Columbian Half Dollar - Guess the Grade

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by jaceravone, Apr 28, 2008.

  1. jaceravone

    jaceravone Member

    This is one of two slabbed coins that I own. I don't particulary like slabbed coins, but the price was right and the coin was, for lack of a better word, pretty. :cool: I was going to send it in to NGC for regrading knowing very well that it would come back less than what was on the other TPG slab, but at least I would get a more honest answer. Then I realized it would have been a waste of time and money just to have the coin reslabbed when I basically knew what the coin would grade at anyway. Now lets put the CT gang to work and see what you all would grade this at. After a day or so I will post what the slabbed grade was. Thanks.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. monkeyman

    monkeyman Coin Hoarder

    im thinking something around Au-58
     
  4. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Au 59 :) MS 62 on a good day.

    Looking at the toning/coloration (powdery champagne), I'd bet the coin was dipped once and has since started to tone back...Mike
     
  5. gatzdon

    gatzdon Numismatist

    You got me excited when I read the title. I collect Colombian coins and recently found a colombian 50 centavos coin in the reject cup of a coin counter. What's better was it was one I didn't have yet.

    Anyway, that's a nice coin OP. I've yet to pull one of those out of circulation, but I know several people that have.
     
  6. monkeyman

    monkeyman Coin Hoarder

    has anyone ever seen an AU-59 graded coin by pcgs, ngc, or anacs?
     
  7. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    No, I was being funny.... :)
     
  8. clembo

    clembo A closed mind is no mind

    MS63 and might go 64.
     
  9. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    Well, the lines on the mainsail are there. That's good. They're generally the first to go from wear.
    I'll agree with clembo, MS-63 or -64.
     
  10. jaceravone

    jaceravone Member

    What you don't see in the pics is that the coin has nice luster - but I wouldn't call it brilliant - which made me suspect exactly what Leadfoot was suggesting that maybe at one time it was dipped. :confused: But then again, I have never seen one of these coins with brilliant luster. Maybe I just never saw the right one, but this is one of the best that I have personally seen. My supply is limited to just what I see at my coin shop and shows. Ever since I first started taking pics with my camera - I now notice that it picks up spots that were not seen before - such as the apparent rub on the chin. The marks on the cheek are much more pronouced on this pic than they are when looking at the coin through a loupe. Other than the distracting bag hit on the sail, the reverse is in nice shape. There are a few other hits on a few letters, but it is nice. It is tough to find one of these with full details in the sails. The third sail appears weak, but that is typical for this issue. Thats all I have to say for now.
     
  11. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    Yeh, cameras (and to a lesser extent scanners) pick up all sort of nasty stuff the eye doesn't see.
    Cameras generally have a better resolving power than the eye.
    Plus the eye/brain combination tends to filter out minor distractions.

    I find imaging at a high resolution, then reducing to screen size results in an image that comes close to what the eye sees.

    Here's one I did:

    [​IMG]

    For me this image only takes up about two-thirds of the screen width.
    But I run may screen size at 1152 x 864 pixels.
    I try to size the image so that it would fill the screen for someone running at 800 x 600 pixels.
    Many people still operate at the resolution.
     
  12. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 Treasure Hunter

    I would say MS63. Very nice for a Columbian commem.
     
  13. jaceravone

    jaceravone Member

    Kanga - I'll trade ya! ;)
     
  14. ML94539

    ML94539 Senior Member

    This is a great coin, I think strike wise would be a 66, but there is a ding on the sail. So I might grade it 65. I have 2 66s here for comparison. By the way the pcgs look better than the photo..
     

    Attached Files:

  15. jaceravone

    jaceravone Member

    I love the NGC one. Very frosty and I like that. Now I would have to say - THAT is the nicest looking Columbian that I have ever seen. :eek:hya: The toning is pretty harsh on the PCGS, but I am sure it looks great in person.

    I will let it go for a little while longer and share what the original grade was and what I think it is.
     
  16. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    I'll guess 63.
     
  17. Ed Goldman

    Ed Goldman coin collector

    I used to have rolls of these. Couldn't get $.75 each.
     
  18. clembo

    clembo A closed mind is no mind

    If you don't mind me asking how long ago was that?

    clembo
     
  19. Ed Goldman

    Ed Goldman coin collector

    Around 1958 I think.
     
  20. Niel

    Niel Mostly Sane

    Maybe I'm misreading, but looks like definite rub on Chris's forehead. If that's the case, AU-55.
    If that's a trick of the scanner, then I would say MS63/64. Reverse is nice but the 2 nicks in the sails would keep it from being in gem territory even with the full strike.
     
  21. jaceravone

    jaceravone Member

    Well here it is - the wonderful NTC graded this very conservatively at MS65. :rolleyes: Although I would agree that it is definitely an UNC, a more appropriate grade of MS62 possibly MS63 should be assigned and I feel confident that if I sent it to NGC as planned that I should get an MS62. My camera continues to highlight areas that are not see by the naked eye, let alone with a loupe. As mentioned, the coin has some nice luster - not brilliant or frosty like ML94539's coin, but the coin has some very nice cartwheels. I still cannot see the rub on the chin, even under a 16x loupe. The marks on the cheek I was aware about, but the camera really draws them out and makes them appear worse than they really are. Also mentioned were the marks on the reverse of the coin. Neil is right, with those distracting dings on the sail would prevent this coin from getting a 64 and due to the weak strike on the third sail will keep it from going anywhere over 65. IMO. Other than that, it is what it is and enjoy it for that. Thanks for everyones input. :cool:
     

    Attached Files:

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page