Buyer will be disappointed (1857-S Seated half)

rhedden

Raw coin, eBay, "S" mint Seated from the 1855-1872 era. Add those up, and the first thing that should pop into your mind is "look for re-engraved obverse details."

link to 1857-s half

STONE

It's not as bad as I was expecting!

rhedden

It was subtle enough that the buyer probably didn't see it. Therein lies the problem.

Manorcourtman

The buyer of this date/mm coin is most likely an advanced collector. They should know better!!

roadrunner

I could see someone missing the leg drapery work, but not the right half of the shield which is pretty distorted.

In any case the coin is heavily scrubbed and should turn off nearly any buyer looking for nicer, semi-orig coins.
Seller with 98.6% feedback is just a hair above my line in the sand (98.5) for determining membership in the Captain Crook breakfast club.

LindeDad

Slabs are cheap insurance at that price point.

rhedden

Captain Crook breakfast club.


LOL. Can I join?



Slabs are cheap insurance at that price point.


Yes, the cost of the slab is low compared to the coin, but for better date Seated material, the cost of the coin will often double or triple after it's slabbed by PCGS. There is a HUGE disparity in collector demand and values between a PCGS coin and a "Raw coin that would probably slab." Thus, there is a lot of temptation to gamble on raw semi-key Seated material and send it in. It's similar to trying to buy raw MS65 Morgans back in the 1980s.

CEOcoinshopcom

Just a throw in.... the mintmark doesn't look right... too big, too high?

rhedden

There is more than one style of "S" for this date- medium and large. I think the coin is legit, but tooled to death.

AngryTurtle

<< <i>Raw coin, eBay, "S" mint Seated from the 1855-1872 era. Add those up, and the first thing that should pop into your mind is "look for re-engraved obverse details."
>>



The shield work is obvious to me, but I am mystified as to why the first thing that should pop into my mind is re engraved. Can you 'splain?

LindeDad

<< <i>Thus, there is a lot of temptation to gamble on raw semi-key Seated material and send it in. It's similar to trying to buy raw MS65 Morgans back in the 1980s. >>



I would hope any one playing that game would be able to detect the tooling before bidding. More likely to catch a newbie collector that gets stuck with a piece of that stuff laying on the edge of the street.

guitarwes

<< <i>

<< <i>Raw coin, eBay, "S" mint Seated from the 1855-1872 era. Add those up, and the first thing that should pop into your mind is "look for re-engraved obverse details."
>>



The shield work is obvious to me, but I am mystified as to why the first thing that should pop into my mind is re engraved. Can you 'splain? >>



Big price jumps from F to VF and VF to XF for most. If you can make it look better than it is by tooling it it stands a chance at bringing more $$$.

rhedden

I am mystified as to why the first thing that should pop into my mind is re engraved. Can you 'splain?


"S" mint Seated coins from 1855 to 1872 were frequently converted to "eagle" coat buttons by soldering a metal shank onto the central obverse. Because these are mostly semi-key or key dates, it pays to remove the solder and re-engrave the damaged area. Tooled half dimes from 1863 to 1867 are particularly common, as are halves and quarters from 1855 to 1857, for some reason. I bet if I spent the time, I could find at least ten of these things on eBay right now, and that would be a conservative estimate!


Edited to add: crooked eBay sellers love these things because they can buy them cheap, and then list them with no mention of the damage, playing dumb.

DorkGirl

Scrubbed, tooled, what a mess.

AUandAG

I sent the seller this:

Did not want to mess with your auction while it was still open. However, you may want to contact the buyer and ask him if he saw that the coin had been "re-engraved" on the front shield. If he did not notice that and sees it for the first time when he gets it, he'll return it and give you a negative for non disclosure. I'd contact him before I shipped just to be sure.


We'll see what he says.

bob

BillJones

The picture makes it look like the obverse and reverse are two different coins. I don't know this series, but the thing looks like something that came from a mint other than San Francisco.

AUandAG

Did get a prompt response:

Dear bobandlinda1,

Ok, Thanks

- infront10


Hope he's a stand up guy.

bob

COALPORTER

Considering a nice example was worth almost that much 40 years ago,
what value would you put on that one?

(1972 Redbook unc=$ 250. vF=77)

rhedden

Here's another one already. At least the seller is knowledgeable enough to point it out and price it accordingly.

1868-s re-engraved




Edited to ad: the 1857-S has been relisted already- with no disclosure of the problem. I guess the first buyer did not take the news well.



link

ebaybuyer

buying slabbed wont always shield you from buying the re-engraved 50's and 60's S mint seated coins. it makes sense to know what they SHOULD look like.

DoubleEagle59

It's currently back on Ebay.

Perhaps the first buyer had second thoughts?

MsMorrisine

poof