I take it back . . . there's enough retained luster on the coin that it should easily garner a grade of XF45 for limited circulation. I misjudged the cloudy plastic of the holder for a lack of definition on the reverse of the coin, and a second look has me feeling the coin is well-enough-detailed for the XF45 grade. I don't know if I can change my grade selection, so I may skew the results a bit without justification.
I'm voting 53. In a more modern series I'd call it about a 40 to 45 but in this series the TPGs seem to me to be a bit more lenient.
It sure is a lovely coin but it’s not even close to AU55. I voted XF40, but could agree with XF45. I looked at a couple of O-107s but didn’t notice a particularly weak strike.
Gotta admit, there's a bit more spread here than I was expecting. Got guesses from 40-55. Keep 'em coming, I'll post results Monday evening.
Voting 50, I agree with @Publius2 's comments. I tend to be too low on CBH's in this range so I'm bumping it up a bit.
Yes, of course it is. But you said “weak strike, typical for the variety”. So I’ve looked at other XF/AU examples of the O-107 and they didn’t show such a weak strike. Below O-107 was graded AU55 and it’s clearly a higher grade than the coin featured in this thread.
In general, 107s tend to be among the best struck DMs for the year. Still, many (such as this one) are poorly stuck.
The one you posted has the exact same weakness in the center reverse. Perhaps it was net graded downward for the distracting digs and scrape on the obverse and scratch on the reverse? Or did you miss that too?
As I said, I like this coin better as a 53. But, according to PCGS, not all 55s are created equal, hence my comment. All three of these graded AU-55. If you don’t believe me, they are proudly displayed on PCGS CoinFacts.