Can we see the reverse? Agree that it's a very attractive coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I just checked the cert number out on pcgs website, and it shows a sales history in 2004 going for more than I paid. All recent sales on coin facts for the grade went for less though. Mine is toned though, so I am happy. Link
Yes, PL qualities aren't uncommon with these. Your example looks very nice, no obvious distractions. Despite their tiny size, many are mushy in strike, off center, and/or with significant hairlining, scratches, nicks, foggy haze, uneven luster, or just general blah-ness. But you got a good one.
Originally posted by: SeattleSlammer Yes, PL qualities aren't uncommon with these. Your example looks very nice, no obvious distractions. Despite their tiny size, many are mushy in strike, off center, and/or with significant hairlining, scratches, nicks, foggy haze, uneven luster, or just general blah-ness. But you got a good one.
As you can tell from the reverse pic, there is almost a bend look to it. Is that from minting since they are so thin?
Originally posted by: SeattleSlammer Yes, PL qualities aren't uncommon with these. Your example looks very nice, no obvious distractions. Despite their tiny size, many are mushy in strike, off center, and/or with significant hairlining, scratches, nicks, foggy haze, uneven luster, or just general blah-ness. But you got a good one.
As you can tell from the reverse pic, there is almost a bend look to it. Is that from minting since they are so thin?
Yes. In many cases the production methods were quite crude in comparison to the mint. Plus just the tiny size contributed to more errors.
Its not usually to see an attractively toned calfracs. If its a period 2 then many are prooflike whereas period 1s are scarcer if prooflike. Your BG-222 is not very rare and its one of the most common calfracs period 1s. I like the coin and its toning. Because calfracs have a good percentage of copper in it you'll see that toning. Nice coin.
I think your clafrac is definitely worth what you paid for it. It's a very nice looking coin.
Did you see this coin in hand or have someone else look at it for you? I ask because even when I enlarge the Heritage picture, I can't see the really nice toning that's on the coin. Based on the Heritage picture, I'd never have guessed the coin looks as sweet as it does.
Originally posted by: Mark I think your clafrac is definitely worth what you paid for it. It's a very nice looking coin.
Did you see this coin in hand or have someone else look at it for you? I ask because even when I enlarge the Heritage picture, I can't see the really nice toning that's on the coin. Based on the Heritage picture, I'd never have guessed the coin looks as sweet as it does.
Toned gold shows best at certain angles. The seller showed the toning, so I took a chance.
Comments
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Latin American Collection
I dig it. I'm a fan of fractionals. OGH?
This is my first fractional. I am a fan of toned gold, which is the main reason I bought it. It has a proof like look. Is that normal with these?
Link
Yes, PL qualities aren't uncommon with these. Your example looks very nice, no obvious distractions. Despite their tiny size, many are mushy in strike, off center, and/or with significant hairlining, scratches, nicks, foggy haze, uneven luster, or just general blah-ness. But you got a good one.
As you can tell from the reverse pic, there is almost a bend look to it. Is that from minting since they are so thin?
Yes, PL qualities aren't uncommon with these. Your example looks very nice, no obvious distractions. Despite their tiny size, many are mushy in strike, off center, and/or with significant hairlining, scratches, nicks, foggy haze, uneven luster, or just general blah-ness. But you got a good one.
As you can tell from the reverse pic, there is almost a bend look to it. Is that from minting since they are so thin?
Yes. In many cases the production methods were quite crude in comparison to the mint. Plus just the tiny size contributed to more errors.
I like your avatar Indian, too.
Nice.
I like your avatar Indian, too.
Thank you! It is my favorite toned coin I own.
Did you see this coin in hand or have someone else look at it for you? I ask because even when I enlarge the Heritage picture, I can't see the really nice toning that's on the coin. Based on the Heritage picture, I'd never have guessed the coin looks as sweet as it does.
I think your clafrac is definitely worth what you paid for it. It's a very nice looking coin.
Did you see this coin in hand or have someone else look at it for you? I ask because even when I enlarge the Heritage picture, I can't see the really nice toning that's on the coin. Based on the Heritage picture, I'd never have guessed the coin looks as sweet as it does.
Toned gold shows best at certain angles. The seller showed the toning, so I took a chance.
My YouTube Channel