I don't see the 67 luster,,, see plenty of 67 detail, but no luster. I'd call it a 66 and generally add one, but will stick with 66 for this one.
Sharp wheat ears, but weakly-struck obverse. I gave it a 65, but it may be as low as a 64. The color is obscure (possibly by poor lighting for the photograph), but I don't believe it's artifical. Either way, it's a nice piece! -Brian
No one agrees because we all know that RLM coins will be of a good/great quality...I cant see him spending money on a certified coin that did not get properly (lack of a better word) graded or that he can turn around and make some cash. Dick I think this coin lacks luster for a 67 but it is of MS67 qualities. Gave it a 66.
I betrayed myself in that manner... I always think like that, but he throws up an option out of the ordinary and I ate it up... Oh well.
I guessed 67. Rationale was coin looked better when slabbed and has since mellowed a bit, but I think I can see strong luster underneath, and the devices, fields, and rims look pretty much mark-free. If I'm wrong, and the coin looked more like it does in the photo when graded, I can see a 66. I would be surprised at 65, astounded at 64, and may start to collect silver if it graded 63 or below.
Super strike and I find only 1 tiny nick. The luster is at least acceptable, but the color is not uniform. I am sure that is why NCG on called this a 65.
I don't know. I really think they are lost with them. Someone once posted one here that we could not figure if it was AU or unc, but it was graded XF. And not even 45, but 40. Then again I have several I believe are properly graded. Take your pick?
Hey I was right again. The scratches on the obverse and some of the spotting I found to be a little unappealing and that's why I guessed that. The reverse is really nice though.
