| Author |
Replies: 11 / Views: 709 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4680 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3323 Posts |
Beauty! I'll take a stab at MS-66. Tiniest bit of strike weakness in the center is all I can find.
"Nummi rari mira sunt, si sumptus ferre potes." - Christophorus filius Scotiae
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1094 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
My 64 grade reflects the low luster surfaces.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2596 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18654 Posts |
I'm betting your photos are more what the coin looks like. very subdued luster. that being the case I cant get it to 64
MS63
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1767 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4469 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
I think it pulls a full 65.
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
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36710 Posts |
A little dull but still nice at MS-64.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4680 Posts |
This one graded MS-65.
My photos never tend to capture luster as well. I'd say luster actually looks closer to the truview, with the reverse being stronger. This date is known to have have frosty/satiny luster. It is slightly subdued though, which I believe is what held it back from 66. As far as contact marks (next to none) and strike, it's a 66 in my book, luster keep me it to 65.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 709 |
|