Would this 1793 1/2 cent certify? And what grade?

Colorfulcoins · December 8, 2003 1:00PM

I've been looking for a 1793 1/2 cent in a low grade - a coin that would slab. Take a look at the coin below and let me know what you think (pretty subjective question only given a picture, huh). Your thoughts please........

Placid · December 8, 2003 1:02PM

It would slab at anacs, the reverse would probably keep it out of a pcgs slab.

Fair 2 maybe.

originalisbest · December 8, 2003 1:32PM

Well, apart from the wear you couldn't ask for a nicer planchet in well-worn shape! I have a feeling that could slab at PCGS or NGC. I have seen far more problematic coins in their holders than that old beauty.

Have you pulled the trigger on it yet?

airplanenut · December 8, 2003 1:40PM

I think it would bag at PCGS and NGC... ANACS would call it net PO-01 is my guess, as it has marginally AG details (no reverse)

kieferscoins · December 8, 2003 1:44PM

Definate bodbag at PCGS, NGC or ICG for the reverse damage.

Cameron Kiefer

Dave99B · December 8, 2003 3:35PM

Neat example of a tough half cent. I own an ANACS P1 myself.

Too bad about the reverse. I'm afraid ANACS would NET grade it. Still.....a nice piece.

Dave

braddick · December 8, 2003 5:46PM

ANACS: AG03 Details, Net FA02
Any hint of a date and device detail on the OBVERSE awards this one AG'ish status in detail.
The flat reverse (is there any detail at all? It looks like there may be a hint here or there) and the slight pit preclude PCGS and probably NGC from holdering it (unless it is from a famous Pedigree, of course. . .).

Cam40 · December 8, 2003 9:00PM

it may not need slabbing IMO.

if its for sale then the buyers of these early coppers generally know what they,re looking at
and may even prefer it unslabbed.

the grades offered here are mostl likely pretty accurate. i,d say you just got a coin graded for free.
not bad for just asking huh.

Cam40 · December 8, 2003 9:05PM

can you imagine someone starting to drill a hole in it when another says` Hey Wait!!!! It could be a valuable coin.`

Driller: Oh heck...How Vaulable?......

tjkillian · December 8, 2003 9:15PM

It looks funny to me: Too well struck, too well centered, too nice of a planchet, and no reverse. Is it a Gallery Mint copy?

Tom

Colorfulcoins · December 9, 2003 6:52AM

Any chance that "ping" on the reverse is a planchet defect? Quality control probably wasn't that good in 1793..... and there's no corresponding mark on the obverse (at least that I can see in the picture).

coinguy1 · December 9, 2003 7:28AM

Craig, I believe that is damage on the reverse, as opposed to a "planchet defect" and that neither NGC nor PCGS would grade / holder it.

As one option, however, you could get NCS to holder it as genuine, without assigning a grade.

mdwoods · December 9, 2003 7:32AM

It looks like someone dinked it with a center punch. However, it is still a nice specimen. No ugly corrosion.

Placid · December 9, 2003 7:36AM

Here is the obverse using auto levels in photoshop.

LAWMAN · December 10, 2003 6:26AM

I like the bullet hole. Is that extra?

billboat · December 10, 2003 7:18AM

Mark is right--NCS would be an excellent way to have it authenticated and detail level described. ANACS (economy) will authenticate and net grade it for you. NCS will cost more but be much faster. (I have a 1798 large cent in similar condition that I found and am real fond of--but wouldn't slab it--I'm holding out for an AG3/G4 for my type set.)

BillJones · December 10, 2003 7:34AM

I'd say that it is Poor-1. You can't call it Fair-2 because the reverse is blank, and although some might argue that it is FR-2 because the date is readable.

I don't know if PCGS would body bag it because of the little attempted puncture on the reverse. I don't think NGC would, and I know that ANACS wouldn't. I'd say that mark is certainly not a problem in this grade.

tjkillian · December 10, 2003 7:46AM

I still think it is a counterfeit, a Gallery Mint reproduction.

Tom

jdimmick · December 10, 2003 8:12AM

I think it would have a decent shot at grading at PCGS, one area that there a little more liberal in is early copper, especially being a 1793. Grade should be around a Poor-1 IMO, I agree with Bill about the reverse, had it had a little more detail visible, It might would pull a fair-2.

jim

coppercoins · December 10, 2003 8:14AM

Braddick has it right on, in my opinion.

Conder101 · December 10, 2003 11:09PM

I'm not sure but tjkillian just might be right. There is something about that profile which has bugged me since I first saw it. It definiately doesn't match the obverse found on C-3 or C-4. It is similar to the obverse used for C-1 & C-2 but it just doesn't seem rght.
The picture to the right is obverse of C-3 and the one below it is the obverse of C-1.

The cheekbone relief on the subject coin seems higher and positioned closer to the eye. Liberties fecial expression somehow seems "happier, bubblier, and more jovial" than that seen on C-1. Unfortunately I don't have a good picture of a GMM copy for comparison.

agentjim007 · December 10, 2003 11:58PM

I don't buy the gallery mint theory. not enough to tell from a pic and one would leave a little more meat to get enough money to make it worth while. I think PCGS would slab it.

Tsimmerdown · December 11, 2003 1:33AM

OK- Stupid question time. I don't collect these, so can someone tell me how much does this coin sell for? Would slabbing improve the selling price?

Colorfulcoins · December 11, 2003 1:45AM

Tsimmerdown, for a coin in FR02 (assuming that's the grade), maybe $1000 plus or minus. This coin appears to have a nice planchet with no corrosion or pitting (oops, excepty the reverse ping). Like you, I'm not familiar with early copper and I sure don't want to make a $1000 mistake!

Condor, looks alot more like C-1 to me........

kingcoin1 · April 24, 2013 7:12AM

I noticed on Auction site today...."NO RESERVE"

Would this 1793 1/2 cent certify? And what grade?

Comments

Leave a Comment