Guess the grade WLH

Morgan13

This coin was graded on 1/16/1985 by ANACS. I have the card with the image.
What would you guess the grade of this coin to be by today's standards. I will reveal the card at some point.
I will tell you that this coin is amazing in hand with some of the nicest luster I have ever seen. It has no heavy hits just a couple of luster breaks from mild contact.
I know it looks hazy on the right side obverse but it is not hazy. You'll have to take my word for it.
The obverse of the coin was difficult to take shots of because of reflection so I took several.

TomB

The top image, and the other less so, looks heavily altered. You might have done nothing to it, but that is how it appears.

World67

@TomB said:
The top image, and the other less so, looks heavily altered. You might have done nothing to it, but that is how it appears.

Yep. Looks AU details, severely polished.

johnny9434

Au'ish details

Morgan13

So Tom those are the best images I can get with my cell phone camera.
The coin itself has not been altered in any way and is mint state.

Morgan13

@Morgan White said:

@TomB said:
The top image, and the other less so, looks heavily altered. You might have done nothing to it, but that is how it appears.

Yep. Looks AU details, severely polished.

I think he was talking about the images not the coin.

TomB

Yes, I was talking about the images, but the difficulty in interpreting them makes any real guess (for me) nearly impossible.

Morgan13

Sorry about that. I will just end it now and post the card that shows the grade. In my opinion its at least a 66 but could grade higher. I know these come really nice so its nothing special but its nice to have a prime type coin.

dipset512

@Morgan White said:

@TomB said:
The top image, and the other less so, looks heavily altered. You might have done nothing to it, but that is how it appears.

Yep. Looks AU details, severely polished.

I'm going with the camera quality.

Walkerfan

Based on the original images, I would’ve said a highly polished AU.

may

The highly polished look happens when you have that kind of overcast, natural light. Otherwise I would have guessed 66, but I'm not good at grading walkers.

MarkInDavis

Images look overexposed and color removed.

ChrisH821

What are you using to take pictures? Are you processing them somehow?
I would have said whizzed based on those.

Coinscratch

I was gonna guess that it was graded 65 in 1985 so I got that part right I would give it a 66 now maybe a plus if it looks that good in hand.

RedRocket

@Coinscratch said:
I was gonna guess that it was graded 65 in 1985 so I got that part right I would give it a 66 now maybe a plus if it looks that good in hand.

Based on what? Pure speculation?
Certainly you are not assigning your grade based on the photos.

Coinscratch

@Tranquility said:

@Coinscratch said:
I was gonna guess that it was graded 65 in 1985 so I got that part right I would give it a 66 now maybe a plus if it looks that good in hand.

Based on what? Pure speculation?
Certainly you are not assigning your grade based on the photos.

Based on what I see in the photos.
The shadow he’s saying looks haze in the right field is actually cartwheel luster. Proven by the next photo where the lighting is different and it is light in the same area and just based on the natural curvature of the shadow.

So at that point mint state is affirmed now comes the deduction from hits and strength of strike. I shouldn’t have to explain that part.

Sometimes you have to decide if you want a coin or not based on crappy images rather than simply eye appeal.

Coinscratch

Of course I am doing all this looking with my cell phone lol so of course it’s gonna look better to me.

RedRocket

@Coinscratch said:
Of course I am doing all this looking with my cell phone lol so of course it’s gonna look better to me.

On my flip phone it appears polished XF

:'(

Coinscratch

@Tranquility said:

@Coinscratch said:
Of course I am doing all this looking with my cell phone lol so of course it’s gonna look better to me.

On my flip phone it appears polished XF

:'(

Lmao!
Sure, I’m optimistic. I do happen to have a gambling addiction when it comes to buying coins. Other factors involved in my decision was that he mentioned it was graded, the dimples or luster is more prominent in the reverse photos.
And the fact that people tend to throw you on the guess the grade games.
So if it looks bad, it’s probably good and it looks good. It’s definitely bad. Look at my GTG. I made those little Lincoln’s look precious 63, 62 lol.

2windy2fish

My estimation would have been 65 based on my understanding that no coin ever got a grade higher than 65 in the early days of third party grading…
Perhaps it would be interesting to send it to PCGS or NGC just to see what their opinion is but it would be a shame to lose the current holder

MFeld

@2windy2fish said:
My estimation would have been 65 based on my understanding that no coin ever got a grade higher than 65 in the early days of third party grading…
Perhaps it would be interesting to send it to PCGS or NGC just to see what their opinion is but it would be a shame to lose the current holder

Your understanding is incorrect. Granted, it was obviously much more difficult to get grades above 65 in the early days of grading, but it far more frequent than never.

Creg

@2windy2fish said:
that no coin ever

@MFeld said:
more frequent than never.

I enjoy Mark’s lessons in logic and rhetoric. Many absolutes are discussion losers.
His posts are grammar lessons too. He includes numismatics, as well.

Morgan13

I took some images with my Canon. Better than my cell phone.

Walkerfan

Though the coin wasn’t wiped down and is technically problem-free, it still looks washed out likely due to over-dipping.

Cougar1978

Assuming it straight grades - Would say 63-64