I don't think the mintmarks would be different because they are actually added to the hubs, not punched.
Actually, Brinks was assigned to bring the 9/11 coins to Pcgs for grading.
Yup, Pf-65/66.
Au details, harshly cleaned, but I have seen a worse example graded as PL.
I think that classic proof standards are too lax. This shows obvious friction/cameo disturbance and it still merits a 65.
Agreeing with everyone else, it doesn't really matter whether they are BN, RB, or RD, since they are going to tone anyway. GO for strike and eye...
:d[ATTACH][ATTACH][ATTACH]
Very Fine 35, very nice and original! I'd buy it from you if I had the money.;)
"Ask not what the Mint can do for you, but what you can do for the Mint."
"The only [ATTACH] we have to fear is the[ATTACH] itself."
[ATTACH]+[ATTACH] "It's a trap!"
I tell you, it was a MATTE proof with no luster and a DETAILS altered grade, and it had a funky color to it. The slabless photo had a brilliant...
The coin was a MATTE Proof gold coin, ANACS old holder, pf-60 details altered surfaces, and it looked like a acid dipped brass coin. The slabless...
What I meant by the comment is that when the coin is ugly and unappealing, Heritage will SOMETIMES switch the slabless picture with a different one.
definetely grease filled die, I would keep it and then submit to ngc.
most likely included to raise profits. The canadian mint loves to brag.
according to the Red Book, Eg Fecit roughly translates to Elisha Gallaudet, the striker's name, and Fecit, or He made it.
Pewtertoy, the continental currency WAS made in 1776, and it WAS approved by congress. Unfortunately they did not go into production
AU-53, net details, looks cyanided, has a light matte surface, as described by David Bowers.
Go with NGC or PCGS. If I had to choose I would use NGC, because I think they grade better, and their holders have more eye appeal than those ugly...
Separate names with a comma.
