You're honest and a realist.........now how did those folks come up with the higher grade? Late liquid lunch?
Well, results of the poll show that not one single person thought it was as high as an XF45. @Insider wanted me to start this thread so he could gather info and comment about the coins grade. I'm sure he'll be here soon.
I'm still learning, but aside from my ignorance of the VAM nomenclature, I'd say that I have about a half-dozen 1921s from all three mints that otherwise look like this one. My records show that I paid $24.65 for the '21S, but I wouldn't think it's anywhere near an XF45.
45 was a gift, but realistically, there's very little, if any, price difference between a VF35 and an XF45 for the VAM 1B6.
Sorry, to take so long... I'm still an AU. IMO, the "S"' Mint strike + the surface has netted the coin down to XF-45 by folks who actually had the coin itself to examine. I'll post an image of a 21-S with full mint luster and much less detail as soon as I can. So for now, I'm on the limb all by myself but I'd be much happier if everyone at least thought the coin was an XF. So sad.
I've been looking at pictures of other circulated, slabbed examples of this coin. I think that the grade doesn't look too far out of line, but we are used to seeing more luster on Morgan's, so we are shooting low. What gives?? I'm being pigheaded probably, but I still think this coin looks a little bit cleaned on my screen.
By the photogs? No way..........look at the breast feathers on the reverse. Were San Fran 21's poorly struck? If so I might change my opinion.
XF40. Hair is a little weak, but it is a '21-S. The feathers on the reverse are still very strong. A bit of luster too. We're talking XF, which means it has wear, not AU.