Guess the Grade on this 1800 Half Eagle!

Rev looks better than the obv. I will guess 55.

55 here

XF45+

Don't use English grading on that with all of those hits, but will go 45 in my book with them giving it a 53.

genuine

The reverse looks odd. In my amateur opinion it looks inverted. No, I am not trying to be funny.

40... Looks pretty banged up.... I would still take it though Cheers, RickO

<< <i>The reverse looks odd. In my amateur opinion it looks inverted. No, I am not trying to be funny. >>

That happens to me all the time. Some digi pics do that when the angle of light is different than your eye expected. I'm guessing that the reverse was shot upside down and then rotated with photoshop (or some other editing tool). It makes the shadows come from the opposite direction as the obverse image and the eye/brain interpret the image as being incuse.

AU-53 (Sweet!)

The obverse looks 45ish and the reverse looks 50. Plenty of bag marks, moderate wear and doesn't look like original skin.

I think she's holdered 45 but I tend to think that a gtg on a coin like this will provide an element of surprise when the answer is revealed.

I am going to guess that it is at least a 45 ... and no more than a 53 ...

so a 50 from me

AU50

Only damage I can think of would be its bent enough not to sit flat.
If its tooled,good job as I see nothing that jumps out.

<< <i>thanks for the closeup. looks like the dentils over the T were repaired, too. still, neato! >>




I agree. Very nice early gold!

you could resubmit until the cows come home... it won't holder as problem free.

now I can reveal my reason for saying GENUINE (asked by PerryHall and the OP):

I had not seen the Heritage auction.

Instead, I know that Ankur uses leverage to obtain coins that are often prohibitively expensive if they are in problem-free PCGS or NGC holders. His leverage is that he finds coins that the TPGs say have problems, but when one views the coins the problems are often not glaring or too unappealing. Thus, he gets what he sees to be nice coins at relative bargain prices. Some people don't like such coins, but Ankur finds them appealing for his tastes and wallet. He gets some cool types for his collection and saves money in the process (enabling him to add more coins to his collection). So my guess of "genuine" was not an assessment of the coin, it was an assessment of the collector once I saw the coin type.

Baley nailed it. The dentils were re-engraved through NIT, they are square and chiseled in shape without the rounded inside end that dentils had in 1806. The cud HAD formed and was evidently thought of as damage some time ago, the cud tooled away with fake dentils engraved. The dentils do not match on this coin Heritage 1800 BD-4

I agree there are some borderline coins in genuine holders that may be acceptable. I bid on the same type early $5 in an ANACS problem holder at Heritage that was original-looking with no major hits, thought I might be able pick it up for $3 to $4K, but is was bid to almost $6K! It was soon put in a PCGS AU53 holder on CCE for a quick profit. I did find an 1800 $5 at Stack's with a small reverse dig that kept it out of a graded slab, it is deeply toned with much originality. Will post a pic of it later.

Edit - The coin had dentils re-engraved in two places on the reverse, above NIT and also above ST in STATES. It was once a late state double cud example, what a shame.
1800 BD-4 double cud example

This is why I dont like codes that are used for more than one reason.
If the reason the coin was given the code is not obvious then the buyer or seller may not know what to look for.
Heritage told you they thought it was damage for the hits but it turns out its tooling of the denticles

<< <i>I guess PCGS doesnt have acode for tooling? >>


Its code 98 damage in the code chart.
I dont see a seperate one.
When you run the cert number at pcgs it shows Genuine (98 - Damage or Tooling)