF45 upgrade for my VF20.
XF40 upgrade for my VF20.
Don,
Congrats on the two upgrades! The 1860 was from my collection.
Doug
Terrific looking circulated coin that the pictures don’t help.
Interesting counterfeit I ran across.
1872-S, XF40, WB-3, R-3+, total mintage for the year 580,000. Corrected from prior post of 257,000.
@LJenkins11, your 72-S is perfect, however, the mintage for the 72-S was 580,000. The mintage for the 72-CC was 257,000.
I'm also sorry that I felt compelled to post that correction, but I cannot control my OCD nerdiness sometimes.
Here are two 72-Ss that I like. The circ cameo WB-2 is being graded now, but the WB-3 is one of my favorite SLHs for its nice, hairline-free, "unmessed with" look and color for a well-worn coin. The perfect F02?
WB-2
WB-3
@Barberian Thank you for the correction and their is nothing wrong with a little OCD. Those are a great looking pair of 72-S you have there. It appears I found a typo in A Register of Liberty Seated Half Dollars Volume I San Francisco Branch Mint by Bill Bugert.
After checking both the Complete Guide to Liberty Seated Half Dollars 1993 by Wiley and Bugert as well as Coinfacts they each reflect the correct 580,000 mintage figure as you pointed out. I'm gonna have to go back thru and recheck all my coins now as I have been exclusively using Bill Bugerts new volumes.
My 72-s quarter, XF40. A top 10 rarity in the set.
I've decided that my F02 WB-3 72-S is going to get the full grading 'treatment' - Gold Shield protection, DM attribution (even though it's common), CAC submission, the works.
And CAC had better submit to the awesomeness of this coin and award it a green bean "lickety-split" or they will forever be banished to the centsless land of Numistrust in my mind. "Buckle up your chin strap, CAC. The 72-S is coming after you!" The pressure is rising. Will you produce an emerald? Or will the pipes burst? Either way, more silly jock analogies, grading results and TPG abuse to come.
That group photo of half of the "Maginot Line" blew my mind earlier today and it still does.
One small mistake. Of course, it's minor and of little consequence, but I'll bet that BB finds it very annoying. I don't use Wiley and Bugert 1993 and haven't noticed mistakes in his excellent guides. I use the Redbook for mintages and recently have been looking at mintage divisibility patterns and how they vary between mints, so I just happened to know the mintages.
Upgrade for my VF20.
May Dansco Page 1 with the new upgrade of 42-O small date, rev of 39!