1794 half cent (not mine)

Yes I know there is a lot of leeway for 18th century coppers but Fine?

http://cgi.ebay.com/1794-Half-Cent-F...c mdZViewItem

That coin has Fine-15 detail, but the corosion would limit the final
price to perhaps that at VG--8 level. Overall, not a bad coin, but the
two or three leading grading services won't slab it due to the
corrosion, probably bodybagging it with the notion "environmental
damage." Possibly a metal detector find.

Ira

"Ira" wrote in message
ups.com...
That coin has Fine-15 detail, but the corosion would limit the final
price to perhaps that at VG--8 level. Overall, not a bad coin, but the
two or three leading grading services won't slab it due to the
corrosion, probably bodybagging it with the notion "environmental
damage." Possibly a metal detector find.

Ira

I don't think I'd even go F-12 detail especially on the reverse, Ira.
There's too much legend missing because of the off-center strike. That
said, it's a worthwhile coin, and the final selling price is less than you'd
have to pay a dealer at a show who refused to deduct for the poor surfaces.

Mr. Jaggers

The weakness on the reverse is not a result of wear, Mr.J, but of
uneven strike. Most of the reverse shows excellent detail in the wreath
and in the denomination. I've seen a 1793 Half Cent (I sold it) with
the words Half Cent completely absent on the reverse that PCGS had
graded VF-30. That was a chracteristic of the die variety, and the
aforementioned coin was in the late die state. Otherwise, coin had
decent detail on obverse and what remained of the reverse. Mind you,
IU'm not talking about EAC grading here, just mrket grading. Of course,
that coin had smooth surfaces, this does not. But, from a standpoiny
of wear, I'd stick with F-15.

Ira

"Ira" wrote in message
oups.com...
The weakness on the reverse is not a result of wear, Mr.J, but of
uneven strike. Most of the reverse shows excellent detail in the wreath
and in the denomination. I've seen a 1793 Half Cent (I sold it) with
the words Half Cent completely absent on the reverse that PCGS had
graded VF-30. That was a chracteristic of the die variety, and the
aforementioned coin was in the late die state. Otherwise, coin had
decent detail on obverse and what remained of the reverse. Mind you,
IU'm not talking about EAC grading here, just mrket grading. Of course,
that coin had smooth surfaces, this does not. But, from a standpoiny
of wear, I'd stick with F-15.

Ira


Uneven strike? If you mean "vertically maligned strike", it is possible,
however this is not a characteristic of this die variety - and that point is
key. More likely this lack of striking detail is due to a tapered planchet,
which occured in the rolling process. The only way to confirm the cause is
to measure thickness at the area of opposing weakness. If it is thinner
than rest you have a tapered planchet; if it does not differ from the rest,
you have a maligned strike.

I believe "detail" should not be penalized (or at the very least, given
allowance) for minting or pre-strike errors. In the case of either
vertically maligned strikes or tapered planchets, I only grade the areas
where metal flowed as designed. I do not see any "sharp" devices on the
reverse or obverse, though I would call everything "bold" - VG-10. With the
poor surface condition (which is not too bad), I would give it an overall
G-6 net.

BTW - the heavy bulge below the cap extend to left of the date IS
characteristic of the later die states of the C-4a, and contributes nothing
to the weakness or grading.

Buck

PS - I see the seller has re-listed at $460 - very close to the Noyes Penny
Prices value given this variety in G-5.