| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 1,894 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3210 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
431 Posts |
Very clean fields and very clean cheek. It does look undergraded. It looks atleast MS 64. The luster is weak, but it does look undergraded.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5675 Posts |
Agree the fields and cheek are pretty clean, but the toning isn't that attractive. It would be interesting if that comes off with acetone.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
I really doubt acetone will remove much if anything. I agree it appears under-graded and would be deserving of a higher grade with full mint bloom but it would be risky to get there.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
I can't get any higher than 63. The toning has subzero eye appeal and is a severe detriment, and the luster is poor even across non-toned surfaces.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3210 Posts |
I only have $20 into it and $20 more in grading. Most of the toning appears to be grime and residue which looks like improper storage...I am gonna crack it out give it some conservation and if it isn't much better I will sell it to a friend and recover my money. No risk no reward. I already have a 63, but when I saw the clean cheek and fields I threw it into a submission to PCGS.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
637 Posts |
Very nice fields... color is a bit distracting, but I think it's an easy 63 at least.
If you are contemplating the idea of home conservation, just know to do your homework, be very careful, and always test on "junk" silver first. I have heard many stories where coins end up worse than they were originally, or are totally ruined by not properly "cleaning" coins. All I can say is be cautious and patient, and also good luck!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36830 Posts |
Easy 64 and appears very under graded because of lack of luster. This one is a good candidate for a dip in E-Z-Est, the only one I'd use.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
18687 Posts |
Quote:
I can't get any higher than 63. The toning has subzero eye appeal and is a severe detriment, and the luster is poor even across non-toned surfaces.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3210 Posts |
Perhaps NGC conservation? I have two definitely improved 1928 Peace dollars through them. If the coin comes back a 65 it's worth conservation and grading since I have very little into it. I'm still gonna crack it out today and acetone it to see if any improvements come from it. This coin along with other Morgan's I bought from my local precious metals people were really dirty. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
NGC Conservation is often a good idea, but not with a coin of this modest value.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
384 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
403 Posts |
Subpar luster, negative eye appeal, likely dipped at some point. 62 sounds about right.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3210 Posts |
After an acetone bath and some ms70 from a friend, I removed almost all of the horrible tarnish and gunk from this coin. I know some will say not to use ms70 but I have seen zero negative effects from it thus far. You think it's worth submitting now to NGC with my next batch sometime in the future? I think it could grade a 65 now after all the fixes.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
MS-63 with a shot at 64 particularly after the dip
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Total waste of money to send to TPG. Looks exactly like what it is - artificially cleaned. Just bullion value. |
| |
Replies: 18 / Views: 1,894 |
Posted 08/19/2016 7:18 pm
