Looks well struck. Who Dat's are notorious for otherwise..........'65. I see no 'baggy'........might even go for '66, but I'm no expert.
I think there is too much chatter in the fields to get a premium gem grade, but the cheek is clean and it looks very lustrous, I say MS65.
Before everyone gets their pitchforks out, let me tell you about my in-hand observations: 1. The surfaces were are hit-free at the pictures. 2. The luster was meh 3. There was severe bag rub that caused some major hairlines that only show up at a specific angle of light. Neither my pictures or the seller’s pictures picked them up. I paid MS-61 money hoping to resubmit and get a MS-63 or higher grade. But in hand, I saw this was impossible, so I left her as is and sold her for a very minor loss. I agreed with NGC on this one.
Agreed, in the first set of photos the coin looks fully lustrous. Yet another example of the difficulty in grading from photos.
Yep - in the first set of pics, it's hard to tell if the coin lacks luster or not. In the slab pics it looks to have low luster. Too bad, with full luster this one could go 64-65 IMHO.
Not trying to steal your thunder. But, I have a PCGS 63 79 O, that looks 64. I think they grade this date a little tough? A 65 is considered a rarity. A 64 the last time I checked, is in the 500$ range. There's no reason based upon the pics, that your coin isn't atleast a 62 IMO.
I missed this one. But based on the images in the OP, I would have been in the 63/64 neighborhood with my guess. Too bad about the hairlines and lack of luster.
Another good example of why I avoid buying low MS grades from pictures that look like they have clean surfaces theres usually a reason it's graded where it is. Show me the bag marks on those 61s and 62s! This one's especially deceptive as it imaged pretty well.
