Looks like it has full mint luster and clean surfaces. Maybe a print fragment in right obv field? Please post a blow up the size of a dinner plate so that we can down grade it for every tiny mark that requires 30x power to see.
<< <i>If it ain't 58, my next guess would be 64. >>
That was the first thought that hit me also. Soooo I'll go the other way . . . 64.
HH
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>The photo angle or lighting used makes the cheek look rubbed....but since the OP has said the luster is all there and it's MS, I'll go with 64.... >>
I definitely appreciate the comment, but I'm not seeing the rub on the cheek in the photo, and certainly not on the coin in-hand. Very interesting all of the differing opinions based on the image. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. In that case, the "picture" sure better be spot on! Thanks to all who have responded so far. The coin is outstanding in-hand.
<< <i>Pics aren't good enough, but looks MS65 from here. Full luster in the fields, and I can't see any major marks. >>
I am looking at the coin with a 10x loop right now, and I'd like to say you are spot on, IMHO. BTW, Ron, you've never really missed the mark as far as I can recall.
<< <i>I don't know why everyone thinks this coin is AU. Looks MS64 >>
I love controversy, and I cannot agree with you one smidgen more, Shamika! And you are by far one of the most respected and long time original members here on the forum that I can recall and respect here, since I joined 8+ years ago!
I'm not going to divulge the coin yet but I will say this, there's always a lot of rhetoric about the saying, "buy the coin not the holder". I will say with scientific mathematical certainty that those six words were created for this coin, period.
Buy the coin and not the holder ........GREAT ! It is AU 58 which is my first impression, even though you say it's mint state. OK. Then the coin is a 63.
Back in 1989 this looks like a 63/64 coin. Back then a single hairline on the cheek kept any Barber from MS65. Now, even MS67's can have a stray facial hairline.
I'll go with 63 knowing that anything on this from 63-65 looks reasonable to me based on these tiny pics.
Ok folks, I apologize for calling it MS, BUT, I'm sorry it IS MS!!! and I grade it MS64 close to a MS65. My images are crude with flashes from my camera but this coin is all there! Strike, luster, and not a rub/scratch to speak of. Even has a cool die crack to the right of the "6".
<< <i>Ok folks, I apologize for calling it MS, BUT, I'm sorry it IS MS!!! and I grade it MS64 close to a MS65. My images are crude with flashes from my camera but this coin is all there! Strike, luster, and not a rub/scratch to speak of. Even has a cool die crack to the right of the "6".
>>
For those who only start on the last page of a thread.
<< <i>Great pickup! Are you going to do well on the coin if it grades 64/65? >>
Paid a lot for it, doesn't really matter to me for I'm not planning on parting with this one any time soon. For four solid reasons: 1.) It is at least a MS64, shot MS65, at least from where I sit. 2.) It has the coveted Gold CAC bean (which I've never owned a coin with a gold bean before). 3.) It's in an old rattler holder and I happen to absolutely LOVE old PCGS rattler holders. and, 4.) I've always been fond of "any" coin with the 1906 date, for I am a San Francisco 1906 earthquake historian and "so-called" history buff. :-) ---In any event, I haven't bought coins in a while and I've always loved the monster-toners, but there was something about this Barber that hooked me, fish-line-and sinker!
Comments
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
CG
58+ cac gold
.
<--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -
<< <i>If it ain't 58, my next guess would be 64. >>
That was the first thought that hit me also. Soooo I'll go the other way . . . 64.
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
Doug
it's MS, I'll go with 64....
<< <i>The photo angle or lighting used makes the cheek look rubbed....but since the OP has said the luster is all there and
it's MS, I'll go with 64.... >>
I definitely appreciate the comment, but I'm not seeing the rub on the cheek in the photo, and certainly not on the coin in-hand. Very interesting all of the differing opinions based on the image. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. In that case, the "picture" sure better be spot on! Thanks to all who have responded so far. The coin is outstanding in-hand.
<< <i>I saw the coin .. I will keep quiet .. heh this is going to be interesting >>
Yes, please keep quiet.
<< <i>I saw the coin .. I will keep quiet .. heh this is going to be interesting >>
With a little research, I see I wasn't far off.
<< <i>Pics aren't good enough, but looks MS65 from here. Full luster in the fields, and I can't see any major marks. >>
I am looking at the coin with a 10x loop right now, and I'd like to say you are spot on, IMHO. BTW, Ron, you've never really missed the mark as far as I can recall.
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
<< <i>I don't know why everyone thinks this coin is AU. Looks MS64 >>
I love controversy, and I cannot agree with you one smidgen more, Shamika! And you are by far one of the most respected and long time original members here on the forum that I can recall and respect here, since I joined 8+ years ago!
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>In order to GTG I would need larger images...but from what I can see I will say that I like it. >>
+1
<< <i>I don't know why everyone thinks this coin is AU. Looks MS64 >>
Small pics might explain. Since it isn't AU, my next guess would be MS63
<< <i>In order to GTG I would need larger images...but from what I can see I will say that I like it. >>
Images are too small to correctly grade that beautiful coin ... somehow it slipped under my radar !
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
I'll go with 63 knowing that anything on this from 63-65 looks reasonable to me based on these tiny pics.
<< <i>Ok folks, I apologize for calling it MS, BUT, I'm sorry it IS MS!!! and I grade it MS64 close to a MS65. My images are crude with flashes from my camera but this coin is all there! Strike, luster, and not a rub/scratch to speak of. Even has a cool die crack to the right of the "6".
>>
For those who only start on the last page of a thread.
<< <i>Great pickup! Are you going to do well on the coin if it grades 64/65? >>
Paid a lot for it, doesn't really matter to me for I'm not planning on parting with this one any time soon. For four solid reasons: 1.) It is at least a MS64, shot MS65, at least from where I sit. 2.) It has the coveted Gold CAC bean (which I've never owned a coin with a gold bean before). 3.) It's in an old rattler holder and I happen to absolutely LOVE old PCGS rattler holders. and, 4.) I've always been fond of "any" coin with the 1906 date, for I am a San Francisco 1906 earthquake historian and "so-called" history buff. :-) ---In any event, I haven't bought coins in a while and I've always loved the monster-toners, but there was something about this Barber that hooked me, fish-line-and sinker!
Nope!
Nope!
And nope!
A post liquid lunch slab?
BHNC #203
Should you ever decide to sell it, I'd love a shot at it.
Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases