Just acquired this today... something about it just jumped out at me from the display case, lol. It is to date my first bust half dollar and oldest US coin. Any thoughts as to grade? Seems to have some minor damage to it... also for some reason the reverse seems a bit more worn than the obverse. I'm also curious as to whether this an error or not: The lettered edge reads "FIFTY CENTS ORALF A DOLLAR" ... the "H" is missing, it doesn't seem worn off, as there's no reasonable amount of space between the "R" in "OR" and the "A" in ALF" where the "H" should be. If you know any other attributes such as die variety be interested to hear that too. Any thoughts at all appreciated... trying to educate myself on the older US coins.
I don't have any expertice on this or any other coin for that matter, but having looked at an authentic Bust Half at CoinFacts it appears that this one may be a fake. I noticed obvious differences in the size of the stars and also the size and shape of the lips on Ms Liberty. Again I could be totally WRONG.
Would help to have more than just the one coin to go on, would like to see other years' pictures to compare to... I've seen genuine halves of this type differ from the picture on Coin Facts slightly too. Not sure about the lips, but I've seen ones where the stars compare fairly normally to this one. Have checked the coin and doesn't seem to have any of the obvious signs of being fake, such as being cast. If it is a fake it's a pretty good one. Not sure about the lips... could just be the scan, or damage or wear, do notice the coin seems to be dented on the edge and shows scratching on the reverse. The lips do look similar to what dimes and quarters have; if they're significantly different than the lips on halves I'm missing something subtle from pictures I can find. Something looks weird about the edge though. Anyone have an example of what the edge should look like? Then again the edge could be perfectly normal for all I know; don't have anything to compare it to. Looking at the actual coin and the scan it seems the scan is distorting the shape of the lips somehow... I can see the difference from the Coin Facts picture to this scan but can't see the same difference on the actual coin. Not sure what would cause that (that's more a scanner question than a coin one, lol). Anyone else have their thoughts? I make take this coin to a different dealer to get a second opinion. The missing "H" on the edge seems weird, as does the letter spacing, but I have no idea what is considered normal or not.
Compared the coin and the scan of the coin to this picture: http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=409&Lot_No=8047#photo The lips seem to compare normally to this one, allowing for wear. The 1835 in this auction looks a bit different than the 1825 picture on Coin Facts, especially the size and shape of the date, the shape and size of the lips, and the angle of the nose. The star size, shap and placement on this 1835 look the same as on the coin I have, though the stars are flattened on mine, imagine that's just normal wear though. The denticles are completely worn off of mine, not sure if that's normal wear or not, but based on the wear on the stars suppose that could be normal wear. Not seeing any differences at all on the reverse. If anybody sees anything I'm missing let me know... ignoring my coin completely though I see lots of differences between the obverse of an 1825 half and an 1835 half.
Well I did say that could be totally wrong and I probably am. I found this site that has some pictures of the 1835 and they look very very much like your coin. It amazes me how these old coins change like that from year to year, but this is why I come here, to learn about this stuff. Here's the link. Check it out, see what you think. http://www.collect1.coinsandstamps.com/uscoins/capped bust halves/capped bust halves.htm
Well we both learned something then, lol, wondering whether or not it was fake based on comparison to the 1825 picture prompted me to research it further and see how it compares to another 1835. Thus both of us learned that there's quite a bit of variance on this type of coin. I was quite suprised actually... being used to more modern coins where the differences in a design from year to year are either slight or non-existant made me initally think that older coins within a certain type would be mostly uniform too. It seems from 1825 to 1835 Liberty got a bigger nose and lips... slightly bigger cheeks too. The date got smaller. Changed the stars a bit too. I checked my Whitman red book and it does note than in 1834 the half had a "Slightly Modified Portrait" (why they didn't bother to include a picture to show the changes or at least mention what they were I don't know, lol) Kind of wonder why the changes were made, and if it was a decision y the designer, the head engraver, or die engravers just chose to alter it slightly. If anyone knows the history on this would be greatly interested. Trying to figure out the grade based on other coins from that link, kind of leaning towards EF details but the damage would probably get a net F or VF. I'm not that great at grading though so if anyone else has a better grading analysis would love th hear it. Looking closer at the missing "H"... There seems to be a slight indentation between the "R" and the "A", whether that's a dent or part of the "H" I'm not sure. I've also noticed there's more wear on the edge and outer rim of the coin than in the center. Maybe it was just handled that way repeatedly over the years. Does make it tricky to grade though, at least for me... I've seen pics that have less wear on the edges and stars than mine does but the details are more worn than mine. Not really sure where to go with that.
Troodon, I hate to say it, but I feel that there is a high possibility of it being a fake as well. Where are the denticles around the edges of the coin? I don't see them on your pictures at all. Even if it's quite worn, there would still be evidence of them. For a coin with as much detail as yours on the portrait and on the eagle, I'd think we'd see at least some evidence of the denticles. These coins have been known to have been struck weakly on one side or even gotten a bit more wear on one side that would make the denticles look very weak, but even then, they're usually a bit stronger on the other side. There also seem to be some other signs as well.
could you post close up pictures of the date and of 50C (especially the 5's are important). That should be enough to identify the die variety if it is genuine (which I have no opinion on yet).
Well here is one graded by ANACS VF30 & it was cleaned,as you will be able to tell. The detail is kinda close along with the worn rim,only a faint trace of the denticles are present- I dont think your is a fake, just has had a bit of abuse.That would take it down even more in grade ,I might be wrong though . Cave Troll ? What do you say ? Here is a link to a 1934 that was on Ebay - It had a edge error that sounds like it may be similar to what you are describing . Does it look like this ? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=8407362295&ssPageName=STRK:MEDW:IT
After further looking and some thinking, you all might be right. Some more close-up pictures are definitely needed. Also, there may be a trace of the denticles on the reverse from about 6:00 to 8:00. Troodon, please post some close-ups. Also, the strike of the eagle on the reverse and Liberty on the obverse do look pretty good and sharp along their edges.
Not really sure how to do close ups with equipment I have (what's posted here is a scan, not a picture). Looking at it closely there does seem to be a trace of denticles, just barely... it's just received heavy wear on the rim and stars, more so than on the center of the coin. As for the edge error, it's not quite as this one on eBay where "HALF" is missing completely, mine still has "ALF", just missing the "H", but it's good to know such a thing is possible. And it does seem to compare with the grade based on the details, although the damage would keep it from getting that grade. Of course that's why it was sold at half the VF price, lol. Will see if I can mess around with the scan settings to get some close ups.
I think that the tool they used to make the edge lettering could sometimes become misaligned or the coin could slip in the tool and cause the H to be missing. We're all just trying to learn. :rolling:
Well figured out how to do close-ups, lol, just raise the resolution, then use Paint to crop and enlage details. Here's some close-ups, of the date, the denomination, and a scan of the reverse that I think may show a trace of the denticles, though very heavily worn: This also shows the wear pattern is a lot more on the edge than on the center. Possibly this has been in various collections for long periods of time and got a lot of handling on its edges but people were careful not to touch the center? Or maybe it was handled by the edges over a long period of time? Looking at close ups I can see a lot of the dents and scratches, my guess is it suffered a lot of abuse before someone decided to set it aside to prevent further damage. Still it has a lot of character... the remaining detail is very nice... and minus the damage this coin probably would have cost at least twice as much, lol. The edge error is pretty interesting too... will see if I can get close up of that. Anyone know how the lettered edge was put on these coins?
Here's the edge, shows the missing H (oddly, it seems you can almost see a ghost of an H, or maybe an F, after the A; maybe the lettering tool slipped and left a weak second impression? If anyone has any idea how lettered edges were put on coins during this time period may help to explain this.) What originally I thought looked like a dent or scratch lookes almost like there's an L and F overlapping the A where the more clear ALF is. It looks a lot like there's a weak second lettering out of alignment with the first one. Also noticed the R in OR is a lot more weakly impressed than the letters in ALF. Makes the slipping lettering tool explanation seem pretty likely...
The lack of denticles doesn't particularly concern me on this coin, it is not unheard of for a bustie to completely lack them. I would guess that it is genuine. I am having trouble attributing it though because of the weak strike on the important details (I in PLURIBUS, the dentils, and the 5 in 50C), so Troodon would you please email me the high resolution scans. If I come up with an attribution that would likely prove the coin genuine. Troodon I will pm you my email addy.
We discussed edge lettering in a thread not too long ago here. I'm learning a lot from this thread. Thanks guys.
Here's a close-up of the "Pluribus" area on the reverse. Does seem to be a bit of a weak strike there which would account for less detail there than in the rest of the banner. Quite a bit of scratching here too. The obverse looks like it was better cared for than the reverse. I'm guessing this coin was probably dropped on the ground, landing heads up, and got scratched being picked up, sometime in its past. Just a guess though. Thanks for the post on the lettered edges. Will be interesting to see modern US coins bring these back!
Ok, it looks like it is an o-105 variety (which is an R1) based on the shape and alignment of the numerals in the date. It was commonly struck with insufficient pressure and the weakness in the motto and the denomination are especially common on this particular die variety! This means that the coin is genuine; since it isn't a cast copy (no casting bubbles) it must be the genuine article since it matches this die variety. too bad about the damage, though, it was once a nice coin.
Thanks for the info! Studying this coin has been a fun learning process. It still is a pretty nice coin... has a real sense of history to it.
