Firstly, I would like to thank you all for time and effort you have expended to help me out here.
I know that my images leave quite a bit to be desired. Try as I may, I am never quite capable of reproducing for you what I can see in hand. I need much more practice to be proficient in this respect. I attempt to make up for those discrepancies by providing the best description of my observations as possible.
Secondly, I feel it would be prudent of me to provide you with some back story to this buck.
I will try to be brief.
This dollar was won by me on an on line auction. Before I am finished, most of you will probably know where.
Graded in a PCI gold label as MS 63. With a present PCGS Price Guide value of $850.00, I was willing to roll the dice at $250.00.
Already being aware that these gold labels from PCI can be quite problematic, I never wanted to belive that anyone could be that egregious in their estimation. AU58 is about my break even point on the PCGS Price Guide and I had already factored in about 20% less for this slab (PCI Gold label).
Once I had it, my first action was to free it from this tomb, have a good look see, then bring it up here.
I have little doubt as to its authenticity. The weight is 26.72 gr. Scale calibrated within .01 gr. Diameter; 12K to 6k 38.06mm, 3K to 9K 38.05. And I do have the MM close ups if requested.
My biggest concern is the splotchy, spotted obverse. It is soaking now as suggested. Yet original luster is noticeable.
The reverse appears as the entire coin should. A very noticeable concentric hour glass cartwheel flows around the coin rotated and tilted in both directions, on both sides! IMO, much more original luster than AU58.
Could not this coin have come from an old folder or album when the obverse side was displayed only? The reverse may not be exposed to the environment as much as the obverse, yet still exposed to the gas off and the other contamints in the storage medium, unknown to case damage in those days.
Also, the weak strike on the reverse further convinces me as genuine. As stated earlier in a previous reply by another contributor.
Another thought of mine was some attempt at artificial toning on the obverse. A horribly failed attempt that resulted in disaster. Therfore, deciding not to try that on the back. At least keep one side nice. Which also indicates it wasn't immersed or both sides would be more similar in appearance.
My knowledge of MM styles used on this year is 0. I have to assume the same as other denominations of this year. I follow Lincolns mostly. I will check it out as well as positions attributed. A simple search will help educate me. V.V.
Posted 10/31/2023 09:11 am
