64RB The woodgrain almost looks like cross-hatching! Two different directions!
I've seen worse in MS66 holders.
Looks like a ground recovery that someone cleaned.
Both MS63. I like the die cracks on the 1883
Their definition of Stained differs from environmental damage because although it it something adhering to the surface, it didn't damage the surface.
I don't see anything wrong with it. Nice AU58-MS60.
What'd ya do? Get a warning from the mods?
I would argue that the amount of time, or lack thereof, that they spend on any given coin, plays directly into accuracy! I once sent a bust half...
I see that as a very small possibility. Do I think PCGS would put that much thought into this coin if it came across their desk?-No. They would...
I'm going to recommend this to Peter to be a featured thread.
A weakly, flatly struck UNC coin, even a trial strike should have luster, and not be circulated gray, right?
I think they would call this a mechanical error. If this were a true UNC details coin, and not a VF or whatever, it may be worth somewhere around...
So it sold for $60 on Great Collections. Better pics. Still think it's UNC, @Cascade or anyone else?
Look at the dentils, rims face, fields. That's heavy wear.
Seriously? Key date in high grade, but oh my goodness. Seller is asking just under $500. [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
I don't know what to think, but I see wear. The date looks funky. Could be real, but with my knowledge, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
I agree with Obverse #3 and I also agree with XF45. A little acetone will do the trick. No need for Verdicare on this one IMO.
[ATTACH]
MS64+ PL [ATTACH]
I'm gonna guess that PCGS didn't call it a proof.
Separate names with a comma.
