Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 870166, member: 112&quot;]I&#039;m not sure what exactly you are saying with this. But if I understand correctly you are saying that either ICCS or PCGS graded 1 of the two coins in each group. Or are you saying that one graded one of them the other graded the other one ?</p><p><br /></p><p>Well, I&#039;d say that coin #1 is the nicest of the first two.&nbsp; It has decent luster, a few hits here and there. But that would be expected on 64 coin. The second coin looks hazy, even appears to have some slight rub on some of the high points. And luster looks pretty subdued, like it was over-dipped a bit. No way I&#039;d grade this con 64.</p><p><br /></p><p>Coin #3, while it has MS details, has been improperly cleaned in my opinion. A pencil eraser would be my guess. And coin #4 looks to be AU55 to me. Neither of these coins are worthy of a 65. So no vote from me on them.</p><p><br /></p><p>Coin 5 - with that toning you can&#039;t tell from pics what might be hits &amp; scratches or is toning, or toning that has been scratched. But some of those marks look like hits or small scratches to me, especially across the nose and the ear. Based on ythos epics no way I&#039;d grade it 66. Coin 6 is the best of the lot, a pretty clean coin overall. But even this one has its share of small tiny hits. A string of them starting in front of th eye/nose and running all the way to the A above the crown. Some on the neck, some on the back of the collar and quite a few in the legends. Again, I would not grade this coin 66. 65 maybe, if the luster is there, but no 66. So no vote on this one either.[/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