1793 half cent (0/1)

Here's the full pictures of the 1793 half cent that I have listed on

"Bruce Greenblatt" <apn59574@forteinc.com> wrote in message 
news:n4qju3pipudu21v37390hh47qjmu0of7u0@4ax.com...
> Here's the full pictures of the 1793 half cent that I have listed on
> eBay.

Even if your coin was struck from rusted die(s) as you speculate, this 
particular example is additionally corroded, as the slab states.  Perhaps 
you know that when die steel rusts, it develops pits which then produce 
raised lumps on the finished coin, but which otherwise allow for smooth 
areas in between those lumps, as well as intact coloring of the planchet. 
Environmental damage outside the mint causes damage which is seen as both 
raised and lowered areas and disrupted color more or less wholesale on the 
coin surfaces.  It is my opinion that NCS properly described the coin as 
"corroded."  You may also be familiar with the EAC term
"scudzy" which is 
used to describe the condition of the planchet, not the sharpness, and that 
designation would apply to such a corroded coin.  I agree also with your 
assessment that NCS may have been too harsh on their assigned
"details" 
grade, especially on the reverse, but such an undergrade counts for very 
little on a coin classified as scudzy.

James 

<someone@some.domain> wrote in message 
news:tAuGj.639483$Ib6.329349@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> In article <fsdcpm02i4p@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Mr. Jaggers"

> <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>>
>>"Bruce Greenblatt" <apn59574@forteinc.com> wrote in
message
>>news:n4qju3pipudu21v37390hh47qjmu0of7u0@4ax.com...
>>> Here's the full pictures of the 1793 half cent that I have listed
on
>>> eBay.
>>
>>Even if your coin was struck from rusted die(s) as you speculate, this
>>particular example is additionally corroded, as the slab states. 
Perhaps
>>you know that when die steel rusts, it develops pits which then produce
>>raised lumps on the finished coin, but which otherwise allow for smooth
>>areas in between those lumps, as well as intact coloring of the
planchet.
>>Environmental damage outside the mint causes damage which is seen as
both
>>raised and lowered areas and disrupted color more or less wholesale on
the
>>coin surfaces.  It is my opinion that NCS properly described the coin
as
>>"corroded."  You may also be familiar with the EAC term
"scudzy" which is
>>used to describe the condition of the planchet, not the sharpness, and 
>>that
>>designation would apply to such a corroded coin.  I agree also with
your
>>assessment that NCS may have been too harsh on their assigned
"details"
>>grade, especially on the reverse, but such an undergrade counts for
very
>>little on a coin classified as scudzy.
>>
>>James
>>
>>
> still a coin i wouldn't kick out of my pile.

No, but the real question is, would you add it to your pile for 4k?

James 

In article <fsdcpm02i4p@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Mr. Jaggers"
<lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>
>"Bruce Greenblatt" <apn59574@forteinc.com> wrote in message

>news:n4qju3pipudu21v37390hh47qjmu0of7u0@4ax.com...
>> Here's the full pictures of the 1793 half cent that I have listed on
>> eBay.
>
>Even if your coin was struck from rusted die(s) as you speculate, this 
>particular example is additionally corroded, as the slab states.  Perhaps 
>you know that when die steel rusts, it develops pits which then produce 
>raised lumps on the finished coin, but which otherwise allow for smooth 
>areas in between those lumps, as well as intact coloring of the planchet. 
>Environmental damage outside the mint causes damage which is seen as both 
>raised and lowered areas and disrupted color more or less wholesale on the 
>coin surfaces.  It is my opinion that NCS properly described the coin as 
>"corroded."  You may also be familiar with the EAC term
"scudzy" which is 
>used to describe the condition of the planchet, not the sharpness, and that

>designation would apply to such a corroded coin.  I agree also with your 
>assessment that NCS may have been too harsh on their assigned
"details" 
>grade, especially on the reverse, but such an undergrade counts for very 
>little on a coin classified as scudzy.
>
>James 
>
>

<someone@some.domain> wrote in message 
news:7uyGj.209504$Gl5.121650@fe02.news.easynews.com...
> In article <fsdtlk0a62@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Mr. Jaggers" 
> <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>>
>><someone@some.domain> wrote in message
>>news:tAuGj.639483$Ib6.329349@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>>> In article <fsdcpm02i4p@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Mr.
Jaggers"
>>> <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Bruce Greenblatt" <apn59574@forteinc.com> wrote
in message
>>>>news:n4qju3pipudu21v37390hh47qjmu0of7u0@4ax.com...
>>>>> Here's the full pictures of the 1793 half cent that I have
listed on
>>>>> eBay.
>>>>
>>>>Even if your coin was struck from rusted die(s) as you
speculate, this
>>>>particular example is additionally corroded, as the slab states.

>>>>Perhaps
>>>>you know that when die steel rusts, it develops pits which then
produce
>>>>raised lumps on the finished coin, but which otherwise allow for
smooth
>>>>areas in between those lumps, as well as intact coloring of the

>>>>planchet.
>>>>Environmental damage outside the mint causes damage which is
seen as 
>>>>both
>>>>raised and lowered areas and disrupted color more or less
wholesale on 
>>>>the
>>>>coin surfaces.  It is my opinion that NCS properly described the
coin as
>>>>"corroded."  You may also be familiar with the EAC
term "scudzy" which 
>>>>is
>>>>used to describe the condition of the planchet, not the
sharpness, and
>>>>that
>>>>designation would apply to such a corroded coin.  I agree also
with your
>>>>assessment that NCS may have been too harsh on their assigned
"details"
>>>>grade, especially on the reverse, but such an undergrade counts
for very
>>>>little on a coin classified as scudzy.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>
>>> still a coin i wouldn't kick out of my pile.
>>
>>No, but the real question is, would you add it to your pile for 4k?
>>
>>James
>>
>>
> no, i would wait until i had more k and do better. unless it was a all or
> nothing choice.

That's exactly how I feel about the missing 1922 no D Lincoln in my XF-AU 
set.  I can't rationalize spending $5-7,000 for a nice one, and I refuse to 
pay $2,000 for a mid-grade example where the obverse looks like a G4 at 
best.  The AU weak obverse is embarassing enough.  So I'll just have to let 
my heirs handle that dilema.

Bruce