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?
Great looking coin! I have a terrible time judging luster on toned coins, I'll venture AU55.
All look very nice, the large cents in particular appear to be high quality examples.
I think lower AU, nice toning as many of them are a muddy brown. The Japanese salvaged a good bit of the silver that had been dumped in the...
I don't think I have seen a cast fake gold coin, either. Casting would most likely be done using the "lost wax" process which is very tedious...
Both look real to me. First coin, fine? second coin, MS something maybe 63-64?
No expert here, but when you are collecting Au gold coins the amount of remaining luster is key, and you cannot estimate that readily from static...
Superb gold, C-dude!
Separate names with a comma.
