Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 1449031, member: 15309&quot;]Some people are so in need of attention, they will do virtually anything to get it.&nbsp; He is so busy looking up words in his thesaurus that he forgot to read the part of this thread where I clearly stated he was on my ignore list.&nbsp; Unfortunately, you quoted him.&nbsp; I see thesaurus boy has reverted back to plain English although still condescending.&nbsp; But since you quoted him, I do have some thoughts</p><p><br /></p><p>1)&nbsp; No numismatist worth his salt would ask people to grade a coin simply by showing one side of the coin.</p><p>2)&nbsp; The photos are all from different sources and of varying quality.&nbsp; If they are his coins, why can&#039;t he photograph them properly.&nbsp; Surely someone with a multi million dollar collection would have the resources to accomplish that.</p><p>3)&nbsp; He posted 4 different coins from 3 different mints.&nbsp; The striking standard across mints is very different.&nbsp; Only the&nbsp; &quot;P&quot; mint 1917&#039;s are routinely found with full heads.&nbsp; The Denver coins are 3-5X more rare, and the San Francisco coins are 3-5X more rare than the Denver in full head.</p><p>4)&nbsp; He asked for &quot;guesses&quot; about which coins have a CAC sticker.&nbsp; They would have to be guesses since in order to evaluate an incremental grade, knowing the assigned grade would be a requisite.&nbsp; Furthermore, we would have to know that every coin was indeed submitted to the CAC but only two stickered.</p><p>5)&nbsp; He claims that he owned GEM grade FH Quarters with 3 different grades.&nbsp; None of the coins in the photos are MS67 which means that one of them has to be MS64.&nbsp; Last time I checked, MS64 was not a gem grade.&nbsp; Furthermore, at least one of these coins is not full head.</p><p>6)&nbsp; I see no educational value in this exercise.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Top Left (1917-S)</b>:&nbsp; <b><i>MS65 CAC</i></b>&nbsp; The surfaces are very clean and the strike is typical.&nbsp; Luster would make the difference between MS65 and MS66.</p><p><b>Top Right (1917-D)</b>:&nbsp; <b><i>MS65 FH </i></b> The surfaces are clean of marks but are badly spotted.&nbsp; The head is full and the weak shield rivets are common on the &quot;D&quot; mint 1917&#039;s.&nbsp; My GUESS is that the CAC did not like the spotting.</p><p><b>Bottom Left (1917):</b>&nbsp; <b><i>MS64 </i></b> This coin has the worst surfaces of the 4 coins and the photo is over exposed which could be hiding even more flaws.&nbsp; It is certainly making it difficult to judge the FH merit of the coin.&nbsp; </p><p><b>Bottom Right (1917):&nbsp; </b><b><i>MS66 FH CAC</i></b>&nbsp; Easily the best coin of the group.&nbsp; Superb strike &amp; surfaces!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>BTW, The only other member of this forum who collects gem grade SLQ&#039;s to my knowledge is rld14 who hasn&#039;t posted since March 2011.&nbsp; I wonder why he stopped posting?????[/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