Just got this one today as UNC showing sellers photos and my photos.It dosent look like the same coin in hand as the sellers photos.He needs to learn how to photograph a coin
Does anyone agree with the grade?
[attachment=1629]
[attachment=1630]
[attachment=1634]
[attachment=1633]
I believe he's dipped that coin between taking that photo and sending it to you. It's the same coin though. It could be UNC or AU. Can't say with any degree of certainty from either pair of images.
Quote from: 'markn' pid='11804' dateline='1365652821'I believe he's dipped that coin between taking that photo and sending it to you. It's the same coin though. It could be UNC or AU. Can't say with any degree of certainty from either pair of images.
Just upgraded the photos
I don't think it's been dipped after the sale,i think it's exactly what Stevo said the seller needs to spend some time with his camera.
I "won't" say that it's never been dipped though,but it does look UNC in your pics Stevo.
I reckon he's dipped it after taking the photo.
Quote from: 'enworb' pid='11813' dateline='1365664973'I reckon he's dipped it after taking the photo.
I think it's just his crappy photo with bad lighting but who knows.He's not doing himself any favours with those photos
Looks MS62 and original to me.
I have bought from this seller and yeah his photos are poor[/align].
Quote from: 'markn' pid='11804' dateline='1365652821'I believe he's dipped that coin between taking that photo and sending it to you. It's the same coin though. It could be UNC or AU. Can't say with any degree of certainty from either pair of images.
I agree with the grading, but I don't think it's been dipped. There's friction on the top left of the emu with discolouration, dipping would have removed the discolouration.
The second set of photos just has the light reflecting into the lens so the lustre would illuminate the whole coin shining through the toning.
Not dipped but completely original
http://www.pcgs.com/Cert/30435107.html