| Author |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,066 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
75 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
75 Posts |
Just to add. The mirrors are extremely nice. Sharp reflection to at least six inches. Why wouldn't this get at least a PL designation? Do these slip through the cracks at TPGs sometimes?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3210 Posts |
I'd leave it in the holder honestly. Too much chatter in fields on obv especially near face and left of her nose. I think PCGS got that coin right on. Plus there is no upside value wise from a 63 to 64
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36906 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
 with IGE.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
 Ditto.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
11922 Posts |
MS-63 PL (or SPL, I cannot tell which).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4932 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3284 Posts |
I wouldn't remove it. I think 63 at best.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4473 Posts |
PCGS & NGC are very strick on giving out PL and DMPL grades. The reverse looks PL, but the obverse does not appear PL. You might be able to get a star from NGC , but if the coin grades 63 the grading fees will eat up the star value. I would not crack out as there is not enough upside for this common date coin. Enjoy the coin in the current holder as it is a nice coin.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
403 Posts |
I agree with Slider. Upside isn't worth the risk, and PCGS is unlikely to give it a PL designation. There's a very good reason why my PL/DMPL Morgans are all PCGS, their standards are higher.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
75 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,066 |
|