Guess the grade - 1858-O Seated Half Dollar - GRADE REVEALED

Patches

I will post the results later today, thanks for playing

STONE

58

Vbowling299

au53

Walkerguy21D

AU50 - great detail, but I don't see the luster to support a higher grade. But I'm usually wrong, too!

Boosibri

<< <i>au53 >>



I'm with you.

BillJones

I'm going to say AU-53 although that number is not often used for a coin like this. It has the sharpness of an AU-58, but I'm concerned about the obverse which looks a little rough in the photo, perhaps from dipping. The coin definitely was dipped and has re-toned.

bidask

62

Patches

I picked this up back in 2010 from Heritage for $184 with the juice...I always felt it was under-graded. I like it as an AU-53 (there is light wear on Liberty's hair), other then that it could slide into an Unc holder (but then it would be just a so so coin in my opinion)

Grade revealed:

lcoopie

I guess the luster is gone

rhedden

That is odd. Coin definitely has AU55 to 58 details. Perhaps the dullness of the surfaces resulted in a "net" grade of some sort. I wonder if it is possible to have a "mechanical error" on a label that was supposed to read AU55?

Vbowling299

It looks a bit grainy, and the angle on the reverse eagle could be making it appear as there is no wear on the leg when there could be more.

Mowgli

Much nicer than a 45.

Patches

I wont claim for it to be dripping with luster...but the luster definitely isn't gone...or dull. I really think it's just a common date that nobody really cared what grade it was given. I think it's got a lot of character, it's for sure better then a lot of boring examples with no toning out there that get into AU holders.

Coinerww2

Very interesting, my gut was telling me a 45 but I thought New Orleans were notorious for a weak strike. I graded it down because of the nicks and scratches on the front.

ziggy29

<< <i>I wont claim for it to be dripping with luster...but the luster definitely isn't gone...or dull. I really think it's just a common date that nobody really cared what grade it was given. I think it's got a lot of character, it's for sure better then a lot of boring examples with no toning out there that get into AU holders. >>

This is true if there's still decent luster on the coin -- looks like about AU-55 details to me.

I'd expect this tight grading more on a condition rarity date than one that sells for "type coin" money, though. It may be that the fields are a little scruffier than the images really show and was downgraded for such?

lordmarcovan

Great lookin' coin.

Without scrolling down to peek at the results (I'm still at the top of the page as I type this), I will say AU55.

Edit- OK, I looked. XF45? Wow. That definitely does seem undergraded.

SamByrd

before I looked at the grade after looking at the coin I guessed AU55. There is no way that coin is XF. I can not see anything that would indicate it has been net graded. Dipped re-toned coins are in slabs a lot and this one is as good as most one sees in the market. AU50 I could see maybe but XF no way.

seateddime

nice coin

SkyMan

Good looking coin.

BillJones

<< <i>That is odd. Coin definitely has AU55 to 58 details. Perhaps the dullness of the surfaces resulted in a "net" grade of some sort. I wonder if it is possible to have a "mechanical error" on a label that was supposed to read AU55? >>



I think that there is a "net grade" situation here that has to do with the roughness on the obverse. Not all New Orleans coins were poorly made. In fact during the late 1858s up until 1861 when the mint fell into Rebel hands, the facility made half dollars that were every bit as well made as their Philadelphia counterparts. Here is a very nice 1860-O.

AuroraRarities

A very nice coin for the grade!

Barberian

That coin is at least a 53, and I guessed 55. There is no way that should be graded a 45 unless the coin lacks luster from excessive dipping long ago.

TPRC

My grade also was 53