Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Leadfoot, post: 1382885, member: 2972&quot;]Hard to say if it&#039;s been &quot;cleaned&quot; or simply &quot;dipped&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>Regardless, it does not appear to be &quot;original&quot;, and I say that with a great deal of confidence.</p><p><br /></p><p>To the point raised by the OP:&nbsp; The angled pictures could be hiding the luster, and it is not unusual at all for this example to be prooflike (and therefore no luster in the fields).&nbsp; A lack of luster in the photo, in and of itself, doesn&#039;t cause me much concern.</p><p><br /></p><p>To the point raised by a few that this coin was cleaned with an eraser:&nbsp; I see no telltale hairlines that I would expect if the coin had been cleaned with an eraser.</p><p><br /></p><p>What suggested the coin being unoriginal to me was the overall look of the coin.&nbsp; The dark edges and even coloration along with the lack of luster.&nbsp;&nbsp; That says to me it was edge toned and dull to begin with, then was dipped/cleaned to get it shiny.[/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