Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;MIGuy, post: 5143771, member: 116145&quot;]I will try again one of these days, it would be helpful if my grown up kids were around, oldest is a talented photographer and has a fancy digital camera, but he&#039;s in Minnesota, I am just using my iPhone 6s.&nbsp; I thought that photo was good of the lot I took as I made adjustments for lighting, reflection etc, I spent nearly an hour to get the photo I posted.&nbsp; Now that I&#039;ve been drooling over it and chuckling for a few more days, the head, the crease in the line of the robe to the left, the foot / drape of the robe - it all adds up.&nbsp; I&#039;ve also been comparing to some of the type 1 dateless that I&#039;d acquired over the past couple years, and that&#039;s where the fact that this isn&#039;t a 1917 becomes more obvious.&nbsp; I&#039;m surprised that people think they know better than the expert grader at ICG who studied the thing under magnification in deciding.&nbsp; I think all the coins I had graded by ICG were graded very fairly - no surprises other than the wonderful news on confirming my suspicions on the 1916.&nbsp; I also own coins I&#039;ve acquired over the years in ANACS, PCGS and NGC slabs and I&#039;m familiar with the argument that PCGS is the best.&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#039;m no expert, but like most folks I do tend to trust the grades from all of 4 of the major graders (short of &quot;is it an MS this or MS that?&quot; those are high level coins where tiny tiny things matter) and I don&#039;t think there&#039;s any serious question of their findings as to a coin type / date but I am enjoying the debate.[/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