In the spirit of Halloween, I guess the toner we post should have some orange in it. Here ya go! [IMG]
Do you care to retract these statements after what you have learned this week about the ANA standards?
Let me get my popcorn
You mean on top of E-Bay and S&H fees, right?
What do you mean by better option?
I didn't use the blown up images to make my assessment. After looking at them, I could see the coin in either an MS65 or MS66 holder.
Agreed, MS66
In fairness, it was tough to tell if what appears on the cheek is marks or luster grazes. Given the assigned grade, it must be more of the former...
I assumed that line was a die crack. It looks wavy to me which would all but rule out PMD.
Really? For an "O" mint Morgan, I thought the strike looked pretty darned good.
Chris, Do you really think that coin got a gem grade in the early 90's? I was on the fence between MS64/65 and went with MS64 due to the slab...
My first impression was MS64 and it resides in a PCGS generation 4 holder (circa 1990-1995).
Because they tone so beautifully. [IMG]
Wow, that photograph is better than both mine and Brandon's. Brandon Kelley that is! [IMG] [IMG] Having seen that coin in hand, I think...
There is no way that is diffused lighting. In my experience, diffused lighting destroys the luster.
I think you should return the coin and use the $17.50 as a down payment on a pair of jewels because you have lost yours.
You have been claiming that the reason you think all coins showing wear are AU is because you are following the ANA standards. Now you are...
Doug clearly stated in the other thread that the ANA standards DO allow for wear from roll friction in the MS grades. Are you calling him a liar?...
New Photo: [IMG] The coin is super clean. IMO, only the black on the peripheries hold the coin back.
All I did was reiterate what Doug typed, nothing more. We are not discussing value grading. It was never mentioned before the quote of Doug's...
Separate names with a comma.
