Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;hap, post: 384361, member: 14939&quot;]GDJMSP</p><p>I am playing hooky from work I really should be doing so I cannot take pictures right now, but I have the right stuff to take really good photos and a bit of experience in that regard...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I can live with Life&#039;s Little Disappointments. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have a little handful of the GSA CCs... A couple toned in the plain cases and a number more in UNC cases.&nbsp; An 1880 CC VAM 9 I-3 R-5 that is particularly well-struck, shows a bit of wagon wheel luster, but borders on too mirrored for that... very lightly baggy on the cheek, but nothing deep or distracting.&nbsp; Lightly might not be the best description, as there is quite a bit, just not deep or beyond minor.&nbsp; I can see it going 64 without any problem and I avoid predicting higher.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>There is also an &#039;81 CC that is a better strike with a fair amount of frost on the devices and some mirror on the fields, but there is some wagon wheel luster still.&nbsp; It is slightly baggier, but again, nothing deep nor distracting.&nbsp; I believe it would make at least PL and anything below 63 would really disappoint me.&nbsp; I have not attempted to determine which variety it is.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>After that they are mostly common date CC coins (&#039;78,82, several &#039;83s, several &#039;84s) I picked for looks or price... though poor examples of those were high-graded out.&nbsp; Some are still in the original shipping boxes to remote AK villages with early &#039;73 postmarks.&nbsp; None are ugly or problems.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Some toned ones that are clearly UNC, mostly 83 and 84 IIRC.</p><p>art[/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