Rare 1840 (O) half dollar

xf40 - pretty hard to find. An Early New Orleans mintage. Weak obverse strike perhaps around Liberty's head. What do you think? Original surfaces? Will it CAC?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Based on the pictures I don't believe that would sticker as a 40. Could look better in hand though

 

@fiddlehead

Why is it called "(O)" and not reverse of '38?

Never mind , found out on PGCS site. Thanks.

Ron Guth: This is a very interesting variety that pairs an 1840 Seated Liberty obverse with a reverse die that was used to strike a Capped Bust Half Dollar! Though this is quite unusual in itself, comparison with 1839 Capped Bust Half Dollars revealed that the reverse came not from a Philadelphia Mint coin, but from one minted at New Orleans! This can be explained by the fact that, in 1838 and 1839, the "O" mintmark was placed on the the obverse of the Half Dollar, not the reverse. So, it seems that the New Orleans Mint was practicing a little economy back in 1840, when it reused an old die from 1839 to strike 1840 Half Dollars. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and was not without precedent...it is just that dated obverses are a lot easier to tell than a reverse without a mintmark. Thankfully, research into die varieties on American coins has progressed far enough to make such a determination.

 

Not original but nice enough to CAC at 40 unless there are more hairlines than your picture shows. Very cool and scarce issue only to be outdone by the 39 small letters rev bust half. I put a couple of old cheap cirs in a double holder to help tell the story. Can't tell them apart when flipped over.

 

NGC calls it (O) medium letters. PCGS calls it (O) reverse of 38. Thanks for posting the description, Insider. I should have done that! As I said, I see likely strike weakness on obverse, but a pretty decent reverse strike. It seems easier to evaluate the level of wear from the reverse and lower part of the obverse where I think the 40 grade hold up pretty well. I'm only just beginning to be able to judge the difference between wear and weak strike. It' hard to tell sometimes. It could be that the lack of detail in the stars is weak strike too as I've seen some with more detail remaining on the stars but more wear on the shield, etc.

DUK

 

I saw that coin on eBay . Tempting because it's SO rare, but still priced too high for me to give it more than a good once-over.

 

Where is the O?

 

Read insiders reply

 

I did read it before, I still did not see an O on the obverse, so I am asking where specifically is the placement of the O.

 

It's an 1840 obverse that used a reverse die from a year where the mint mark would have been on the obverse.

 

It is a Reeded half Rev and a seated half obv. The mint workers weren't as conscious of mint marks in the early days and married two halfs that had the mint mark on the opposite sides creating a pair with none. The rev die is a known 39-o die thus they were able to coralate the coin to New Orleans

 

.

 

Yeah, it's priced way above the standard 1840's - Noho and Philly. But it had a pretty low mintage and PCGS estimates 400 survivors. Pretty low for old silver coinage. Auction records show it doesn't show up often, and when it does it's usually in even lower grades. In Heritage auctions it's brought way more than the asking ebay price. A time machine, that's what I need! I've been collecting 1840\ mintage.

 

Oops - I started to reply to the question "where is the mint-mark". I see others have answered it thoroughly - no mint mark. Valid research has determined it was minted in New Orleans. And they seem to know there was a low mintage (low for a silver 50c) of 118,000.

 

Well looks like someone snagged it

 

Not even close.

 

Tell me more. How do you know?

 

A 180-year-old XF silver coin should not have a silvery, pale, slightly-glossy surface. It should look like @crypto79 's coins.

 

Kind of difficult to compare it to Crypto79's pic, not to say it isn't a good picture, it's kind of dark and for all we know the pic I posted might have been taken in bright light. I was thinking maybe the dark residue at the perimeter could be residue from cleaning, but if not, the pattern looks like it could be consistent with actual circulation wear, no? It seems like coins with original surfaces - especially silver - have a wide variety of "looks" - from near black to wild toning. Could you be more specific? What else beside how it doesn't look like crypto79's might indicate something other than original surfaces - or perhaps a better way to say it - tampered or cleaned. I figure a 200 year old coin that was circulated for a period of time could have been shined a bit by being in pockets or sitting in a drawer or even a soft coin album? I'm looking for more ways to be able to discern originality - or not. Thanks in advance.

 

Given that the "look" is subjective - here's an example of an old silver coin that in this picture I think it looks a little glossy - in others it looks flat. It's mid-grade and it's got a CAC sticker.