For your perusal and critique. This is one I own. It's graded XF45 PCGS. Nothing terribly special about it, no beautiful toning or anything, however it does have something that I have not seen on old silver in this grade range - luster - quite a lot of it, and on both faces. Some of it shows in the picture, but it is actually more lustrous that this pic. It's also a bit brighter. The luster is most prevalent around the devices - as would be expected - it isn't the result of polishing. It has as much luster as some of the coins I have that are graded AU 55 - although they are gold so it's hard to compare. I did send it to CAC even though I figured it had probably been dipped and as expected, it didn't CAC. Not surprising since nearly every old silver coin I've seen with a CAC sticker (including my own) have dark toning. Question is - if this has been dipped, why doesn't it have dark residue around the devices like so many others? It's an issue with well known weak strike issues (as are so many of the early New Orleans coins) and it has pretty good detail - or so it seems to me. It's also far less common than the Philly issue and reasonably nice examples in lower collector grades seem rare. - an estimated survival rate of only 700 or so (PCGS estimate).
XF coins should have luster. So many 19th century issues don't because of the prevalence of (over) dipping. Yours was properly dipped, probably just once), and then stored properly. Way too many of these were dipped then not stored properly so dipped again, removing any luster. Btw, I would say most coins you see with CAC have original luster, not just dark toning. Yours has enough luster that if you were a less upstanding man you might be tempted to store it a certain way and let it retone darker. Then it might CAC. Myself, I would do as you have done and preserve it properly.
