The coin appears to me to be mint state (63ish), however, the luster is hard to read from the photos, and I'm concerned with the coin's...
A little streaky, but a nice looking coin overall.
Torn between 66 and 67. Guessed 66.
64
I think that's a PCGS 3 and an NGC 4.
Of the two, key dates. But really that's the lesser of two evils, IMO, as coins tend to be a terrible investment.
Not a big fan of woodies, but I prefer coin #1.
Also, remember that PCGS and NGC populations in all liklihood include resubmissions, so the actual number of coins is likely lower than the...
You ask a very good question which belies the reason I collect RB large cents. Said a bit differently, collecting red copper is too risky for my...
p.s. in the case of the 1794, I would lean towards Redbook values being the more accurate, but would lean towards CQR or Heritage if given the...
Large cents, perhaps more than other coins, are valued not only by their grade, but also by the quality of the surfaces. That's why valuation of...
:eek:
Happy Birthday!
It appears to have a large gouge near the date. It appears to me to be post-mint damage, and as such it would severly reduce the value of an...
I'll take "LDS luster for 67", Alex.
Looks like a 4 or a 6 to me.
Nice half cents!
Matt, Sounds like it's time to crack and resubmit. :)
I prefer the toning and look of coin #1.
New collectors should be VERY wary of the MPLs. There are lots of doctored examples, IMO, including several posted to this thread.
Separate names with a comma.
