So, I am of the opinion that you may wish to take another quick look at the "Liberty."
I think I got fooled by the lighting. I now think I was wrong about "L" and "I" being weak or "not really all there."
I think the '96-O half that is the subject of this thread is "choice extra fine" which translates to XF-45. And CAC is not deserved, in my opinion. Coin not lustrous enough for AU 50 grade.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
the coin looks to my eyes as though it is technically graded properly as AU50
many replies note the tone which I will agree isn't necessarily attractive, and therein lies the twist. PCGS, most TPG's and even us will tend to grade higher for attractive tone, but I don't perceive there to be a tendency to grade lower for unattractive tone. at that point it tends to be that a technical market grade is assigned. this coin seems to merit that consideration.
of secondary consideration should be that images are notorious for not being good at showing luster.
I just looked at this coin again after reading all the replies. I still like the coin and would bet it is better in hand than the pics. Coins like this one are hard to capture in a pic. The strike is outstanding for a 96-O. The stars are great and the reverse looks really well struck. I will end in saying that I would love to have this coin in my set.
Here's the funny part. I wish I still had the coin so I could take some better pictures. I would wager your opinion of the coin I sold would change quite a bit. The type toning these 2 coins have are very close...different lighting I suspect. Comparing pictures I like the 1 I sold better!
The 01-o looks to have a very very gently cleaned obverse that has naturally retoned (more than market acceptable IMO). The reverse in the photo looks to be au53, the obverse looks xf due to strike (clearly AU though). I would split the uprights and call the coin a solid au50.
I've been thinking about this comment. While I don't know much about Walt's other coins. I bought over Half his Barber Half set when he retired it. I liked every coin and upgraded quite a few! There were also several others I would've purchased if I had the chance.
@jdimmick said:
I love walt to death, a heck of a nice guy, but his coins are hit and miss in the quality arena.
Did you ask why the 96-o didn’t sticker? From what I’ve read here they are pretty good about explaining why they don’t approve certain coins when asked.
Personally I think what people overlook most is that CAC makes a market in the coins they sticker. Just because a coin may meet their technical criteria for wear if there is something about a coin that CAC doesn’t like for whatever reason they could choose not to sticker. It’s the same situation with Crossovers in slabs. He is looking at a coin in a holder. If he sees something he isn’t sure about I suspect he would err on the side of caution. Wouldn’t you?
While we are the recipients of the benefit of JA’s expertise, he is the main beneficiary.
I didn't submit the coin, my customer did. He also felt it deserved a bean.
@bigjpst said:
Did you ask why the 96-o didn’t sticker? From what I’ve read here they are pretty good about explaining why they don’t approve certain coins when asked.
Personally I think what people overlook most is that CAC makes a market in the coins they sticker. Just because a coin may meet their technical criteria for wear if there is something about a coin that CAC doesn’t like for whatever reason they could choose not to sticker. It’s the same situation with Crossovers in slabs. He is looking at a coin in a holder. If he sees something he isn’t sure about I suspect he would err on the side of caution. Wouldn’t you?
While we are the recipients of the benefit of JA’s expertise, he is the main beneficiary.
"This string is exactly why I got off the forum in 2016-
If the dealer who started this thread would have taken a better pic that portrayed the coin for truly how nice it was, then it would not have gone sideways.
As Usual somebody steps in and attempts to rectify it. This time a seasoned collector, and dear friend who knows how to take an accurate picture, posts a true depiction of a fabulous coin. Thanks U Vern!
Any how, you guys have a great day- I am drinking coffee on the 3rd floor of my beach house watching the sun rise,- having to make a decision am I playing golf at 11:50 or 1:20 today. "
Walt asked me to add this:
(This was a punch at me (well deserved for an earlier post) Walt does have some really nice coins in several series including seated quarters, early quarters, bust halves and barber quarters. , I have looked at several recently)
Fishing is a lot like collecting, - Hit or Miss- thought I had landed a nice 10Lb speckled trout, and my dinner went from fish to Calamari
My picture or Vern's picture doesn't do the coin justice! If you will look at our 2 pictures you will see the only difference is the lighting. I happen to like my picture better...while it doesn't do it justice...it presents it self better if you are buying from a picture. IMHO the coin falls right in the middle of our 2 pictures.
@7Jaguars CAC lost me having any respect with regards to this coin. No back and forth can be answered on this coin unless you see it in hand! The 01-O says it all IMHO and it is a very accurate picture of the coin!
@jdimmick said: "Walt asked me to post this: "This string is exactly why I got off the forum in 2016..."
Please tell Mr. Walt that there are a lot of very knowledgeable folks (some I have tried to get to join with only one success) who feel that ALL these Internet numismatic forums are a Great Big Waste of their time. While I completely understand their reasoning, it is a crying shame to me that they feel that way. It is our loss. Perhaps, Mr. Walt would think about it again and share his expertise about Barber coins with us once in a while in the future.
PS If you are willing, he could even do it through you. So I'm hoping to read soon: @jdimmick says Walt said: "I'll think about it."
@Insider2 said: @jdimmick said: "Walt asked me to post this: "This string is exactly why I got off the forum in 2016..."
Please tell Mr. Walt that there are a lot of very knowledgeable folks (some I have tried to get to join with only one success) who feel that ALL these Internet numismatic forums are a Great Big Waste of their time. While I completely understand their reasoning, it is a crying shame to me that they feel that way. It is our loss. Perhaps, Mr. Walt would think about it again and share his expertise about Barber coins with us once in a while in the future.
PS If you are willing, he could even do it through you. So I'm hoping to read soon: @jdimmick says Walt said: "I'll think about it."
Comments
My vote is no. I personally don't think the coin is completely original. I think it has better than 50 meat, but the toning is off IMO.
I love walt to death, a heck of a nice guy,
I would agree with your comment. I didn't buy this coin from Walt! Just some of his raving in our conversations about coins he liked!
I went with yes. Seen worse with a bean.
I’d pass bean or no bean
Latin American Collection
Agree with this.
Interesting thread that I have found informative. Also nice to see people disagree (and sometimes strongly) without getting too personal or rude.
So, I am of the opinion that you may wish to take another quick look at the "Liberty."
I think I got fooled by the lighting. I now think I was wrong about "L" and "I" being weak or "not really all there."
I think the '96-O half that is the subject of this thread is "choice extra fine" which translates to XF-45. And CAC is not deserved, in my opinion. Coin not lustrous enough for AU 50 grade.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
I would grade it XF which is how i know it is AU even if the OP hadn't said so. Market grading and all...
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
late to the party......................
the coin looks to my eyes as though it is technically graded properly as AU50
many replies note the tone which I will agree isn't necessarily attractive, and therein lies the twist. PCGS, most TPG's and even us will tend to grade higher for attractive tone, but I don't perceive there to be a tendency to grade lower for unattractive tone. at that point it tends to be that a technical market grade is assigned. this coin seems to merit that consideration.
of secondary consideration should be that images are notorious for not being good at showing luster.
I just looked at this coin again after reading all the replies. I still like the coin and would bet it is better in hand than the pics. Coins like this one are hard to capture in a pic. The strike is outstanding for a 96-O. The stars are great and the reverse looks really well struck. I will end in saying that I would love to have this coin in my set.
So what does everyone think about this other tough date?
Darrell - I like the 96-O better.
l
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
Now this coin I like
Latin American Collection
Me too...by quite a big margin!
Here's the funny part. I wish I still had the coin so I could take some better pictures. I would wager your opinion of the coin I sold would change quite a bit. The type toning these 2 coins have are very close...different lighting I suspect. Comparing pictures I like the 1 I sold better!
Darrell - This is the coin you started the thread with. I took these pictures years ago, when I had this coin from Walt.
l
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
The 01-o looks to have a very very gently cleaned obverse that has naturally retoned (more than market acceptable IMO). The reverse in the photo looks to be au53, the obverse looks xf due to strike (clearly AU though). I would split the uprights and call the coin a solid au50.
I thought it might be but couldn't quite get the marks to line up for me!
edit to add @Boosibri After looking again I see it is!
I've been thinking about this comment. While I don't know much about Walt's other coins. I bought over Half his Barber Half set when he retired it. I liked every coin and upgraded quite a few! There were also several others I would've purchased if I had the chance.
Here's the 2 slabs for those not following the other thread. I very strongly feel the wrong coin has the bean!
Did you ask why the 96-o didn’t sticker? From what I’ve read here they are pretty good about explaining why they don’t approve certain coins when asked.
Personally I think what people overlook most is that CAC makes a market in the coins they sticker. Just because a coin may meet their technical criteria for wear if there is something about a coin that CAC doesn’t like for whatever reason they could choose not to sticker. It’s the same situation with Crossovers in slabs. He is looking at a coin in a holder. If he sees something he isn’t sure about I suspect he would err on the side of caution. Wouldn’t you?
While we are the recipients of the benefit of JA’s expertise, he is the main beneficiary.
My Ebay Store
I didn't submit the coin, my customer did. He also felt it deserved a bean.
Walt asked me to post this:
"This string is exactly why I got off the forum in 2016-
If the dealer who started this thread would have taken a better pic that portrayed the coin for truly how nice it was, then it would not have gone sideways.
As Usual somebody steps in and attempts to rectify it. This time a seasoned collector, and dear friend who knows how to take an accurate picture, posts a true depiction of a fabulous coin. Thanks U Vern!
Any how, you guys have a great day- I am drinking coffee on the 3rd floor of my beach house watching the sun rise,- having to make a decision am I playing golf at 11:50 or 1:20 today. "
Walt asked me to add this:
(This was a punch at me (well deserved for an earlier post) Walt does have some really nice coins in several series including seated quarters, early quarters, bust halves and barber quarters. , I have looked at several recently)
Fishing is a lot like collecting, - Hit or Miss- thought I had landed a nice 10Lb speckled trout, and my dinner went from fish to Calamari
Already been said: coin IMO looks cleaned/dipped with semi-odd retoning. I can see the 50 grade, but not the CAC.
Well, just Love coins, period.
My picture or Vern's picture doesn't do the coin justice! If you will look at our 2 pictures you will see the only difference is the lighting. I happen to like my picture better...while it doesn't do it justice...it presents it self better if you are buying from a picture. IMHO the coin falls right in the middle of our 2 pictures.
@7Jaguars CAC lost me having any respect with regards to this coin. No back and forth can be answered on this coin unless you see it in hand! The 01-O says it all IMHO and it is a very accurate picture of the coin!
@jdimmick said: "Walt asked me to post this: "This string is exactly why I got off the forum in 2016..."
Please tell Mr. Walt that there are a lot of very knowledgeable folks (some I have tried to get to join with only one success) who feel that ALL these Internet numismatic forums are a Great Big Waste of their time. While I completely understand their reasoning, it is a crying shame to me that they feel that way. It is our loss. Perhaps, Mr. Walt would think about it again and share his expertise about Barber coins with us once in a while in the future.
PS If you are willing, he could even do it through you. So I'm hoping to read soon: @jdimmick says Walt said: "I'll think about it."
Changed my mind.