Ok, I purchased this coin on ebay, and it just arrived today. Take a look at the fields - I'm not sure if it's fake or just heavily porous. Obviously, the photos in the auction were smaller, and I was unable to see the coin up close and personal. A drawback about ebay. I'm siding with real - because the size and weight are appropriate. The weight is 13.3 (my scale only goes to 1/10 g.). I think that's well within acceptable range for the wear. Any thoughts?
I would say that it is genuine! All of the details, especially Miss Liberty's hairlines appear to have good sharp edges and they don't look mushy. Also, all of the Lettering, details on Miss Liberty and the Eagle are as they should be. Frank
Porous looks suspicious, but I agree, looks real. Pics show genuine wear in the right places. I don`t get the porous (copper coins) thing on older silver coins either.
Would a harsh make it look somewhat like that??? maybe rubbed with a paper towle... As for the coin...I think its real but am not sure....as our BH "nut" on WINS...he should know... Speedy
bzcollektor, Many dug coins come out looking like that and I would bet that this one was a Metal Detector fnd! U.S. Silver coins found in the ground or sand along beaches even come out looking worse. Frank
I thought about that, too. I don't think the surface is the result of cleaning, I would say it's probably either improper storage - moisture and such - or a ground recovery. If it was a metal detector find, I would not have sold it, myself. Incredible condition if found in the ground. The clasp is clear and pronounced, sharpness around the eye, and an overall good bust. For detectors, it's gotta be a rare find to be proud of.
If not for your close-up pic I'd have my doubts about the pitting. But that looks like corrosion - not casting. But - take a close look at the shield. None of the coins from this date have those straight lines in the shield. Usually they are twisted. I'd have somebody look at this one Rick
I will try to attribute it tomorrow. That way if it has an Overton number it is very likely genuine, but if none matches then it is very likely illegitimate. I'm just too tired right now to do something that taxing on my eyes.
Maybe---maybe not...I have a buddy that thinks he has found a NEW Overton BH...so I guess it doesn't have to have a Overton # to be real Speedy
hmmm, I've edited my post to say "very likely illegitimate". That statement leaves the door open for an unknown marriage or a very good copy. My statement is now accurate, as attribution (or the failure of my attribution attempt) will VERY LIKELY (although not definately) give an answer to the authenticity of the coin. Now, as for your buddy, I don't know him so I have no idea whether he has the credentials to authoritatively state that a new BH die marriage has been found, so I won't comment on that, but what I will say is that since the second edition of Overton (1970) there have been very few new marriage discoveries (3 total, IIRC), so while the coin in this post MAY be a new marriage, it is VERY unlikely. Speedy, I'm suprised at you. You usually do a good job of trying to keep people from having unecessary/misguided hope that their coin is unreasonably valuable, but now all of a sudden you proclaim that even if someone researches this coin a little, that research is pointless since the coin may be some new variety. That's the same as telling someone that their 1975 aluminum cent might be a real new variety even when all known pieces are dated 1974. While it MAY be true it is so unlikely that it is misleading to say that.
ok, it looks to me like it is an 1835 O-110. The shape of the 5 in the date with visible recutting on the left of the upright portion of the 5, plus the big recut "blob" on the top of star 7 (counted from lower left going clockwise) make this coin an O-110. The good news is that means the coin is almost guaranteed to be authentic. The bad news is that O-110 is a rather common die marriage and it carries no premium based on its attribution.
Well, the person he is referring to has over 200 Busted Halves, been collecting for 40 years, and has it being looked at by the BHNC. I think his attempt is putting together a complete Overton half collection - but I'm not sure. In this particular case, there is a very good chance it is an unlisted variety, simply because of ALL the surrounding circumstances. That says little about this particular coin in my possession, since I am a novice at this type - but I am working on it. I just can't make up my mind on this one. weight and diameter check out - devices seem right, but Doug made a good point on the shield. I think I will try and get a zoom on the shield, and post that later this evening.
thanks cave troll! I was actually looking for a common variety, and figured that's what this one was... so I'm not at all disappointed in that. I would like to know a little about the book in your hands. I have Overton's book from 1967 - second edition, and I am finding it terribly hard to use. are you using the 1990 edition, and do you find it easy to attribute varieties with?
No, I don't use Overton anymore (except for the draped bust halves) as I find it rather cumbersome and unintuitive. I'm using "The Ultimate Guide to Attributing Bust Half Dollars" by Glenn R. Peterson, M.D. The first edition is from 2000 and the second edition (the spiral bound version that I'm using) is from 2004. I had a heck of a hard time locating a copy, but I was able to get it right around its list price of $75. I don't remember offhand who I got it from, but I could try to find that info if you want me to. I've found Peterson to be very user friendly once I figured out what he was doing. Plus he has great close-up pictures throughout the book of the specific identifiers for each marriage. Bottom line, I highly recommend Peterson! I think that if I went back to Overton though, that I would use the third edition (1990) since it has much better (and many more) photographs than the earlier versions did. As for Speedy's buddy, I didn't know who he was talking about, so I didn't say anything diminutive about him. There are a bunch of BH collectors with WAY more knowledge than I have on the subject (this gentleman included). It was just an irrelevant point that Speedy was trying to make and I was attempting to point that out.
That's more great news. I saw a copy of Peterson's book at Brent Kreuger's website. I called them, because I didn't know anything about the book - and I wanted to know if it was more of a suppliment book to Overton, or a stand alone resource. The person I talked to said he was not familiar with that book, so he couldn't help me. From what you said, I think I'm going to purchase a copy. I have had ZIP luck trying to locate a 1990 copy of Overton's resource - except one copy on Ebay which seemed a little more expensive than reasonable, particularly with the person's shipping fees factored in. When I get the book, I hope you don't mind me picking your brain on it, a bit. With the 1967 copy of Overton that I am currently using, I can't even figure out how people are coming up with the numbers... maybe that was developed later, or else I'm just to thick to get it - my copy has 'obverse 1' 'reverse 3', etc.
Ture...I was running out of time today at school and didn't read the best... As Rick said...my buddy is a member of the BH Nunt club and I would say that he has the right to guess that he has found a new one... I wasn't really saying that the research was pointless...all I was saying is that if you can't find a variety that doesn't mean its not real...sure the research it a great thing and if I had the Overton book I would be looking in it to find out anything I could for Rick...but I also wanted him to know that just because it doesn't have a Overton number...its fake...it still could be the real deal. I still try to keep people from thinking the wrong thing before it is proven but as I said...I was in a rush at school and wasn't thinking too good...and I'm sorry for that. He's a great guy and you would like him alot!!...aways thinking about collectors and always trying to help!...I think he is a member of the forum but doesn't get on much... Speedy
I don't mind at all. My understanding of the Overton 1967 is that he listed the obverse and reverse dies seperately and even listed different die states as different varieties. By the 1970 edition the O-1xx model was developed and at least from then on it is still the standard resource, even though I prefer Peterson. Peterson is just under 300 pages of close-up pictures and pictograms that are VERY useful in attribution. I expect that you will be very plesed with it, and by all means ask away if you have any questions about it.
