| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 2,209 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
438 Posts |
Looks very lightly circulated, so I will say AU-58.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4541 Posts |
i would say ms-61 maybe questionable color?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
265 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
516 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
I would guess AU-53 details/ questionable color
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3345 Posts |
I don't think it quite makes MS, I think more like AU 57
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
Unc details cleaned...though the photo may be exaggerating it
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2120 Posts |
I'm going to go with AU-55
Edited by Namachieli
07/26/2011 12:55 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3294 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
870 Posts |
AU, really? I was going to say 64... The mirror on the rev is astounding!  shows you what I know!! : / |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6398 Posts |
Light wear is present on Liberty's breast and thigh; I'd say AU-55 detail. The hairlines and contact marks seem random (I.e., not caused by cleaning) and although the toning isn't particularly attractive I don't see it as AT.
Overall I'd give her an AU-53.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
489 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
558 Posts |
This one is a head scratcher. Check out the date.  Is it the wrong date on the label or the wrong coin in the holder? Or is it a genuine 1871 that has been altered?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1348 Posts |
That is pretty strange! I would call PCGS.
|
|
New Member
United States
2 Posts |
Probably just a typographical error on PCGS part. 1871 had no arrows at the date; as the half did in 1873-74.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 16 / Views: 2,209 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 07/26/2011 06:15 am
