This is the second coin I found at FUN. Took a while to get the images. The white marks across the coin are on the PCGS slab. I'll post the grade sometime tonight.
First thought was 45, but I'm so often low in higher circulated grades on CBH's. Going with AU-50. I can do the Overton with some confidence though - O-123. The only reverse of this date to use a 5 with such a fat upright.
That's a 45 point range . . . I think this is a technical 50, but the appeal is so strong that I think it got bumped to AU53. I get whiplash walking past coins like this at shows.
Hmm, I'm going with 45, Larry, since I really can't see any evidence of luster from the photos. But luster might be hiding beneath the toning. I'll bet the TPG put it at AU-53. Anyway, I like it.
When you say evidence of luster do you mean cartwheel luster or luster period? I see luster all over that coin and I bet it cartwheels nicely under a light source but I’ve been seeking mid grade coins with strong remaining luster lately and I’ve noticed a lot of variance in how folks define whether or not a coin “has luster.”
CirCam, I place myself in the lower quintile of members here when it comes to coin assessment and grading, so I am happy to be schooled - hopefully nicely. It's my understanding that at AU-50, there should be some remaining original luster around the edges of the devices but at 45 that luster will be non-existent. I just don't see any of that original mint luster. Now, I don't really understand the difference between cartwheel luster and "luster period". I thought there was only one type of luster that is imparted by the drawing of the metal during the original minting and that luster gradually diminishes as the coin's surfaces are worn. I guess that luster can manifest itself differently to the eye under different lighting and angles but isn't it still the same luster? Please help me understand this nuance.