Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ndgoflo, post: 32371, member: 367&quot;]I don&#039;t reckon I need to say that the pictures aren&#039;t the best (not to be taken wrongly <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> ) I think the image isn&#039;t too bad, but the lighting is what throws it off. (I recommend GE Reveal bulbs) It also looks like you may have tried to correct the lighting with a photo editor, I may be wrong. Personally, I try to avoid as much processing of the image as I can. I&#039;ll usually crop it down to size and then &quot;Enhance&quot; it, which actually just re-aligns the pixels for a clearer image. I doesn&#039;t effect the coloring/tint/lighting etc.</p><p><br /></p><p>The 1921 has always been a very tough coin for me to grade, PERIOD! Actually, I find the whole series one of the hardest to grade, but I&#039;ll give it a shot. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p>I think that the toning is natural, and that it still has attractive luster. But there looks to be just a bit of friction on the eagle&#039;s wing that stops it from being MS, then again, it may be the lighting. The obverse never is as sharply struck as the reverse from what I&#039;ve read, so that explains what looks like wear in the hair. Relatively free of any distracting contact marks, unless they are lurking in the shadows. It&#039;s not an ugly coin, by any means, but I don&#039;t think it has positive eye appeal either.&nbsp; More of a neutral I guess. (Is that crud in the rays on the reverse, or toning?)</p><p><br /></p><p>If what I am seeing is rub on the reverse, I&#039;ll have to go with AU 58. If it is in actuality mint state, I&#039;ll go with MS 63.[/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