I would say yes. The photo isn't quite as close-up as it would take to say otherwise. But it has nice clean surfaces, which is something I look for on older gold coins. That's as important to me as the technical grade.
It's hard to tell from those photos. I would say it's accurate. It's hard to get better than MS62. I've seen some really clean, well-struck coins that didn't upgrade to 63. Looks like a little scuff on Libbie's lower jaw prevents a higher grade. Nice piece - particularly reverse.
thanks. you should have seen the coronet i lost for 1$ life can be so cruel a 600$ coin lost for a buck
It does look clean, particularly the reverse. Like you said, it's hard to tell from the photos - but I think there are a few small ticks on the obverse. They're pickier on the $5s and $2.5s than with the $10s; the larger coins tend to have more nicks and they account for that.
Impossible to be sure, from the pictures provided, if the coin is accurately graded. However, the coin looks to be of a higher grade than suggested by the holder -- and while it could be an indication that the coin is undergraded, it is more often than not a red flag to indicate there's a problem hiding. Be careful...Mike
It looks accurately graded to me spock, but probably has a shot at a 63. I can't tell as there's not enough detail shown in the photos. What are those darker marks above the FIVE on the reverse? Just contact marks? It's a very nice coin regardless and I would be proud to have it in my collection.
From what I can tell with PCGS that it is accuratly graded, pretty conservative. Might have a shot a 63, but hard to tell without the coin in hand. So, to solve that problem spock, you can send the coin to me, and I will be able to give you a better answer. Phoenix
Maybe. I've never been able to get a $5 Libbie to jump to 3, though they compared favorably to $10s that did. "Same" design ? Mostly, but not entirely. There are differences. The bottom line is this : that's a nice coin no matter what PCGS says or doesn't say. My personal opinion is that there is a slightly cyclical nature to grades PCGS gives out, and right now they're tougher than 24 months ago. Some will say I'm crazy; that's just my personal experience. Maybe they're thinking if they undergrade the submitter will re-submit. Or maybe I'm wrong. I was at the Houston show last weekend, and a dealer had a fabulous Proof Walker with the grade masked out by a stickie tab. He invited passers-by to grade it. Almost everybody called it a PR66 CAM. The lowest I heard was PR65 CAM. PCGS called it a PR64. No CAM.
