Options
Anyone want to GTG on some Classic Commems?
parallax1
Posts: 39 ✭
Thought this might be fun practice on some relatively expensive coins. Afterwards, I’ll give the background on them. The Norfolk and one of the Gettysburgs had been to PCGS previously, the Lafayette was a crossover from an older PCGS holder, and the other Gettysburg was in a very early NGC holder.
0
Comments
You may want to embed the images within a post. I wouldn't click a link from a new and unknown poster to these boards and I would urge others to show the same restraint and caution. It is just too easy to fall victim to malware.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Sorry, good point. Let's see if this works...
I did click the link before reading Tom's post and it is safe.
peacockcoins
I can’t get a good read from those photos, and I can’t explain why.
I might not be able to grade the coins accurately from those photos, but I will say 65, 64, 66, and 66.
Young Numismatist
Tough to grade from those photos.
Sorry, not the best pictures. Definitely need to work on my coin photography.
The first Gettysburg I bought in an NGC fatty graded MS65, cracked it and it came back 66+, nice upgrade.
The Lafayette was in a PCGS OGH. I thought it looked nicer than a 62 so I tried a crossover and it came back 62 from NGC.
The Norfolk I bought off Ebay, it came from ANACS and the date of grading was September 1983. It came in a 2x2 (no slabs then) with a picture of the obverse and reverse. They graded it 65/65 way back when. I sent it to PCGS who called it cleaned(!?). I then sent it to NGC who gave it a 67+.
The 2nd Gettysburg I bought raw off Ebay and sent it to PCGS who called it cleaned. NGC also called it cleaned. It's actually quite lustrous and I don't see any obvious cleaning, but oh well.
64+
61
66+
Something is "off" about this one.
Mid grade 60's would have been my guesses.... and the residues around the rims on the second Gettysburg does look like the remnants of a cleaning. Certainly not a harsh cleaning... Cheers, RickO