Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GoldFinger1969, post: 9342183, member: 73489"]More on the 1908 WF NM from ATS by "Roadrunner" who seems to know what he is talking about: "I've done the taste test. And for every dozen or so non WF MS66's I see in holders, maybe 1 or 2 coins are actually 66's. It's typically too many marks and not enough blast. From what I've seen of the WF 66's they tend to be cleaner overall than the other date MS66's. It's really only in the strike where they falter. I've never been much of a "strike" guy. Luster, marks, and friction have always been at the top of my list....maybe that's a mistake. Most of the WF saints I see are closer to the assigned grade than the other dates. I would agree that as a group they were over-graded. But the kicker is, 80% or greater of ALL MS65-67 Saints are overgraded. Why just beat on the poor old 1908 NM's? Go ahead and try to stack a pile of MS66 (76) or MS67 (8) CAC WF '08 NM's. If you got every one your stack would only be 83 pieces vs. 1860 of all other dates....most of those coming from the 1924-28. And if we compare MS65's it's only 28 NM's vs. 4570 of the "other dates." Stickered WF NM's look like a decent good deal in certain grades. I do see that the pile of non-WF stickered saints is sizable. So no doubt most have been cracked out from their original holders and left "non-pedigreed." Still, stickered WF saints with the pedigree are pretty scarce. I don't think I'd pass on a 66 I liked for the right price. The 67's and 68's live in another time zone and I don't like the freight that they cost. Keep me within 2X-3X bullion price with the 65's and 66's."[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches