| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 5,091 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16679 Posts |
50
58
08
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Valued Member
Philippines
386 Posts |
My guess,
MS-60
MS-62
VG but ungradable due to cleaning
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
1864--AU 53/55
1889--MS 64/65
1939--VG/F
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1081 Posts |
Well, here are the results. There are good aspects and negative ones. 1864L - 1864/1864L S-4 AU Details because of environmental damage. The only thing I can see are the black streaks on the obverse. I am planning on sending this to NCS for conservation b/c I really want it to grade. 1889 - 1889/9 MPD S-4 UNC Details Altered Color (I bought it from Rick Snow and he graded it as MS-63, would be 64 except for the nick by the date) 1939 Nickel - 1939 DDR Rev of 40 VF-25 This one surprised me as I was thinking it may get UNC details, but came back with a much higher grade then I was expecting and what you guys thought. |
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
Quote:1939 Jefferson nickel - VF-25 DDR  The spotting on the 1889 would make me almost agree with NGC as I look closely a second time. Very nice coins though! swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1081 Posts |
Quote:
The spotting on the 1889 would make me almost agree with NGC as I look closely a second time.
Very nice coins though! I agree, I'm still new to a lot of this and feel I should have though something was up with the color, but it did get the variety I wanted and looks really nice. |
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
You should be proud of them David, they are nice coins.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
10743 Posts |
Yes.. I agree..  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
I don't know if I agree with NGC on that first cent, but the color on the 1889 does seem a bit odd. If you're concerned about holding onto the coin, perhaps you might want to talk to Rick Snow about buying it back. I'm surprised that he didn't notice the color and/or mention it to you .
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1081 Posts |
Quote:
I don't know if I agree with NGC on that first cent, but the color on the 1889 does seem a bit odd. If you're concerned about holding onto the coin, perhaps you might want to talk to Rick Snow about buying it back. I'm surprised that he didn't notice the color and/or mention it to you . I agree about the 1864L, I mean the coin looks great, so I don't really get how you can say it's ungradable? As for the 1889, I really like the variety and really like the coin, so I'm going to keep it. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1304 Posts |
Boy I did not see the doubling until I read the posts.
EF-45 AU-50
AU-55
G-08
I was tough on that first one maybe to tough.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
273 Posts |
You mentioned in your other thread that you submitted some 1996-W Roosevelts as well. Would you mind posting pictures of those coins? Both the FT and the non-Ft? I'm considering submitting a few myself and would like to take a look! :)
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
I don't agree with the environmental damage assessment either based on the pics.
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
You know, it's funny. I submitted a coin to NGC, a LWC that had a little grime amongst the devices, and they called it environmental damage. Sometimes, I think it's easier for them to ride it off as such instead of really looking at the coin. swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
I agree, they probably grade so many coins that they look at them quickly and if it has some feature that is usually indicative of something, they just label it that without really making sure. I have an 1840-O VF+ Half Dime which was also labeled environmental damage for no apparent reason. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 21 / Views: 5,091 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 10/16/2010 11:49 pm
