Is that the same coin you posted in the other thread? Wow, these ridiculously edited PCGS glamour shots really aren't giving a good feel for the coin. I'll bet your average guess is at least 2-3 points higher in this thread than the other one.
I think you are right. Several of the same contact marks and rim hits. Photo seems extremely juiced. I think you nailed it as a 62 in the other thread.
No comments for now I will say that the toning isn't juiced (or at least not juiced in the sense one sees with certain listings...it even looks better in hand...I'll have another photo here and in the toning premium thread at some point soon).
I said '65 in the other thread and I stand my ground............not that means ahellofalot.......... [wonders if he gets infracted for that one]
I will give the same answer as the other thread - 63 Although THESE Images make it look like a 65 after the 1 pt color bump
As some realized, this is the same coin as in the other thread. I posted it separately since I also thought the PCGS photo made the coin look like a higher grade (I could see it as a 66/66+ if it looked like the photo). The color in hand is very nice and I think that bumped the coin up from a 64.
I simply cannot believe it got a 65 with all those huge marks on the cheek. And I really can't believe CAC thought it was a premium 65 at that.
I'm definitely familiar with color bumps. This is just one of the biggest I've seen in a while, and I was surprised CAC gave a sticker to a coin that had that many face marks for a 65. I'd prefer this in a 63 grade, maybe 64 for the color bump. But a premium, high end 65? Hard to believe, even if the fields and luster are strong.