| Author |
 Replies: 28 / Views: 2,759 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5632 Posts |
I see wear, many distracting scratches, dings, marks etc, MS61+.
I do not see a sign of a possible PL designation?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2448 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
I think he's tricking you guys with a REALLY high quality toned coin that has some light surface toning that is getting mistaken for marks or chatter. Here are the only problem areas I see and they are minor:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1659 Posts |
I'll go with MS64. I like the toning.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
On a side note, is this a 1894-S VAM-4 Far Date?
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
321 Posts |
ya I was considering VAM 4 but I wanted to look at it a bit more. I haven't compared it to a regular 1894 s yet though. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1534 Posts |
MS63 is my guess, since I'm assuming the marks on the face are exaggerated by the large images.
Nice toner!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6396 Posts |
Strike is a bit soft above the ear but that wouldn't make a grade difference at this MS level. The toning looks original but neither adds nor detracts from the grade IMO. Like Wheatguy says, the contact marks probably look worse in the photos than in-hand. The coin doesn't quite have the eye appeal of an MS-64, so I'll join the MS-63 chorus.
The photos are excellent Mattbrowning7! Likewise for photos you've posted on the 28-Days of Morgans thread. Nice work!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
I am kind of surprised at all the 63s and 64s. Originally I agreed with PCGS but now I am rethinking that it could be a 63.
However I may just be misrepresenting the coin. I do my best to depict the coin as best I can but the attractiveness of the photos may be misleading.
Anyway, thanks for the grading opinions everyone!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Wow lower than I would have thought <quietly extinguishes his cigar>
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
It is possible that PCGS did not think the coin was lustrous enough to warrant a 63. It looks pretty good in your photos but luster is probably the most difficult to judge by photos alone.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
I agree biokemist, in hand the luster is probably about 75% intact on the obv. and roughly full on the rev. The contact marks rub off a good bit of the obv. luster. Sorry to put out your cigar fenton  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
Quote:
<quietly extinguishes his cigar>
It's about you put out that cigar fenton! Quiting smoking now greatly reduces risks to your health!  62 seems fair. The strike is average and the luster must be subdued. Those contact marks being in the prime focal areas hurt too. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 28 / Views: 2,759 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 12/21/2010 9:20 pm
