 | 
08-23-2009, 11:02 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | aspiring numismatist
Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: North Edwards, CA
Posts: 1,123
My Mood:  | 1837 CBH. AT or NT?
Is this natural or artificial?
| 
|  |
|
08-24-2009, 12:06 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | aspiring numismatist
Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: North Edwards, CA
Posts: 1,123
My Mood: |
Sorry, forgot to include the reverse. My thinking is that if the toning is natural, it has been dipped and retoned....but it could just be completely artificial. I'm not really sure. Sorry, the pics arent very good, just give it your best SWAG!  | |
| | |
08-24-2009, 12:22 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Rare coin dealer
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,668
|
It looks AT to me.
| |
| | |
08-24-2009, 12:53 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Toning Freak
Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: The Poker Room
Posts: 3,012
My Mood:  |
I will defer to Mark on this one. I have no experience at all with CBH's.
| |
| | |
08-24-2009, 12:54 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Coin Collector
Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Utah
Posts: 1,623
My Mood:  |
Hum?
This one I lean towards AT. It seems so dark and lack of luster. Also no tone on the high points of the eagles wings and feathers has be concerned. Nice coin though. Even if I'm wrong and it is NT, for me its not an attractive tone.
__________________  Roll Searching Since July 2007 2310 rolls halves 125-40% halves 30-90% halves | |
| | |
08-24-2009, 01:10 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | aspiring numismatist
Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: North Edwards, CA
Posts: 1,123
My Mood: |
Thanks for the input. Much appreciated! Here's anothern for evaluation, 1838 this time. Completely different source too. Anyone have experience with rpholder? He has a lot of beautifully toned coins and appears to be a respectable seller, but some of them are a bit questionable. http://cgi.ebay.com/1838-RE-Capped-B...3286.m20.l1116
Last edited by johnny54321; 08-24-2009 at 01:12 AM.
| |
| | |
08-24-2009, 01:18 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Coin Collector
Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Utah
Posts: 1,623
My Mood: | Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny54321  |
Coin has nice detail, but dead/flat luster. I'd stay away from it. I can't comment on the tone, but I'd bet its AT due to lack of luster.
Do you think it has been over dipped than some one tried to re-tone/tone it?
__________________ Roll Searching Since July 2007 2310 rolls halves 125-40% halves 30-90% halves | |
| | |
08-24-2009, 08:09 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Numismatist
Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: PA
Posts: 23,503
|
I would suggest thay everyone open the pics of those 2 coins and compare them to each other side by side on the screen. The differences between them are glaring when you do so.
I would agreee that the first coin pictured is AT. It appears to have been harshly cleaned and then AT'd in an effort to hide that.
The second coin looks natural to me. It has a great deal of underlying luster, even on the high points, and appears to be a very nice MS coin.
For those who wish to learn how to recognize underlying luster when you see it, open the pics of the second coin to full size and look at them with a large view (3" or more), low power (3x-4x)glass. You will see how at the edges of the toning that the luster shines through in the lighter areas and fades out gradually in the darker areas. This effect is very difficult to replicate with artificial toning, and can only be done by the best coin doctors.
edit - One other thing - when you compare the pics of the 2 coins, it is easy to see the difference between the glare (reflection) in the pic of the first coin and the underlying luster in the pic of the second coin. I would suggest that pics like these be saved for future reference for those wishing to learn.
__________________
knowledge ..... share it
Last edited by GDJMSP; 08-24-2009 at 08:12 AM.
| |
| | |
08-24-2009, 09:04 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Numismatist
Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In A House
Posts: 2,605
|
#1 is AT and I would question the authenticity of.
#2, I would do some homework on before dropping 400 on this coin. The 3 in the date should be lower and I don't like the denticles on the reverse, Thats off the top of my head and I would have to check the reference books to verify. NOT saying its fake I just have some questions in my mind when I see the picture here is all.
__________________
WINS, ANA, MSNS, HVNS
"Never Argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!."
| 
| | |
08-24-2009, 10:20 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Rare coin dealer
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,668
|
The second coin looks original to me, and I have no question about its authenticity.
| |
| | |
08-24-2009, 03:07 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
| | aspiring numismatist
Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: North Edwards, CA
Posts: 1,123
My Mood: | Quote:
I would suggest thay everyone open the pics of those 2 coins and compare them to each other side by side on the screen. The differences between them are glaring when you do so.
I would agreee that the first coin pictured is AT. It appears to have been harshly cleaned and then AT'd in an effort to hide that.
The second coin looks natural to me. It has a great deal of underlying luster, even on the high points, and appears to be a very nice MS coin.
For those who wish to learn how to recognize underlying luster when you see it, open the pics of the second coin to full size and look at them with a large view (3" or more), low power (3x-4x)glass. You will see how at the edges of the toning that the luster shines through in the lighter areas and fades out gradually in the darker areas. This effect is very difficult to replicate with artificial toning, and can only be done by the best coin doctors.
edit - One other thing - when you compare the pics of the 2 coins, it is easy to see the difference between the glare (reflection) in the pic of the first coin and the underlying luster in the pic of the second coin. I would suggest that pics like these be saved for future reference for those wishing to learn.
| Thank you for the detailed and quality analysis GD!
| |
| | |
08-24-2009, 03:25 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Twilight Photographer
Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,399
|
GD that is good input. I am not so sure about luster in the fileds though, the area's you pointed out seem protected and may retain more luster than the fields.
| |
| | |
Would you like to support CoinTalk?
Coin Talk Code of Honor
1. Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
2. Keep it clean, like a 1950s family television show.
3. If you don't like the coin, don't trash the person.
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|  » Newsletter | | » Sponsors |
| | » Recent Posts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | » Today's Top Posters | | Top Posters in Last 1 Days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
