My first thought was PF63 when I saw the original post. Luckily for me, I got to see the whole story without the wait for PCGS' decision Congrats!
I had the exact same experience haha Except I thought it was a PF64. Great coin btw! I'm happy that PCGS was able to give it a correct designation but what I'm wondering is how NGC managed to screw up so very badly.
A beauty of a coin , sure is nicer than the MS-63s I was looking at . The MS coins are mostly weakly struck , your proof shows the beauty of the design .
Well, I knew it would go into a problem free slab. I was hoping for 63 though. You have a true beaut, Bedford. Very nice!
Well, I added a new comment in the "coin slamming thread", in which I apologize to all readers for being an idiot and a jerk. My bad.
Some of you guys still aren't getting it.... This coin has been cleaned. Most folks would say harshly. The hairlines (and 62 grade) are evidence of that. The thing that some of you seem to be missing is that TPGs grade proofs to a different standard than MS coins. If that coin was a MS coin it would go into a bodybag/cleaned slab virtually every time. But because it's a proof, it gets graded, in this case, low PR 62. Bottom line: TPGs are much more lenient when it comes to cleaning/harlines on proofs as compared to mint state coins.