It looks like a gold fractional of some sort. It's certainly not a quarter! Mustve been a Monday for the label guy. lol
What a disaster cal gold was in terms of quality when they were made. Theyre an entire expertise all on their own
I am only referring to the scratched appearance given a MS 63. Why do some coins like a CC Morgan and this one that is scratched to heck get a MS 63?
Die appears to have been badly rusted and then "cleaned up". I suspect a lot of those "scratches" are actually raised die scratches from the abrasive cleaning the die received.
just posted about a 67+ ike that should be a 65 or 66, pcgs has some drunken moments, i own a kennedy silver proof i paid 48.00 for that has a scratch (although faint) on head going length of portrait, and bag marks (showing the 3 blips of a reeded edge) ok i can understand not seeing the scratch , but how in hampton does a proof get "bag marks" ????
I'm uncertain about the rariety of the particular specimen, but that may of also been the reason for the grade...a huge grading curve..I do know fake cali fractional gold are probably out number the genuine ones 100 to 1..If not more. I would advise any one purchasing one to do your homework before you pull the trigger.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1855-4-25c-bg-106/10375/63 You should see the 66, 65 and 64+ that PCGS has on its site. They were horribly struck and fugly coins to start with. Very crude.
Maybe I should crack open my NGC details AU 1876 Octagon .50 fractional CA gold slab and submit it to PCGS! (kidding!)