One That Got Away?

[ozjohn]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335330493737?itmmeta=01HTH8GWVNHDYKA38M0TT5R183&hash=item4e13414529:g:tEQAAOSwRJxmDIyg&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwCx%2B69igv%2FKa--PTDS153MDcRJbn6gtwf8j4yS8ujmd34wdWxU

 

A bit optimistic for PF 65. Maybe the photo but seems to have some wear.

[VickySilver]

Yes, that one had better look improved with in-hand inspection. At times they are puzzlers for sure, and given that there are some superb specimens out there of this date and denomination would be a "hard pass" as they say these days...

[Peckris 2]

14 hours ago, ozjohn said:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335330493737?itmmeta=01HTH8GWVNHDYKA38M0TT5R183&hash=item4e13414529:g:tEQAAOSwRJxmDIyg&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwCx%2B69igv%2FKa--PTDS153MDcRJbn6gtwf8j4yS8ujmd34wdWxU

 

A bit optimistic for PF 65. Maybe the photo but seems to have some wear.

That obverse looks absolutely terrible for a proof.

[ozjohn]

On 4/3/2024 at 4:03 PM, ozjohn said:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335330493737?itmmeta=01HTH8GWVNHDYKA38M0TT5R183&hash=item4e13414529:g:tEQAAOSwRJxmDIyg&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAAwCx%2B69igv%2FKa--PTDS153MDcRJbn6gtwf8j4yS8ujmd34wdWxU

 

A bit optimistic for PF 65. Maybe the photo but seems to have some wear.

And the price is on the heavy side. Here's my example  CGS 85.

[SilverAge3]

That's extremely ugly, esp for a proof. Horrid toning, weak strike, just bad eye appeal.

[Iannich48]

5 hours ago, SilverAge3 said:

That's extremely ugly, esp for a proof. Horrid toning, weak strike, just bad eye appeal.

Wow, you are harsh. Looks pretty decent to me.

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, Iannich48 said:

Wow, you are harsh. Looks pretty decent to me.

Sorry, I have to agree with @ozjohn and @SilverAge3 - there's wear to the obverse and it just doesn't look like a proof at all.

[Iannich48]

I was looking at ozjohn's example. Silly me, that ebay one is crappie.

[SilverAge3]

On 4/18/2024 at 1:38 PM, Iannich48 said:

I was looking at ozjohn's example. Silly me, that ebay one is crappie.

Yeah world of difference imo