@Coinscratch said:
I cracked this one from a SEGS graded PF67 and our host upgraded it to an 8.
is this close or did i juice it too much.
Sorry if I sent this thread down a rabbit hole but...The coin is PR68 look it up again and it is as blue as the day is long, the pic is very representative obviously PCGS agreed. PR - SMS it's all the same to me.
The coin is not a Proof - as was already pointed out, no Proofs of that year were made. It’s an SMS example (which is not the same as a Proof, even if “all the same” to you.) As per the cert verification page:
@Coinscratch said:
I cracked this one from a SEGS graded PF67 and our host upgraded it to an 8.
is this close or did i juice it too much.
Sorry if I sent this thread down a rabbit hole but...The coin is PR68 look it up again and it is as blue as the day is long, the pic is very representative obviously PCGS agreed. PR - SMS it's all the same to me.
The coin is not a Proof - as was already pointed out, no Proofs of that year were made. It’s an SMS example (which is not the same as a Proof, even if “all the same” to you.) As per the cert verification page:
@Coinscratch said:
I cracked this one from a SEGS graded PF67 and our host upgraded it to an 8.
is this close or did i juice it too much.
Sorry if I sent this thread down a rabbit hole but...The coin is PR68 look it up again and it is as blue as the day is long, the pic is very representative obviously PCGS agreed. PR - SMS it's all the same to me.
The coin is not a Proof - as was already pointed out, no Proofs of that year were made. It’s an SMS example (which is not the same as a Proof, even if “all the same” to you.) As per the cert verification page:
@LanceNewmanOCC Actually, I was meaning to ask Sir Feld for the often over intuitive answer which is typically quite intriguing. But I will make an exception this time knowing that yours although carefully dissected can sometimes be dreadfully over done
@Coinscratch said:
I cracked this one from a SEGS graded PF67 and our host upgraded it to an 8.
is this close or did i juice it too much.
Sorry if I sent this thread down a rabbit hole but...The coin is PR68 look it up again and it is as blue as the day is long, the pic is very representative obviously PCGS agreed. PR - SMS it's all the same to me.
The coin is not a Proof - as was already pointed out, no Proofs of that year were made. It’s an SMS example (which is not the same as a Proof, even if “all the same” to you.) As per the cert verification page:
Well, after several lead on emails it seems the auction house cannot 'find' the coin of interest. To be honest the more I look at it the less I liked it so its probably for the better.
Definitely going to be more picky after dodging this one.
These don't show off the coppery look of the coin, also the surfaces are reflective that can't be shown below. Copper is my kryptonite in photography at this point
That just confirms an avoidance for cents, there are just too many issues to get excited about them unless certified by the top four. I have found each of them especially ICG very demanding.
Comments
You care to elaborate on what the difference between a proof and an SMS coin exactly is aside from the name?
i'm not sure whom you are asking but when i follow the quote tree, it looks like YOU made the sms vs proof comment and then asked yourself to explain.
Let me start over, Hi my name is Chris and I have a problem
@LanceNewmanOCC Actually, I was meaning to ask Sir Feld for the often over intuitive answer which is typically quite intriguing. But I will make an exception this time knowing that yours although carefully dissected can sometimes be dreadfully over done
No, not really. You might be able to look it up and find out, nearly as quickly as I could elaborate.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So... Not a proof. Got it. Anyways...
I will post pictures once I get the coin of interest in hand 😅 hopefully end of next week or so.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
Well, after several lead on emails it seems the auction house cannot 'find' the coin of interest. To be honest the more I look at it the less I liked it so its probably for the better.
Definitely going to be more picky after dodging this one.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
I ended up with the coin after all.
These don't show off the coppery look of the coin, also the surfaces are reflective that can't be shown below. Copper is my kryptonite in photography at this point
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
I'm late to the thread, but my first two thoughts were-
1-Altered color
2-There is a reason it is in a SEGS holder
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
That just confirms an avoidance for cents, there are just too many issues to get excited about them unless certified by the top four. I have found each of them especially ICG very demanding.
This coin most likely will not holder at NGC or PCGS, my guess is they will question color. It seems unnaturally off to me
Well my photography ability of these copper coins is lacking. I'll try with my phone.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
I was early to the thread, but my thought was:
“Unc. Details, questionable color.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not sure if these are much better. It's defi itely more copper looking than the Golden shades suggest.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin