This is an interesting copper that commemorates the Bicentennial of the change from 209 Grains to 168 Grains. I will post it and follow it with...
Thanks. My final set of 1802s will take a while. There are 31 pieces of that set or 31 1/2 if you include half the two headed large cent.
This is my 1801 Large Cent set. [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] .
Somebody's got more dollars than SENSE.
This is my collection of 1800s. [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] .
Sometimes we need feedback. Is the first or second better? I, of course hope it's the latter. [IMG] [IMG]
Ditto. (ducks)
I'm not personally aware of ANY coin which is that thin. Especially in that era.
They call it corrosion on MY coins.
1909 Proof Set in Original Mint Box!!!!! DANGER Will Robinson DANGER!!!!
I can't believe this was even graded. XF Details - Corrosion
I was looking for AU58 because I thought there was light rubbing on the cheeks. I'll go with MS 61 though.
Once again I was 2 grades low. I'm pretty consistent.
I get to grade it after you post? Lucky for you I didn't see it. I siad MS60. I didn't see wear, but I saw carbon spots and no luster. This means...
As long as I get a fair price, damages coins have more detail and are easier to attribute. If I hit the lotto, I'll try to be Dan Holmes. Till...
Yes. I like collecting something that will NEVER be complete. With my budget, I think I've done well.
It will be interesting to see if my suspicions that EAC is harsher on rims/sctratches and TPGs are harsher on corrosion/cleaning.
Well I'm sure you see more volume than I do, so I'll yield to your experience and perspective. I'm sure I tend to remember the worst examples anyway.
I consider marking coins to be vandalism and marking of coins by roll searchers TREASON!
This is my 1798 collection: [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG] [IMG]
Separate names with a comma.
