GTG - 1858 Seated Half Dollar

This one is graded by NGC. Also, this is not my coin. It was posted on another forum, where a couple members vehemently disagreed with my opinion. One called me arrogant for trying to back up by opinion, though I admittedly got carried away and started "correcting" him.

So, what thinketh thou? Also, include what you think the grade SHOULD be if you don't agree with NGC's assessment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think it's an XF45. NGC probably called it AU55. PCGS would probably call it AU50.

 

Looks AU cleaned to me. Older NGC holder(??) probably says AU50.

 

AU50

 

AU 50 to me.

 

I'd say AU-53 possibly details. It looks like it could have been a metal detecting find from a very neutral PH ground. It looks like there is still some dirt remaining in the crevices of the shields. So it may get an AU Details environmental damage. But it certainly has been cleaned with a dip at the minimum.

 

Toughie with those pictures -but AU details to me. And if I was buying I would skip that coin because of the pictures.

 

Really wish for higher-resolution images on this one.

My eyes are immediately drawn to the flatness of the hand on the obverse. This is a pretty good piece of evidence that strike quality plays a role in the evaluation of "wear" for this face, as a better-struck coin doesn't lose the between-finger details until much later in the circulation process. So, if I'm thinking that strike plays a role, I have to consider what effect it would have on the appearance of the stars - should I blame some of the weakness I might see on strike?

The reverse is less equivocal; talons, lower feather detail and eagle's eyebrow and nose are pretty much there. So what looks like "wear" probably is. Except there ain't much of it. The (eagle's) right talons are wearing, and the eyebrow and nose have dulled. The other talons are still all there - you can tell that by the very small points of reflected light from them; they're still well-rounded.

Surfaces don't look original. That could be the imaging. The dark-to-light contrast of the fields compared to the devices - the fields almost look "darkened" in the same way a scan shows luster - hints to me that there's more remaining luster than I might think, and possibly the lighting was at too much of an angle to show it (that happens quickly with increased angle; why aren't the knees reflecting anything?).

Wish I could see the shields in more detail. Even so, I'm gonna reach and say I think it AU55-ish at worst pending better surface evaluation, and I'd have snapped it up at $150.

 

High AU details(55, maybe 58 on a good day), cleaned.

 

50

 

Some people just say a number... you're makin' us look bad

Just kidding. You make me want to change my guess sometimes though lol.

 

My guess is AU50 details.

 

cleaned AU detail

 

AU details overdipped/cleaned.

 

I said AU details cleaned. The members of the other forum insisted that it was not. Glad to see that I wasn't seeing something that wasn't there.

FWIW, here is the thread I was referring to: http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=275000

You can read my arguments and others' rebuttles. What do you think?

And the results:

 

I would say AU details - cleaned but it might have been net graded XF45

 

Boy I called that one. It's a market acceptable cleaning to me...

 

You and I are in agreement, especially after seeing the GC images. I don't think there a chance that those surfaces are original; indeed, I'm inclined to think the coin doctored somewhat after the cleaning to make the fields more "busy" as a way of hiding the work.

A couple of the people whose opinions I trust the most over there agreed with you.

 

Yeah the surfaces arent original but not the first seated liberty I have seen like this that has straight graded

 

Grading services honestly need to be tougher on Seated coins. Seriously, obviously cleaned coins being put in straight grade slabs is common.