| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,255 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1694 Posts |
Not my coin. Can you take anything away from these NGC Pics? They are better than the seller pics. NGC pics tend to be very bright.   Edited by JasonKflo
05/27/2022 12:04 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7620 Posts |
Dead luster. Dipped a few times too many in the blue pool.
Edited by westernsky
05/26/2022 11:52 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4680 Posts |
Quote:
Can you take anything away from these NGC Pics? NGC pics always have that reflective, lifeless, cleaned look about them and rarely if ever represent the surfaces accurately. Willing to bet the surfaces look far different in hand. Does look a bit over dipped from these. AU something |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
AU-55. Loss of luster is expected in an AU coin due to circulation wear so I'm not really seeing anything unusual or that wouldn't be market acceptable here.
Edited by fenton
05/27/2022 01:22 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3848 Posts |
AU-55, not a splotch of toning, haze, or staining. Remaining luster is weak. Overdipped...
Suffering from bust half fever. Want to learn how to attribute early half dollars by die variety? Click Here: http://goccf.com/t/434955Shoot me a PM if you are looking to sell bust halves. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
We have PCGS truview glamour shots that make coins look too good and now NGC cell phone images that make coins look terrible.
This one looks AU and beyond that I'm not sure...
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I'll say not less than AU-58.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19155 Posts |
I could see AU55. Hesitate to comment further given the iffy nature of the pics.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18665 Posts |
this is actually an excellent strike for a 92(P) which is typically pretty weak. bonus points for strike on this one. a little too much lighting is washing out the surfaces for an accurate assessment. it appears from the photos that there is missing luster across the cheek and the coin has lost some its sparkle. could have been dipped but I dont think it was enough to details the coin. i'd say eye appeal is nothing to write home about but will not affect grade. I'm going against the grain on this one and say MS62 and if the luster looks better than these photos in hand I could go a notch higher.
this will be an interesting one to see the actual grade
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1694 Posts |
This one was actually AU-58 PL
I was trying for it as I have wanted A 1892 PL for years but I did not bid High Enough.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3647 Posts |
Late to the party. The grade looks spot on. No problem slider. That's a tough date in the higher grades. Some of the UNCs are really ugly, and a nice slider beats an ugly UNC any day.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
18665 Posts |
i have no idea how anyone could assign a PL designation using these photos  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
612 Posts |
I see some lines going from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock but can't tell if they are hairlines or if this coin has been harshly cleaned. I darkend, clarified and enlarged that area to get a better view but still cant tell if they are just in the field or cross the writing.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
I would not buy that coin based on those photos. I wouldn't agree with 58 either except as a sharpness grade, there is no luster to speak of in these photos and the entire affect is dull and lifeless.
A PL 1892 is too much money for me to spend without the coin in hand to examine closely.
I'm not even sure this coin would truly be PL as it does not seem to have hardly any cameo contrast on the obverse.
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 |
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,255 |
|
Posted 05/27/2022 12:23 am
