Would you include an 1839-O in a bust half date set?

AnkurJ · July 20, 2010 2:27PM

Thoughts? I know the 1839-O is a tougher date. I already have a regular 1839 in my set.

4 more coins to go!
AJ

zap1111 · July 20, 2010 2:36PM

For you, I would say yes.

AnkurJ · July 20, 2010 2:52PM

Not half dimes, half dollars. I am doing a basic date set from 1807 to 1839. Not collecting every single variety.

As of right now I need an 1811, 1813, 1815 and 1838.
Technically 3 as I have an 1838 on the way on approval.

AJ

LVGT · July 20, 2010 3:21PM

Ankur,

I have read a number of your posts and like your style. You set a goal and attack it agressively, with nice coins...at least in my opinion. I saw your type set ...now bust halves. If I had more disposable income at this point I'd be doing the same thing....

What do or did you do for a living? Just curious....kinda interested in where other collectors come from...outside of the dealers.

For what its worth...i cant seem to get turned on by the 37 - 39 dates...regardless of the mint mark (they're smaller and they resemble modern coinage more then the earlier dates of this series)

Anyway...Id love to see your whole set pictured once you have it.

I'm sure there are some cool ones.

Mowgli · July 20, 2010 3:51PM

I did a date set and had an 1839 but didn't think I needed the 1839-O. So to me, I wouldn't include it.

Steve27 · July 20, 2010 8:36PM

Maybe I'm confused, but a "date set" shouldn't include more than one date per year per coin type, and mint-marks shouldn't matter. Thus, either the 1839 or 1839-O would be perfectly acceptable.

OKbustchaser · July 20, 2010 10:47PM

While I don't think that the '39 O is necessary for a date set I did include one in mine rather than the Philadelphia just to be different. Although I don't have the financial wherewithal to put together an entire date/mintmark collection I did include examples of each mint available by major type in my year set.

Shameless spam....if offended then no reason to read any further.

Anyone got an extra 2009 and/or 2010 half (preferably raw) they want to get rid of? I neglected to pick one up last year and haven't gotten one so far this year either.

AnkurJ · July 20, 2010 11:17PM

Good points by everyone here. Since I already have the 1839, I will hold off and use the cash for a decent 1815.

Thanks for the comments LGVT! I will post pics when they are all here. I have to get a few of them crossed from ANACS holders to put them in my NGC registry.

AJ

crypto79 · July 20, 2010 11:25PM

Change your term from date set to basic set and say yes to a complete set.

johnny9434 · July 21, 2010 3:19AM

sure, why not

AnkurJ · July 21, 2010 3:51AM

Here is the 1838 that is on the way. It is slabbed by NGC. Anyone care to guess the grade?

AJ

AnkurJ · July 21, 2010 3:58AM

And here is an 1809 I bought on ebay. The images are not that good, so hoping it will look nice in hand.

doh · July 21, 2010 4:16AM

Heck yeah it should be included!

lkeigwin · July 21, 2010 4:29AM

The '39-O is part of the Capped Bust Half Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1807-1839) registry. I think it should be included in your collection, Ankur. And I think it is a particularly cool CBH. Mint mark above the date is sweet.
Lance.

renomedphys · July 21, 2010 5:34AM

Wow, Lance! Nice coin!

BillJones · July 21, 2010 5:56AM

The 1939-O half dollar is such a cool item that I've thougth about including in my collection, which contains no Bust half date set.

SDSportsFan · July 21, 2010 6:54AM

If you're working on a date/mm set, then yes, it should be included. If on the other hand, you're collecting a date set, then either the 1839 or 1839-O would suffice.

I'm in the same boat. I'm working on a date/mm set of capped bust half dollars, and am missing only the 1815 and 1839-O. I've been looking for a VG 1839-O for around two years, and have come up completely dry

Good luck with your search

Steve

TomB · July 21, 2010 11:19AM

If you are building a date set then you need the 1839-O no more than you need the 1838-O, which means you don't need the coin. If you are building a business strike set then you need the 1839-O, but not the 1838-O. If you are building a complete set then you need the 1838-O and 1839-O.

savoyspecial · July 21, 2010 11:23AM

the obverse mint mark is a very collectible type, but it would not HAVE to be included in a DATE set (of course with the 38-O being uncollectible, the 39-O is the obvious choice)

to show how popular these are, i recently watched this one top $260 (let's just say my snipe was set much lower; the closing price surprised me a little for a 'defaced' coin)

RebelRon · July 21, 2010 1:12PM

<< <i>The '39-O is part of the Capped Bust Half Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1807-1839) registry. I think it should be included in your collection, Ankur. And I think it is a particularly cool CBH. Mint mark above the date is sweet.
Lance.

>>

100% Agreed! Sweet!

RebelRon · July 21, 2010 1:14PM

<< <i>

<< <i>The '39-O is part of the Capped Bust Half Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1807-1839) registry. I think it should be included in your collection, Ankur. And I think it is a particularly cool CBH. Mint mark above the date is sweet.
Lance.

>>

100% Agreed! Sweet! >>

And check out all of those die cracks!

Placid · July 22, 2010 10:55PM

I saw a nice 1839-o at northeastcoin.com a ms65.

Would you include an 1839-O in a bust half date set?

Comments

Leave a Comment