Make sense. I found a different site for the specs. The thickness is the most off number. Perhaps Dearborn is right about an acidic environment. Where might I find mint acceptable tolerance?
They did image it and I did not pay for that service. I can see tiny spot of corrosion in their image that I couldn't see before. Clearly their magnification I star superior to my USB scope lol. Lesson learned. I'll upload the image later this evening.
My hopes have faded. I got the grade information online and it came back AU Details Environmental Damage. I looked up examples of this detail, there's no corrosion and I've had it on a safe for 12 years. Before that it was in an antique store. I plan to call them tomorrow before they ship it in hopes they can reevaluate. Pretty sad.
I'm honestly hoping for a 67 or better. I bought it at an antique store 10 years ago and under even under a scope I see no imperfections. It's my favorite coin in my collection.
I submitted several coins for the first time to PCGS. I didn't request or pay for the images. However, one of them is being imaged while others have skipped this step. Any idea why this could happen? I'm hoping it's because it will be a low population high MS coin. Thoughts?
There's a lot going on here and I don't know much about break classifications. I'm guessing it's a die clash. There are raised portions on the upper and lower left as well as the lower right. The upper right has what looks like a smoking chimney. I'm pretty excited to have found this but unsure what to do with it.
I'm positive this is a small date but should I submit this with the way the back looks? It's a gorgeous red I found in a coin bank wrapped roll. Guessing MS68 if it weren't for that black mark. It only weighs 2.51 grams.
I think I have a good handle on machine doubling. What about the modern coins with indented words that look like doubling. Please see the attached photos and let me know what you think.