• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1940 WLH ......what do you think? Grade Posted

Started by KMAG100,

16 posts in this topic

KMAG100

KMAG100

Posted
Posted

Be interested in hearing feed back on coin...What do you think it grades in at? What is your overall thoughts on the coin? The obverse looks a little weak, however the color is a nice PEE-CHEE gold. The toning does dull the crispness of the strike in the pictures...The reverse looks real solid to me...and the luster is booming on this coin....Be interested in your thoughts.

 

ezDf3d7TSQpjE4m0jQCA_1940l.png

 

 

1ZXxUsmRPKDgcmNQgYYw_1940lr.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

65. I am *really* not a fan of the obverse - it looks hazy, and has muted the luster. This has negative eye appeal, in my opinion.

 

However, the reverse looks quite attractive. If both sides looked like the reverse, it would be a 66.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted

If the luster is "booming" then your images (especially of the obverse) are nowhere close to true to life. And since any opinions would be based on those images, it's an exercise in futility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

The surfaces appear clean, and the strike is fine for a higher grade. The limiting factor, based on the images, appears to be the luster. I could see this piece grading as low as MS64 (if the luster is significantly muted) to MS66 if the luster is good.

 

Edited: As a "guess," I agree with Physics and will split the difference: MS65.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Afterword

Afterword

Posted
Posted

"If the luster is "booming" then your images (especially of the obverse) are nowhere close to true to life. And since any opinions would be based on those images, it's an exercise in futility."

 

 

 

 

 

Great! A built in excuse if we are wrong. MS 66.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
"If the luster is "booming" then your images (especially of the obverse) are nowhere close to true to life. And since any opinions would be based on those images, it's an exercise in futility."

 

 

 

 

 

Great! A built in excuse if we are wrong. MS 66.

You're welcome. :devil:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AHFreak

AHFreak

Posted
Posted

First of all, it has exceptionally clean, mark free surfaces... (great preservation)

Second of all, it has a very solid strike.

 

IMO If the "eye appeal" is all there and the luster is booming as you say, I see no reason this coin wouldn't grade a 67.

 

Now, based on the pics, I don't see the booming luster so if it isn't there, I would say a 65* or maximum a 66 would be the grade.

 

If it were my coin, and if that toning/haze/whatever it is mutes the luster in any way, I would dip that coin in a heartbeat. and then resubmit it raw........ to try for a 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AHFreak

AHFreak

Posted
Posted

In looking at the pics again I wouldn't be surprised if that coin came back details for artificial toning or questionable color or whatever they would call it .. I do not know much about toning and NT versus AT, but I do know that I have never seen one toned like that in a problem free holder, and I also am pretty sure I could easily make a coin look just like that if I wanted to, and it wouldn't be "natural" at all.

 

So, my guess. ... Details UNC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
In looking at the pics again I wouldn't be surprised if that coin came back details for artificial toning or questionable color or whatever they would call it .. I do not know much about toning and NT versus AT, but I do know that I have never seen one toned like that in a problem free holder, and I also am pretty sure I could easily make a coin look just like that if I wanted to, and it wouldn't be "natural" at all.

 

So, my guess. ... Details UNC.

 

Not knowing what it looks like in hand....but if the color is accurate, while the coin doesn't look attractive to me, it does look highly original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coindude

Coindude

Posted
Posted

66 due to the minor ticks on the knee and hand. I like the coin and believe that the luster is just as nice as what the reverse is showing but the luster is probably hard to pick up while trying to show the look of the coin itself.

 

On another note... I would also like to thank Mark for my excuse when this coin turns out to be a 64!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KMAG100

KMAG100

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well NGC thought this coin was a 67, and CAC agreed. Yes the pictures were not good showing luster. But I didn't take them....Not that I could have done better.

 

HwvltbCBQd2DVHHevmQK_1940.png

 

Anyway thanks for your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
Posted

I didn't want to cheat, b/c I was following this coin and I knew the grade. I love the toning, strike and clean surfaces, so I agree w/NGC and CAC concerning the grade. You got it at a great price, too. Excellent addition!! Big Congrats!! (thumbs u :luhv:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing