| Author |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,565 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1192 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
818 Posts |
VF30 EF40  still love these vicky 5 cents!
Edited by AgHoarder 09/19/2016 9:43 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1622 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9866 Posts |
VF30 EF45
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning... -from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2187 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
10743 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
VF-30 and EF-45 details (scratched).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1192 Posts |
No one person has nailed the ICCS grades on both pieces yet. Hint: both straight graded, no problems noted. I'll post results tomorrow. If you want to cheat, I am about to list them in my ebay store, link below :)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
45 and 50?
Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1046 Posts |
Brilliant Photos(imo) good luck on ebayis the 1900 wide dated ? 2002 Charlton has them listed at vf 20 $100.00 ef 40 $225.00 au 50 $325.00 regards
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1192 Posts |
@torgemco - Thank you. It has taken a long time to figure out how to photograph coins well, especially the smallest ones. The 1900 is a wide date (also known as Round 0's). Results: ICCS graded them both VF-30. The 1899 (first photo set) I thought had a good chance at EF40. The 1900 Round 0 I thought would come back EF40 with a shot at 45. The obverse marks aren't as bad as the giant photos make them seem. For comparison sake, here are two more from the same submission. I still think the 1900 in the OP should have gone EF40. 1858 VF30 5 cent  1894 EF40 5 cent 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2187 Posts |
I'll take your word on the 1900 marks on the obverse. It definitely looks higher than EF40 to me
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
The 1858 coins in general had notoriously weak strikes so no surprise there on the VF30 disparity. I think the 1900 fields were just too "noisy" for ICCS for an EF
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,565 |
|