| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 2,187 |
|
Valued Member
United States
143 Posts |
I'm posting some good shot, and then an iphone shot, of the dime since the "good" shots don't let you see how shiny it is. The "bad" iphone shot does. Curious about a grade -- thanks. First, the iphone shot to see how the coin actually looks:  Then the shots of the details:   |
|
|
|
CCF Sponsor
United States
702 Posts |
Kinda hard to tell if that's high point wear or not. Could be a weakly struck 64, could be a bit higher, but if that's genuine wear it could go 58 range.
In hand, do you think it's MS or AU? (Is there discoloration where there's wear? That sometimes helps give away AU versus MS.)
I'd love to see some other opinions for ya!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1215 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
143 Posts |
The guy I bought it from, 35 years ago, said it was AU50. He was a nice old guy who was hand-holding me through my early collection, so I suspect he was being sincere in the grading (whether he was ultimately accurate). The lustre is really gorgeous on the obverse, and still quite good on the reverse. I posted it for grading because I suspected it was better than AU50. I don't see discoloration anywhere -- Scropper, where in particular are you possibly seeing wear, that I can take an especially good look at?
And I can post additional photos with different light angles -- just tell me which areas to focus on. Thanks!
Edited by jakesis
01/19/2015 6:00 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3210 Posts |
Grading has changed over 35 years drastically...my guess looking at my collection and my 1944 and graded ms64 by a trusted dealer of 30+ years, I would say ms62-ms64,,,the look is definitely uncirculated.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
143 Posts |
That's great to hear. I definitely had a feeling it was better than AU-50, but nice to hear it could be that nice.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
245 Posts |
I see what appears to be some wear and messing with original surface, would have to go with AU 58.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1158 Posts |
Is AU-59 a grade? :)
I think it looks a little bit circulated, so I'm going high AU, too.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
MS63-64. I think it's a weakish strike. If it's AU, it's a nice AU58. AU50-53 tends to actually be an ugly middle-ground between high-AU and XF; the luster on this coin is too nice for low-AU.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36806 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
143 Posts |
I like when the guys with high number of posts say "MS" ;-)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7622 Posts |
I'd say it would be a 63 to 64 coin.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Grading has changed drastically over the years, but whether or not a coin has circulated, hasn't. If the owner was an old-time collector who thought it circulated in-hand (something we can't see), I'm inclined to agree with him.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
143 Posts |
Yeah, it's hard to say how old he was in the late 70s, as I was only 16, so everyone was old! But I want to say he was probably 70 or so in 1979. And he definitely thought it was an AU-50. Is the issue whether the smudges next to "In God" and the smudge next to the (I assume) letter signature of the designer on the right, are actual circulation damage or part of a poor strike?
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
270 Posts |
AU 58...Minor wear on the bottom leaf that passes over the coloumn. The speration has merged together.
|
| |
Replies: 21 / Views: 2,187 |
Posted 01/19/2015 5:53 pm
