| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 1,596 |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
This is a coin that has seen the Grading forum before -- but I had it sent to PCGS. This is a good "discussion" coin because I have shown it to both CCF and to several dealers and also EAC members and gotten a range of responses from AU50 to MS63 and varying opinions on corrosion/porosity or environmental damage vs. poor quality planchets. The coin itself is an 1809 Half Cent, Cohen-6, in a late die state. It is well known that the planchets used for both Large Cents and Half Cents during this period were of notoriously poor quality. The challenge comes in distinguishing environmental damage from planchet flaws - in other words, were the issues present before the coin was struck, or did they occur after minting? I'll tell you what PCGS graded this coin in a couple of days, as well as whether or not it graded straight (which would imply a poor quality planchet) or details (which would imply environmental damage, corrosion, or porosity.)   Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Ms-62? Looks like more planchet issues rather than corrosion.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11911 Posts |
i'll say au58 because it doesn't seem to have mint state luster, but very detailed.
the 8 in the date shows the same corrosion patch in the adjacent field so the corrosion appears to be post mint, but probably not severe enough to details the coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
709 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
719 Posts |
The spaces in between the stars showing the 'porosity' but not in the main fields leads me away from post mint damage/corrosion
I'm going to join the AU58 crowd as well
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5684 Posts |
I can see why you got so many opinions. I'm going to go with MS-62 straight. I think the stuff around the date is planchet defect.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1346 Posts |
The blue-grey color of the coin is a noggin scratcher to me.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I'll say 62 as well, but I'm guessing EAC graders would come in lower as they so often do.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4471 Posts |
I am in the ED camp. Net grade AU55.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
18714 Posts |
I'm in the MS62 camp on this one. definitely late die state. the pitting around the date and at the rim are in my opinion planchet flaws. weak strike both sides
thanks for posting
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36883 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12057 Posts |
I'm still up in the air on this one, as I believe it to be a defective planchet, but at the same time, numismatic student pointed out something I had also noticed: the porosity or pitting is on top of the date numbers, and I'm not sure that isn't ED.
PCGS graded the coin AU Details - Environmental Damage.
After showing the coin to 8 or 9 EAC members, the consensus sharpness grade was 50 with a net grade between 30-45 (some people deduct more for corrosion than others!)
My own EAC grade is 50/40 with minor planchet flaws or porosity. Despite the issues, I think it has a high degree of eye appeal.
The color as seen in the PCGS photos is just a bit off: it is more brown in hand, with traces of mint red above the hair, around the date and around "ONE CENT" on the reverse.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,596 |
|
Posted 05/10/2018 10:27 pm
