LOL. Just LOL. You are COMPLETELY ignoring the many general patterns the coins had as they evolved. The rims I mentioned were generally on every...
It’s okay. Nothing stellar. Weakly-struck. Not quite gem. MS-64
The number of marks looks 67, but there is absolutely nothing special about the coin to push it up to that level (luster, etc.) MS-66 FT
MS-66 RD
Provenances can be made up. Ebay is not the only source of fakes. I’m talking about the style, not the dimensions. Casting is a very imprecise...
I love the story, and I would love to get one myself, but I do not think this coin is genuine. The style is not consistent with known examples....
Yup
We are approaching 1995 W values... [ATTACH]
I think what I initially interpreted as wear in the fields is actually just how the field are shaped due to indirect design transfer. MS-63
Wow
Uhhhh
Up to $1000 on eBay This is ridiculous
And that is precisely what is seen in the obverse fields. And the fields were not in contact with the envelope for sure.
It’s much more than just the breast and knee on this coin. The nose, the belly, down both legs, etc.
My hot take on the Enhanced Proof issue is that it will never reach the likes of the 1995 W. Why? Because the 1995 W was a standalone issue. No...
Nope. Most of the responders who noticed the friction said the same thing I did. I’d guess most of the 60% didn’t notice the friction.
That was my “generous” grade. I still believe it should be lower. Owned? 0. Examined? Hundreds. Both real and fake. But a fraction of what...
Even if the the only “wear” on the high points is due to coin-on-coin friction (which can’t be confirmed from the photos), a ton of the luster was...
‘Tis a ~1920 King by H. N. White. I sold that one and bought an 1895 Conn that plays about 200% better.
PCGS pics try to emphasize color above all else
Separate names with a comma.
