Now I've seen these coins many times in magazines or online or whatnot. I appreciate their history, their significance, and the prestige associated with owning one. But I've never gotten over the design and the often bad toning.

Toning is specific to each individual coin but I think I've seen a few 1792's that have this streaky toning that just doesn't compliment the design (and vice versa).

$1.3 million 1792 half disme

Actually, I don't hate the coin. It's significance is outstanding and the design could be worse. The grade of this baby is off the charts considering it's age and prestige. Wow.


I tried posting the pics but the link is dynamic and my "max. single upload size" is 5.76K even though I don't have anything uploaded. Admin, can you help?

Ugly coin ugly coin (design, not toning).

Notice how over time this coin actually upgraded from VF to AU during the years 1977 - 1998?

You're mistaking this piece for another coin in the census. The Starr piece has always been considered the best of the 92HDs. Excessively rare coin. I find the design quaint and an entire history book of the fledgling US Mint - poor equipment, no engraver (Henry Voigt, the then Chief Coiner, had to engrave all the dies), hand-engraved dies, etc. For one of the first coins at 200 years old, the streaky toning doesn't bother me. The only real criticism I have is the grade: SP67, I don't think so. Where's the historical documentation that this piece was deliberately struck as a proof or specimen? Is it Unc, yeah probably. Is it "worth" 1.3M? Not to me. At that price I'd rather have a French or American Impressionist, but hey it is a rare piece of art, coining and history.