1793 Half Cent. Corrosion alert.
ttxp
Posts: 576
Going through a box of well worn down junk I was to discover this severely corroded coin.
When held at the perfect angle the details on this Half Cent size coin become barely identifiable, well almost anyway. Edge lettering is almost non-existent, reverse detail non-existent, obverse detail, well almost a subtle hint. It appears that the coin has what amounts to a couple of die cracks on its reverse although such could be the result of corrosion? Am I the proud owner of an American classic in less then classic condition?
No doubt the coin has spent its fair share of being buried in dirt, probably a metal detector find? Maybe I should toss it back?
The coin will never win awards.
When held at the perfect angle the details on this Half Cent size coin become barely identifiable, well almost anyway. Edge lettering is almost non-existent, reverse detail non-existent, obverse detail, well almost a subtle hint. It appears that the coin has what amounts to a couple of die cracks on its reverse although such could be the result of corrosion? Am I the proud owner of an American classic in less then classic condition?
No doubt the coin has spent its fair share of being buried in dirt, probably a metal detector find? Maybe I should toss it back?
The coin will never win awards.
"To know the road ahead, ask those coming back"
0
Comments
I don't want to look like a snob about this, but I didn't own a 1796-7 half dollar until I could afford a decent example. I could have had one years ago for $8,000, but it was worn to AG sharpness, polished and had a hole in it. Still you could see more of that coin than you can see of this one. I just won't buy anything that is in that low of a grade. I would rather not have the type.
<< <i>If that's what $200 or $150 1793 half cent looks like, I think I'll pass.
I don't want to look like a snob about this, but I didn't own a 1796-7 half dollar until I could afford a decent example. I could have had one years ago for $8,000, but it was worn to AG sharpness, polished and had a hole in it. Still you could see more of that coin than you can see of this one. I just won't buy anything that is in that low of a grade. I would rather not have the type. >>
Come on Bill! We all know you're a coin snob!
It's corroded surface condition is so bad that the detail in the image is the result of catching the light at an angle. No reverse detail is possible other then a very, very faint hint of a bow and only a hint of edge lettering.
I'm thrilled that I caught anything at all to even suggest it's a Half Cent to begin with.
<< <i>Personally, I think it's a wonderful hole-filler, and would rather have it (at like 150-200) vs. a more details, much more expensive, but still problematic coin (such as holed, scratched, or green.) This one "is what it is" and it's an identifiable 1793 type -- not a bad thing at all for any collector to keep -- certainly, it would thrill a young collector. >>
I agree.Well said
<< <i>If that's what $200 or $150 1793 half cent looks like, I think I'll pass.
I don't want to look like a snob about this, but I didn't own a 1796-7 half dollar until I could afford a decent example. I could have had one years ago for $8,000, but it was worn to AG sharpness, polished and had a hole in it. Still you could see more of that coin than you can see of this one. I just won't buy anything that is in that low of a grade. I would rather not have the type. >>
That's great for you Bill and that's where your at. I think it represents a piece of history that someone who can't afford anything in a higher grade would get a kick out of having. I do think it's great that lower grade coins exsist, that people can enjoy them who would never be able to afford nicer coins. Why can't people from all aspects of life enjoy to collect and marvel at the history behind those well worn coins?
On a personal note I too would probably hold out for a better example. Then again If I new nothing of coins and I got my hands on that and someone told me what it was I would be just thrilled to own it. Origainalisbest said it best!
<< <i>i honestly dont think id pay a thing for that. its just not for me, jmo >>
if i had a hole to fill i would easily spend play money on it.. but anything past 20-30
dollars is not play money to me. basically the price of a couple of lunches is what
i would spend.
the cool factor comes in when you are the person to score it for next to nothing.
the person paying 100+ dollars.. eh.. not so cool.
<< <i>
<< <i>i honestly dont think id pay a thing for that. its just not for me, jmo >>
if i had a hole to fill i would easily spend play money on it.. but anything past 20-30
dollars is not play money to me. basically the price of a couple of lunches is what
i would spend.
the cool factor comes in when you are the person to score it for next to nothing.
the person paying 100+ dollars.. eh.. not so cool. >>
According to the PCGS price guide, a Poor-1 example is worth in the $650 range. It seems to me an identifiable example, with surface damage such as this piece, would be worth more than $30.
Wow, is there really that much contempt in the collector world for a worn but clearly identifiable 1793 half cent... struck to the tune of just 35,000...struck in 1793, first year of operation at the first Philadelphia Mint...one year only design (in fact, struck for just a few months) to boot?
And as to whether even a rare coin is worth owning in "junky" condition, all I can say is... I'll throw GOOD money at a bent 1792 half disme with five holes drilled in it!
Not nearly as rare as yours and it's a large cent but I won't part with it.
Reverse has nothing to show at any angle and the date is just not there. Edge lettering is decent.
As for yours I think the dollar value is irrelavent. I completely agree with coachleonard's comments.
Here's mine:
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
<< <i>Toss it back??? TOSS IT MY WAY!!!!!!!
Wow, is there really that much contempt in the collector world for a worn but clearly identifiable 1793 half cent... struck to the tune of just 35,000...struck in 1793, first year of operation at the first Philadelphia Mint...one year only design (in fact, struck for just a few months) to boot? >>
My comment to toss it back is in humor more then anything else. I am thrilled to have made the discovery irregardless of its condition. Were it in better condition I would never have had an opportunity to own or discover it myself.
The real story behind the coin is that someone probably found it in dirt with a metal detector or during the digging of a basement? Its being mixed in with junk meant it held no special value or wasn't examined closely enough. The junk box it was in also held a few period copper coins from Great Britain and France and so I know a story surrounds this Half Cent but sadly I don't know it?
The coins surface condition is deplorable to a collector of the series and maybe worth a lunch, but to a metal detector hobbyist a treasure, it depends on perspective.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."