Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 4048773, member: 22331&quot;]I said: &quot; I&#039;m amazed of the 23-D grade with the damage to devices/fields (i.e. significant &quot;dings&quot; on rays, bust and the scratch in obverse, bag rub?)&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>It took some effort to locate the same date/mint-mark example in my collection that would represent how a MS66 1923-D coin should &quot;technically&quot; appear, virtually without &quot;dings&quot; or &quot;scratches&quot; on devices (i.e. rays and body), or bag rub. I can show you CACed MS63 and MS64 that are virtually as described.</p><p><br /></p><p>The attached 1923-D MS65+ virtually perfect that I haven&#039;t yet CACed, should better show an under-graded coin, as I described for MS66 or better.</p><p><br /></p><p>Please pardon my hastily produced poor images of a technically grade MS66 or better coin. Just look for virtually non-existent dings, scratches, in fields or devices, and bag rub. CLUE: one ding can be found on a obverse ray, and two on the reverse in the mid-feathers. The fields are without imperfections. </p><p><br /></p><p>You are correct that your coin is believed superior, to many that I&#039;ve seen, higher market-graded coins of today.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/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