Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;bahabully, post: 997089, member: 17555&quot;]Yeah,, Luster and strike are my concerns for 67.</p><p>The detail is better than shown in the pics on the reverse,, doors and windows are complete and visible, but abit faint.&nbsp;&nbsp; The steps are not complete, but somewhat stronger than shown.</p><p>I dropped the saturation in the pics down to 60 because my pics always have a lot of red in them... just can&#039;t get that stinking white balance right... so it gives it that scanned look.</p><p>Added a couple more pics with no saturation changes, and sharpness dialup up as far as the photo editor would allow...&nbsp; you can see a bit more noise now,, on the cheek, behind the ear, etc...&nbsp; but this is hard to see in hand without at least 5-10x.....</p><p>Good luster on the obv imo....booming luster is definitely lacking on the reverse,, the coin was in an old binder and it&#039;s dulled the reverses some.&nbsp;&nbsp; That said, the lack of hits on the reverse is notable,, let me know if you see any,, I can&#039;t find one.... </p><p>I wonder if I sent it in to NGC for &#039;conservation&#039; and grading if it would help get the luster back up to 67 standards,,, </p><p>,, and would it be worth it ?&nbsp; I see 87 of these in 67 from pcgs.. none in 68.&nbsp; </p><p>Anyone know what the populations are for ngc for this date ?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Gonna go through the rest of my unc jeff&#039;s and see if I can get 3-4 to submit,, if it&#039;s worth it....&nbsp; &nbsp; if I do, i&#039;ll pass them by ya&#039;ll in this thread,, your feedback is kindly appreciated.[/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