Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Coinsnake, Aug 11, 2011.
1896 PL or maybe DMPL1904 SThanks for looking!
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
'96 - 64 PL
'04 - XF details
I have to agree.
Also, the 1895 O & 1904S are kinda, well, not attractive.
I already did. Here's the deal, yes that coloration is not unusual on album coins, but that is with unc album coins. With coins with that much wear, that kind of toning is all but unheard of. I'm not gonna say it's impossible, but it's very unlikely. So I'm going with the odds.
No. I'll leave that to the nutcakes who like to collect tarnished coins on those arbitrary standards.
I bought it yesterday to fill a hole in my New Orleans date set. I wouldn't even find an AG 3 for the price I paid for this one so I'm happy with it for now.
I have seen it an owned several nicely toned circulated examples but usually a circulated coin would have much of the toning rubbed off even in the fields so it's either AT or secondary toning and I am inclined to agree with GDJMSP that the most likely explanation is the coin had help.
In hand the ris is actually not that bad. I had a raw 1892 CC $1 that had worse and more numerous dings and it came back NGC MS 63.
Mike - I thought I explained my reasoning for my comments pretty clearly. And I never even mentioned anything about cleaning.
If I were take a stab at answering your question - I don't know of a way to tell the difference.
Terrible idea ! The coin is already suspect. Even try that and you'd end up with a messed with coin that nobody would even consider wanting to own.
So leaving it as is would be best?
Yes...I believe all you can do is make it worse and thus less desirable.
Separate names with a comma.