Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2756598, member: 1892&quot;]A little counterpoint:</p><p><br /></p><p>Surface preservation: Agreed at 65 but I&#039;m not far from 66 as the fields are pristine.</p><p><br /></p><p>Luster: Not present, in these images. I&#039;m aware Washingtons don&#039;t manifest luster the same as other coins, but I see no cartwheel at all. Quite prepared to change my mind with images more suited to depicting luster than the typical Heritage overexposure. No opinion, but leaning &quot;favorable.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Strike: Pretty darn good but out of scope for my skills so I&#039;ll defer to your greater experience in this category.</p><p><br /></p><p>Eye appeal: Very clear negative. Splotchy, irregular toning which in another issue would be clear sign of improper dipping; I&#039;m not entirely convinced it <b>hasn&#039;t</b> been improperly dipped but again am limiting my certainty due to lesser experience with the issue. Either way, toning patterns like this are_not positives in the eye appeal department.</p><p><br /></p><p>Added: I&#039;m referring to the OP Quarter; I hope you were too.[/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