BTW, who graded it?
Your picture sows little or no luster. PF63 or it may go up with the luster.
Sorry, but there are no matte proofs here. I guess MS65, but it only made a 64.
[ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
Matte proofs are great, but I can afford a 1917. Even a nice one.
16's and 17's are the way I think all Lincolns ought to look. Yes, today's are low relief, but the 50's through the 70's had no beard.
And the reason you use acetone is because water will not remove the residue.
Another reason he should send the coin to me!
Since you don't like the obverse, you can send me every coin that looks like you obverse. I doubt there would be a single one I would have a...
The VDB looks wrong (both the second dot and the B), the N in United looks wrong, and the S looks wrong (angle and serifs). Try comparing it to...
I do not think he is. I cannot guarantee it, but it looks like a fake to me also. Hopefully you can return it.
MS64
If you compare it to the PCGS photograde, I believe it has obviously less wear than their VF20 picture. See...
Funny, but I have used acetone for nearly 50 years and never used it from a glass container. [IMG]
I put it in one of those zip-lock coin pouches and seal it - with the coin and after use. I can actually reuse it later that way if it isn't too...
AU details scratched.
Yes, it is a die scratch. If it were a planchet flaw, you would see it on the devises also.
I completely agree.
I see zero luster in your pictures. 65 - 67 depending one the luster.
And, perhaps most importantly, appearance. I happen to like coins like this, but the "experts" deduct for color variation. Yes as explained...
Separate names with a comma.
