wood and toning make it look blotchy, but a good coin. I do like the wood on the reverse Edit: put 64
IMO, this is a gorgeous coin. It has a good strike, minimal marks, and great luster. I even think my pictures missed some of the color – and it is a woody to boot. I love the coin and, personally, I think it deserves a 66 or even a 66+. Problem is, PCGS does not agree with me. They think it was artificially colored and called it genuine. . Standing will follow later.
Would be interesting to get a real explanation from PCGS why this coin is only graded Genuine. The only thing I noticed evidently wrong or suspicious was the weak detail on the reverse (this is why I couldn't possibly go with grading it a 66 as many here did). It looked like something was amiss there. Now the idea that the color was compromised/artificially toned (perhaps) is really shocking. Then again, it's hard to judge without actually seeing the coin tangibly. I guess none of us are qualified to be coin graders.
Bah...cop out. It doesn't meet their "look standard" for a toner, doesn't mean it's AT.....definately one to crack out.
I guess every 50 rounds, I get a wing dinger. This round was the worst ever, but many scores actually improved. I checked and found the rounds 51 and 52 (the rounds whose scores were dropped this time) were almost as bad. Anyhow, ddoom1 moved up (by skipping this round). but BadThad is holding onto his lead. Top 10. Columns are rank, name, average, and number of guesses. BadThad 0.350 42 ddoomm1 0.353 36 rzage 0.394 35 mark_h 0.467 47 Leadfoot 0.477 46 jcakcoin 0.500 48 Shoewrecky 0.500 46 swhuck 0.542 50 Cazkaboom 0.558 45 bahabully 0.595 44
