1810 Bust half (w/grading poll)
lordmarcovan
Posts: 44,209 ✭✭✭✭✭
My tenth purchase for the new 19th century VF-XF Basic Type Set.
Actually, there was an earlier tenth purchase of an 1856-O half, but that poll pointed out some marks I had blindly overlooked,
so the seller let me back out of the deal. As a courtesy to him (and since he had several other coins I liked anyway),
I bought this piece instead, even though it cost about twice as much as the Seated half was going to.
I also bought an inexpensive Seated dime from the same source, which I'll post in the next poll.
Larger obverse picture
Larger reverse picture
PCGS/Photograde standards
Index of similar grading poll threads like this
Actually, there was an earlier tenth purchase of an 1856-O half, but that poll pointed out some marks I had blindly overlooked,
so the seller let me back out of the deal. As a courtesy to him (and since he had several other coins I liked anyway),
I bought this piece instead, even though it cost about twice as much as the Seated half was going to.
I also bought an inexpensive Seated dime from the same source, which I'll post in the next poll.
Larger obverse picture
Larger reverse picture
PCGS/Photograde standards
Index of similar grading poll threads like this
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
0
Comments
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
A lot of the lost detail on the obverse is due to a weak strike, IMO.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
I like that one alot LM, variety guy or not, it is a cool one with that extra long stripe in the shield !
Obverse is weak as is typical, but that's okay.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
If we get another four or five votes in the poll before I crawl my weary carcass off to bed, I'll reveal that.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
I said 25.
Lance.
No peekie at the linkie until you've voted in the poll, now!
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
<< <i>Overton-105, I'm told, though I have no idea how common or scarce that might be, nor do I particularly care. I sold my Overton book a while back because one, I got good money for it, and two, it was too much like Chinese algebra for me. I found myself not caring terribly much about the varieties, anyway. A little bit, maybe, but not enough. (Sorry, Bust Half Nuts- I'm just a generic type collector.) >>
It is indeed a 105, and a fairly nice one. I voted VF-30, but I could understand a grade to either side.
And naturally I am way off
<< <i>I said 30, and if sent to Pcgs that's still my guess. I like it though. >>
I agree, originally i pegged it 25, but the slab pic makes it look a bit deeper struck, with a bit more skin...keep it in that OWAH M'Lord, and you'll have a ready buyer/swapper here !
Tom
Maine_Jim
<< <i>105 is noted for having very little or no milling, "specimens with full milling are a Scarce R3, without milling R2..." >>
OK, so what's "milling", as used in this context?
I know what it means in an early coinage context, from my medieval Darkside wanderings: a milled coin is a machine-struck coin, as opposed to a hammered coin.
But what specifically is the "milling" referred to here?
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
edited for spelling
<< <i>OK, so what's "milling", as used in this context?
The finished edge/rim, often referring to the denticles of CBH's
Lance.
So no milling on this means I have an R2 coin.
Oh well. I was sorta hoping I could participate in the "R3 and above CBH" thread.
Not with this one, I guess.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
<< <i>I said 30, and if sent to Pcgs that's still my guess. I like it though. >>
<< <i>Here is one with milling, but not as much "meat". >>
Maybe not as much detail as mine, but it's got that "CircCam" contrast I like, so I'm a bit jealous!
I guess I have "denticle envy", too.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.