| Author |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,869 |
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
56 Posts |
Any thoughts on this one?  
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
AU50 but I wouldn't be surprised if ICCS didn't net grade this down because of noisy fields.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
ICCS ef45, maybe an au50.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1192 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
214 Posts |
AU50 because of all the ugly contact marks. Take away the contact marks, there doesn't look like much wear on the coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1223 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
I'd also be in the EF-40 camp.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2187 Posts |
I'd be in the AU in terms of strike and details. But there's so many marks it might be down to an EF
|
|
Valued Member
United States
214 Posts |
If one had an uncirculated coin with this many contact marks, wouldn't MS60 be the correct grade? If so, I think (ugly) AU50 should be the technical grade given the minimal wear. That said, eye appeal on this one makes it equivalent to a nice XF coin -- so I think both grading camps above are correct ;-)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
I could go with AU on it..but it does have a lot of heavy obv hits unfortunately..
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
10743 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
 Canada
56 Posts |
I was thinking it might be an AU, even with all the dings it's still a nice coin in my eyes.
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,869 |
|