First Page
):
...
Posted 12/12/2013 10:18 am
...was I expecting too much when I asked for intact high points on the device? I now have one NGC 65, two ICCS 63, and one CCCS 64 (all of the other coins are older, from 1913). Looking at them at 10x magnification in natural lighting, I'm totally sold to Canadian grading for Canadian coins. Nevertheless, to be absolutely fair, this is an old NGC slab we are talking about (and consequently an older grading standard), and the sample population is, err... rather statistically "impressive" 
.
An orthogonal issue: if I were a grader, I would prefer nicer high points on design elements than some minor contact marks on the field. Good thing I ain't
.
Anyway, no buyer's remorse here: it's a Pittman Sale coin!
Should I ever decide to sell it, I won't have much issues finding a buyer, I believe. 
. An orthogonal issue: if I were a grader, I would prefer nicer high points on design elements than some minor contact marks on the field. Good thing I ain't
.Anyway, no buyer's remorse here: it's a Pittman Sale coin!
Should I ever decide to sell it, I won't have much issues finding a buyer, I believe. Edited by osmiumblue
12/12/2013 10:51 am
12/12/2013 10:51 am
. I've been studying the coin for a while now, tweaking various parameters of the examination process, and discovering new features of the coin. It seems like: 
(may be loupe quality does matter; mine include a high quality Pentax Super Multi-Coated 5x-5.5x variable photographic loupe, made for viewing slides, and a recently purchased Bausch & Lomb 10X Hastings Triplet Magnifier; I have no idea about the quality of the latter, but it seems to be made of poor quality materials; may be I should try out some of my old enlarging/macro lenses from my film photography days). 
. Me so happy 
