Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;howboutatrade, post: 1061975, member: 10387&quot;]gboulton,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>love the review. thank you for the time and effort to evaluate.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I agree my original MS evaluation is probably off....this coin would be lucky to make MS now the pictures highlight what my eyes didn&#039;t see in initial review. It is a high AU in my opinion though as the look of the coin in hand is nice and the reverse of the coin is in much better shape (since my focus is on the reverse, I give it more emphasis in final grade). I have found all early Kennedy&#039;s are weak in the hair around the part, especially towards the back of the head.&nbsp; I tend to use the &quot;sharpness&quot; of the hair that is present as more of a guide</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Now if we contrast the 64 we have been discussing with the 1965 I have in the collection, you can easily see how much &quot;cleaner&quot; this coin is....however, the hair, by the back of the part is still very very weak....not wear though?&nbsp; I find many that look almost bald in that spot, even some in MS graded TPG holders.&nbsp; When the design changed in &#039;91 time frame, that was one big area of change.&nbsp; I do believe though, that hair in that location would be critical for higher grade MS coins....kind of like steps, bell lines, etc....but not as definitive and thus no special adder to a grade.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Additional thoughts?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>[ATTACH]104884.vB[/ATTACH][ATTACH]104883.vB[/ATTACH]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>P.S.&nbsp; Your side monologue is one of the biggest reasons I get confused in my learning curve...some dings are okay, some are not....some color is awesome, some spots are not...the education continues.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in