A 62 with the rubs on her....and she's been dipped to remove toning. Nice coin very sweet die marriage would I pay 62 money no! Now the R -5 factor could convince a h10 collector to be willing to pay a premium. However 99.99% of the time I wouldn't share this information ...I cherry pick him But this is John.....and we done some horse trading over the years....and I would be honest with him as we have an understanding..... You too can have an understanding for a price
Thanks not mine just pulled an image for educational purpose.... But please know I'm not knocking your specimen, in fact would love to make it part of the Paddy h-10 collection.
Another point many don't know is that at * one time these were highly collectable series. However album kept that toned them dark....many both bust and seated show that they have been dipped....their skin dull and show signs of retoning . This is a issue a h -10 collector like myself deals with all the time , but again it's what you deal with collecting this series. * I say very collectable series as they were cheaper to collect than higher denominations. As 5 cents had the buying power of a buck today. So to many who were middle class could afford 5 cents.
Is there luster on it in hand that we just aren't seeing in the pictures? Because a coin of that grade needs luster. That toning is so thick that it starts to become a hindrance, especially with that mottled appearance. I'm going to WAG AU-55. This is the sorta coin that, based on those pictures, if I were a variety collector and I needed the variety I'd put a halfhearted bid on, but wouldn't be upset if I lost. Can you show us different pics with different lighting?
I'll post the trueview next week if it ever uploads. Been taking up to a week after getting grades to get a trueview.
The mottled appearance that Physics fan speakers made it difficult at first to do the attribution. There 1 that shows a centering dot below her ear....first glance you think yup this is this variety....then the pices come together and you realize it is toning not the centering dot.
So you concour with my attribution Nat? I know you did the attribution lol couldn't help yourself could You?
I’m with @physics-fan3.14 on this one. I can’t see how much luster there is. The details are minimum 58, and I don’t really see wear. My guess is 62 with the luster subdued from the terminal toning