1826 Capped Bust Half PCGS: She's 196 Years Old And Still Lookin' Good

I was on the fence with AU53/55. Looking at it again I'm now on the AU50/53 fence fields certainly look to have more luster and less disturbances than I'd expect for AU50.

AU53 O-110 final answer.

AU58 nice

Obverse looks AU . Reverse has some wear on the wing making me say XF-45. I think a net grade of AU-50 is warranted with very nice eye appeal.

PCGS had this way off. I will stick with my AU-55 cleaned, and would accept net AU-53 straight. There is hardly any wear on this coin, just on the tips of the high points.

I understand why people so often assume rim-toned coins have been "cleaned". There are zillions of 19th century silver coins out there that have indeed been both cleaned and artificially toned.

I've had this coin under my scope and there is absolutely zero evidence that surfaces have ever been tampered with. No wide directional abrasions or chemical haloing. There are plenty of pocket rubs, which are very easy to distinguish from cleanings.

Natural rim toning happens when a coin sits in an acid-paper roll over many decades. This is an excellent example, and I daresay it commands a serious premium because of it.

While it's arguably AU-50, especially because of that nice remaining luster, the wear patterns match XF-45 to a T. Those aren't strike issues -- the relief of the coin is well above average. Just look at E Pluribus.

I really need to get a scope that takes pictures ... it would make it much easier to explain.

Coins that have been cleaned have a highly directional pattern of microabrasions. These are often shadowed a little bit from the use of detergents or other chemicals that react with silver. (Even acetone, which doesn't react, can result in a "cleaned" detailing if used with a cloth to remove tarnish/toning. It all depends on how the process affects the surfaces.)

With pocket rubs, the microabrasions are visible but omni-directional, scattered in all directions -- and there is no shadowing. Their effect on luster is more subtle, too. This coin has lots of them.

I'm pretty sure I disagree on your assessment of the strike, but I will take another close look at the coin, especially the cheek.

You're of course correct that the band isn't the only thing to consider, but on mid-20s CBHs, it was always the first spot I was instructed to look at when assessing the strike, whereas the locations you mention are precisely the high points one checks for wear.

Intuitively it is easy to assume that the detail apparent on highest points on the coin reflect can reflect either wear or strike, but it isn't always so. Strike issues relate both to the force of the strike and to die wear & failure. Shallower portions of the die can wear before deeper portions, and detritus can accumulate anywhere on the die.

Undergraded for sure but even at the assigned grade, the coin has outstanding eye appeal. One I would pounce on in a heartbeat.

After a closer look, I think I was high the first time and this should be in an AU-53 holder. It does not have a great strike, but it is much better than XF-45.