1807 DBH RussView
GullibleNewb
Posts: 401
Thank you to Russ for the fantastic photos. I added my crappy pic at the end. The coin has some startling remaining luster. Moreso on the reverse, where it is quite sharp, but it does have some on the obverse also. There is residual luster into the wingtips and tail of the eagle.
0
Comments
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
great coin
<< <i>The coin has some startling remaining luster. >>
I think you mean an old dipping that is starting to retone...
<< <i>
<< <i>The coin has some startling remaining luster. >>
I think you mean an old dipping that is starting to retone... >>
That's odd, because Russ specifically mentioned the luster when I sent him the coin. I guess he's wrong, also
<< <i>That's odd, because Russ specifically mentioned the luster when I sent him the coin. I guess he's wrong, also >>
200 year old coins in VF don't have luster. In fact, many 200 year old coins had zero luster the day they were minted. Do you think that rainbow toning is natural on a VF coin? I'm really not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just saying that 95% of Bust coins have been cleaned at some point in their life. It's not a big deal, most TPGs still grade them as evidenced by your piece. I'm sure many people find it quite attractive.
<< <i>
<< <i>That's odd, because Russ specifically mentioned the luster when I sent him the coin. I guess he's wrong, also >>
200 year old coins in VF don't have luster. In fact, many 200 year old coins had zero luster the day they were minted. Do you think that rainbow toning is natural on a VF coin? I'm really not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just saying that 95% of Bust coins have been cleaned at some point in their life. It's not a big deal, most TPGs still grade them as evidenced by your piece. I'm sure many people find it quite attractive. >>
So you're quite positive the coin has no luster?
<< <i>So you're quite positive the coin has no luster? >>
Tell me the grade and I'll tell you if I'm positive.
<< <i>
<< <i>So you're quite positive the coin has no luster? >>
Tell me the grade and I'll tell you if I'm positive. >>
Ah, now we're getting to it! I just need Russ to pop in and describe the luster for you, and then we can talk grade.
<< <i>I just need Russ to pop in and describe the luster for you >>
I don't need Russ to describe anything to me. I'm not friggin' blind. I saw a coin, I made a comment.
<< <i>200 year old coins in VF don't have luster. >>
Sure they do. Sometimes even a VF can retain some luster in the protected areas such as near the rim. High points can wear without completely eliminating it. It's not often, but this isn't the first one I've seen that still had an amazing amount remaining.
BTW, it's debatable whether or not this coin is really a VF. The reverse is definitely stronger than that, and the obverse is weakly struck.
Russ, NCNE
'dude
<< <i>
<< <i>That's odd, because Russ specifically mentioned the luster when I sent him the coin. I guess he's wrong, also >>
200 year old coins in VF don't have luster. In fact, many 200 year old coins had zero luster the day they were minted. Do you think that rainbow toning is natural on a VF coin? I'm really not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just saying that 95% of Bust coins have been cleaned at some point in their life. It's not a big deal, most TPGs still grade them as evidenced by your piece. I'm sure many people find it quite attractive. >>
With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That coin's just weakly struck, and it doesn't take looking at the grade on the label to figure it out. If this coin DIDN'T have luster (which it does and is obviously visible in the in-hand shots), it would have been from overdipping or harsh cleaning -- neither of which are present on this coin. I would suggest that you learn the difference between a weak strike and wear before disparaging other's coins with such conviction. Respectfully...Mike
<< <i>
<< <i>200 year old coins in VF don't have luster. >>
Sure they do. Sometimes even a VF can retain some luster in the protected areas such as near the rim. High points can wear without completely eliminating it. It's not often, but this isn't the first one I've seen that still had an amazing amount remaining.
BTW, it's debatable whether or not this coin is really a VF. The reverse is definitely stronger than that, and the obverse is weakly struck.
>>
Bingo.
Take it easy,
BTF.
<< <i>I would be interested in seeing pics to determine the variety. PCGS, and even NGC, used to undergrade weakly struck DBH's. Most have been cracked out and upgraded, it sounds like you were fortunate to find one still in the OGH. I have an 1807 O-105 in an old ANACS EF40 holder with nearly full reverse luster as you described, I would not be surprised to see NGC grade it AU50. PCGS is still tougher than NGC on these, but they have loosened up a bit for weakly struck coins. >>
<< <i>Your coin is 1807 O-105, which can have a weak strike, but not always. It is the most common of the eleven varieties in 1807. Yes, I can tell it has a lot of luster, and it looks to have the wear of EF40. PCGS definately undergraded it. With weakly struck coins, it is a crapshoot what the TPG's would grade it, it could be anywhere from VF30-EF45. Some AU50's that NGC has graded have less luster. >>
The coin has what is most likely Wayte Raymond toning. It may have been wiped before putting it in the album, or it may have been "wiped" by friction in the fabric of a pocket. Not much difference. Nice coin, whatever the history of the coin is.
My opinion is luster is king with these coins.
As Nysoto has so clearly shown there is a tremendous variability in regard to the strike on some of these coins.
You have to look at the luster to help grade these sometimes.
I would think that this coin has been dipped at some point in her life and has since developed an attractive secondary album toning. The dip was probably done correctly as there is still apparent luster on this coin. It is not a lifeless dipped out coin.
Remember to make a mental note of the luster on these coins and not just grade them by apparent details or lack thereof.
I would love this coin in my collection.
<< <i>I suppose I should have said that I find that coin dreadfully ugly and not made any comment on the luster. Fine, maybe it's luster and that's great, but personally I don't find rainbow toning on a 200 year coin attractive. It looks cleaned to me based on the pics. Maybe in hand it's much nicer. Speaking of, the pic on the reverse with the hand holding it is by far the best pic of the coin. The others make it look flat and lifeless. Now, I'm sorry if you don't like my comments, but if you don't like them that's your problem. The pics were posted on a public forum. Feel free to rip on my coins next time I post one; I honestly have bigger issues to worry about than what other people think of my coins. The important thing is that you like your coins and I like mine. That's what this hobby is all about.
Take it easy,
BTF. >>
Just so you know, I have no problem with your opinion. It is when you speak authoritatively, and (in my opinion) in complete error, that you'll get a response like that out of me, and I apologize if it was strongly worded. Please accept my apology & take care...Mike