GTG: 1858 Liberty Seated Half

I voted it a 50 due to the wear on the head/arm leg and the luster is broken except for around the stars. in a 55 or 58 grade, the fields should be almost perfect with a high amount of luster. On this coin you only see luster around the stars. An AU58 should at first glance look like a MS52-MS53 coin with high luster in the fields with only wear on the high points. I think it had too much field wear for a AU53, although I felt it was on the edge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Went with MS Details...have a hunch it might be too clean(ed)...very nice coin to be sure, regardless.

 

If I had cut and pasted a MS 60 or 61 label on it, everybody would have accepted it, as an low grade MS coin. One thing I have noticed in GTGs across the boards is that many collectors can not differentiate between contact marks from storage, and wear. Also, lots of folks get hung on the difference between dipping and cleaning. Somebody needs to do an educational thread on the differences, as too many people state authoritatively that a coin has wear, when it is clearly storage marks.

 

I'm in at AU Details. The reverse is very nice and a nice clash in the shield, as previously noted by "stldanceartist". If those aren't whiz marks on the obverse it may strait grade at 53.

 

Absolutely no way that has AU-58 sharpness. Looking at the wear, especially on the obverse, I'd call it 53 sharpness (look at the stars, hair, breast, and thigh - there is noticeable and significant flattening). If I saw it in hand, you might be able to make a case for 55, but that would be a stretch.

Now, what really hurts this coin is the luster and eye appeal. It is bright white, clearly been dipped, and has dull luster. The amount of wear in the fields (and hence the diminished luster) suggests a lower grade, and given the problems the coin has, I'd put a value on it of AU-50.

Remember - the TPGs are not assigning a pure grade to the coin (that is, AU-53 sharpness). They are assigning a value to the coin. This coin is clearly worth a lower value compared to a problem free AU-53 - hence the AU-50 grade. It isn't bad enough to call it a details coin (cleaned), but it's enough to do a "silent net grade" on the coin - a very, very common practice PCGS has employed for decades.

(full disclosure - I initially guessed AU-53 when I saw the images)

 

50?, ouch. Thinking about breaking it out for a regrade or crossing over? Might be worth the effort.

 

I will cross it to NGC with minimum grade of AU 58.

 

The reverse is beautiful. Don't know if it will make 58 but 55 is very much in play, IMO. Good luck.

 

Well, one thing you might consider is that coin photography (or, lighting) often accentuates even the tiniest of marks/rubs/dings. I've got coins where the images show a HUGE ding in a high focal point area...and in hand you could only really see that mark if all the planets were aligned properly. Grading from pictures is hard!

I feel a little better/more confident with my initial guess at AU53 as well now, haha...

 

A certain individual is negative on everybody’s coins. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

Well, haha, I do remember my set of "fun" (well, I was having fun playing around, anyway) images of a certain ASE were much less than well-received. But I could at least see his (and everyone else's perspective) on the images.

I guess all I was trying to say with my comment is that that coin does not look like an AU58 or low MS coin to me based on the images provided. It looks like a mid-AU coin (which is why I was around 53-55 with my guess; although, as I said before, I'm not an expert in the series, nor would I ever profess to be an expert about anything except overthinking!)

It's entirely possible that the coin looks better in hand, but just keep in mind we can't see that. It's nothing personal. I've totally been there - frustrated because I can't seem to demonstrate (via imaging) just how awesome and gorgeous a coin is in hand. I have a particular Jefferson Nickel I have tried to image about 5-6 times. I give up each time because my images aren't even close to showing the luster and color of that coin, and I'd rather not share them at all than underrepresent the coin as I can see it.

 

I don’t take it personally. I look at it as viewing the whole coin. I tend to concentrate on positives of what a coin has, as opposed to negatives. My many years of experience also gives me a certain perspective. Coins I like, I will like, even if nobody else does. Coins I don’t like, I won’t get on a fan bandwagon, no matter how others see it. My years of collecting Morgan dollars has kept me both humble, and at the same time, vigilant. I was fortunate enough to learn be able to differentiate between bagmarks and wear, which some people never learn. I don’t think there is as wide divergence on this coin as one might think. 26 people put it between AU 55 and MS 60. That is a pretty tight range for GTG exercises.

 

And it's still WAY nicer than any SLH I own...plus cool die clash! Thanks again for sharing and "hosting" a GTG.

 

I think you mean 62-63.

 

? There is something not quite correct in the post re.53 and "sharpness" and "problems".
It either is or it isn't, no?

the value spread is the business logic and impetus, is it not?

If we want it both ways, then either advocate for the TPG to set value, or set opinion Grades, but when the evaluation is $ spread, because business is business, then that is not the logic base for opinion grading.

 

I'd be in at AU-55+ based on wear. Although this is my favorite series, I take issue with the weakly struck stars on the obverse. It also appears unfortunately to have been cleaned, most obviously in the obverse fields. The reverse is nicer than the obverse. I'd say obverse AU-55, reverse AU-58.

 

Wow must have been a bad day at grading office. Best darn AU50 I 've ever seen especially ( no details) That's a re cracker for sure

 

Well @Morgandude11 you got yourself a whale of a GTG going. Congrats on rousing so much interest.

 

It was fun, getting so many numismatist involved.

 

o

PCGS may not give it a details grade. I've seen plenty of seated halves and seated dollars that were obviously messed with that were straight graded. I don't think the coin is really bad but if it looks the way it does in the last picture, it definitely had something done to it. Keep in mind any coin of that age that is white or semi white like this coin someone did something to it. At a minimum it was dipped. It doesn't look scrubbed. More than likely it was dipped a long time ago and somewhat recovered. It has a washed out look to it. in the 1800's to the 1950's they didn't have the type holders we have today so it was very hard to keep coins white. Coin dipping became really popular it the 1950's and 1960's and it's still done. Even the grading companies will do it for you. PCGS down graded it because of this. However, I think AU 53 would be a fair grade to put on the coin.