Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 1598634, member: 15309&quot;]Most of the other people gave reasons for their grade, you did not.&nbsp; I was simply trying to pick your brain prior to revealing the answer.&nbsp; I guess that &quot;knowledge...share it&quot; stuff is a bunch of bunk huh?&nbsp; If I didn&#039;t think that your opinion was valuable, I wouldn&#039;t make it a point to ask you.&nbsp; You seem to think I have some crusade against you.&nbsp; Nothing could be further from the truth.&nbsp; There have been many instances where I purposefully avoid conflict with you and I make it a point to publicly say when I agree with you.&nbsp; But our numismatic views are pretty much diametrically opposed so it is unavoidable that we are going to disagree from time to time.&nbsp; If you can&#039;t handle that, that is your problem, not mine.&nbsp; Now on with the grade.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/MD1881-SNGCMS65GF1_zps28ff6879.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Now I know that I have the added advantage of seeing the coin in hand, but to me the obverse surfaces merit an MS66 grade.&nbsp; The cheek is very clean, cleaner than most MS65&#039;s and the chatter in the fields is partly made of luster grazes.&nbsp; That said, the reverse luster is lackluster and certainly should preclude a premium gem grade.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know if it shows in the picture, but the difference in luster between the obverse and reverse is staggering.&nbsp; All in all, I think the coin is graded correctly at MS65.[/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