.

Fletcher · July 31, 2007 8:22AM

.

RYK · July 31, 2007 8:27AM

Per the photo, I don't love the look of that coin, and from your description, it sounds like you do not either. These are not that rare, and I expect that you should be able to find a suitable one eventually.

3). Keep her and use the NGC grade guarantee or send her back?

I would never, ever buy a coin with that strategy in place. It's okay to buy overgraded coins, mind you, so long as you do not overpay for the correct grade (or recognize it and do not care). However, I would not buy a coin that I think is overgraded and expect the grading company to bail me out. It's a plan that will likely lead to disappointment, IMO. I would like to hear the opinion of others on this matter.

tradedollarnut · July 31, 2007 8:28AM

Those are [relatively] common, so why not wait for one that you absolutely love?

NumisOxide · July 31, 2007 8:31AM

1.NT retoned

2. AU-50 details

3. That piece has great details and I love 18th century U.S. coins but I really think you could do better. It might be the lighting but the reverse sort of looks polished.

Fletcher · July 31, 2007 8:40AM

.

ColonialCoinUnion · July 31, 2007 8:43AM

<< <i>I would not buy a coin that I think is overgraded and expect the grading company to bail me out. It's a plan that will likely lead to disappointment, IMO. I would like to hear the opinion of others on this matter. >>

I agree completely.

dizzyfoxx · July 31, 2007 8:44AM

I think it definitely has a pleasing look to it.

coindeuce · July 31, 2007 8:46AM

I think Laura would strongly disapprove.

stman · July 31, 2007 8:46AM

Sorry, I hate the look of this thing. This is one of those two-second looks, and back it goes as fast as I could get it outta here.

MrHalfDime · July 31, 2007 8:56AM

I would perhaps agree with everything that has been said here .... except for one thing. I cannot agree that any 1794 half dime is common, relatively common, or any other kind of common. 1794 half dimes are quite scarce, and nice-for-the-grade AUs are an even scarcer subgroup. The original mintage is estimated to have been just 7756 pieces, and fewer than 200 pieces are estimated to have survived, in all grades. They are collected not only by half dime date collectors, but also by a few die marriage collectors like myself, and also by type collectors, although most of those opt for the more available 1795 of the same type. I concur that this coin should perhaps be sent back to the seller, but please don't make the search for a choice AU example of a 1794 half dime sound like a walk in the park. From experience I can tell you that it will take a great deal of patience ...... and a pretty fat check book.

bidask · July 31, 2007 9:07AM

Is that a scratch in the right field extending thru the neck?

Fletcher · July 31, 2007 9:18AM

.

Barndog · July 31, 2007 9:21AM

<< <i>

<< <i>Is that a scratch in the right field extending thru the neck? >>

No, I believe that it is a clash mark. This coin has several significant clash marks on it that show up better through a loupe. >>

the clash mark is the one that extends vertically in front of the nose...I think the question was about the mark starting in the field and continuing horizontally across the neck

but yes, I don't like it as a 58, but as MrH10C said, those are tough to find in any condition!

JRocco · July 31, 2007 9:21AM

Hey Fletcher.
This coin is not a dog.
Now that said, unless the price was a bargain, the unevenness of the toning bothers me. It is a dipped and re-toned piece in my opinion, but these can re-tone so many different ways. I can't come up with a grade with these pics-these early pieces are really hard to grade from a pic, but it looks like a lot of coin is still there. The bird looks really nice. It is almost a shame because the coin is so clean with just a little apparent wear, but that obverse toning pattern bothers me enough with a quick look that I know it would bother me more and more the more and more I look. I just don't like the way her face toned so nicely in some areas and not at all in others. The field toning is not my cup of coffee either.
All that said- I get the feeling it isn't knocking YOUR socks off either, and for the money I am sure it cost, you should keep looking.

jmski52 · July 31, 2007 9:31AM

Thanks for the post and the comments. Interesting stuff.

coinpictures · July 31, 2007 9:45AM

I understand that grading varies by type, and that both NGC and PCGS are FAR more liberal with 18th-century U.S. than with newer material. I also know that I know absolutely *dick* about grading this early material... but... my first thought is "how the hell did this get holdered?" My eyes went immediately to the scratch across the neck and I said "Ugh!"

Don't get me wrong; I know that the coin is way out of my league... but how can this coin be a 58? If this were a newer coin I would expect it to be bodybagged.

What am I not understanding?

greghansen · July 31, 2007 9:49AM

Never owned one and don't know anything about them, but from a purely laypersons perspective, I don't think much of the splotchy uneven toning and I think I would find it quite distracting even on a smaller coin like this. Hopefully you will be able to find one you love enough that you won't have to be talked into keeping it.

LeeG · July 31, 2007 9:53AM

It is a rare bird but can be found nicer.

fc · July 31, 2007 10:03AM

quite a rare coin as some have pointed out but the appearance
does nothing for me. And i am coming from the prespective that
if i ever get to own a coin like that i will probably have to accept
some problems.

an old wipe, a few dents, or a scratch, not really a problem if the
price is right, but the overall appearance of that coin to me, is a pass.

splotchy and not very pleasant. scratch does not bother me much.

MrEureka · July 31, 2007 10:05AM

Fletcher - To whatever extent the forum members can judge the coin by the image, I would think you could have done the same. So why did you order the coin? Also, when you say you picked it up "a while ago", how long is "a while"?

Cladiator · July 31, 2007 10:06AM

Not much I can add other than the coin is the LM4/V4 die marriage. The Logan McCloskey reference and the most recent JRCS Bust Half Dime Census both list this an R4 marriage. There are a total of four known 1794 marriages and the LM4, along with the LM3, are considered the "more common" marriages when compared to the LM1 R6 and LM2 R5.

Barndog · July 31, 2007 10:06AM

49 graded higher than AU-58 at PCGS...no doubt numerous duplicates in that number.

STONE · July 31, 2007 10:07AM

IMO it looks like an AU-53/55 coin.

Cladiator · July 31, 2007 10:11AM

Harry Laibstain's got a simply stunning 1794 in inventory and it's the rarer LM2 R5 die marraige to boot.

longtimecollector · July 31, 2007 10:13AM

The REAL question is "Will it sticker?"

MrHalfDime · July 31, 2007 10:28AM

"Harry Laibstain's got a simply stunning 1794 in inventory and it's the rarer LM2 R5 die marraige to boot."

It certainly is stunning, and if you agree with the assigned grade (MS-64) it is nicer than the Eliasberg example (MS-63). But it also has a 'stunning' price ($47,500), too. Perhaps not what someone who sought a nice AU-58 example would want.

"49 graded higher than AU-58 at PCGS...no doubt numerous duplicates in that number."

I would bet that probably half are resubmissions.

coinkat · July 31, 2007 10:38AM

I think this is really a tough one... I am not wild about the overall look of the coin, but the strike seems to be fairly impressive. Perhaps you should consider adding a question and solicit comments on the strike. From my perspective, it seems the strike carried the coin into an AU58 holder

Nic · July 31, 2007 11:38AM

Back it goes. These are scarce, not rare. K

jmski52 · July 31, 2007 12:00PM

Is the quality of the alloy partly responsible for any uneven coloration?

RYK · July 31, 2007 12:10PM

<< <i>Is the quality of the alloy partly responsible for any uneven coloration? >>

I think it is more likely to be unattractive retoning after cleaning. That's my non-expert opinion.

flydoc · July 31, 2007 12:19PM

I like it alot. Way out of my league, unfortunately.

LostSisler · July 31, 2007 1:33PM

Correct me if I am wrong, It looks like the "toning" on the obverse is from PVC.

notwilight · July 31, 2007 1:44PM

Another option depends on the price you paid for it and how your cash flow is going. If you got it at a good price then you could hold on to it while waiting for a replacement. The coin is scare enough that I would expect it to outperform the general market. You could enjoy having it while looking. --jerry

GoldenEyeNumismatics · July 31, 2007 2:28PM

the coin was dipped, then retoned. NT.

IMO AU50, especially since it has that scratch.

I'd send it back--it's overgraded

Fletcher · August 1, 2007 8:31AM

Just an update ... the seller has agreed to take the coin back and give me a refund. Very professional

Barry · August 1, 2007 9:37AM

Looks NCSed to me.

rhedden · August 2, 2007 8:04AM

I wouldn't call the 1794 H10c common by any yardstick, like a few of the other half dime enthusiasts who already chimed in. This particular example is reasonably nice looking and is less damaged than my own 1794, so I ought not to be too harsh on it. I grade it AU55 for detail. The toning does not bother me, although it was probably dipped long ago. Most high-grade early (1790's) silver coins were dipped or lightly cleaned at one point, slabbed or not- and that includes some of the ones in MS65 and MS66 holders. The one thing I do not like about this coin is the scratch. I can't see grading a coin AU58 with a scratch on the neck (and it extends into the field a bit below the clash mark, I think). This would have been a fine coin net graded at XF45-AU50 money, but AU58 is a bit too much. You did the right thing returning it, unless you bought it for XF45-AU50 money in the first place.

.

Comments

Leave a Comment