| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 3,527 |
|
|
Member
United States
3242 Posts |
Edited by amac44
03/27/2008 2:29 pm
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
50 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
868 Posts |
Hi Amac44
I'm not an expert but I will take my best guest,it's a very nice coins so I would say AU-50 or better.Hard to grade a photo.
Edited by andre1621
03/27/2008 6:47 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
10743 Posts |
Definitely not MS, too many dings on the rim and few scratches over the coin. I'd say AU-50 amac44.. It would be a lot better if it was a 1948   |
|
Valued Member
Canada
187 Posts |
I'd call it a MS-60. It does have a lot of dings and bagmarks, but there doesn't seem to be any visible wear on the coin, so it meets the MS standard. It's not a great MS, but it's an MS (in my mind). This is a good example of why an AU can be a nicer looking coin that a MS coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2408 Posts |
Nice closeup BTW.
I am concerned about the shine...as if... hum, some kind of polishing took place. Very close to MS. I deduct 1 point for dings and 1 for shine: AU-58.
Marc
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1571 Posts |
Only a guess: AU55, with bagmarks, but appears to have been "whizzed. Could have been a MS-60.
dick
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1840 Posts |
This coin has some rim damage and some honest wear. If it were in my collection it would be called XF.
I would also agree that there appears to be some cleaning (but not whizzing) involved.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
206 Posts |
agree with snowman here - it's an XF - the rim dents are a killer.
-Steve
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
351 Posts |
ughh no way its MS is there?
I say AU 55
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1571 Posts |
snowman, I say "whizzing", but understand it to mean polishing with a totary brush,or something. I'm not sure what "whizzing" is, exactly. Care to elucidate?
Dick
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1840 Posts |
Whizzing typically does involve a rotary tool and wire brush to basically move the metal and smooth over the surfaces of a coin. I don't feel that this coin was whizzed because the marks in the fields are signs of circulation. In the case of this coin it would have had to have been circulated, then whizzed, then circulated again. I don't think the coin shows that much wear. Besides, whizzing is labor intensive. Why would some on go to all that effort to improve the value of this coin by about $20?
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 3,527 |
|
Posted 03/27/2008 5:54 pm
