Poll: Do you like it or not like it? (seated half)

RYK · April 24, 2007 2:04AM

Explain why/why not. The coin is from the upcoming Heritage CSNS sale.

fc · April 24, 2007 2:11AM

i guess i have to know the asking price in order
to determine if i like it or not. ;-)

but it is a nice looking high grade coin.

mirabela · April 24, 2007 2:13AM

Boresville.

Technically nice, looks like, but visually uninteresting.

relicsncoins · April 24, 2007 2:13AM

Although there is nothing glaringly wrong with it, my preference would be to have a bit more toning on a coin of that era.

Cladiator · April 24, 2007 2:15AM

Based on the top two images I don't like it. There is little to no luster shown, very flat looking.

Based on the bottom pic I like it. It looks to be a much more accurate photo of how it actually look in hand. Appears to be dripping with luster.

ziggy29 · April 24, 2007 2:19AM

If there's good luster, it's pretty nice for a dipped coin.

The first pictures make it look lifeless. I'm assuming the picture in the slab is more indicative of the luster, because there's no way this coin is a 64 if the luster is as dead as the top images make it look.

ARCO · April 24, 2007 2:20AM

I like the coin. Some of the luster has flattened out, but it is still dripping with it.

Tyler

ArgentumRex · April 24, 2007 2:22AM

It looks kind of nice in the slab pic. Love the arrows, hate the rays.

mgoodm3 · April 24, 2007 2:23AM

Too white

lathmach · April 24, 2007 2:24AM

I think the bottom picture is going to be more like what it's actually going to look like in hand.
It's a nice coin.
Common as a date, but very rare in this state of preservation.

Ray

ColonialCoinUnion · April 24, 2007 2:24AM

I just wanted to give a shout out to . . . oh, never mind.

The coins looks OK - a little too white for my taste, but others may disagree.

seemyauction · April 24, 2007 2:24AM

Like it, love it, wish I had it in my safe.......

Because.....its high grade, I am one of the crazy guys that collects condition, so when I die it will be easy to sell my collection.

AL

DennisH · April 24, 2007 2:26AM

Looks lifeless and dead to me. Also looks like it has rub on the highpoints.

Then again, I don't collect or know squat about the series.

291fifth · April 24, 2007 2:29AM

The 1853 Arrows & Rays Half is a common coin, even in high grade. That particular coin seems to have been dipped in the not too distant past. Price would be a major consideration. It's not a coin I would pay any premium for.

etexmike · April 24, 2007 2:31AM

I like it.

-------------

etexmike

RYK · April 24, 2007 2:31AM

I am a novice collector of seated coins, but my initial impression, from the image alone, is that the coin has been dipped and there is some unattractive brownish residue in the periphery, most notably in the obverse from five to seven o'clock. As others have pointed out, and it is a matter of taste, I prefer my seated coins to have a little more of a natural appearance with less of a blast white look.

fc · April 24, 2007 2:31AM

i am very pleased with the honest answers here.
it appears many do not like the coin because of it being
too white. i agree.

whohah · April 24, 2007 2:46AM

Why I like it:
It's a nice type coin with little or no actual circulation.
It's a 'clashed die' [see the marks in the field just to the right of Liberty?
That matches the under part of the eagle's right wing]

Why I don't like it;
IMHO, it has been cleaned, mybe expertly cleaned; however, the over all
appearance to me is too 'flat."
There is a rather large 'spot' on the top of the eagle's left claw and a smaller,
fainter one just above it. Maybe the object of the cleaning, who knows?

Anyway, if it were available to me at a price I thought right, I'd put in my type collection..

skier07 · April 24, 2007 2:53AM

The coins as others have mentioned is too white. It looks like it has been dipped at some point. There
is no toning to speak of. Coin in hand might be a different case, but somehow I doubt it..

Bruce

Shamika · April 24, 2007 3:09AM

<< The coins looks OK - a little too white for my taste, but others may disagree. >>

Hey, I was going to say that.

BBQnBLUES · April 24, 2007 3:21AM

<< Although there is nothing glaringly wrong with it, my preference would be to have a bit more toning on a coin of that era. >>

I have to Agree... It's a beautiful strike, but boring w/o a little color.

mcheath · April 24, 2007 3:29AM

A nice looking well struck coin but not one I would buy. However I wouldn't turn it down if someone donated it to my collection.

Barry · April 24, 2007 3:29AM

<< Too white >>

Agree.

coinlieutenant · April 24, 2007 3:29AM

the coin isnt bad....but it is common...and you could do a lot better...

J

MidLifeCrisis · April 24, 2007 3:39AM

Although technically a high grade coin, since it's common it doesn't have much "character" to make it interesting to me.

coindeuce · April 24, 2007 3:41AM

IMHO, it's a coin that was purchased raw and toned for MS-63 money or less; dipped and submitted to obtain the "market acceptable" grade of MS-64. Pass.

RYK · April 24, 2007 4:19AM

<< A nice looking well struck coin but not one I would buy. However I wouldn't turn it down if someone donated it to my collection. >>

If somebody donated it to my collection, I would toss it in a Heritage auction.

BobaFett72 · April 24, 2007 4:43AM

wow. so many folks don't like it.

well. I LIKE IT!

thanks for the generous giveaway!

JJM · April 24, 2007 4:54AM

nice example, but I would rather have a toner for that coin series

foundinrolls · April 24, 2007 4:54AM

Anyone notice the effects of a clashed die on the obverse, That would account for some of the "flatness". generally, I like the coin.

richardshipp · April 24, 2007 5:21AM

I'm a sucker for that year and in that grade they are pricey. That being said; I think I'd pass on it. There are others out there with much better eye appeal for what a 64 would likely cost.

1907Quarter · April 24, 2007 5:34AM

just a little too-overdipped with not much meat(luster) left on it. there is some nice metal-flow as evident in the right field, but might have had more at one time(or not) depending on what the originally toning looked like.

MacCrimmon · April 24, 2007 6:10AM

Me no likey.

coinkat · April 24, 2007 6:21AM

the coin may not be as bad as the pictures

claychaser · April 24, 2007 6:22AM

It has a kind of washed out and lifeless look to it.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · April 24, 2007 6:22AM

I don't love it, but I don't dislike it

ricko · April 24, 2007 7:04AM

Very nice coin.. and fortunately, no corrosion.... I like it.....

Cheers, RickO

Baley · April 24, 2007 7:44AM

It would look terrific cracked out of there and placed in my type set album for the next 30 years.

roadrunner · April 24, 2007 8:17AM

Better than what is typically seen in MS64 holders today. NGC 64's are even more lackluster and often with a touch of knee rub. This one is a shade dullish, overdipped with residue remaining, and semi-impaired luster. No knee rub but unattractive discoloration on the highpoints. I'd want better for my MS64 "money." Overall a decent coin for the grade but just "stuff" imo.

Survival rate of 1853's in all grades of mint state is considerable. If it wasn't a one year type coin, it would be priced as a common date.

But.....finding undipped, choice original specimens with no rub from MS63 and up is difficult these days. Seems like the majority of these in UNC are now dipped. It's as if everyone has gone out of their way to ruin all the 1853 dimes, quarters and halves.

roadrunner

mozin · April 24, 2007 8:18AM

The black dot on the reverse, just above the highest leaf, turns me off on this dipped coin. I would put this coin on the low end for the holder grade.

stockwiz · April 24, 2007 8:21AM

Too white for my blood.. but nice technically.

RYK · April 24, 2007 9:07AM

Interesting! Dead heat for like/not like, and two people claim to own the coin (unless one is an alt).

Here is a photo of the coin I was actually considering buying, offered by Mark Feld:

It has the look I prefer.

fc · April 24, 2007 9:19AM

that coin actually looks its age. eye appeal is going off the scale.

mcheath · April 24, 2007 9:46AM

>>>>>>If somebody donated it to my collection, I would toss it in a Heritage auction. >>>>>>>>>>

I would do the exact same thing after i wrote them a nice thank you letter of course

That Feld coin has a much better look to it

BillJones · April 24, 2007 9:56AM

I purchased this one at the last FUN show for several hundred dollars under MS-64 bid. It is in an NGC MS-64 holder.

To those who say that the 1853 arrows and rays half dollar is a common, I respond, "True, but not in strict Mint State." I've seen very few of these coins that I would call Mint State, and all of the true Mint State coins were white or used to be white after they were dipped and then toned over.

So far as the coin that started this thread, it all depends upon the price. It's not worth PQ money, but I would not reject it out of hand.

DJCoinz · April 24, 2007 10:21AM

<< Although there is nothing glaringly wrong with it, my preference would be to have a bit more toning on a coin of that era. >>

It's a nice coin, but obviously dipped once or twice in it's lifetime.

Longacre · April 24, 2007 11:28AM

<< Technically nice, looks like, but visually uninteresting. >>

I tend to agree.

MORGANHUNTER2 · April 24, 2007 11:47AM

I went with #3- cuz I wish it were.....

VicPortland · April 24, 2007 12:20PM

I'm neutral on it.

That is to say that I would be more than happy to accept it as as gift, but it isn't the look that I would pay for. Does that make sense?

clw54 · April 24, 2007 12:38PM

<< Explain why/why not. The coin is from the upcoming Heritage CSNS sale. >>

I'm not crazy about it, but I'm not sure why.

ElKevvo · April 24, 2007 12:49PM

I like it...the picture in the coin in the slap looks like it has some luster...

K

Poll: Do you like it or not like it? (seated half)

Comments

Leave a Comment