One's on my shopping list, but the date, condition, and price have to be right.
VG10. Not sure it would grade due to the mess with the cheek and the bites taken out of the obverse rim at 5-6:00
I don't think it's deliberate etching as much as it is simply incidental environmental damage. Perhaps it's a dug coin, and the soil was...
Poke it with a stick. See if it comes off.
On the other hand, I hear there important London collectors offering big bucks for weight variations like this. ;)
82-S isn't as common in PL or DMPL as 80-S and 81-S, but it's a unique date in that many have very deep fields. The curvature of the fields on...
There weren't officially plans to make the 1884 or 85 proofs, as they were off the books and not even known until the early 20th century. I don't...
1899 was released in quantity during the Treasury sale in the 1960s. There was also a bunch of hoard coins that came to light in the 1950s....
1928 is the only year with two different mint mark sizes (large and small S). Other years only look like yours (small S).
Yes, VAM 46. You can see the die break starting to form on the wreath near the N in UNITED. This becomes a rather deep chunk taken out of the...
I agree with VAM 74.
Because I liked it. 1828 O-121a PCGS 45.[ATTACH]
Not sure off the top of my head which one that is, but it isn't VAM 32A. The clashed letters on VAM 32A are quite strong and would easily show up...
Ordered 5 to flip to someone who had made me a pre-sale offer.
Fake. Wrong reverse hub for 1903. They all used C4. This one is C3.
Then it's fake.
Doesn't look like 03-O. The mint mark style was used from 79-84, then again in 88-89. Position is wrong for 88-89, when the oval O was set...
Here's a picture of a real one, from uspatterns.com. [IMG]
You might want to create a poll.
While fakes have found their way into TPG holders, I'm don't think that this is one of them. Loss of detail on fakes doesn't scale down with the...
Separate names with a comma.
