Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Leadfoot, post: 1387712, member: 2972&quot;]Hi Mike,</p><p><br /></p><p>Trash away!&nbsp; You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and your right to defend it!&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>For your consideration... </p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s the front of the coin:</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/miker/image/50735821/medium.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s what the coin looks like in-hand (these two photos are a bit overexposed):</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/miker/image/50735506/medium.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/miker/image/50735509/medium.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s what I know about the coin:&nbsp; I&#039;ve owned the coin for about 6 years.&nbsp; The coin is slabbed NGC PF 64.&nbsp; I purchased it from Mark Feld, a former NGC grader (and a heck of a coin dealer and gentleman).&nbsp; The coin subsequently was approved by the CAC in 2008.&nbsp; The coin has remain unchanged in appearance from the day I bought it -- not that any of that means the coin is necessarily NT.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now having seen both sides, and read the above, what do you think?</p><p><br /></p><p>To me, the coin looks like it was partially toned, then was lightly wiped (leaving a few telltale hairlines almost entirely on the front and very typical of proofs of this era), and has since retoned.&nbsp; It does not appear artificially toned to me in the least.</p><p><br /></p><p>But what do you think?</p><p><br /></p><p>Take care...Mike[/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