| Author |
Replies: 22 / Views: 2,265 |
|
Valued Member
United States
280 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2233 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
I can't grade it from those images but agree it looks AU.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36883 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4471 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
280 Posts |
Here's another image:  
Edited by Scarp9603 07/24/2016 11:43 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5684 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1691 Posts |
beautiful slider! 
Edited by atlashealth 07/24/2016 11:28 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8521 Posts |
Is it a details coin ? Looks cleaned to me.
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6396 Posts |
I'm on board with AU-58. There is no wear visible, just friction and luster loss in the fields. Some fine hairlines are visible in the second set of images but they don't seem severe enough to rate a Details grade. I like it! 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3843 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5828 Posts |
Dipped at one point, but I think NGC gave this one either a MS-62 or an AU-58. Either way, awesome coin!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
11922 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
Technical AU-55. Grade-flated AU-58. I say cleaned, but it probably did not get put onto the label.
|
| |
Replies: 22 / Views: 2,265 |