Grading Question: Is this Capped Bust Half Actually Uncirculated?
brianc1959
Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭
There are some tiny flat spots in the hair curls and stars on the obverse that I'm not sure are circulation wear or perhaps something else (pressed inside a bag or stack of coins maybe?). NGC grades it MS62. What do you think?
1
Comments
It's definitely an NGC MS-62. Probably also a PCGS MS-62. Is it really uncirculated? Meh? LOL
Flat spots can be due to strike weakness as well as wear. Hard to tell from the photo, honestly, but there could be some minor wear on the top of the eagle's left wing (color difference as well as flatness) or it could just be the weakness of the strike.
Can't tell from the photo. (But questionable.)
Is that cabinet friction or wear on the cheek? It looks to be a different color from the eye down to the chin, especially in the full size photo. Used to be a 'slider'.
Your coin is AU. Most coins in this series that are graded MS-62 are also AU. Years ago, before Bowers wrote in his grading guide that many coins formerly graded AU are now graded low Mint State, Laura Sperber wrote somewhere (Gray Sheet?) that Capped Bust Half dollars were uncommon without any "rub." At the time I had never heard of her
but she gained my respect immediately with that statement OF FACT.
Bottom line, don't worry about it. Grading standards have changed and coins nearly 200 years old with pristine surfaces and a little rub on their high spots (not due to weak strike) are commonly graded/bought/sold much higher than MS-62.
I would call it AU but I'm not a TPG grader.
A dealer friend of mine would say "it's UNC enough".
You don't need to be a TPG to either grade a coin or understand how coins are graded. For example, the OP's coin has obvious friction wear! Look at the two curls of hair to the right of the ear. The curls have two different colors. Now, I was not around but In this case I should guess that the original surface was rubbed off a flat area of weakness. Then the coin toned. Then the toned surface was rubbed and the coin toned again. Something like that.
What each of us needs to understand is a coin like this is still considered to be in MS condition by dealers and professional TPGS far above our pay grade. You and I don't count. Nevertheless, each of us should have personal grading standards and buy the coin not the holder.
A dealer friend of mine would say "it's UNC enough".
I think it is, and could go 63.
Tough to tell from the photo, but it's probably not "uncirculated" by strict definition. This illustrates the difference between technical grading and TPG "market-value grading." While the coin is technically a hi AU, it will currently sell at 62 money, so that's the grade it gets. The real question is, will that always be the case? I'd think long and hard about that one before buying a coin.
The only wear on that coin came from a cabinet.
Pete
Somewhat disagree. It may (or may not) be technically AU. But everyone knows this already. It's an NGC/PCGS MS-62 and even in the unlikely instance that NGC/PCGS suddenly decide that it's really an AU-58, the money won't change when all the current 62's end up as 58s. Pretty much all TPG MS-62 are going to look similar to that. There's a reason that bluesheet is generally lower than greysheet.
Thanks for all replies. I do think there is some post-minting wear, but it doesn't look like it was caused by friction with human hands. More like a slight rubbing against a hard flat surface. The little flat areas in the lower left stars and hair curls look extremely well defined, with no rolloff at their edges. I'm not sure what could cause something like this, although I have heard that capped bust 50c often spent lots of time stacked up in bank vaults.
I paid roughly AU58 money for the coin, and don't have any plans to sell unless I can't say no to a much nicer 1835 50c in the future. In that case, if the "market grade" turns out to be AU53 or AU55 I'll just chalk it up as another lesson learned in the world of third party grading.
@BuffaloIronTail said: "The only wear on that coin came from a cabinet."
LOL, My favorite Kool aid is cherry.
I don't know your age but at one time the amount of a coin's friction wear was an important factor in grading. Then, a well known dealer came up with the term "Cabinet Friction" so he could sell AU coins to his clients.
@DIMEMAN said: "A dealer friend of mine would say "it's UNC enough"
Yikes! Sounds like an ex-student. That's exactly a term I coined in the 1970's to teach grading students not to be too critical. First they learn what a true, full luster, Mint State coin with no rub looks like. Then they learn the first signs of luster loss. Then they need to decide how much friction wear (we'll call it "cabinet friction") on a coin is enough to knock it down to their PERSONAL AU. Coins that fall between that are to be considered "UNC enough" as is done in the "real world" outside of the class.
The OP's coin has a little too much "cabinet friction" (target ring colored toning) to be considered an example of "UNC enough" in a class I was teaching. Nevertheless, I don't think any TPGS would call that coin AU so IMO, it is correctly graded.
Is it just me or are the 1833-34 coins less attractive than the earlier (and later) Bust halves?
You own a very nice coin. There are small spots on it that were not sharp when it left the dies with full original luster. As you have written, human hands are not the only cause of the small amount of friction on these large coins.
'Super Slider' as a 62 it was a gift. I would prefer this as a AU-58 as there is wear on just about all the high spots front & reverse. Must have been the luster that shoved it into the uncirculated category.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
@WoodenJefferson said: "I would prefer this as a AU-58 as there is wear on just about all the high spots front & reverse. Must have been the luster that shoved it into the uncirculated category."
Me too, however that is not realistic. The coin is virtually mark free, attractive, and worth more than AU money. Remember, it is said that coins are graded chiefly to place a value on them.
That's where much of the disagreements come from.
It is AU to me, but I don't make the market
BHNC #203
That is a nice coin, correctly graded in today's market.... the 'rub' being discussed is more likely from stacking with other coins over the years...Cheers, RickO
In today's market that coin would probably be worth more in a PCGS AU58 holder!
The 58-62 range is probably the hardest part of grading for a novice (or anyone) to wrap their head around. What is in print is not what is currently used. The series makes a difference, and the age of the coin makes a difference. Strike vs. wear can be confusing. The concept of market grading vs technical grading is confusing. An otherwise 63 or 64 coin can be “net graded” into the 60-62 range for various reasons apart from slight rub.
By and large I think the TPGs decision to basically market grade is reasonable, but subject to constant future revision.
I would not pay MS62 money for that coin (back is too dark for me) , but I am partial to AU58's.
A local dealer has this Bust half that went from Anacs 58 to PCGS62:
https://i.imgur.com/GPhRMey.jpg https://i.imgur.com/SvwE4Rm.jpg
From what I've seen, ANACS and ICG are much more strict with the AU/MS line in every series.
The 1832 is a nicer coin by far! Much less rub and much lighter toning.
NGC slabs sure look like PCGS these days!
fields look too clean for a circulated coin
Capped Bust Halves were not minted with the steam press, unlike late date Half Cents. Compare an unc. 1835 Half Cent to this coin, and the Half Cent's strike is far superior.
In grading Capped Bust Halves, you are dealing with various die pairing, and inconsistent strikes. A number of these coins in MS 65 are not fully struck; knowing the die paring here is critical. Also, in grading them, you need to look for luster breaks on the high points of the coin. Images are almost useless. Add to this the fact that most of these coins have been dipped or worse at least once, and as a result, usually have some uneven toning.
A nice AU 58 fifteen or twenty years go is probably in an MS 62, maybe even MS 63 holder by now. Ie., they are deemed to be market acceptable coins in their present holder. Your coin has a luster break on the eagle's wingtip to the viewer's left. I can't tell anything re the obverse from the image.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
An old time dealer told me that he looks at a "rubbed" coin's fields to decide AU or MS. This coin us "Unc enough" with cabinet friction.
Here is the "rub" with the 1832. Once we ignore the loss of luster on the high points and decide on an MS grade...there is a lot of room between an MS-62 and a '70. This coin "LOOKS" (going by an image alone) like it has all the requirements of a higher grade. IMO, the hits in the obverse field and patch of hairlines on the cheek held it back.
@Elcontador said: "Your coin has a luster break on the eagle's wingtip to the viewer's left."
As I posted, "Unc enough." Now that we know what to look for (change of color) on the reverse... same rub over the eye.
Look at the obverse. There is one glaring patch of rub in the worst place it could be - the center of the cheek.
Many of these coins have discoloration and uneven toning. There are some contact marks in the center of the cheek, and discoloration in the cheek and neck area, as well as the area in front of the obverse device.
This is why I like to see the coin in hand. On an image, I can't tell whether what I described are luster breaks (they often are on Capped Bust Halves), or just discoloration and uneven toning. The issue on the reverse jumped at me because of the change in color, plus the wing tips and neck are the first places to look for luster breaks.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Don't sell yourself short. Your post was an excellent aid to detecting "cabinet friction."
Grading AU/MS CBH's in hand is hard enough. Grading from images is tougher. As others have said, this series is complicated by strike, design, die wear and planchet irregularities. Throw in eye appeal to mix things up.
OP's coin is not uncirculated (or free of rub, let's say), IMO. But maybe it deserves the market grade. Personally speaking, I'm not a fan of the dark reverse. Maybe it's just the images.
Here's a challenge. One of the below 1835 coins is graded AU58. The others are 62, 62, 63 and 64. Which is AU58 and which is MS64? Call them #1, #2,...#5.
Lance.
Hmmm. Number 3 is the 58 and 4 is the 64?
Excellent guess, @jedm. That's what the pix look like to me too.
Lance.
Pay up for the luster bombs.
I guess it was too late in this thread's life to pose the question I asked. So before it fades away here are the PCGS grades which some may find surprising.
Lance.
AU58
MS63
MS62
MS62
MS64
Number 4 needs to be sent back in Lance!
Beautiful coins and a great test. I'll bet you are trying to prove that we cannot grade with an image since we cannot magnify it or rotate it. Nevertheless, I'm going to try.
IMO: #1 and #3 have equal and obvious rub ... er, "cabinet friction." #3 has the better eye appeal (color, luster) however the rub on its cheek is the first thing you see.
That said, I'm going to guess #1 is graded 58.
WHY DID YOU POST THE ANSWER SO SOON? It looks like I cheated!
PS This was a really good guess the grade. If you have more- a suggestion. Post at least two virtually mark free coins as these, one 58 and the other low MS. Very often the line between AU/UNC on attractive coins is very thin.
Posters then guess the grade and give their reasons as I have done. That's what we do in a grading class. We should all learn a lot about TPG.
Beautiful halves, Lance!
Dave
Sorry, @Insider2. I felt the thread had run its course as I found it on page 2 and moving south quickly. I probably should have started a new one.
FWIW, I believe you!
I probably should have said that PCGS upgraded coin #1 to 58+. This was an ex-Jules Reiver piece. It has smooth, clean surfaces, a great strike, strong luster and a rich (if darker) color. There's absolutely no rub on the reverse and just a touch on the obverse. I could see it as a 62 but it's probably worth more as a 58+, weird as that is.
CBH #5 (MS64) is a die marriage that often, but not always, comes with a blunt strike. Here's an example from Coinfacts. Does this one scream MS66 to anyone?
I'll see what I can do about selecting two special bust halves to compare...a high AU and a low MS, and ask for explanations of grade guesses. Look for a new thread soon.
Lance.
ditto, nice 58
BHNC #203
Can you elaborate? - I don't doubt you, but I just don't understand it.
My guess for the AU-58 from the images was #3 (and if it was graded, it would be given an MS-62 or ... "AU-62"). The first thing about the image that grabbed me was what appeared to be toning in the obverse fields (3 and 9 o'clock) that looked like it was the result of a break in luster. But without being able to rotate the coin, there is no way to verify or refute.
Grading higher grade Bust halves is a real challenge, especially the earlier years.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
AU58+ capped bust halves are as scarce as hen's teeth. A mere 103 have been awarded over the last eight years ("plus grading" was introduced in 2010). And because 58+ is the highest possible grade for everyman sets there is competition for them.
Some collectors feel that AU58+'s (and AU58's, for that matter) are often more attractive than lower grade MS coins. This generalization is probably more true with some series than others.
Lance.
Thanks. The attractiveness argument is pretty sound. The everyman thing just seems perverse, although I'm sure its true. The thought of people intentionally submitting MS61 or MS62 coins to get an AU58 grade is disturbing. I suppose the next step would be to crack out the coin and intentionally abrade it before submission.
Something tells me that the everyman sets will eventually be eliminated from the PCGS site.
If I may add ...
An AU-58 (or AU-58+) coin is "perceived" as a coin with just a whisper of wear (aka friction) that is keeping it from Mint State and thus it is a "desirable" coin. An MS-62 is perceived as a low-end MS coin that wasn't nice enough to even be considered "choice" (aka MS-63). Same coin ... different label perception.
Since many collectors hone their grading teeth on Morgan dollars, the "eye muscle memory" of an MS-62 Morgan, with its hits, scrapes, flat luster (or whatever) gives the mental image memory of a coin that is not very nice.
In my opinion, a primary reason nice AU-58 and AU-58+ coins are placed into low number MS holders is to place a price on a premium coin with slight wear that is consistent with a low-end MS coin.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces