GTG NEWP CAC SLQ. COIN IN HAND new photos posted, what do you think of the grade?

Walkerlover

Hello everyone I bought this pretty blazing fairy clean CAC SLQ tonight at GC for a nice price I believe due to the fact that the consignor put a reserved starting bid. Seems people have a psychological resistance to participating in forced starting bid prices even if they are only slightly under regular bid prices.
Only 1 person bid the required starting bid price, but I had to put in a snipe bid in the last 11 seconds to fend off a last minute third bid that was slightly over the original persons minimum required price. A great day for me. I welcome any thoughts on the coin as well as your guesses.

Mr_Spud

67FH

Walkerfan

65FH

Smudge

65FH.

Tom147

66 FH. Not 100% on the FH. Hard to tell with my eyes.

FlyingAl

MS66. Close but not FH in my opinion.

It's got a good look to it.

marcmoish

nice, 66 not fh agreed.

Elcontador

Nice strike for a 30 P. Clean surfaces. Dipped. Nice eye appeal. Doesn't appear to be a FH, or if so, I wouldn't pay FH money for it. An MS 66 grade would not surprise me.

Manifest_Destiny

66FH

291fifth

Photos are too overexposed to be used for grading. Overexposed photos hide small defects.

privatecoin

mS65

fluffy155

I seem to see some friction (not wear, but coin-coin) on the high points, and given that it's CAC approved I'll guess a bit lower... 64FH.

Morgan13

I had to put on my welding helmet to view it.
Once I did that I could see that it's a really nice coin.
Stay out of the hot sun.

coinbuf

MS64 close but no FH, this date is known for blazing luster bombs. The coin has a better than average strike with full shield rivets, I am guessing that PCGS silently netted the coin down in grade for the lines on the rev. If those lines are on the holder then I may be way off on my grade guess.

Davidk7

66 no FH

alaura22

MS-64 No FH
Nice looking coin
Congrats

Walkerlover

@coinbuf said:
MS64 close but no FH, this date is known for blazing luster bombs. The coin has a better than average strike with full shield rivets, I am guessing that PCGS silently netted the coin down in grade for the lines on the rev. If those lines are on the holder then I may be way off on my grade guess.

Coin is MS 64 CAC. Only 1 or 2 people guessed correctly, you make a very good point that the lines on the reverse may have held down the grade. I won’t know till I receive the coin if it is on the plastic.

Mr_Spud

Here’s the TrueView. Those marks were on the slab, but in the TrueView you can see some hits in the wing and some on the obverse that weren’t visible in the auction pictures

Walkerlover

@Mr_Spud said:
Here’s the TrueView. Those marks were on the slab, but in the TrueView you can see some hits in the wing and some on the obverse that weren’t visible in the auction pictures

Thanks for sharing this information MR. Spud. So what is your opinion now that you see the True View? Do you agree with the 64 grade or do you see better? The original GC photo was overexposed

Mr_Spud

The hits on the wing, the way they extend like scratches, brings it down to that level. I thought it might go full head because it has a little bit of an ear hole but I guess not enough

pursuitofliberty

Late to the party.

Liner on the FH designation (maybe one day but not the other?). 64 looks right, although nice for a 64

winesteven

@Walkerlover said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Here’s the TrueView. Those marks were on the slab, but in the TrueView you can see some hits in the wing and some on the obverse that weren’t visible in the auction pictures

Thanks for sharing this information MR. Spud. So what is your opinion now that you see the True View? Do you agree with the 64 grade or do you see better? The original GC photo was overexposed

I’m willing to bet the coin in hand looks bright white like the GC photos, and NOT like the “Not so” True View darker coloring.

Steve

fluffy155

As usual the True View is too orange. I missed the reverse rim hit as well, not sure how much that affects the grade but still looks like a strong 64.

Walkerlover

@winesteven said:

@Walkerlover said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Here’s the TrueView. Those marks were on the slab, but in the TrueView you can see some hits in the wing and some on the obverse that weren’t visible in the auction pictures

Thanks for sharing this information MR. Spud. So what is your opinion now that you see the True View? Do you agree with the 64 grade or do you see better? The original GC photo was overexposed

I’m willing to bet the coin in hand looks bright white like the GC photos, and NOT like the “Not so” True View darker coloring.

Steve

Thanks for your vote of confidence Steve. Andy at GC told me coin looked undipped blazing with a very slight amount of original skin forming a slight gold tone around the periphery of the coin.

winesteven

@Walkerlover said:

@winesteven said:

@Walkerlover said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Here’s the TrueView. Those marks were on the slab, but in the TrueView you can see some hits in the wing and some on the obverse that weren’t visible in the auction pictures

Thanks for sharing this information MR. Spud. So what is your opinion now that you see the True View? Do you agree with the 64 grade or do you see better? The original GC photo was overexposed

I’m willing to bet the coin in hand looks bright white like the GC photos, and NOT like the “Not so” True View darker coloring.

Steve

Thanks for your vote of confidence Steve. Andy at GC told me coin looked undipped blazing with a very slight amount of original skin forming a slight gold tone around the periphery of the coin.

Let us know, but I still believe it will look a lot closer to the GC photos than the TV.

Steve

Walkerlover

@winesteven said:

@Walkerlover said:

@winesteven said:

@Walkerlover said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Here’s the TrueView. Those marks were on the slab, but in the TrueView you can see some hits in the wing and some on the obverse that weren’t visible in the auction pictures

Thanks for sharing this information MR. Spud. So what is your opinion now that you see the True View? Do you agree with the 64 grade or do you see better? The original GC photo was overexposed

I’m willing to bet the coin in hand looks bright white like the GC photos, and NOT like the “Not so” True View darker coloring.

Steve

Thanks for your vote of confidence Steve. Andy at GC told me coin looked undipped blazing with a very slight amount of original skin forming a slight gold tone around the periphery of the coin.

Let us know, but I still believe it will look a lot closer to the GC photos than the TV.

Steve

Steve I received the coin today and the luster is incredible and untoned perhaps from an original roll end of issue undipped. One contact mark on leg to the left side of stars as I circled. I think should be at least 64+ or maybe 65 as a C coin.

Walkerlover

Walkerlover

winesteven

No surprise to me! Congratulations!!!

Steve

Walkerlover

@winesteven said:
No surprise to me! Congratulations!!!

Steve

Thanks Steve I have never seen a silver coin with this kind of luster from 1930 nearly 100 year old coin. This is before roll collecting became popular after 1933. Beats out all my 1940-45 blazers. I have learned from buying GC coins that in general they understate luster in their photos