1904 Barber Half Dollar GTG (Grade revealed)

[JOBESSI]

Here is a 1904 Barber Half Dollar. It's currently in a PCGS. GTG

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Absolutely impossible to grade with these pictures alone. Maybe PR-62?

[rrantique]

Nice proof PF 64.

[HiHoAudio]

Perhaps PF-63.

[SPeck95512]

SGS PR70

[FishyOne]

PF63

[coinman_23885]

As has been stated, the con is difficult to grade from the photo, but I concur with the PF62 grade.

[JOBESSI]

This Barber is in a PCGS PF65 slab! Check out how James_Early describes the coin!

 

James_Early description

[physics-fan3.14]

This Barber is in a PCGS PF65 slab! Check out how James_Early describes the coin!

 

James_Early description

 

James has the advantage of having seen the coin in hand.

 

From the pictures provided, however, I would describe the coin thusly "Dirty, dull mirrors are hazed throughout, possibly hiding more severe problems."

 

Again, from those pictures alone, I would bid 62 money at most, or maybe 63 because I trust James.

[Coindude]

Knowing James, I would go with his description 100%.

[James_OldeTowne]

Naturally, I didn't GTG due to the advantage. The coin is suitably graded, but this is one of my discussions with Scotsman. They take every single image of every single coin with the exact same lighting and camera angle, no matter whether it is a circulated coin, UNC, or proof.

 

Their images of circulated coins (almost) always look terrific, UNCs often look decent (but occasionally washed out), but mirrored surfaces do not come through in their images very well at all.

 

I've had discussions with the photographer, and I understand their strategy, without necessarily agreeing. By imaging every coin exactly the same way, there is strong consistency, good or bad, and long-time bidders know what to expect.

[JOBESSI]

from my memory though, I believe these pictures were actually fairly accurate of this coin.

[FishyOne]

This Barber is in a PCGS PF65 slab! Check out how James_Early describes the coin!

 

James_Early description

 

The reverse looks good for a 65 but the obverse - no way. 64 would have been generous here unless the images do not reflect the coin's eye appeal at all.

[James_OldeTowne]

from my memory though, I believe these pictures were actually fairly accurate of this coin.

The pictures are indeed accurate - for one particular viewing angle (dead-on, with ambient soft light). From other viewing angles, there is quite a bit more "pop" to the proof presentation, and I would have preferred a more flattering image that reflects lively proof surfaces.