Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lordmarcovan, post: 4273040, member: 10461&quot;]The unfortunate truth is that this coin, with obvious fingerprints and negative eye appeal, will trade at a considerable discount.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yes, it&#039;s MS64, and certified as such.&nbsp; Yes, it&#039;s naturally toned.&nbsp; But unfortunately that&#039;s not attractive toning at all.&nbsp; It&#039;s mottled and streaky and without any attractive colors.</p><p><br /></p><p>There&#039;s &quot;good&quot; toning and &quot;bad&quot; toning, and in my opinion, I&#039;m afraid that&#039;s &quot;bad&quot; toning.&nbsp; Personally, if forced to choose, I&#039;d rather have a professionally dipped white coin than this natural-but-unattractive coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Opinions may vary, of course, but I suspect the majority would agree with my my unenthusiastic stance in this case.&nbsp; (But there will be a <i>few</i> folks who like this coin out there.&nbsp; Somewhere.&nbsp; Maybe.)</p><p><br /></p><p>The good news?&nbsp; It&#039;s still a Mint State silver dollar that&#039;s 137 years old, so it&#039;s gonna have <i>some</i> desirability, regardless.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Edit:</b> what I took to be fingerprints on the obverse <i>might</i> actually be textile toning.&nbsp; Regardless, it&#039;s still ugly, and I do still think it&#039;s fingerprints.[/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