http://www.ebay.com/itm/1859-1C-Ind...900892?hash=item4d5162a45c:g:4H0AAOSwaB5Xv03P Is it just my eyes being a novice when it comes to indian head cents? This coin looks disgusting from the pictures. Yet it's AU 53 and CAC'ed. What am I missing?
I think it's a case of bad seller pics. NGC's pics look far better, and they're not really known for their quality imaging.
I was kind of thinking it had to be the sellers pictures. Then my next thought was how could a seller take such a bad picture.
Looks like toning was not a big factor. And it looks like the poor images don't help potential buyers any.
Crap pictures. Probably flatbed scanner, since the crappiness of the unbeaned coin picture was faithfully reproduced in the picture of the beaned coin.
It's listed in CAC's database, so the Bean is righteous. The bigger question is why the seller feels he should get $225 for a $150 coin.
Because NGC's price guide says $200, not taking the bean into account, so, obviously, it must be worth a little more than that with the bean, right? I suppose if you were inclined to buy a relatively average-looking (based on NGC's pics) AU53 1859 IHC, you could always try a best offer.
Not sure the bean really adds $25 to the value. All techie bean represents is that the coin is indicative of a genuine au53.
And to me bad pictures mean no buying - not even if graded and beaned. I would not buy it based off those pictures or NGC pictures. No telling what might be hiding on the coin that would "bug" me, but maybe not others. Notice - I am not saying it is graded incorrectly or beaned incorrectly.
