Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="lordmarcovan, post: 2839613, member: 10461"]I like it, but yes, I agree that they should maybe have details-graded it for consistency's sake. Graded the host coin, then separately graded the counterstamp, like PCGS did with this French Colonies sou I had. They gave the coin an F15 grade and the counterstamp an XF grade, both accurate in my opinion. It's the only time I've had a coin with the word "details" on the slab label, where the coin inside the slab was not a "problem" piece. <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi88.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk173%2Flordmarcovan%2FFrenchColonies-1sou-RF-1767-008100-slab.png&hash=9ad15f87bdc286a08793de02b0fd0560" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi88.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk173%2Flordmarcovan%2FFrenchColonies-1sou-RF-1767-008100-coin-800x500.png&hash=8628c1ff97b85a9e7c2bfe3f2a70685e" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> And this is perhaps the issue with the Flying Eagle cent in the OP.  You can't really call it a "problem" coin, since a counterstamp, while an alteration, is not really considered a "problem" or "damage".  At least not a Brunk-published counterstamp like that. I like that Flying Eagle.  And LOVE that Houck's Panacea Bust half that [USER=43130]@C-B-D[/USER] posted.[/QUOTE]