| Author |
Replies: 20 / Views: 2,952 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
58. A ton of contact but not a bad coin
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
It does look like a proof in these images, proof-like anyway. PR62.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1023 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
Appears to be in a slab so difficult to tell.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4692 Posts |
Some close guesses, but no one has it exactly right. Straight grade.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
287 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
414 Posts |
cleaner images of the fields would help but despite what appears to be "fuzz" on the devices and fields, the coin looks clean. I'll join the MS63-MS64 bandwagon.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2156 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
861 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4692 Posts |
The answer is NGC MS-62 PL.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8938 Posts |
Wow. PL Gold looks good. Didn't even think about the PL possibility
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
g048046 nails it! You go to the head of the class!
Edited by Coinfrog 06/04/2019 9:20 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
Is there post mint damage on the '2' - the last digit of the date?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
Well deserving of the PL attribution.
They don't do it on gold but this one looks like it could get a DMPL.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 20 / Views: 2,952 |
Page 2 of 2
|