First Page
Previous Page
Posted 09/15/2011 5:08 pm
Quote:
I will say that those claiming to see wear that would make it an AU are off, IMO. I've seem certified 63's and 64's online that were a lot weaker and appear a lot more like true wear than this one does.
I will say that those claiming to see wear that would make it an AU are off, IMO. I've seem certified 63's and 64's online that were a lot weaker and appear a lot more like true wear than this one does.
You may not want to call it an AU coin but it is certainly not Mint State by any stretch of the imagination. An MS63 with a weak strike will still have full luster, including the areas of strike weakness. Loss of detail is not what strictly defines wear, it is the loss of luster that defines wear. That is why so many collectors have such a hard time seeing the difference between an AU58 and an MS64, the only real difference between the two(other than value) is breaks in the luster on the high points.
Take a weakly struck MS coin and then clean it to the point of removing significant amounts of luster. Suddenly, that uncirculated coin is now an EF without having ever circulated. Once the luster is gone, strike weakness and wear are essentially the same thing. The lack of luster on this 1857 FE combined with a little weakness= AU details coin all day long.
