ldhair

On 5/3/2024 at 1:52 PM, ThePhiladelphiaPenny said:

and aim from an angle

No. You should not have to do that. Keep the lens flat to the coins surface and play with the lighting. 

I'm thinking the coin is real but has really been messed with. The reverse has a bit of a polished look. The different looking surfaces of the fields between the obverse and the reverse look strange. Maybe the images? The coin should look brown but again, maybe just the images and the lighting.  

On 4/30/2024 at 4:19 PM, VasquezJ said:

Appreciate your response and I mean you guys are the experts but just figured after I looked closely at the coin just thought it was the coin but I mean if it’s not, it’s not, no worries. 

You should have said that long ago. Instead you had to throw out insults to the members here that were trying to help you. 

I'm about finished trying to help the jerks that post once asking for help and never come back or are too busy to answer questions. 

@xinfantry

Could you please share the grade that ANACS gave the coin? 

My opinion is no and no 

I'll guess a gasket punch was used. 

On 4/20/2024 at 8:46 PM, VasquezJ said:

Well obviously you have no knowledge about coins so maybe you shouldn’t even speak on it. 

The coin has been cleaned and has been in circulation. It has lost most of it's luster. It's worth the price of silver at this point. That is about $10.48 as of this morning. Nice image. It leaves little more to learn about the coin. If you don't agree, send the coin to NGC and prove the members here are wrong. 

Anyone with a basic understanding of this hobby will tell you it's a waste of time and money. 

We all know what the OP is all about. Good chance he is a past member that had his feelings hurt and is back to cause trouble. I'm sure he will be back with more false claims. 

Just a guess. Maybe NGC does not want two different labels out there for the same variety. I remember when the variety got it's nickname on the coin forums. I believe that was before the variety had an FS#. Can't think of many nicknames that lasted long. 

I'll add some of my thoughts on the coin.

The coin was not mounted flat in the holder. When the coin was imaged the lens was not flat with the coin. This created areas of the image that were a bit out of focus. Not enough depth of field to correct that. Much of the detail was lost. A bit of camera shake probably added to the focus problem.

On the obverse the stars look really nice but out of focus. It's hard to tell much about the scratches. Some of that may just be on the holder. I can't tell. The angle of the lighting really highlight these. Very little wear above eye and ear.

On the reverse I'm seeing some wear on the top of the wings or is that just a strike issue? The details of the talons/claws look really strong. They would probably look even better if the image was in focus. 

I'll guess ANACS graded the coin at 50 or 53 but I feel it's better that that. 

I don't think I would change the holder. Over the last few months, I have sold a lot of these early ANACS graded coins. I was shocked at some of the prices they brought at auction. Some bid more knowing the surfaces are stable and others feel they may grade higher if cracked out. 

I would love to see better images and what ANACS graded it at. 

Nice find.

I'm thinking AU-55 to 58. Nice coin.