Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Paul M., post: 2323564, member: 73165&quot;]No way.&nbsp; At minimum, the surfaces are too clean for a 63.&nbsp; Those carbon spots people are arguing about are the definition of &quot;not distracting.&quot;&nbsp; People seem to forget that they&#039;re looking at a huge blowup of the coin, and that all those spots, except the one on the reverse near the C in CENTS are going to be practically unnoticeable.</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s hard to tell what kind of luster it has, but I can&#039;t see any possible universe in which that coin comes back 63.&nbsp; With good luster, it&#039;s an easy 64 and with excellent luster, I wouldn&#039;t have a problem at 65.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit: I completely missed that the bottom coin in this postis a completely different coin!&nbsp; That coin is undergraded for sure.&nbsp; Minimum 66, if the luster isn&#039;t totally flat.[/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