It's a decent looking Peace Dollar. As already mentioned, color on these is harder to find so people tend to bid them up even when it's mediocre....
MS 65 star ...nice color (I even see a hint of textile!); obverse fields and the cheek are remarkably clean (surprisingly it's the reverse that...
It's not the toning or eye appeal that holds the grade down here (both are nice). Just being a 38-D likely plays a role (as these come nice). From...
PR 65
PR 66 ...proofs are tougher to guess from photos but I don't see any disturbances (especially since you clarified about the 2 potential problem...
I guessed low at MS 63 and no designation with a juiced photo that makes it look DMPL (looks like "auction kings" on eBay).....that seller and a...
I'll stick with a guess of MS 64
The photo is a bit hard to read with the lighting used. The way the coin is presented, the fields and cheek look clean enough for a 65 (and even a...
MS 65 before looking at any reveal (if there is one)....looks like one that would get the generic MS 65 but has a PQ look to it
MS 64 (looks like an Anacs holder)...obverse looks stronger than reverse; it has fairly clean fields and cheek (I don't think the hits are strong...
I got the tie breaker :D Missed the grade by one though :(
MS 66 ICG ....looks clean and has nice color
Every person has a different opinion of details coins. I'm perfectly content having some details coins if they still have the eye appeal that I...
Cool notes and thanks for sharing!
I was going to guess MS 66....67 is fair and as @Lehigh96 mentioned people were too rough since NGC is known to give crusty War Nickels 67 grades.
MS 64 ....less chatter than I've seen on some others (plus I'm no longer guessing AU 58 on your threads...meaning the slab will be a 58 this time :D).
MS 64 BN ...I like the color
That sounds as reasonable of a guess as I think we will get. I'd also suspect the punches were made well after the token and likely by a different...
Yep; it's my establishment. We meet once a year on Feb 30th and let each person redeem the tokens for double the good for value. :p
AU 58 was my first impression....it's an 1889-S, which isn't a common date and that influenced my guess....the fields are clean but something...
Separate names with a comma.
