Nice coins. I'm having a hard time deciding. [IMG] [IMG] 1876 wide spaced cc, scarce, nice surfaces.
I'll guess 55, just because it worked in another thread.
LOL, I'm usually so far off on my guesses I just had to get a little ego boost!
Wow, quite a backstory and amazing that it survived in such good shape.
There was another member who guessed 55...... I really like that half!
The further you go back in time, to before mid 19th c, the TPG's will tolerate progressively more luster breaks and light rub and still call the...
I think 63BN. really not possible to judge the luster accurately with the toning.
Generally, I collect by type, and anything that appeals to me. Sometimes I'll make short sets of a series I really like, such as the first 10...
R-7 CWT, Monitor token in white metal: [IMG] [IMG]
Photos as a rule don't show the coin as it "is" ; they are simply an incomplete parcel of information that we process as best (imperfectly) as we...
NIce job, Kanga! that 53-0 is a nice looking coin
I think it's suspect because the dentils from 9 to 12 on the obverse look malformed and pitted in places. Overall appearance of the obverse to me...
I agree with rzage. Here is one I bought, toned black with a chemical (?bleach), which I dipped revealing this:[IMG] and now as we progress...
I've never liked the Morgan design much, the obverse is just so-so to me. And they made millions of them to prop up the mining industry, most of...
I agree and that is why I think unless you really know your stuff, buy from a highly respected dealer like Winter, and this is an instance where...
I much prefer the top, XF coin. seems to have a better patina and overall more "natural look" to it.
Big difference in the 2 sets of photos, from the 1st set I thought 63, the second 64. Either way an attractive coin
I think AU50.
PR 64? I like the obv.
I can't see any rub, so MS 63?
Separate names with a comma.
