<< <i>Nice image, might help to reduce it a bit, 10x you see every little flaw, just sayin. I'll give it a 65 NGC, 64 PCGS, JMHO. >>
I know. I took it with the Canon t3i at 18 Meg!!! I can make it worse, but for a true look, this is the same as looking through a 10X lens with great light.
I resized your images to get a better idea of how this coin would look without a 10X loop and how the graders would see it. I personally see nothing glaring that would keep this out of a 65 holder.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
Here is one recently graded in the holder for comparision. It was just imaged with same camera and light as the ungraded 1883. I'll hold the 1884 grade for a while. This camera does capture amazing detail.
Lustre on 83 = very nice, "grind" contact mark at neck base not quite so pleasant, reverse nicer just too much action to go gem. IMO 64, maybe +. Those grading it 65, please be helping at PCGS with my next submission! 84 = also nice luster, too many hits even if smaller type for a 5. IMO 64 on that.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
Comments
I'll give it a 65 NGC, 64 PCGS, JMHO.
Nice late die state cracks on the OBV.
<< <i>Nice image, might help to reduce it a bit, 10x you see every little flaw, just sayin.
I'll give it a 65 NGC, 64 PCGS, JMHO. >>
I know. I took it with the Canon t3i at 18 Meg!!! I can make it worse, but for a true look, this is the same as looking through a 10X lens with great light.
Thanks!
bob
Here is one recently graded in the holder for comparision. It was just imaged with same camera and light as the ungraded 1883. I'll hold the 1884 grade for a while. This camera does capture amazing detail.
Thanks Relics. What is the size of the image you converted it to?
Rainbow Stars
Keep it in the GSA and send to NGC..... 65
Crack it, oh the horror, and send to PCGS..... 65
Your second posted morgan looks like it would have graded a 64. The one in the original post is superior and I still think 65...
won't say how much money, until the grade is posted.
http://www.coinshop.com
64 for sure, and I'm willing to have beers and discuss a +.
<< <i>Vertical scuff in the left field is too distracting for me to call it a 65.
64 for sure, and I'm willing to have beers and discuss a +. >>
Dennis, it`s a 65.
You`re as good as anyone, and I see this in a 65 holder like you should.
I`ve seen much worse in 5 holders...
<< <i>Lee: To each our own. I'm sticking with mine. >>
Maybe you just wanna have
<< <i>Who ever grades that a 64 or less, I want to buy your coins! >>
LOL. I was thinking the same thing.
1884 is NGC 64, graded a few months ago.
Those grading it 65, please be helping at PCGS with my next submission!
84 = also nice luster, too many hits even if smaller type for a 5. IMO 64 on that.
Well, just Love coins, period.