This one seems undergraded. Opinions?

[JIM F.]

Thought this would have come back AU-50.

 

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=3382504-003

 

Don't have any better images than what NGC took.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Looks right to me. I don't see enough mint luster and there is too much wear to warrant an AU50 grade in my opinion.

[Chris1976]

Looks about right to me as well. You could always have someone submit it to CAC with hopes for a bean to increase it's value.

[physics-fan3.14]

If I'm interpreting the pictures correctly, there is too much wear on her thigh for an AU grade. Also, its highly likely they net graded it down because its bright white.

[Walkerfan]

I agree with the grade, b/c too many high points show wear---cheek, arm, leg, breast, etc.

 

I don't think it looks bright white at all, though. It looks medium toned toward the darker end of the spectrum. Using a scale of 1-5 with 1 being stone white---I would only give it a 3 or so. IMHO.

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree with the grade, b/c too many high points show wear---cheek, arm, leg, breast, etc.

 

I don't think it looks bright white at all, though. It looks medium toned toward the darker end of the spectrum. Using a scale of 1-5 with 1 being stone white---I would only give it a 3 or so. IMHO.

 

The obverse has some toning, but the reverse is blast white. The problem is, the photos are terrible, horribly underlit, and mostly out of focus. Typical for NGC photos - so bad I don't know why they do them.

[James_OldeTowne]

I would just love to see grading tighten up on the older dollars. Honestly, in the old days, the coin would have been a basic EF-40! It certainly shouldn't be in an AU holder, in my opinion.