1837 Bust Half

the devices are very bright and the advent of surface scratches and abrasions indicate a toned over time cleaning. I'm at EF details.

Oh, hello.

I've a weakness for these.

No accurate evaluation of surfaces can be made from these images, because circulation cameos are very difficult to keep from looking cleaned in imaging. Technical details are no worse than EF45 and given the completeness of the clasp and talons, I have this in the AU range.

45-50 details.

I agree with AU. Great looking coin.

First thought was AU50

I haven't visited this part of the forum for some time so I'll give it a shot. With some scratches an rim dings I would grade it at EF-40.

Wow I was more at VF 35 with the weakness of the reverse rim. Thanks for looking and your opinions.

Keep in mind what wears first. For each issue, this differs slightly although there's commonality across denominations of a given design. On Bust Halves, throughout their design changes, one's eye can reliably go straight to the obverse clasp to evaluate wear. It can be expected to show wear even before the hair does.

Likewise the talons on the reverse. They are, at one time, a feature which is usually struck strongly yet among the very first places to show wear. Note the typical Bust Half weakness at the top of the eagle's right (viewer's left) wing - it's already flattening like any Bustie of the era without a hammer strike - yet the talons show nice ring detail all the way out.

So, the two earliest spots on a Bust Half to show wear, show very little wear on this coin. Yet there's no denticles on the reverse, and it sure looks like wear rather than damage. But that's the only place on the entire coin where anything one might call "significant wear" is apparent. Anomalous.

To me, the technical detail of those two vital places - the clasp and talons - are proof positive that this coin enjoyed very darn little circulation. No other explanation is possible. So the researcher has to think a little further afield as regards the reverse, to try and draw the distinction between postmint damage (Details grade) and a strike artifact (Die damage? Collar? Grease?) leaving it a righteous (and far more interesting) coin.

This one goes deeper than it looks.