GTG: 1876 Liberty Seated Half Dollar

Nah, no sand paper, but maybe steel wool

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Mono directional light scratches= light contact. If it were buffed or they were the result of polishing, they’d be swirls or gouges.

 

Looks like that happened after the old toning...Perhaps there was a bad carbon spot.

 

Hard to say. Definitely contact, although light. Question is, how did PCGS treat it? The reveal will be interesting. Holding out for a few more opinions, as this coin is intriguing.

 

Are they cut into the surface or raised? It doesn't matter to me what one calls them, but if they're raised, they're die-related, and I'm inclined to forgive the coin struck from that die as it hadn't a chance to be in better condition. A distraction it would still remain, but more a production defect than tampering. I'm more accepting when the Mint is the party that compromised the design, just as in the situation of caked-on grease flattening-down lettering, as those, again, are production defects, they're how the coin started out. I'll duly note it on the 2X2. I'll even offer less for it. But I'll let it go to grade, and there's the difference.

 

They are slightly raised. You think it might be a die variety? I have been wondering. Here is as close as I can get:

 

I don't know I'd call die polish lines a "variety." Then again, these days, just about everything is a variety, or an error, or a "VAM," so go figure...

 

They just look too heavy to be die polishing lines. You have the coin in hand so you can see it better than we can, but they just don't look raised to me.

And die polishing lines do not a variety make. They may be a diagnostic for a particular die or die state but they don't make a variety. And certainly not an error.

Now that line that connects Stars 10, 11, 12 and 13 looks like a die crack to me. Again, not a die variety but rather a die state.

 

Reveal?.

 

Is it a clash which was corrected by the mint?

 

Ok, the reveal. When I bought it, I was pretty sure it was a MS details coin. Then, I looked carefully at the area to the right of Liberty on the obverse. Under a loupe, they appear to be slightly raised. So, this one is a confusing coin. Obviously, it was dipped. Is the area on the right field area of the obverse contact marks, or a die artifact. Answer: I don’t know. Now, for the grade. Where did PCGS ever get this idea for a grade? It seems to come out of left field. Either the area in question is a die artifact (struck through die polish?) or it is contact, and that would make it MS details. I see no circulation wear, so how does PCGS get this grade? At any rate, I am enjoying it as an attractive coin. The photos are very accurate as to how it looks.

 

As it's graded "Circulated" the distinction isn't grade-relevant. It would be grade-relevant were it graded "Uncirculated." Because it's not wear, it's not grade-limiting, whatever its nature on this coin. I'm talking technical or condition grade. Sometimes these market graders get a little mixed up and grade down for abrasions like these on circulated coins for the market, I've seen what I believe are clear examples of it.

 

AU 55 is odd. The only thing I can think of is "net grading"....they felt there were issues but not enough to detail it. So a low UNC was netted down to AU 55.

 

That is the only thing I can think. It was net graded because of the issues, but not enough to detail it. I agree with you. Since I paid EF money for it, I am happy, anyway. It was just a curiosity. Just is odd, as it is sure closer to a low MS coin than an AU one.

 

It sounds like you did perfectly fine. I've picked up plenty of curiosities over the years too.

 

Yes, it was a late night auction, with not that much activity, so the issues the coin had were quite livable for me.

 

I think it was graded down. If it's Circulated, it looks better than 55. They play games with this grading for the market, sometimes, and sometimes just plumb don't know what they're doing, I think.

 

ha! got it right on the nose, lol