Pretty...

coinpictures

Too rich for my blood, but pretty nonetheless.

eBay Linky

zeebob

Pretty design indeed. Obverse fields look scratchy (hairlined).

Doogy

<< <i>Pretty design indeed. Obverse fields look scratchy (hairlined). >>



pretty indeed. DLRC has had that coin for auction for months now on their website, with no takers. If it weren't so frosty cameo wise, it would probably (rightfully so) receive a lower grade due to how it was blatantly wiped; I'd say PF62 may be the more suitable grade

beautiful coin, but i'd like to slap the knucklehead that wiped it years ago.

thisnamztaken

Yeah, I was also just about to say it's a nice DCAM, but why does it look like it has so many hairlines on it? Too bad.

JCMhouston

I'm hoping those are on the holder, I can't imagine it getting 64 if there are that many hairlines on the coin itself. That is a lovely design though, particularly in proof.

coinpictures

<< <i>

<< <i>Pretty design indeed. Obverse fields look scratchy (hairlined). >>



pretty indeed. DLRC has had that coin for auction for months now on their website, with no takers. If it weren't so frosty cameo wise, it would probably (rightfully so) receive a lower grade due to how it was blatantly wiped; I'd say PF62 may be the more suitable grade >>



Technically, yes, but marketwise, it's probably getting 1-2 points for the eye appeal and frost. Have you seen U.S. 19th-Century CAM/DCAM pieces in PCGS and NGC holders? I've seen far worse seated dollars and half dollars in 64-65 holders. This piece at least is a true DCAM...

7Jaguars

I know I would get a 62. These sometimes come with first rate toning...Think I have seen one somewhere....