I can grade barber dimes up to x.fine but when they are better than that I am lost. Thanks!.......I noticed that the pics are not as good as the coin in the hand.
I don't see any evidence of dipping (check the luster in the rev pic.) My experience in photgraphing these dimes is that they always look gray in the picture but not in person. I don't know why that is. I'd give the dime a solid AU based on the pics. If you could get a pic of the obverse that was in better focus, one might be able to see more detail.
better pics I hope The only opinions I can expect depend on the photos supplied and I have a very cheap camera. As I look thru the magnifier I see no signs of wear, it is lusturous and the rims still have that little raised edge that is the first to wear off. But hey I am no expert by any means. Thanks!
These pics are much better. I'd say MS63, and it seems clear to me in these pics that the dime has its original luster. I hate 3rd party grading, but if you're into that, I'd send it in. I'd rather put it in an airtite though.
much better pictures, these don't look washed out. Still, there are some marks on the face that may indicate wear. Very nice piece.
Very nice piece, very hard to tell by pics whether a coin has been dipped or not, nor am I an expert at distinguishing cleaning (unless it is really obvious) but I would say AU-55 as my grade, looks like there might be some possible wear on te cheek. Still, overall a very nice coin. :thumb: Phoenix
Frank, I still think it's MS, and according to the PCGS grading standards... This is for "Mint State" (the grade) and "64" (the numerical designation of that grade). This grade is also called "Borderline Gem" at times, as well as "Very Choice BU." There will be no more than a couple of significant marks or, possibly, a number of light abrasions. The overall visual impact of the coin will be positive. The strike will range from average to full and the luster breaks will be minimal. http://www.pcgs.com/lingo.chtml?universeid=313&letter=M I'll bet IN HAND it would look even better.
I think the coin has AU/MS details (i.e. a liner), and has been cleaned at worst and dipped at best(as mentioned above). All IMHO and respectfully submitted...Mike
My reasoning for this coin is rather simple. First of all look at the first pic posted of the obverse. See the remaining black crud embedded in the denticles, the recesses of the date and legends ? About the only way that a coin can accumulate such dirt and grime is in circulation - therefore the coin must have some signs of wear, even if minimal. But because the vast majority of the dirt and grime has been removed, probably by dipping since there are no scratches readily evident, and because the dipping also removed a thin layer of metal from the coin, the wear is also not readily apparent. But reason and common sense says it is or rather was there.
That also looks like it could be toning. I was offered a mint set, not long ago, where the coins were completely black. I passed on it, but my point is that those spots could be the beginning of some toning.
Yes it's possible that the black may have been toning, but it's not the beginnings - it's the left overs. Toning doesn't happen that way, it doesn't just begin in the protected areas and recesses and nowhere else. But when toning, or dirt and grime, are removed by dipping a coin, the only places you will still see it is in the protected areas and recesses. That said, the black appears to have too much depth or thickness to have been toning which is why I suspect it is just the remains of dirt and grime.
