Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Morgandude11, post: 1584221, member: 37839&quot;]No, I don&#039;t think the cleaned comments are outrageous.&nbsp; Look at the grade--if it weren&#039;t cleaned, with alleged cameo like that it would have been a sure Pf 65 if it were original.&nbsp; But I doubt it was.&nbsp; Here&#039;s a PR 65 PCGS that recently sold at an auction---</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH]219711.vB[/ATTACH][ATTACH]219712.vB[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Original color, and patina.&nbsp; No attempt to make it look cameo by cleaning it.&nbsp; I don&#039;t think the OP&#039;s coin looks anywhere as original or has the same proof details that this coin does--even with original toning, one can see the extremely contrasty devices and fields..</p><p><br /></p><p>I was not contradicting myself.&nbsp; I stand by what I say--it is a problem coin, and let PCGS make the final call on that one.&nbsp; If they say it is, so be it.[/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