@Kkathyl said:
looks good, the clashing on the reverse is pronounced and the 3 is noticeable higher. I like it and these are on the rise.
Good eye. Yes, I really like the strong clash of this die variety. But it also just looks so frosty...can't wait to get it in hand.
Did you see this coin before you bought it?
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
if you bought the coin because you like the clash and the strength it exhibits I guess I can understand. if you're touting it as a fine example and anything near original in appearance than you have missed the target entirely. and arguing that it's OK because all coins from that period have been dipped is hardly sound reasoning. to that end, I don't see any of the 1833's pictured in this thread to be anything short of improperly cleaned, the OP coin sort of indicts NGC and their race to the bottom.
I would have to think that it's pretty hard to "make" an older coin like this look this white and brilliant without loss of luster in some areas, most probably the highest points or somewhere in the fields of the obverse.
two points which bear examination:
1.) if this coin had been pictured as a raw coin with no mention of the holder, would the replies have been different?
2.) if you are confident about the coin as it is, would you be willing to crack it from that "tomb" and submit it raw to PCGS??
@Kkathyl said:
looks good, the clashing on the reverse is pronounced and the 3 is noticeable higher. I like it and these are on the rise.
Good eye. Yes, I really like the strong clash of this die variety. But it also just looks so frosty...can't wait to get it in hand.
Did you see this coin before you bought it?
m
Only online
So the debate is futile at this point as no one has seen the coin ; ) We are debating just to debate.
Anyways you have more brass then I bidding on a non CAC non PCGS coin sight unseen using real money. (Unless of course you had someone with trusted eyes look at the coin for you) I won't even do it on a CAC PCGS coin.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@afford said: "I never said the coin has been dipped 4 or 5 times, where did you get that quote from?"
You were not quoted as saying that. No one was directly quoted for that statement as I was "playing nice." Read the thread.
As to this: " The reason that the coin has been definitely cleaned via dipping is if you look at every star you will find some stains on some and of course that big ole one that stands out. sure it could have grown after the dipping but I am not fond of surfaces that show stains, and spots and big chunks....something and somebody was messing around with it and since it is in such high grade it wasn't to get a lower grade, it was messed with to upgrade it. And this is just plain typical business as usual for coin dealers. It went cheap for two reasons, first prices have dropped for coins in general, it is in the wrong holder (npc),it isn't caced and it doesn't have the right look or the eye appeal or originality to get top dollar."
Well said, we'll just disagree on what the "black chunk is."
@keets said:
if you bought the coin because you like the clash and the strength it exhibits I guess I can understand. if you're touting it as a fine example and anything near original in appearance than you have missed the target entirely. and arguing that it's OK because all coins from that period have been dipped is hardly sound reasoning. to that end, I don't see any of the 1833's pictured in this thread to be anything short of improperly cleaned, the OP coin sort of indicts NGC and their race to the bottom.
I would have to think that it's pretty hard to "make" an older coin like this look this white and brilliant without loss of luster in some areas, most probably the highest points or somewhere in the fields of the obverse.
two points which bear examination:
1.) if this coin had been pictured as a raw coin with no mention of the holder, would the replies have been different?
2.) if you are confident about the coin as it is, would you be willing to crack it from that "tomb" and submit it raw to PCGS??
I have a sense of what the answers are.
The coin is what it is: it's an NGC MS-65 1833 Bust half. Did it max out on it's tomb? Probably, just like most higher end coins that get resubmitted until they slip up a notch. If I compare it to the NGC MS-66 coins that have sold for $8k to $20k on Heritage, this coin is just as nice as most of them for only $4k.
Why does everyone think that a coin needs to be something other than what it is?
Would I prefer it be a PCGS CAC coin? Certainly. But it would have sold for $15k instead of $4k. As always, coins should be graded on price relative to perfection.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Comments
I like it, I have seen plenty of toned examples that may or may not have been dipped but still are 100x uglier
Here is one
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
She's still pretty, just a little worn down. It's tough to be 185 years old.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Eh. Loss of luster on the cheek
lmfao
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Maybe you like this one better????
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
My bad - I thought you were looking for opinions. Such as why it’s not Pcgs or cac.
Nicely done, congrats on your new addition.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
No, you're fine. It is what it is. I wasn't really asking why it isn't what it isn't.
I do think we're assuming a lot about luster from a photo.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Did you see this coin before you bought it?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Only online
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
if you bought the coin because you like the clash and the strength it exhibits I guess I can understand. if you're touting it as a fine example and anything near original in appearance than you have missed the target entirely. and arguing that it's OK because all coins from that period have been dipped is hardly sound reasoning. to that end, I don't see any of the 1833's pictured in this thread to be anything short of improperly cleaned, the OP coin sort of indicts NGC and their race to the bottom.
I would have to think that it's pretty hard to "make" an older coin like this look this white and brilliant without loss of luster in some areas, most probably the highest points or somewhere in the fields of the obverse.
two points which bear examination:
1.) if this coin had been pictured as a raw coin with no mention of the holder, would the replies have been different?
2.) if you are confident about the coin as it is, would you be willing to crack it from that "tomb" and submit it raw to PCGS??
I have a sense of what the answers are.
My opinion: We gotta pay the juice, either way.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Nice, I like it.
So the debate is futile at this point as no one has seen the coin ; ) We are debating just to debate.
Anyways you have more brass then I bidding on a non CAC non PCGS coin sight unseen using real money. (Unless of course you had someone with trusted eyes look at the coin for you) I won't even do it on a CAC PCGS coin.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@afford said: "I never said the coin has been dipped 4 or 5 times, where did you get that quote from?"
You were not quoted as saying that. No one was directly quoted for that statement as I was "playing nice." Read the thread.
As to this: " The reason that the coin has been definitely cleaned via dipping is if you look at every star you will find some stains on some and of course that big ole one that stands out. sure it could have grown after the dipping but I am not fond of surfaces that show stains, and spots and big chunks....something and somebody was messing around with it and since it is in such high grade it wasn't to get a lower grade, it was messed with to upgrade it. And this is just plain typical business as usual for coin dealers. It went cheap for two reasons, first prices have dropped for coins in general, it is in the wrong holder (npc),it isn't caced and it doesn't have the right look or the eye appeal or originality to get top dollar."
Well said, we'll just disagree on what the "black chunk is."
The coin is what it is: it's an NGC MS-65 1833 Bust half. Did it max out on it's tomb? Probably, just like most higher end coins that get resubmitted until they slip up a notch. If I compare it to the NGC MS-66 coins that have sold for $8k to $20k on Heritage, this coin is just as nice as most of them for only $4k.
Why does everyone think that a coin needs to be something other than what it is?
Would I prefer it be a PCGS CAC coin? Certainly. But it would have sold for $15k instead of $4k. As always, coins should be graded on price relative to perfection.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.