GTG: 1858 Liberty Seated Half

I know well that it was dipped. All white coins of that era were. What else is new?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

But that's the entire point of "market grading" as practiced by the TPGs - they are placing a "value" on the coin, not a technical grade. Based on my interpretation of the images, it might have the wear of an AU-53 (maybe 55, with different pics), but based on the quality of the surfaces, it has the value of an AU-50.

Like it or not, this is how the big TPGs work.

 

That is not an option. A "crossover" can only have a minimum grade equal to the current grade (If its in a PCGS 50, your minimum can be no higher than 50 - basically, you don't want them to downgrade it. You can set a lower minimum, such as 45). You cannot set a higher minimum than its current grade.

 

You and I have had our disagreements in the past. While I may sometimes seem to come across as negative, I prefer to think of it as "realistic." Many people post coins hoping for a bunch of optimistic praise... whereas when a coin like the present LSH is posted I have to recognize the problems. I'm trying to present an alternative opinion that might help explain why the coin got the grade it did (that may sound negative, but there are real issues with this coin that could help justify the grade, despite what some might be saying).

For some posters, there may be issues they just aren't aware of. For some posters, they may be hoping for a higher grade (and as the saying always goes... "Ownership adds 3 points.")

I don't mean to offend, although my style may come across as grating.

 

Really, unless we're blind, they need to go back and re-read their Red Book...

Take ANY series of the coins in the Red Book. What do you see, right at the top, right before any of the lines on the dates, grades, and values? You see a cursory grading guide specific to that particular series of coin. I defy ANY of you to show me just ONE line in ANY of those cursory guides relating to the CIRCULATED grades wherein it even suggests things like strike, marks, rub, luster, or so on, imagine what you will, figure into those CIRCULATED grades--you'll not find a single ONE. Instead, every single line, without exception, is going to look to ONE criteria for differentiating those circulated grades, and that criteria is WEAR. That's it. There's nothing else. It's as uncomplicated as that...

Ergo, if they knew what they were doing, they see AU50 wear on this coin; likewise, if they don't have the first clue how to grade CIRCULATED coins, they indeed graded it down for things like strike, marks, rub, luster, or so on, imagine what you will. And that's that, and that's all there is to it.

 

This is picture of a 1845 Seated Dollar obverse is graded as AU55. This is in my collection and I believe this coin was dipped a long time ago. The picture of the 1849 seated half I attached is also from my collection. It is a AU55 with it's original skin. They are nice examples but, the 1845 is not in it's original skin.

 

Oh, eddie, if only things were so simple as the RedBook. Wouldn't that be nice? It's kinda like I wish every family were the Brady Bunch. Maybe even simpler? How about Leave it to Beaver and the Andy Griffith show.

Reality is... that's just not how the world works.

 

If you want to take a look at your reveal Photo. It shows a halo around and in the protected areas. That is the real luster on the coin.
Not the superficial extra clean surfaces. This is something that needs to get argued out. When does over dipped become a liability of a lesser grade?

 

It's how grading circulated coins works. There's a very good reason for it, too, even experienced collectors are apt to lose sight of when from time to time they get caught up in all the hype of market grading, eye appeal, AT and NT, and Heaven knows what else. It's that "grading," whether the hobby involves coins, notes, stamps, cards, buttons or bottle caps, is about one thing every collector wants to know, the technical condition or state of preservation of the specimen, as it exits, as compared to the time it was manufactured. It's the grade that tells us that, being graduated on a scale of wear, from the moment the specimen came into existence, on down. That's why wear is the only criteria that has any meaning in circulated grades. It's why ANA and the Red Book, since its inception, set out the criteria to assess wear in circulated coins, and nothing more.

The rest as regards circulated coins has to do with other things. Rub, dip, tarnish or other environment damage, scratches or other post-mint damage, those could very well take the circulated coin out of the market, were they severe enough. But they've nothing at all to do with the circulated grade, and any grader who thinks they do doesn't know what they're doing when grading circulated coins. Or, for that matter, grading circulated notes, stamps, cards, buttons or bottle caps, ad nauseam.

 

Baloney

 

hey Morgandude11 its a great looking coin dipped or not, i dont care. again im guessing without looking for your reveal. im going with AU55. i hope its higher buddy. good luck man

 

My photos often make a coin look worse than it is. So grading from photos is just a guess based on each individuals interpretation.
Honestly the obverse fields look a little scuffy from what I see - like this coin rode around in a pretty rough pair of khakis. Just how it looks to me.
Now in hand I might think different.

Now we know morgandude likes nice coins, I think a lot of us gave the coin the benefit of the doubt based on that. But I don't see the coin as seriously undergraded.

Resubmit it, if it comes back a higher grade, I'll be happy for you.

 

Eddie is spot on. The grading of circulated coins needs to return, like the rest of this country, to its fundamental roots. Grading needs to reflect wear with other serious negative factors being considered as well such as environmental damage, graffiti, holes, bent, whizzed, scuffed, polished, cleaning, and other irregular and unnatural characteristics that would detract from the value of a coin assigned a particular grade. Personally, perceived "luster" is meaningless when assigned to a circulated coin.
Based on the wear as seen in the photos, that 1858 SLH is an AU-55+. If the stars on the right side of the obverse were stronger, I'd bump it up to AU-58.

 

Two very nice looking ladies!!!

 

Lipstick on a pig. Is that how you grade CIRCULATED coins?

 

Very few Seated Halves are in their original skin. It was the trend to dip virtually all of them by collectors, 50-60 years ago. Expect 90% of these coins to be dipped, to a greater or lesser degree. If a TPG thinks the coin was excessively dipped, then they detail it—simple as that. Even a lot of the Chocolate Brown coins had been dipped at one time—retoning within the aforementioned 50 year period happens often. Heck, I have moderns that have toned in a 2-3 year period, in the humid Florida air. The only way to prevent toning is an airlock environment. Barring that, assume every single totally white silver coin has been dipped. This is certainly the case with Morgan Dollsrs. The storage of Seated Halves, and quarters was not substantially different than Morgans.

 

Speaking of^^^^

 

I took the obverse and mirrored it and rotated it 180 degrees and then overlaid it on the reverse. By shifting the center of the obverse down and to the left, I was able to line up the shield lines in the obverse over the lines at the berry on the reverse while simultaneously lining up the feather tips of the right wing onto the clash marks in the reverse shield. Unfortunately, I cannot manage to make a jpeg file of this overlay to show you what I see due to my incompetence with the software. So, my conclusion is that the marks in the reverse shield and the parallel lines in the field left of the leg and behind the berry are clash marks from the obverse. For this to happen, the dies had to become misaligned. Maybe the collar failed or they clashed the dies without a collar during some tests. And then they polished/lapped out all the rest of the clash marks?

I also could not find an example with the lines left of the eagle's leg.

 

A die or the dies somehow loosened, rotated in relationship to one another, then struck together, without a planchet in the chamber, leaving the clashes. The Mint, unaware of the clashes, then re-oriented the dies, began feeding planchets, and striking coins. That would mean there are others, and I'm just thinking, we've just not noticed them. I say that, knowing of the clashes in my collection. I've not seen others like them, either. Here's an example, my 1972-D Jefferson Nickel, with the steps running through Jefferson's neck. I've not seen another, although I know there must be others...

 

Curious, there's a lot of talk about old silver very likely being dipped. I'm puzzled by the amount of luster on the reverse, as compared to the obverse. Would a dipped coin display a difference like this? Or am I missing something or seeing something that isn't there? Is there a method of dipping only one side, and if so, how? What comes to mind is a thin layer with the coin laying in it so that only one side is wet.