I am really surprised that graded with the massive scratch on the reverse and the coin roller mark on the obverse. PCGS is slacking again.
Rim ding also...which reminds me reading a post last week while at lunch ,and never remembered to reply concerning a rim ding, stating it would grade . And perhasp if it was in a slab it would not be noticeable! Nice .... so it is ok to disguise an problem coin and then try and sell it to someone unknowing of the issue. BTW this person is a so called expert... .wouldn't want to buy a used car from this person either . He must of taken the Southern Coin course on how to sell detailed coins.
I’ve found pcgs pretty leinient about toned over old scratches on early coins. This is nothing new. They’ve always been consistent with that. Ngc tougher on them but more leinient with old dips and surface issues
Detailed holdered coins hide so many problems in my opinion, including the fact some are counterfeits...
Silly question. Did they have coin wrapped rolls in 1837. I like this coin. I think the crack is interesting and appealing. As for the reverse!! I can live with that. I like the grade
No, but it certainly could have gotten into circulation many decades later when there were rolls. I have a worn 1841 dime with the same kind of mark
I agree with JR-4 (R1). The Early United States Dimes book states that both obverse dies for 1837, the second 1836 obverse, and some of the early Seated Liberty dies failed due to bisecting cracks. It goes on to say that this type of failure was fairly uncommon for the series and that it could be indicative of some change in how the dies were made or loaded into the press.
