Forums, and the free exchange of information from collector to collector, has been the single largest influence in my collecting, and I suspect...
I'm not going to pile on other than to say I agree with those who said counterfeit.
p.s. the coin looks nice for a 63, and I don't need Ruben or Scrooge to form an opinion. :p
:eek:
I have no idea (guess I don't read the redbook that closely after all), but interested in anyone's response, so here's a free bump to the top. :)
p.s. no d/d, sorry. :(
64, maybe 63 with the little rim nick.
p.s. high margin of error because of the whacked (sorry!) photos.
64*
p.s. I don't have trouble, personally, detecting even subtle cleaning. However, dipping and doctoring have (and I suspect still do) get past me...
Eduard, I think it is important to remember that when it comes to cleaning, some amount is viewed as acceptable by the TPGs, and others...
+1 Pursuit with patience equals numismatic success (which is easier said than done, I must admit). :)
My first thought was that it looked too well struck. I'd take it to a local dealer or coin show and show it to someone who can examine it...
I'd hope 50 or 53, but I think 55 or 58. ;) My guess: 55
If you are correct and the coin has unbroken luster, I don't see the coin grading less than 65 at NGC/PCGS, and maybe even higher. If there is...
Not a bad coin and looks natural, but it is unattractive to my eye. With these commemoratives, you can afford to be VERY picky. They come quite...
p.s. this coin (like many of the time period) seems to keep luster longer on the reverse than the obverse due to the design.
TPG grade: AU 50
Hell of an 1816 (N-5, IIRC), Eduard! I think a TPG would grade it AU 58 or 55 worst case.
VF details, net F on the half cent. Don't know the colonial stuff well enough to even guess.
Separate names with a comma.
