I know you didn't and I can see how you thought that I pointed the statement towards you. I thoroughly agree that this should never see a slider...
Or there is something we are not seeing in the photos. That much luster loss should no way ever be a slider.
Both eyes are circulation damage not errors.
Nathan your point is not coming thru. Please explain how a 2007 has anything to do with a 2010.
No, the coin is well circulated. Not overstruck. You are seeing what is called perodolia.
Way too much luster gone on the high points and open fields to be a slider. AU55.
It's a doubled die. Not double struck. What does the other side look like? Sure would be nice to have cropped clear photos of both sides.
What did it grade?
I see some damage ie scratches.
Die deterioration doubling and a die crack. NAD No added value.
Anacs has tightened their grading. Alot of there coins are being crossed to pcgs and ngc.
I had a buzz last night didn't mean to insult you. The designation of 62 on this coin either means that the luster was dipped away., or it has...
You see how he quoted you instead of me? By the way, Classic responce that was funny.
No doubt acetone, xylene. Nothing has even touched the surfaces. The coins are forever damaged. I have only hoped that they would tone over....
That is very interesting. I am afraid that it is die deterioration. Photos can be decieving.
Rascal lives for controversy., why do you appologise?
The last thing this coin needs is anorher dip. It the exact reason it is so easy to tell an AU 58 from a MS
Yeah butt!
Funny but I don't want that in my lungs.
The problem is it is not there. (MS) Not kickin @Santinidollar it is a beautiful coin. If you cant see evidence of rub in spite of your own...
Separate names with a comma.
