1907 2.5 dollar gold piece - Does this look original?
Meltdown
Posts: 8,990 ✭✭✭✭✭
I would like some opinions on the toning. There are no hairlines at all that I can see.
Is the toning just a result of circulation?
Is the toning just a result of circulation?
0
Comments
<< <i>The only think that would concern me, is the lack of luster for a coin with that amount of detail. >>
Well, that makes me feel a bit better, there is quite a bit of luster in hand. I used photobucket's "autofix" on
the first set of images and it stripped away a lot of the contrast.
Here's a quick shot in natural sunlight.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
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
Where's RYK at?
<< <i>I love the look.
Where's RYK at?
RYK is going to say "no".
<< <i>
<< <i>I love the look.
Where's RYK at?
RYK is going to say "no". >>
And I am guessing RYK said "no" because portions of the surfaces are too light. If my guess was wrong, that is still my reason for answering "no".
1. 1907 QEs really did not circulate, and this coin has very little wear (AU details).
2. The coloration is just not right. It is uneven, the fields are light, while the protected areas are dark, and the color on the trunk is uneven. It's just not a natural look.
3. There are areas of bluish tone which are suggestive of previous chemical treatment.
Most of the time, this look is wrong. Unless at basal value for a QE, or slightly below, I would pass.
I liked the look very much when I saw it and bought it for just a hair over melt.
So I'm pretty happy with my old bullion piece.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
<< <i>Well, I sure appreciate all of the opinions.
I liked the look very much when I saw it and bought it for just a hair over melt.
So I'm pretty happy with my old bullion piece. >>
At melt, you cannot go wrong (unless gold tanks).