Between this thread and @Fabrosee 's half, I think I need an aspirin. Tired dies on @micbraun 's coins??
It seems pointless as some kind of post mint alteration......I guess you need to tell us, @Insider, before some of us turn blue!
I'm stumped. If it was a die break, I would think it would have made it into the books, considering how much CBH's have been studied. A...
MS62 here.
I too have used a toothpick. Usually it's an improvement, but close examination afterwards will probably catch that it's been messed with though....
Well I have new bifocals. LOL. I do think Insider's take is interesting...be cool if you can show it to some coin guy you trust and report back.
Ok on my phone it looks more like kind of streaky toning.....would love to see it in hand. I do see quite a bit of gunk in the reverse lettering...
I must be reading the pics differently than others. It has an old dip, but I think it has some luster and not seeing hairlines.
I wouldn't think you were crazy for giving it a shot.
Now 63PL 64
1. 64+PL 2. 66+ ( and maybe better, kinda out of my league.)
[ATTACH]
+1
ddddd brought up the CC mintmark. I thought about it when I posted earlier, but didn't mention it. But yeah, it quite possibly qualifies as an...
PF64. I don’t know much about these, but it sure looks like a proof.
Thinking 63pl
You like it, CAC liked it...honestly, I believe there must be some eye appeal there that isn't coming through in the photos.
MS64
The devices look really frosty, no major distractions, the reverse is strongly PL, not sure about the obverse. I'd want to examine the cheek more...
58 - since it's a better date I'm guessing they didn't let it slide.
Separate names with a comma.
