http://www.ebay.com/itm/1855-O-w-AR...02?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item2ec34a426a Did this coin belong to a collector named Brillo? Sheesh, I've had coins with 1/10 the scratches ruthlessly bodybagged by them. :desk:
These two coins are the same. One was shot straight on, one was with axial lighting. As you can see the coin on the left looks terrible. The NGC price guide for this coin is $300. I'm sure the coin is nicer in hand, just a crappy angle.
A perfect illustration of what I was describing in post #2. That said, I got a good chuckle out of gbroke's response.
Originally Posted by pumpkinpie Uh...since when is the value a 94-D quarter in less than desirable condition $300? Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t219171/#ixzz2FYSOuFY1 Darn! And here I was going to offer you $250 for the quarter.
I disagree about the "brillo" part. If you look at the scratches, they appear in the fields, but the raised areas such as the top surface of the date and claws, etc do not have the same appearing lines. They show between the arrowhead and the "1" of the date, but not on either the arrowhead or the "1", I think they are on the die mainly ( but it is AU). If is very difficult to tell if the lines are raised or into the the surface on a slabbed coin, and almost impossible to tell with a photograph of a slabbed coin.
