Things are slow so toss me a grade, any grade. Picked it up 6 years ago and was watching another one on GC.
Thanks for the responses. My buyer's bias puts it more in the AU camp. If you look at auction archives, TPGs seem all over the place in the XF45-AU53 range with these. I mean, wear-wise what really is the difference between this PCGS XF45 (left) and AU53? Something to do with luster, or crap shoot? I won't argue against cleaning, but I don't think "harshly" applies. Undeniably there are hairlines but in hand it's difficult to get the light at just the right angle to see them. There's still a lot of luster in hand. Note also that a lot of these show the dark band in the fields and the abrupt change to light in the protected areas in the legends, like the above. My first image accentuates this. There. I've over-analyzed this enough. The GC VF35 I was watching sold for almost exactly what I paid for mine ($145). I prefer to have the added detail despite the probably cleaning. I was also in my "just to have one" phase and not interested in plastic, which has changed since then. I probably overpaid.
My opinion is worth exactly what you are paying. I think the coin has enough luster and detail for an AU grade. I can't spot the harsh cleaning in these pictures. If I had to render an opinion on this coins surfaces I would guess it has been polished with what is called a luster cloth. It is something jewelers have and is also something that happened quite a bit the first half of the 20th century to coins. James
The problem with the luster on a cleaned coin, is you have scraped away the patina and a very thin layer of metal exposing a shinier layer underneath and making the coin appear to be a higher grade than it really is.
