Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 572339, member: 112&quot;]surface preservation - there are too many hits in the prime focal areas (particularly obv) for the coin to be graded higher than 64.</p><p><br /></p><p>strike - about average, thus no higher than 64</p><p><br /></p><p>luster - it is there but also only of 64 quality. Even with toning the luster should not be so muted. Of course quality of luster is largely due to quality of strike so this is to be expected.</p><p><br /></p><p>eye appeal - the toning is about all this coin has going for it. Pretty much everything else shades the coin in a negative light IMO. I find the marks behind the head and below the chin particularly distracting, to the point that I would pass on the coin at any price.</p><p><br /></p><p>Overall, I would still grade the coin a 64, but it would definitely be a lower end 64 for the reasons noted above.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Eye appeal is one of those qualities where you have to be familiar with the known characteristics of a given date and mint so that proper allowances can be made for the same in regard to a weak strike. So no, a weak strike does not impact eye appeal very much with a coin such as this.</p><p><br /></p><p>Conversely, a weak strike on a coin known for being well struck will greatly affect the eye appeal to the downside. </p><p><br /></p><p>For those who are familiar with date/mint charcateristics I think this happens automatrically - even without thought on the matter. You just can&#039;t help it - it just happens.[/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