| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 716 |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10906 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1770 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
499 Posts |
Looking at this on my phone, I'd take a stab at AU53 and with excellent eye appeal!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1749 Posts |
Nice coin! Comparing it to PCGS photograde, the obverse looks AU in sharpness. The reverse is a little harder to assess. Your coin shows better detail on the talons, leg feathers and fletching than the XF-45 example but shows more flatness in some of the wing feather detail than the AU-50 example. Considering the lack of luster I feel comfortable calling this AU-50 in my opinion based upon these pics. I think $152 was fair.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10880 Posts |
My thought is it looks cleaned. That said those images are not very good and it has near AU detail. For $152 there's not a lot of risk giving it a shot.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5995 Posts |
I forgot it was Bad Seller Photos Thursday.....  At a buck fifty I would have grab it....low au camp |
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
17468 Posts |
photos not showing what this coin looks like in hand. if they are accurate then I'm calling details (cleaned) otherwise AU50 but I'm betting the surfaces are not original
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
10906 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10880 Posts |
It's XF40 and cleaned but not harshly cleaned. Could still straight grade on a given day.
CDN Greysheet bid is $140 with CDN Retail at $180 in XF. Sounds like a fair deal for $152.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10906 Posts |
Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1749 Posts |
Sellers juiced pictures were deceiving on this one. I would be disappointed and send it back. I'm downgrading to XF details cleaned.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
499 Posts |
I agree with MisterT, pictures clearly doctored, especially the right obverse field. I would return on principle alone.
Edited by adam126402
03/31/2025 8:01 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
499 Posts |
This seller is shameful. In their terrible photoshopping inadvertently added another S mint mark. Or that's how it looks to me based on the pics. And check out the scratch on the reverse above the eagles head in NS pics which was erased by the seller among many other alterations. Who is this seller, so we can all avoid them?  Edited by adam126402
03/31/2025 8:32 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10906 Posts |
Seller goes by 'waynsharma-0' on ebay. I actually like the coin. It looks better in hand so I'll be keeping it. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10880 Posts |
I'd keep it for a $152 also. It appears the sellers images were poor and out of focus. There's nothing in the right obverse field to "cover-up", the coin retains some of its original patina and looks like a well-struck piece from them mint.
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 716 |
|
Posted 03/27/2025 3:54 pm
