Grade opinions appreciated. The coin has nice toning, darker than the pictures show, and some remaining luster not apparent in the pictures. Thanks!
Once you have been on this site a while you will know that Eduard has awesome coins and none of them are fake, that I can recall!
No, and I must say that in the age of disinformation, the fact you are here making claims obviously without reviewing any resources. Mucking up the board with false information only makes it harder for collectors looking from the outside in. Anyways, brilliant coin!
I added I could be wrong... Again I'm still a new collector so I know nothing compared to the rest of y'all... I wasn't spreading false info, I was simply stating my opinion
What leads you to AU @Mountain Man? This is the sort of coin that I get so lost in the beauty of the piece I can miss a whole world of other stuff. I wanted to poke an MS64 in my comment before... I didn't because I know how I am when I am stricken by a gorgeous coin. Do you see any wear?
That's an amazing coin! I think high-XF at the very least, but it looks like a nice mid-AU. As you mentioned the luster is hard to see in the images, which is why my thought on grade is kind of broad. I do not think disinformation was his intent. He was just making a comment / observation about what he saw.
I make it as a nice AU-55. There is some wear at the hair, above eagle's eye and rubs on the beak and wingtip tops. A few small ticks keep it from 58. BUT, my guess this might slab as a 61 or 62 depending upon luster. The photos make it look like it's had a dip sometime in the past but I am happy to take @Eduard 's word that it is darker than shown and with remaining luster. Also, this is the 1848/48 double date. There were two obverse dies for the date. This is Obverse 1 where all the date digits are sharply doubled. It is also Reverse A, the "Compass Point" type. I have zoomed in on these areas below. My Briggs reference calls it R-5 in AU and R-7 in UNC. It also says the double date is the scarcer of the two varieties. Nice pickup, @Eduard.
I say AU55, for those of you questioning why it's not a MS piece that's cause it has a small trace of wear on the high points and a lack of luster in the field.
I'm thinking XF45 at lowest, AU55 at highest, depending on remaining luster, which of course is tough to gauge from photos. The doubled date is interesting.