Because there is zero "modern cr@P" in anthing TDN is interested in, the question is about "toners"
Here's my comment--if it were an 1896 Morgan--lets make it hard-- "S" mint; what is the chance it would be bagged as AT at PCGS? (assume zero provenance)
How about if it was a 1936 Wasington--lets make it hard --chance as a "D" mint?
Lastly, if it was a 1968 Kennedy lets make it hard----what is the chance Russ would get an "AU-58"!!!
Since you can't tell what the surfaces look like because of the angle of the shot (dullness of high points) it's hard to tell. I would have to say AU58 because it does appear to have some rub on the high points and the open surfaces in the fields seem off-color or muted a bit. I could see PCGS 55'ing this coin.
<< <i>Based on your past posts, DK, you think *everything* is AT. So pardon me if I ignore your opinion. >>
i said the toning was HORRIBLE, but it's also been applied probably to cover up problems, so a-t applies just as well. i don't care what the holder says, based on that digi-pic, that coins been crapped on.
of course, your welcome to "ignore" whatever you want, but that could just make you ig***ant
I'm not trying to be a jerk here Bruce, but what makes you believe that the coin is NT?
For something like that, I'd like to see it in either in an older generation holder or traceable to an old auction where it was plated looking like it does now.
Cool coin. Missed being a GREAT coin by 1 year. Only reason TDN called it modern is because you know how collectors are, if it's as old as them it's modern to them.
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
Comments
Fortunately for you I like ugly coins. Send it to me and I'll even take care of the shipping costs...
Here's my comment--if it were an 1896 Morgan--lets make it hard-- "S" mint; what is the chance it would be bagged as AT at PCGS?
(assume zero provenance)
How about if it was a 1936 Wasington--lets make it hard --chance as a "D" mint?
Lastly, if it was a 1968 Kennedy lets make it hard----what is the chance Russ would get an "AU-58"!!!
Do you have a grade on it?
For some reason, I thought 'quarter' when I saw it.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>What is the denomination?
For some reason, I thought 'quarter' when I saw it. >>
Looks like a dime to me, but I could be wrong...
Let's do a guess the grade!
<< <i>Let's do a guess the grade! >>
AU-53. Thanks for the giveaway!
the a-t is horrible.
K S
<< <i>common jr-1, i'd guess au 50
the a-t is horrible.
K S >>
Don't quit your day job.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
JJ
<< <i>
<< <i>common jr-1, i'd guess au 50
the a-t is horrible.
K S >>
Don't quit your day job. >>
do you SERIOUSLY think that crappy tone is natural?
BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
stick to silver dollars
K S
<< <i>Based on your past posts, DK, you think *everything* is AT. So pardon me if I ignore your opinion. >>
Actually, in his past posts it's not been so much about AT/NT but whether it's "market acceptable."
<< <i>Based on your past posts, DK, you think *everything* is AT. So pardon me if I ignore your opinion. >>
i said the toning was HORRIBLE, but it's also been applied probably to cover up problems, so a-t applies just as well. i don't care what the holder says, based on that digi-pic, that coins been crapped on.
of course, your welcome to "ignore" whatever you want, but that could just make you ig***ant
K S
I do believe it was you that called ManOfCoins AT'd old holder Morgan dollar 'both NT and lovely'.
For something like that, I'd like to see it in either in an older generation holder or traceable to an old auction where it was plated looking like it does now.
Only reason TDN called it modern is because you know how collectors are, if it's as old as them it's modern to them.
*shrug*
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps