Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 5390795, member: 24314&quot;]The Proof IS <span style="color: rgb(179, 0, 0)"><b>NOT</b></span> <b>HARSHLY</b> CLEANED.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO, most collectors have not seen enough coins to evolve their PERSONAL standards for the appearance of the different degrees of cleaning.</p><p><br /></p><p>jgrinz, posted: &quot;Those are polish marks coming from the die - Different than lines created from cleaning.&nbsp; Looks like the scrapes on the coin is why it got a 61 - The star for the almost cameo appearance.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><i>I disagree with this post.&nbsp; IMO, the hairlines (note the subtle different directions) are from improper cleaning/handling.&nbsp; The coin is impaired and got its low grade for continuous HLNS over its entire surface.&nbsp; Additionally there is nothing on this coin that would qualify as a &quot;scrape.&quot;&nbsp; Many coins that should not be straight graded are.&nbsp; This is an example.&nbsp; It is an attractive IMPAIRED Proof.&nbsp; </i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Since Proofs are graded chiefly by spots and hlns (hairlines) because they are usually not all banged up, that is probably the reason they are not detailed when those imperfections are present.&nbsp; It would be like &quot;detailing&quot; an MS coin for bagmarks.</i>[/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