i went ms-65 but what do i know, perhaps you can't recieve a gem grade with so much carbon marks (is that what they are?)
I feel like I've seen it before too, but like you I don't remember the grade. Seems like I only remember missing it by several points, lol.
Strike - very solid. Full hair, no planchet marks on the shoulder, full wheats and wheat lines. Even the O is full. Marks/nicks - absent. I am sure I could get out a microscope and find some for you, but that is not how you grade a coin. And those are not carbon spots. Luster - good, but not the best. Eye appeal - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? I am not sure how they evaluated it here, but the low graded coins I have seen have a major problem or more. Yes, the color is not uniform, but nothing there is really due to a problem (I mean real problems). In summary, with good color, this is easily a 65 (or 66?). NGC balanced all to a 64. I would have to agree even adding a nice 64. BTW, Thad, you may have seen similar coins, but I don't think this specific coin before. I bought 12 of these all with the deep orange color and blue splotches. More than one have been posted here more than once.
Well really learned something today , they don't take too much off for ugly (too me ) toning , which I thought were carbon spots . Dick now a question , if those were carbon spots instead of blotchy toning how much would they take off , and what grade would you give it ?
Thanks , I should have figured that , this coin really fooled me it's got a great strike nice luster where it shows no hits like you said , it's just that those marks look like carbon spots especially on the reverse . Still the marks did lower the grade but not as much as I thought .
To give everyone a little perspective, this one now belongs to EyeEatWheaties (his pictures). There are several nicks on it, but none major. Notice the luster is broken on the reverse. And it still got a 64.
