| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 4,304 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1372 Posts |
Somebody suggested that perhaps this Half Dime was whizzed from the seller's crappy picture. I have the coin in hand and honestly can't tell....but I suspect that it may have been. The luster seems coarser than I am used to, but there are no directional lines that would be a dead giveaway. What do you think? It was cheap, so I won't be hurt if it is. The detail is just amazing....and the die clash adds interest too. Chancellor Sutler  |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
It has an 'artificial look' to it, so I would say there is a good chance.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
usually with whizzing there is some buildup around the devices. I can't tell if I see clashing or evidence of whizzing along with the clashing
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
I would look under a loupe around the stars/devices for discontinuity in the luster.
I've just noticed as much on a few silver coins here--and concluded they're whizzed.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1372 Posts |
Quite the contrary....the "smoking gun"...is the continuity of the treatment "over" that ding above the letter "I" in "DIME. I would have to say that this one's been artificially enhanced. My question would be....why? It didn't need any help. It'll reside in my 7070 for the time being.
Chancellor Sutler
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6381 Posts |
I can't tell about possible whizzing, but there does seem to be slight wear visible on Liberty's breast and right leg and on the leaf tips on the wreath. The brilliant luster seems incompatible with the apparent light wear. Something's afoot with this one, methinks.
The clash marks are really cool but they throw another variable into the mix. Disturbances in surface quality caused by cleaning could be hard to see due to the clash marks.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
the "smoking gun"...is the continuity of the treatment "over" that ding above the letter "I" in "DIME. That's an important point, as well as the insides of the A's, E's and R's - mechanical cleaning wouldn't get into there (the most likely locations for toning and grime which would cause the desire to clean) without doing some pretty obvious things to the surrounding features. I wonder if it's been dipped? Done right, with the intent of making a slider more likely to grade Mint State (and this one looks an ideal candidate), one can greatly improve the luster of a somewhat dull coin. I've had occasional success diagnosing dipped coins by looking in the reeding for where the coin was held with tongs - if it retains some slight toning at two points 180 degrees apart, that's a hint.  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
I was the one who said it looked whizzed from the old picture. The new pics make it look less likely to be whizzed, the reverse especially looks good. The obverse still looks funny to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it. The coin has definitely at least been overdipped, but I would call it problem free if the luster is natural....But that is still hard to tell from the pics. It still looks like a very nice coin! AU-58 at bare minimum likely MS. I thought you paid something like $40? If so, you absolutely scored!
Edited by johnny54321
12/29/2009 10:37 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1372 Posts |
I did indeed pay 40 dollars ppd for it...but I think your initial impression is right....and it's been messed with. I put the 58-O in my album, which has not been treated in this manner, but which is almost as nice, and stuck this one back up on ebay, with a disclaimer that I believe it's been altered in same way. If nobody wants it....I reckon I'll be OK with keeping it, but I have 62 Morgan dollars on the line. "It's always something" as Roseanne Rosannadanna (Gilda Radner) would say. Chancellor Sutler |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
I'd take it to a trusted dealer for an opinion. My question, and I just can't tell from these pictures is: is there a contrast between the devices and the fields with the luster? If it was whizzed, the luster would be uniform over the devices and fields. If natural luster there would be a lot of contrast between the two.
|
|
New Member
United States
11 Posts |
I would say you made a good deal if you paid $40 for it. How come I can't find bargains like that.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8904 Posts |
Me? I would very extremely proud to have this coin in my 7070. You did indeed score when you got this gorgeous coin for $40! It does, however, appear to have been dipped to clear out some old toning and tarnish but I don't see much evidence of whizzing (IMO). But (also IMO) the dipping was done as nicely as it can be done. Example: The reverse looks just a touch rough in the fields but the obverse looks pristine to me. I'd keep it in the 7070 if it were me! (PM me if you do indeed not want it anymore. I'll put it in mine!) Here's mine. See, I could upgrade!  
 |
|
New Member
United States
7 Posts |
Well, coming from someone who's expertise in the past 20+ years has been focused more in photography than numismatics I can tell you one difference is the Obverse is not in as sharp focus as the Reverse. That may be contributing to the "funny" feeling of the obverse.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1083 Posts |
That coin looks like a reproduction to me. The rim looks wrong and Liberty looks over weight. The date is way off. Have you weighed it?
Edited by okie-colin
01/17/2010 10:52 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
My vote is genuine. From what I understand, die clashes are difficult to reproduce on counterfeits. I've seen the "squished denticle" effect on rims of these types before certified many times, and the date looks more or less correct; though a bit out of focus. I could be wrong though.
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 4,304 |
|
Posted 12/28/2009 5:12 pm
