Yup, this is the so-called "over" variety (you can make that out in the close-up of the 9). Pretty darn colorful little bugger, too, if I might say so, myself. Grade it, of course, if you will. I'll adjust up or down from that, having the coin in the flip and being able to tilt it under the light and see the color and detail and other such redeeming attributes you can't see very well in these picks. Thanks!
Nice coin Mr Ed ,but I think this coin was cleaned or tamperd withthe fields don't look right to me/ I still would grade it maybe a AU 50. JC
Eddie, Is the "6" repunched also? I can't tell by photo. Looks like a Snow-3. I don't see any evidence or appearance of cleaning or tampering? What are you guys specifically seeing? Looks in the 58-63 range to me, but the woodgrain toning makes it hard to see nicks if any, could be much better. But looks like a small amount of rub on feather tips and curl under ribbon. Very Nice coin. Jim
It looks to be an S-3. That would make it a bit scarce. It looks AU from the small images but looks EF from the larger ones. Nice coin. I don't see cleaning but it's just images.
It looks cleaned to me too, and can't tell what's going on with the cheek - damage, scrape? Probably won't grade with PCGS/NGC, but I'm in the AU camp based on these photos.
Likewise, I have no idea about the cheek. If that is a gouge, it will not grade and I suspect it is a gouge . I also cannot tell if I am seeing light rubs, contact with the Mylar, or something else. And the graining make it even harder to tell. Since they do not jive well with the high points, I will guess it is not wear. I do not see a cleaning. I guess that leaves me a 63/64. BTW, if you get the impression that I am not too sure of this, you are 100% correct.
There apears to be something not quite right with this coin especially in the cheek area . I think there was some kind of solution used on this coin that could very well be the reasoning behind the cheek looks like peeling maybe, but not sure. The fields are really weird on this coin i magnified it about 400 times the size ,and noticed some strange field images.I just want to say that the cheek area looks indented could it be a possible strike thru error? JC Formerly jazzcoins Joe Hello everybody. JC
OK, you asked the questions, here are some of the answers... On that "cleaning," here's a pic of an 1872, do you mean cleaned like this one? Just asking. What about a grade on this one, too? Just inquisitive. On that "over," Jim, far as I can make out, it's an "over 9," not a "69." Here's a shot of the entire date, hopefully it's big enough for you more experienced folks to discriminate between the two varieties. On that cheek, that's no indent, scrape, bag hit, scratch, luster graze, or anything of that nature. Been over this entire coin countless times under 10X magnification under every conceivable angle and have come to the conclusion that's just "RB" peeking out from the surrounding woodgraining. In fact, there are actually other areas like that on the coin, but much smaller. In any event, that's why I didn't ask what any of you thought of it. Based on these picks, I could really care less about that. Don't take that personally, now. That fact coupled with the fact that I'm not MGM and it's pretty darn impossible for me to capture it accurately in pics. Let's see, what else? Scrolling down, can't really find any other questions. Let me just add, then, there's not a mark or spot on this coin, it's clean as a whistle per 10X magnification. And that's the truth. I mean, as opposed to the 5 second look with the naked eye the TPGs would give it. Or did that change, is it 10 seconds now?
I would stick with the S-3 69/69 RPD. Look at the west inside of the loop of the "6", see the small edge ( clicked high magnification). I also think I can see the upper serif of the "6" and the east top loop of it, but the woodgrain hides easy identification. Again, nice coin. Jim
Jim, it took me a little while to find one, but here's the 9 in a PCGS 69/69. Redbook recognizes a 9/9. PCGS refutes a 9/8, but recognizes a 69/69. At first, I was thinking the Redbook 9/9 could be the PCGS 69/69. Then, I took this side-by-side look at these 9s. It could just be an optical illusion or obfuscation from the woodgraining, but it doesn't appear to me these 9s line up. So, what does that mean? What do you think? PS: And Joe, still waiting on your grade and description on that woodgrain '72. Make sure you blow it up 400X, too, hate you to miss anything important.
I can see what you are saying. By the photos they don't line up perfectly at the top of the "9". In fact it does look more like an 8 underneath rather than a "9", and I recall the fuss when the 69/68 was refuted as such. I still have whitman albums that have it listed so. I can't find the Snow number for the "appearing as a 8 but really a 9" variety". You have looked at the "6" closer than I, so you could tell if it is a 9/9 or a 69/69. But I still think it is a 1869/69, but I am unsure of the Snow variety. Do you have a similarly nice photo of the "6"? Jim
Thanks for sticking with me on this. I'll have to work on that close-up of my 6, and I'll also see if I can't get a good one of my 69 together. Maybe even a side-by-side of the PCGS 6 and 69 in the PCGS 69/69 I have in my file. Stay tuned. It may take me a few days and several tries at it. I'll see what I can do. Thanks Jim.
You guys have probably seen this site. It's still a work in progress but it's a great reference. http://indiancent.wikispaces.com/ If you can't figure it out you might post it on the Fly-in forum as a non member for help. You might even wish to join. Rick Snow checks in quite often. http://www.fly-inclub.org/talk/
Can believe I missed IHC post. Also that wiki page does not always work for me - might be because someone is working on it. To the OP, but based off the discussion I read first this coin might very well be a 64 if it looks as lusterous as that 72. That is assuming that 2x2 is not hiding some wear - I think that was part of the problem. Also based off your picture it made what I assume is luster look like something stuck on the coin - not something floating across the surface. Not meaning to cause offense; but please work on your picture taking ability so we can enjoy what looks like a sweet coin. Now, they do not have to be todd-like, but just something to help us enjoy the coin. PS I think I would list it as 69/69 - just my opinion.
