I Just Paid $70 For This Coin Off Apmex, Should I Consider Returning It?

This coin is a good example of why the original concept of "being able to buy and sell coins sight unseen" that the TPG's were created for and pushed in the early years was doomed to failure. Under the "sight unseen" rules, this coin would NOT have been returnable because it was advertised as a 64, and the slab says it is a 64.

I always ask APMEX if the coin listed is the coin I'll receive. They always answer me. Send that back, they'll take it back.

Terrible toning IMHOP.

Yep. Send it back.

Pete

It looks like some toning from the LaVere Redfield Hoard in Las Vegas. He had stored many bags of silver dollars in cellars he had dug in the desert and along with the coins he stored cans of peaches, in the heat many cans exploded and got peach juice all of the coins and bags, leaving many blotched and toned just like this. I'm not sure that Redfield had many 1923 Philadelphia dollars though, and no way to prove this came from the hoard, but it's a plausible explanation for the weird toning.

Very interesting.

I wonder if the ugly toning and possible corrosion developed after the coin was graded, perhaps from some chemical splattered on the obverse before it was slabbed. If this had been graded as it appears now, there should have been a major deduction for poor eye appeal, and given the marks on the reverse, there's no way it could have gotten a 64.

While it might be cool if you could positively prove it was from one of Mrs. Redfield's jars of exploded peach preserves, I think it's ugly also and I wouldn't want it in my collection as a type or date coin. Maybe with the proof from a Redfield hoard coin would be neat as an aside piece, but not as a coin the the main collection.

I'm pretty much in agreement with all the others, send it back, get a refund, buy only coins you can see ahead of laying out the cash for.

This one is a fly ball into the bleachers at Wrigley from the visiting team.