1832 Capped Bust Half Dollar

I have to go with PCGS on this one. At the same time, I would love to own the coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

(pompous voice) Well, I'm glad he agreed with me..... lol

But seriously, I think PCGS does have some merit in calling it code 91, but more so because the toning pattern looks like that of an old dipped & retoned coin. Everyone would rather own a "Quest Color" over a "Cleaned" and I think they choose to give one over the other on nicer quality examples. -JMCT
"Just my conspiracy theories"....lol

 

There is absolutely no way that would be AU-58, and even 55 is too high (if it were to get a straight grade - which it won't). Look at the flatness of her hair - a 58 means there is a slight bit of rub on the highest points, with no significant loss of detail. Her hair, the drapery around her bust, and the feathers on the wing have siginficant loss of detail. This coin is an AU, but it is an AU-50.

As for the cleaning, PCGS absolutely got it right. It does not appear to be a very harsh cleaning, but look especially at the fields on the reverse. The shininess of the fields, and the way the luster remains in the protected areas, hints at the cleaning. The first obverse pic in your first post also led me to believe the surfaces were unnatural.

As for the questionable color, that is a bit trickier, but I think PCGS got it right here as well. The colors are well done - for an AT coin, this is quite convincing. The key here is to look at the second picture in your first post. The colors appear to lay on the surface of the coin. Artificial toning is not integrated into the coin as natural toning is (remember, natural toning comes from a reaction of environmental elements with the actual metal of the coin, to produce a silver sulfide layer that is integral to the coin itself). Artificial toning is often formed by depositing something onto the surface of the coin, to simulate the thin film of silver sulfide of natural toning. When this is done, it appears "hazy", or looks to be something on the surface - not actually part of the coin. As I interpret your pictures, this is what I see with your coin. Again, the color progression looks correct and it is well done - but I am going to agree with PCGS here.

 

I thought the same thing when I saw the level of detail left. However, the amount of luster remaining is more than that of any AU-50 CBH I have ever seen. I figured it was at least AU-53, possibly AU-55. These are Rich Uhrich's pictures, which capture the luster but not the color.

Again, what I noticed on the obverse. I saw no hairlines, so I assumed an old dipping on the obverse. The reverse is absolutely GORGEOUS.

That picture does not capture the in-hand look. The above picture is better, but it hides the other colors visible. However, the toning on the obverse did look a bit weird, like it was lightly wiped. The dipping on the obverse probably gave it an unnatural appearance.

I am familiar with the chemical reaction that causes toning and the resulting color progression. I had to write a scientific paper on it for a class. However, the correct color progression is only half the story, and the appearance overall is the second half. The reverse looks completely natural, and the obverse looks only a little weird. Everyone I have showed it to in-hand says the toning is natural.