64. Great luster, light scuffs on the face, but not too bad. Excellent strike, good eye appeal. An above average MS coin.
Nice looking coin. This series is underrated from an artistic standpoint. The are, in general, far better than the 50 state quarters. I think if...
Not yet. I was looking at one a while ago, though. The Nürnberg 8 ducat would fit, if not for the price tag.
66. Immaculate fields, luster looks really nice, strike a little weak only at the left corn cob and stars 6-7. Mushiness comes from overused...
63. Average looking, decent luster and strike, surfaces not too clean, not too trashed. The reverse is nicer than the obverse, naturally. I've...
I thought that PCGS trademarked First Strike™ to mean what it means to them (not first struck), so that NGC couldn't used it. Either way, while I...
Yours is a round, medium O, which was the only O punch used in 1887. The oval O was used 1879-84, and then on a few 88-89 dies.
The 10000 yen is a little taller and a little wider. The 5000 and 1000 yen notes are the same height as the 10000 yen, but each a little...
65RD. Luster, color, and strike are great, as they should be on a 1919. Lots of little marks on the shoulder typical for 65, as are a couple...
Solid 65 here. I was thinking 66 until I blew up the picture. There are a lot of minor disruptions going along with the larger mark under the...
Very hard to know. It's not a VAM that people are really looking for, so we don't know how hard it is to find compared with others.
It looks like VAM 27 is a reasonable attribution for this. There is too much wear to be able to see anything other than the date position and...
I would crack them out due to the history.
Yes, that's VAM 17. Congrats!
Probably VAM 6A or 6B, depending on the stage of the clashes. I see this die pair more than any other. If mint records turn up showing one 1886...
While it is, indeed, a very cool coin, you have to take the rarity rating printed in a book with a grain of salt. It is a snapshot from before...
All VF 1799/8 [IMG] 1800 [IMG] 1802/1 [IMG] I have an 1801 and a 1799, too, but I can't get to the pictures at the moment.
The '3' actually looks OK to me. Size, shape, spacing relative to the 9 are right. Probably an altered 1893 VAM 5. The strike is too good for 93-O.
That's a tough year to attribute, and not well-enough documented to make the attribution easy. Of interest for 79-S is a lot of retouched...
No, just blurry. It looks right for what it is.
Separate names with a comma.
