Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1821488, member: 112&quot;]I&#039;d hate to hazard a guess as to what they said. As for me, I think everybody can guess what I&#039;d say. </p><p><br /></p><p>When it comes to grading, size matters. The smaller the coin the more that marks and their locations count against the grade. So even ignoring the luster breaks on the neck and central areas of the hair and wing edge and reverse fields, those sizable marks on the cheek bone jump out and slap you in the face. Add to that the subdued luster and what appears to be the remains of toning that was dipped away and is now an unsightly distraction, there&#039;s no way that coin should be graded a gem. </p><p><br /></p><p>Other than the large marks on the cheek the coin is relatively clean with only a handful of other small contact marks. So I think it likely that the luster breaks were caused by the previous toning and subsequent dipping, and not light wear.</p><p><br /></p><p>Just how I see it, and can&#039;t see it any other way.[/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