| Author |
Replies: 18 / Views: 2,083 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
MS62 based on the sellers photos. Your obverse photo seems to hide the surface details of the cheek.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1788 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4469 Posts |
I also like MS 62 with your upside being MS 63 because of the strong luster.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1295 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6478 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
258 Posts |
I'm going to say MS-63, but if it came back MS-62 it wouldn't shock me. Makes me wonder what this coin has been stored in.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1002 Posts |
I think the pics may be exaggerating the cheek marks..
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
11922 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36828 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5828 Posts |
 MS-62 All day!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1132 Posts |
MS63. That luster is popping. 
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Having an interesting time attributing this one. Near Date, mint mark tilted right and probably set right. Are either of the 0's in the date doubled at the bottom? It'd be pretty clear if they are.
MS63, I think.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1002 Posts |
..Not seeing any doubling there. 
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Yeah, it would be plainly visible in that image. The offset is substantial. Back to the drawing board.  That makes this one quite interesting to me at the moment.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 18 / Views: 2,083 |
Page 2 of 2
|