1974 S silver Ike Monster tone

Just because it is in a slab does not mean it is natural or market acceptable.

Judging by the appearance I'm seeing in these photos, I tend to think it is neither.

If you like it, then great for you - but I really hope you didn't pay a big premium for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I believe the OP's Ike to be AT.

 

I agree with you that this one does not look natural. However, the TPGs let quite a few of these through (so they considered them acceptable). Some have also been gassed.

If you check out some of the prior sales, these do bring a premium (it seems enough people like them and have bought into the idea that they are acceptable simply by being in TPG plastic). I'd be fairly confident in saying that the OPs Ike would sell for nice premium if it's in a PCGS, NGC, or even Anacs holder.

 

Here's one that sold on eBay for $380
@Ike Skywalker would you classify this one in the AT camp?






https://www.ebay.com/itm/1973-S-Eis...=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

 

I believe that one to be AT as well as the OP.

 

"beauty is in the eye of the be"holder"" perhaps?

 

Absolutely. This one has several of those sulfur spots on both sides. See that spot on the eagle’s wing? It looks like the offending substance was placed directly on the coin. The center is light blue surrounded by a burnt red color. Completely unnatural. It received harsh exposure.

With that said, it doesn’t mean that I won’t purchase an AT coin. Recently, I purchased a couple of 72-Ds with bold roller lines, even though they were artificially toned. I kinda like the wild and wacky coloration, but I only paid $6 a piece for them. The seller listed them as AT as well. I placed them in generic slabs with custom labels indicating their unnatural color. They’re still pretty cool, IMO.

 

Here is a different view. ill get the rev. Latter today

 

The purple hue just doesn’t look right to me. It’s too...... vivid.