It's hard to tell. From what I can or can't see in the photo's, I'd guess mid AU. I just don't see the luster and it may be just the lighting. I do like the Bearded Indian though. Those clashes are pretty cool to me.
I'm saying AU55 based on pictures. Lack of luster and obverse looks to have some smoothness I can't tell if it's weak strike or from light even wear.
I bought this 64 awhile ago this year - It seems the big difference is the lack of mint luster even if it was a light strike or lightly circulated at one time!
I've looked and come back, looked again! It has great eye appeal for a 50 -53, just dosn't seem to have the lustre. Could be the lighting, though.
I did another shot. Normally with 3 difused Jansjos I shoot at around 0.5s, but the histogram said that was overexposed so I dropped down to 1/3s which some said was too dark, so here is it at 0.4s. I think this is a more accurate photo (except I need to fiddle with the positioning of the lights to avoid the washouts on the foreleg and back hip, and I guess I could change the exposure a drib to split the time difference, and ...) Other than whatever you want to say about Accugrade itself (take that to /dev/null, please), it has been in the holder since the mid 80s so I know it hasn't recently been messed with. But I really don't see a lot of luster there either... it's a terrible strike (look at Liberty - if you can find it). But that's also not unheard of in type 1s (there was a reason they made the type 2s after all). Personally, I think the tiny bit of dirt in the eye is from circulation so I'm in the low AU camp myself. @BATTERup646 - it wasn't me, the OP, that said anything, so play nice, BOTH of you!
