Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2388354, member: 1892&quot;]I&#039;m seeing an <i>easy</i> 65 and 66 isn&#039;t out of the question, if my impression of the &quot;black&quot; marks on the upper cheek is correct. The curved one between nose and eye is the only one which gives me pause. Really like what your &quot;natural&quot; light does - is that sunlight? It seems to cut through some of the, um, digital exuberance for &quot;marks&quot; even if it doesn&#039;t present the coin in perfect contrast. There&#039;s <b>nothing</b> happening in the fields. Note there isn&#039;t a single spot where light is directly reflected on the obverse, which is the signature of a mark deep enough to be relevant. The quality of the reverse isn&#039;t in question; only a couple talons even show the beginnings of an imperfect strike. Note the spots in the reverse field directly east of the (eagle&#039;s) left wing, and the couple near the chin on the obverse - <b>that&#039;s</b> what you expect to see in digital imagery from &quot;relevant&quot; marks on a coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>With that said as a rule, the exception is the toning (every rule has an exception). It can form over marks like that and reduce their reflectivity.</p><p><br /></p><p>I wouldn&#039;t kick it out of my collection. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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