Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 4509614, member: 112&quot;]When it comes to things like rim dings, dents, scratches, gouges, hairlines, corrosion - things of that nature - determining whether they warrant a clean grade or a problem coin designation, it&#039;s always a question of severity, and sometimes quantity (meaning the number of them), and sometimes severity and quantity combined. In other words a single bad mark, if it&#039;s severe enough, is reason enough all by itself to warrant the problem coin designation. At other times even though no single bad mark all by itself is severe enough to warrant the problem coin designation, but if there are several bad marks then all of them combined, or maybe even only 2 of them combined, may warrant the problem coin designation. Simply put, it&#039;s always a judgement call - a subjective decision.</p><p><br /></p><p>On your coin, there are 2 significant rim dings. One on the rev between 9 and 10 o&#039;clock but closer to 10, and one on the obv between 2 and 3 o&#039;clock but much closer to 3. And then, scattered around in various locations, you have several minor rim dings, and 1 semi-significant rim dent right at the top of the crown on the obv. And no I&#039;m not talking about where your cropping of the pic cut off the very top edge of the coin, I&#039;m talking about just below that where the metal is folded down over the denticles.</p><p><br /></p><p>(Now some may call it semantics but to me there is a difference between rim dents and rim dings. Rim dings are kind of like a small gouge down deep, and or shallow, into the metal while with a rim dent the metal is more like it&#039;s been folded over by an impact.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Your question is would any or all of those things combined warrant a problem coin designation on the that coin ? Well, like I said it&#039;s always a judgement call, and to me in this specific case even with all of it combined it&#039;s close but crosses the borderline and would warrant a problem coin designation.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now more significant than any of that, or all of that combined, in my eyes is the corrosion in the veil. This is what I&#039;m talking about. This is your coin - </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1117691[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And this is what that area should look like - </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1117692[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>See the difference ? I can&#039;t say for certain but I suspect that at some point your coin had significant heavy toning on it and was then dipped to remove that toning. But the toning had already reached the point in those areas that it had corroded the metal leaving behind what we see now. And yes that all by itself would be enough to warrant the problem coin designation. And when combined with the other issues, all doubt is removed.[/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