This is not mine but one I need. It is ungraded. I’m very happy with the look of it and this could fill a tough spot. But any idea why there’s flakes of toning missing in spots? Does anyone think this may be AT or original? I would send this to get graded. Don’t care what the grade would be just want a straight grade instead of a plastic flip back. Why is there a clear area around the raised portion on the obverse? Anybody have any ideas? Does this look original to you?
OK, first up. I collected pretty much nothing but Seated coins for over 35 years. I have looked at around 30,000 to 40,000 coins either in hand or in picture. I have seen 3 that MIGHT be original and all 3 were rather unattractive. now that we have dispensed with "original" here is my breakdown coin this coin. the basement is Choice 45 and it could easily go to high AU depending on actual luster in hand. The coin has a secondary toning from being previously dipped that I would rate as fairly attractive. Make special note of the lighter, whitish luster that halos most of the design. In particular that little notch in between Liberty's arm and the pole. THAT is what you can call original mint luster and I prize it very highly when it comes to these coins. I do not see any signs of harsh cleaning, polishing, or tooling so I cannot fathom why thios would not straight grade. just my opinions. james
I think the coin was cleaned long ago, not harshly but cleaned nevertheless, and was dipped sometime afterwards. The spots in my opinion, would be from an improper rinse. It is retoning fairly nicely. As I’m sure you are aware this is a Variety 1, no stars on the obverse and no drapery at the elbow. It was only minted that way at the Philadelphia mint in that year. There is a large and small date variety and just over 1.4 million were minted. A second though on the white spots of missing toning could be that the coin was within the vicinity of someone that sneezed and it won’t tone in that area. Not sure if it would straight grade or not but I’m thinking it won’t.
I think it's still a nice coin, and if you need it, and the price is right, you can always upgrade later but meanwhile that hole is filled with a decent coin.
Well if you can bargain shoot in your final offer all they can say is no. Sometimes they will take it. "Look it's AU-details and my offer is fair."
Gotta say I think it will come back AU-Details Cleaned although to @samclemens3991 point, an old dipping might get a pass. If it's currently raw and it's already got a slabbed AU-? price on it, I can't see the logic of buying it. You would have to bear the cost of slabbing and 100% of the risk of it not straight-grading. I can't see the logic of this. And frankly, this is not a coin that I would fall in love with. Neither is it rare or difficult to come by in nice AU and MS grades. A quick check at Collectors Corner found two AU-50s and bunch of MS from 61 to 67. Now my default position is to let someone else take the risk on possible problem coins and I do that by only buying slabbed coins. You may be more willing to roll the dice.
One more piece of information. Here's a ANACS AU-Details, Cleaned that is up for auction. I think it shares some elements with your contemplated coin, notably the haloes around the central device.
Dipping and cleaning are two different things to knowledgeable people. The purists, who obsessed with originality, think they are one in the same. Some of the purists couldn't recognize an original surface coin if it bit them on the butt. Some of the coins they think are original are “original now.” They have re-toned after they were dipped. Some original surface coins are too ugly to sell and have to be dipped if you are go to get any money for them. You have to determine if dipping will work. For some deeply toned coins, it won't. It will only make the eye appeal worse. The 1837 No Stars Half Dime shown above has been cleaned. It's got hairlines all over it. What does the group think of this one? It's got original surfaces.
John - I would say that, while it might be original, it also has fingerprints. In my own personal opinion and evaluation of eye appeal, I'd much rather have a coin that was properly dipped and has regained toning over a coin with fingerprints. I personally find them distinctly unattractive and won't buy one unless there is no other choice. But, on the flip side, it doesn't bother a lot of people and they buy them anyways. As for the OP's coin... I don't see any hairlines, but the consensus is almost definitely dipped and retoned. It looks attractive - but it has to be at the right price. Asking slabbed AU price for a raw coin with some issues... I'd probably pass on that one unless you can bargain the seller down.
Personally it is one of my pet peeves that people are 1 obsessed with the idea a coin from say 1837 is suppose to be "strictly original" to be worth collecting and 2 that 21st century coin collecting ideas should apply to coins like this. In my book that makes the exact same sense as my telling you I'm going to send you back to 1837 with a half filled hand held stapler, a radio and an electric toaster (All things commonly found a mere century AFTER this coin was minted) so you can have a great advantage over everyone else. If you can spot say 3 problems you might have; well then try to see if you can find 3 reasons why strictly original coins from this era don't exist. James
I like the appearance of the reverse, not such a fan of the obverse. But that is just a strictly subjective aesthetic. Your mileage may vary.
