1837 50c - Fake? Or Genuine?

This was only a two year design different from the earlier cap bust halves. looks OK to me.

That one is glorious. But read the description carefully, because the seller is an honest man and a sharp numismatist from the sound of it.

Yes they are both authentic coins (to my eye). The 1834 has had a light cleaning according to the detailed description. It still as a stunning piece that I am sure many on this forum would love to have!

At the time the these were made, the legends and stars were manually punched into the dies leading to variations in placement. Al Overton wrote THE book on early half dollar varieties that is still in use today.

I believe the first one you posted is being sold by a CCF member.

"Yes, it was, and in my opinion he just took a beating on it. I'm sorry to see it."

But you have to admit; his pix were terrible! How can you get good $ for a coin if buyers can't see it well enough to make an educated decision concerning max bid?

I'm going to start a thread concerning photography... it's critical to selling online and is (unless I'm missing something!) rarely addressed.

Yes the 1837 was sold by me. I don't have a fancy camera to take super detailed photos. I am selling coins from a local friend of mine who is a dealer and is getting older in age and doesn't have the customer base to sell his stuff anymore. He gets practically all the money I get like 10% of the sales. I only have my droid moto x camera at my disposal. I try to wait to take photos with good natural light. These coins aren't mine....with the exception of some early Morgan's the rest are his. He has bought everything from damages to cleaned and I am helping him sell excess supply. If you saw how much he has in his basement you'd want to help organize and sell excess stuff from 50+'years. I put up more Indian cents and some other stuff in ebay. I do honestly try to do my best with photographs but I can only do so much. I also put up a 1836 cleaned half too.

First, those pics were more than sufficient to form an educated opinion regarding grade and condition. I don't care for the background, but more than enough photographic information was there. They're pretty good pics. This is a place where you obviously can expand your skills.

Second, we have a dedicated Photography Forum, and I have been preaching the photography angle in this space for a decade. In fact, if you cyberstalk my posting record, you will see me having mentioned it thousands of times in the context of evaluating a coin posted for grading.

Chances are he got the price he did because too few who know the series were bidding. The Mint was implementing new technologies - reeding and the steam press - in that era and strike quality could vary widely. People were likely scared away by the lack of denticulation on the reverse. And those people obviously didn't look at it in the context of the relatively-little wear on the rest of the coin, nor did they consider that coins wear on both faces at once. The minute I look at that reverse compared to the obverse, it becomes plain that the reverse is a problematic strike. The obverse is XF-ish. How could the reverse have worn more?

Frankly, the coin's ceiling is maybe $125 or so, so the beating wasn't that severe.