Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;messydesk, post: 2161770, member: 1765&quot;]Bottom line is that the roughness doesn&#039;t look like die stage to me.&nbsp; The patch of bag marks, none of which is heavy, half-way between the eye and ear, is exemplary of the rough surface I&#039;m talking about, and I have the impression the entire cheek is a bit like this.&nbsp; There are also scuffs in less conspicuous areas, on the lower hair and back of the cap.&nbsp; The fields have more contact marks than those of the 93-CC, also.&nbsp; Luster on an 89-CC should be quite good, and it doesn&#039;t seem as good as that on the 93-CC.&nbsp; There&#039;s no &quot;creaminess&quot; to it anywhere.&nbsp; The luster of the 93-CC helps that coin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Perhaps I&#039;m harsh saying 61, and 62 wouldn&#039;t surprise me either, but once you get past it being an uncirculated (unless rub is hiding on the tip of the bust) 89-CC it has shortcomings you wouldn&#039;t see on a 64.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regarding market grading, at the end of the day, the TPGs guarantee their grades with money, and the coins sell for money, so all grades are market grades.&nbsp; It&#039;s more in the interest of a TPG with a grade guarantee to play it safe when there&#039;s a $10,000 bump from one grade to the next than a $10 bump.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Finally, the standard disclaimer that you can&#039;t always grade accurately from pictures applies, even though these are excellent pictures.&nbsp; There are things you just can&#039;t know without tilting the coin in the light a little.[/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