Removed
GotTheBug
Posts: 1,720 ✭✭✭✭✭
.
0
GotTheBug
Posts: 1,720 ✭✭✭✭✭
GotTheBug
Posts: 1,720 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
It looks genuine to me. I agree on the Good-06 grade and it looks high end even for a good -06. I think some album guys would try to sneak it off as VG
Looks OK to me. On lower grades it's not uncommon for the D to be filled in as yours is.
I's grade this 4+/shot 6 because of the heavy reverse rim wear. I can't see this coin ending up in a VG08 holder, VG06 seems highly possible though.
The "D" is in the right place, but I would only grade it a Good-4 because of the weak rims on the top of the reverse. It's better than that usual AG-3 you see at most of the shows.
@BillJones said: "The "D" is in the right place, but I would only grade it a Good-4 because of the weak rims on the top of the reverse. It's better than that usual AG-3 you see at most of the shows."
Really nice looking of the date and mint. G-4, G-6 (me), even some VG-8's. Grade not important as this coin is probably going to be in a VG-10 2X2 and priced accordingly. LOL.
Looks good to me.
The mint mark appears to be properly located... just worn as is typical for that grade.... Cheers, RickO
Looks like a nice original 16-D to me. Much better than the usual AG's you see. I can see it as a Good-6.
No signs of alteration around the mintmark and surfaces are original and undisturbed. That's two thumbs up.
What Bill says, though it is a commercial Good-6.
Looks genuine to me. I would say G06 at best. There simply is too much blend at the upper half of the reverse. It looks like a nice example.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
.
Yup!
I'm no expert, but it does look genuine to me too. I agree with BillJones that it would only grade as a 4. Way too much wear on the reverse rims to be considered for a 6. Small chance it would even fall as a 3.