Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 7567983, member: 19165&quot;]Strike - Unfortunately, the strike on this one isn&#039;t great - there are a lot of heavy planchet marks across the whole coin. While they are especially prominent on the higher relief obverse, they are also visible on the cabin on the reverse. 63 for strike. </p><p><br /></p><p>Luster - Appears to have bright luster, with uninterrupted cartwheel. I&#039;d say its a strong example of creamy luster, a look that I like. The patina is present, but does not impede the luster - the hallmark of an original (or properly dipped and retoned) coin. 64+ for the luster. </p><p><br /></p><p>Eye appeal - Very nice. Original patina, as mentioned, with just a bit of rim toning. This probably spent time in an album, and looks quite attractive. 65 for the eye appeal. </p><p><br /></p><p>Contact marks - This is the trickiest part of this coin. How many of those marks on the face are planchet roughness, and how many are actual contact marks? Looking at the relatively clean reverse, and the relatively clean obverse fields, I assume most of those marks are from the planchet. However, that&#039;s an awful lot of marks in a prime focal area. I know that TPGs are very forgiving on these, but there&#039;s only so much I can take for a gem grade. 64 for the contact marks. </p><p><br /></p><p>Average that all out, and my opinion is a solid 64. I could see it in a 65 holder if the luster is stronger than your pictures show - but based on the pictures, I&#039;m at 64.[/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