GTG - 1828 Capped Bust Half

Busties are quite pricy in MS especially when there are plenty of nice 55-58s .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@TypeCoin971793 wrote: (and I am basically in agreement)

which I think is stupid because "Mint State" means NO WEAR OR CIRCULATION. This is true. I agree with you. Unfortunately, it has taken on a much looser interpretation. Although we don't like it - that's the way it is. All we can do is vote w/our money. Don't give me any of the "market grade" crap. Market grading is not "crap." It is the way things are done now as "Market Makers" and TPGS's dictate the rules. If it is worth a premium because of the eye appeal, then someone will pay for it if the buyer has any appreciable knowledge about coins. That's what the coin is "worth." You don't need a grade number, erroneous as it is in this case, to determine what a certain coin is worth. That was the idea behind the "Technical Grading System. We'll grade the coin strictly and you value it. The SOLE JOB of the TPGs is to authenticate and accurately grade the present condition of the coin, not to determine what it is worth. True, according to you (see Technical grading above) however, ask 95% of collectors "Why do we need grading?" and they will tell you its to put a value on a coin. So, like it or not, the TPGS's put values on our coins. It seems many people don't understand this. (?) By your post, at least you don't. It just creates misconceptions among collectors that don't know what they are doing.

If you can't see the signs of circulation for some reason, I am more than happy to point that out. Anyone here who does not see the wear on the coin needs to get new glasses and take a grading course. In a typical grading seminar, the students would learn what "cabinet friction" looks like, grade this coin as a technical AU-58, and then have it explained why a TPGS would grade it higher to indicate its value. IMO, a class would assign a commercial grade of MS-62 (coin with a loss of luster on the high spots yet one that has not seen much abuse) then they would add a point for eye appeal and reach MS-63. Class just "commercially" graded the coin. I've seen this done in many grading seminars.

If you feel like overpaying for an overgraded and overpriced AU half dollar (which is quite nice), you can buy it here: You and I would PASS.

 

That is part of the problem - they are grading accurately, BUT to their standards and not something like the ANA standards. And actually - not sure who first said this - they are their to make money first and keep collectors happy. I personally wish they would quit letting key dates slide - so tough to find them accurately in a tpg hold. I know in some series there are different strike considerations - but I do wish they were more consistent on the grading across a series. One of the reasons I sold most my buffalo nickels. Some of the tougher(not just keys) they were calling 63's to 65's and dealers were pricing them like that. They weren't going to meet what I wanted for the grades. Of course it makes my hunt for coins more challenging and actually more fun at times when you finally find one. [/user]

 

Those are the two very first places where strike weakness first manifests on a Bust Half, and I pay no attention to those spots when grading one. Frankly, this coin's arguments for circulation are all on the obverse.

 

It's also where wear starts , another on the reverse is on the talons where on one spot you can see weakness but no color change but on the other there is a slight color change . Sure there is slight rub on the obverse too but the easiest to see is the reverse . But like always it's your way or no way .

 

Mark, I've been doing this for a while both attending grading seminars, speaking/arguing face to face with TPGS professionals and coin dealers. One thing that is unfortunate but true: The ANA grading standards were VIRTUALLY never followed in the marketplace.

This is a shame as any standard that is devised and FOLLOWED BY EVERYONE would actually be a true standard. Numismatics has never had that. EVER!

One TPGS professional I argue with constantly professes that "the ANA grading standards were devised by a bunch of old men who knew nothing about grading or the coin market." Now that's cold.

I have my own standards as most of us do; however, over 90% of the time I hold a slab (top 4 services) with a covered grade, I can guess the assigned grade. You would never guess that from my bad guesses on the photos here on CT IMO, that is what we all should strive for and quit attacking the TPGS's.

 

Close but no cigar. Actually, both James Halperin and myself (if I can be mentioned in the same sentence) disagree that those are the two very first places where strike weakness first manifests on these coins; yet those are great places to start looking for rub on the reverse. Therefore, the @rzage opinion carries more weight than yours in this instance.

Furthermore, we all have the option of ignoring actual friction wear on a coin by calling it strike weakness or "cabinet friction." GRADING IS SUBJECTIVE and the more a person thinks they know, the more they will feel comfortable with their grading opinions.

 

Amen to that. PS - I hope my post did not come across as an attack because I agree with that last post of yours.

And how did you get to your standards - what influenced you and your standards? Me, I have read thru(not all the way mainly around coins I like and want to collect) the ANA guide, the PCGS guide, some targeted coin types grading by experts(IE Rick Snow and IHC's grading guide), etc. And I am sure I don't follow them to the letter. The funny thing is on some of the stuff I read the strike details stick out more to me than the actual grading methodology - for example the left corn on the liberty nickel. If I was buying a 64 I would want that puppy to show some kernels.

 

But even on a weakly struck coin would you not expect to see some remaining luster on those spots? From the pictures I agree with Rusty that those spots clearly look like rub and not just a weak strike. No expert - just a bust half enthusiast thanks to ben.

 

@mark_h Not at all, I gave your post the "like" it deserves!

And how did you get to your standards - what influenced you and your standards? I was basically self taught years before the grading seminars came along. I read all the books and was lucky have a local coin dealer who was a conservative grader. When he marked a coin VF, it was a VF according to all the books like Photograde. I think the main influence was learning to "Technical Grade" coins using a stereomicroscope set at the lowest power (4x-7x). Then I've been to more grading/authentication seminars than I can remember. My standards are too conservative so I have learned to call AU coins UNC if they deserve the grade. Me, I have read thru(not all the way mainly around coins I like and want to collect) the ANA guide, the PCGS guide, some targeted coin types grading by experts(IE Rick Snow and IHC's grading guide), etc. And I am sure I don't follow them to the letter. The funny thing is on some of the stuff I read the strike details stick out more to me than the actual grading methodology - for example the left corn on the liberty nickel. If I was buying a 64 I would want that puppy to show some kernels. The 64/65 line is one of the places where strike really counts.

 

Yes, y'all are both (rzage also, who apparently doesn't listen when I make posts like this one, which are quite regular) quite possibly right....and that's when you go back to my original comment about drawing too complete a conclusion from questionable images. I'm very much bothered by what look like very abrupt transitions from Mint State luster to complete lack of shine in places, and far from confident that what I'm seeing is an accurate representation of the in-hand coin.

If it's wear, does that mean it circulated after it toned? And if it did, why isn't any of the patina - which ought to wear off within seconds of handling - worn off anywhere else? And why isn't it also worn off of the usual-suspect parts of the obverse?

If urging caution about being too positive based on one set of suspect images is "my way or the highway," it probably should be my way or the highway. But you guys just go ahead and be as sure as you want. It's your money.

 

Yes, and this is a very important point to learn when grading. Weakly struck coins with original surfaces have a different type of luster that we call "weak strike luster." Hopefully, you'll have access to graded coins in slabs to teach yourself what it looks like. Morgan dollars are a good coin to learn on. Look for a MS-64 "O" mint coin with a flat ear to see what it looks like.
In general, when a coin is struck it has original mint luster. If you look at a weakly struck original coin it will also have mint luster; however the "look" of the luster on the surface of the weakly struck part of the coin will be different - it will be dull, flat, and whitish on a silver coin. A silver coin whose high point are worn (even just a little) such as the 1828 Bust half will appear flat, and grayish with microscopic hairlines. I will post photos on Monday. Hopefully someone will beat me to it.

 

SuperDave says: Yes, y'all are both (rzage also, who apparently doesn't listen when I make posts like this one, which are quite regular) quite possibly right....and that's when you go back to my original comment about drawing too complete a conclusion from questionable images. IMHO , there is absolutely NOTHING QUESTIONABLE in the image of this Bust half. It is a coin with friction wear on the high points, an AU as most posters agree.I'm very much bothered by what look like very abrupt transitions from Mint State luster to complete lack of shine in places I'm not bothered at all as the "lack of shine" from the DULL GRAY PATCHES on the coin's high points is "friction wear" caused by who knows what that makes the coin a "Technical Graded" AU, and far from confident that what I'm seeing is an accurate representation of the in-hand coin.

If it's wear it absolutely is., does that mean it circulated after it toned? Here is a clue. Whenever a coin that is toned becomes subject to friction from whatever the cause - the toning is disturbed! Sometimes it is completely removed (the case here). With the passage of time it may tone again BUT the area of original toning and the area that was rubbed and retoned USUALLY look different. And if it did, why isn't any of the patina - which ought to wear off within seconds of handling this is too crazy to even comment on. - worn off anywhere else? Here is another clue. The high points show wear (as on this coin) before anywhere else.And why isn't it also worn off of the usual-suspect parts ? of the obverse?

If urging caution about being too positive based on one set of suspect images is "my way or the highway," it probably should be my way or the highway. But you guys just go ahead and be as sure as you want. It's your money. ...and money spent on a well grounded numismatic education is well spent.

IMO: This post is making a nursery school concept Wear vs Weak Strike that can be taught/demonstrated in a matter of minutes into some sort of college level philosophical babbling that I'm too ignorant to figure out. I hope my comments here don't add to the confusion.

 

Agree. The luster is disturbed in the high points and in places in the fields where the coin was handled. And this means circulated. A classic au to me.

 

I was talking with my dad about this, and he said that this is caused by a disruption in the specular reflectivity in the metal. When light hits the worn spot, the light is diffused and not reflected through the patina, so toning as we know it would not appear in those areas. The patina is still there, but no pretty colors are produced.

 

All the circled areas have signs of circulation. I'm closer to AU-55 on this one, so frankly I am surprised that this got an MS grade.

 

IMO, if you had the coin in hand, you might change your opinion on many of the surfaces that are circled.

Thank your dad for his insight. I'll add this and hope he agrees:

When light hits a coin's surface it is reflected. The condition of the surface as well as the type and intensity of the light determines what we "see." (Rule out the vision and color perception of each of us). Therefore, an original surface has one type of luster and appearance. Tone that surface, and depending on the toning it will look differently. As a matter of fact, even a circulated surface that develops that "special" attractive blue toning WILL OFTEN REFLECT light as if it were a PL!

Now, once our original BU coin receives friction wear on its high points, that surface will reflect light in a different way. When this surface is toned it will still appear dull. If additional friction removes the color from that surface it will still be dull. Lightly struck areas behave the same ONLY their original surface tends to have a "matte" luster.

There are plenty of observable instances where coins in low grades that have album toning reflect amazing luster FROM THE TONING even though (if dipped) their surface would return to dull gray!

Professional TPGS can look at a coin (without magnification in most cases) and determine if a coin has wear just by the color of the surface. Unfortunately, then they must judge how much wear to allow before they downgrade the piece to AU. They also must factor in the attractiveness and market value when assigning a final grade. Even the coin type and its age factor into this equation. Bust Half dollars are truly rare as full "Technical" Uncs with no trace of wear.