Heh. What was considered NT in 1986 is AT in 2007.

coinpictures · August 2, 2007 5:56AM

I had revealed this coin to have been bodybagged by NGC last month:

Whilst scrounging through my excess boxes of stuff, I found the original paperwork that came with the coin (I had completely forgotten about this).

I'm not saying that ANACS is any more accurate than NGC is, and there were certainly toning doctors around 21 years ago, but I still find it amusing that the coin was deemed acceptable in 1986 but sh1tcanned today...

tightbudget · August 2, 2007 6:03AM

The Times They Are A Changin'

tightbudget · August 2, 2007 6:04AM

I thought Russ posted before me...?

Russ · August 2, 2007 6:04AM

I have no doubt that NGC got this one wrong.

Russ, NCNE

Russ · August 2, 2007 6:06AM

<< <i>I thought Russ posted before me...? >>

I did. The forum database has been glitchy lately.

Russ, NCNE

clarkbar04 · August 2, 2007 6:17AM

Something about the "shadow" around the stars and letters just doesn't look right. On the ones I've seen anyway, it is much sharper, like this one. Also I don't think I've ever seen the toning change around the devices like that. I'm not trying to convince you its AT, just making obsservations.

jmj3esq · August 2, 2007 6:22AM

Looks NT to me.

fc · August 2, 2007 6:37AM

amazing look around the lower obverse stars and dates, as in how it toned. looks 3D.

airplanenut · August 2, 2007 8:30AM

<< <i> Something about the "shadow" around the stars and letters just doesn't look right. On the ones I've seen anyway, it is much sharper, like this one. Also I don't think I've ever seen the toning change around the devices like that. I'm not trying to convince you its AT, just making obsservations. >>

I was thinking the exact same thing... I've never seen soft pull-away toning before.

Heh. What was considered NT in 1986 is AT in 2007.

Comments

Leave a Comment