Three more of my seated Liberty half dollars received a CAC green sticker (out of 7SLH and 3 classic commems submitted). 1839 Drapery PCGS AU55 CAC - formerly in an NGC AU58 holder, 1855/54 WB-1 PCGS AG3 CAC - I love the coin for its crustiness and strong overdate (WB-1) and was delighted to see that it stickered. I paid 20% more in grading fees than I paid for the coin itself, but it's fun to see an eBay cherry pick get stickered, even an AG3. (Trueview darkened to better resemble the coin in-hand.) My 1861-O half (WB-?) in PCGS XF45 was also stickered, but I don't have a photo of this coin to show. It's a nice, dark brown, circulated cameo.
1839 No drapery half has been a pain-in-the-butt coin for me. I could and should have purchased an XF40 for $900 many years ago, but I passed. Since then, the '39 ND has been one of the hottest coins in the entire set and I've seen the price rise to over $2500 now for an XF40. One F12 CAC recently sold for $1440. I just couldn't swallow that price. The only example I had before Summer FUN was an inexpensive, toned but wiped VG off eBay that I doubt will straight grade. I consider it to be a filler. At Summer FUN I bought a raw F12 1839 No Drapery from Larry Briggs' "Wide World of Coins" for a low price. I like darkly toned coins, but this may be too dark, resulting in a possible grade of F-details, environmental damage. Should I grub around like I usually do to find a cheap, raw example that will straight grade? Or should I spend a few thousand for a nice CAC-stickered midgrade example?
I already have a VG8 1870 SLH at CACG for grading, but I went ahead and purchased this PCGS XF40 1870 off eBay today. Then I picked up this Fine 1876-CC SLH.
I finally took a cellphone photo of my newly stickered 1861-O. Looking at it in 5X, it needs to be reholdered because of scratches on the slab reverse.
Well, I'm returning the 1876-CC (cleaned) and the 1870 above (PVC), but I did pick up this 1850-O PCGS VF30 CAC with a very strong reverse. I grade it at 30+/45.
I don't show this coin often enough. It's my highest graded coin from Carson City. This one is also nice, if not perfect.
@Barberian . don't you just love 1876 with it's many, many different mintmarks? I think mine is a WB-38 but will have to look it up when i figure out where my wife put my coin journals when she clesned my office. James
1876? I'm unaware of these different mintmarks. I'll have to look them up. I hunt for 1877 die marriages like WB-6, 40, WB-25, WB-38, as well as transitional and Type 1 reverse 1877-Ps. Checking 1876-S in Bill Bugert's registry, I see that WB-12 (high micro-S) and the two Type 2 reverses (WB-42 and 43) are worth hunting for. I have a lot to learn about rare DMs and will add those DMs to my search list. I like the 1876-S above because of its dark toning with lighter high surfaces, the circulation cameo effect. It creates a moonlit effect that I really like. It also is notable for being very well struck. Many people don't like dark coins because they are often corroded, and one has to examine them carefully to be sure they are not corroded. I have seen several CAC-stickered coins that are actually corroded beyond what I'd care to own.
Here's another 1877-S I like a lot that gets overshadowed in my collection by my MS WB-6 and WB-40 "weird F" die marriages. It's close to WB-2 with a centered micro-S but I've never determined the DM for certain. PCGS VF30 - the Trueview has been edited to eliminate a yellow tint that was characteristic of PCGS Trueviews for several months.
By the way, these coins were returned for being polished (raw 76-CC) or for having PVC soft flip residues on the coin (PCGS XF40 1870). The seller was upset that PCGS would allow the 1870 to be encapsulated while covered with blue-green copper salts. I told him that even CAC and CACG make this mistake often. Graders don't look at the coins carefully with proper magnification like that provided by a good stereoscope. Just a quick check under a scope would reveal these issues. If CAC had used a scope, they would have rejected this 1853-O that I submitted tongue-in-cheek because it had damage and cupric salts all over the coin. I figured that it's crusty and original enough that CACG would grade it despite the etched surfaces and heavy PVC residues. Sure enough, they graded it and I had a good laugh over it.
