There are a couple of faint spots and a few obverse hairlines, so I call it a 63. But it has a nice strike and luster, whereas many of these don't. I like it.
Beautiful! I have an 1862 that looks a lot like this in terms of color, luster etc. I was just looking at my collection last night and thinking how great it would be to find more IHC's that look like that.
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector. Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Thanks all, this is in an old NGC holder slabbed about 20 years ago. I'll need to loupe this again tonight, I think this one is almost completely mark free from my recollection. Even the tiny bit on the cheek area doesn't stand out as a "scratch" or hairline...it's completely non-reflective and almost more like something that resulted from the planchet, or the strike process itself...an inverted die crack (if that exists) is the best way I can describe how it looked under the loupe. The overall cheek area is probably better than any IHC I own, and that includes some nice 65's.
I'm thinking of submitting it as a crack out but was wondering if the strike would preclude gem status (first few feathers are weak at the tips, but the last ones are nice). Another poster said the strike is actually very good for this date, so I'm thinking more and more this one has a shot at 65.
The late CN series exhibits hub cracks. These cracks are into the metal on the hub which is a steel shank with a positive likeness of the coin without the date (prior to 1909 for cents). The cracks transfer to each die as a raised line, and then are again sunken on the resulting coins.
Die cracks are raised on the coin, hub cracks are sunken on the coin - and show up on many dies.
It is very useful to keep dies and hubs differentiated. Dies have a sunken image, hubs have a raised image.
I think you should leave it in the MS64 holder (if that is what it is). MS65 is wishful thinking.
I see it as a 64 at best ... only because of the striking deficiency in the forward feathers and lower left wreath. I do agree with assessment that 65 is wishful, and disagree with the fact that this is well struck for the date.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Comments
Looks like a nice 64. Nice lustre.
wes
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
You're peaking my interest in a set I put aside a few years ago
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
My guess fits with most everyone else's so I will keep you guessing.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
I'm thinking of submitting it as a crack out but was wondering if the strike would preclude gem status (first few feathers are weak at the tips, but the last ones are nice). Another poster said the strike is actually very good for this date, so I'm thinking more and more this one has a shot at 65.
Die cracks are raised on the coin, hub cracks are sunken on the coin - and show up on many dies.
It is very useful to keep dies and hubs differentiated. Dies have a sunken image, hubs have a raised image.
I think you should leave it in the MS64 holder (if that is what it is). MS65 is wishful thinking.
I see it as a 64 at best ... only because of the striking deficiency in the forward feathers and lower left wreath. I do agree with assessment that 65 is wishful, and disagree with the fact that this is well struck for the date.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242