kindly grade me and offer your reasons why, photo only so do your worst!!

[michael]

and yes the coin is lovingly slabbed by pcgs..........

 

but do not let that bias you

 

and remember thst on 1864 threes the reverse is most always slightly weaker struck as comapired to the obverse

 

and this coin in hand is semi prooflike due to the low mintqge of this date and it does have an incredible thick crunchy crinkley skin to it green red fall like deep coloration to it as it has never been dipped or screwed with

 

looks like it went through the last part of the civil war itself

 

 

[Here]

I don't do much with gold. So, I'll say it is a AU55. As for you personally I'll give you a MS69. I would give you a MS70DCAM, but only a state quarter should get those!

 

 

 

Jerry

[Oldnewbie-migration]

That's a nice trey, Michael. I'll say 55-58? Some wear above the forehead.

[James_OldeTowne]

I know practically nothing about gold, and based on the other guesses, I'm probably about as far off as it can get. But I'll guess EF-40.

 

Here again, the image is just plain weird. I can't get any feel whatsoever for luster, which is extremely critical to the grade-range I'm guessing at. But the details just look too flat and worn for me to guess any higher. In fact, I feel like my EF guess is a bit liberal, but I know that the high points of gold wear down more quickly than for other metals.

 

To the coin's benefit, if the color of the images is accurate, it looks like an exceedingly original coin.

 

James

[IGWT]

 

Sorry, Michael . . . the photo doesn't show luster well enough to differentiate between wear and weak strike (or combination of the two). I'll assume wear for the most part and say 53-55. What did the pricing service say?

[chinook]

XF-40. What a terrible date to own. You should melt that embarrassment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[michael]

 

pcgs xf 45 and the coin in hand sight seen is an au50+

 

oh and thanks jerry (HERE) for the kind words i really appreciate it and same back at you too

but i got you fooled

i am not as smart as you think i am

but again i want to thank you

now i got something to strive for

[MikeInFL]

That holder is happy.

[michael]

HEY hey big boi

NO COMMENTS FROM the peanut gallery there my friend

 

that holder is really SAD is it wants to be in a proper true graded au50/53 holder

[MikeInFL]

If the coin were in a 50 or 53 holder, then the coin would be happy. As it is now, the holder is happy.

 

In any event, an awesome coin and one I would be proud to own....Mike

[TomB]

I'm disqualified because I already know...

[crazyboutcoins-migration]

Nice original looking $3 Michael. I think it looks better than 45 but you know how little I know about this series! Still, it looks like a keeper to me.

[Oldnewbie-migration]

Wow, I was comparing it to a 1855 in PCGS XF40 I own and mine has a lot more wear than that one.

[James_OldeTowne]

Heck, I was more conservative than PCGS by 5 points ! Think I could get a job there as a grader ?

 

45 looks liberal to me, BUT in all fairness, as complaints about the image have shown, there may be more going on here than meets the eye, in the form of mint luster. If the surfaces are as original as Michael states AND the coin has a bit of luster that the image fails to capture, then sure, I could see it being bumped up to EF-45. But I don't for a second think the detail qualifies as AU, bad strike or not.

 

But then again, I don't know diddly about gold (other than to know that I can't afford it, and if I could, I'd only buy it certified)!

 

James

[EZ_E]

 

pcgs xf 45 and the coin in hand sight seen is an au50+

 

 

I'd say XF 45 is accurate for wear but am surprised that it's not in an AU50 holder considering the originality and the Civil War date combined with market grading. Very lovely coin, Mike!!!!