I chose 45 since its Dahlenega mint and not seeing a lot of wear, mostly strike weakness. I am an idiot ancient collector however.
Okay, I'll be watching this one with interest. The wings and the high points look like they're from two different coins. I seem to recall the Dahlonega mint had terrible strike-quality problems. I see what looks like wear on the eagle's right wing feathers (photo left), and I don't think I see luster, but I'm unsure about that -- it's possible that it's there and I'm just misinterpreting the shading.
Based on the choices we were given when the post was initially made (ie; the options were 35/40/45, and none of the others were available at the time), I assumed there was no luster, and the details show some but not a bunch of wear, or at least IMO, not enough wear to knock it into the 30's. Now that there are other options, all the way into an MS, I'll still stick with my initial guess of 45. Now if there is luster, and this is an AU coin, I call foul on the OP!
I am the same. XF45 was my highest choice when I posted. If I had to guess now, maybe it would be 53. Dahlonega had horrendous strikes.
Plenty of original surface on this coin, despite the center of the design being horribly detailed. I suspect the reverse die had inferior design details in the center. I don't have time right now to think about why that is . . . AU55, perhaps netted lower.
I don't know crap about gold, so I used the ANA Grading Standards as a reference. You don't list any options below VF35, so that is what I chose.
Changed it^^i was focusing to much on the overall appearance rather than the most important part in the pictures.