1902-s Double Eagle ---name the grade---

[princeofwaldo-migration]

Nice looking cheek, nothing too distracting in the fields...,,, What's your grade??

 

[Bruceswar]

AU 50

[FishyOne]

Assuming it is not weakly struck - XF45. If it is just poorly struck up, it could go as high as AU55.

[Bruceswar]

Assuming it is not weakly struck - XF45. If it is just poorly struck up, it could go as high as AU55.

 

Don't you think that coin has too much luster for XF 45?

[coinman_23885]

AU 50

[BillJones]

Assuming it is not weakly struck - XF45. If it is just poorly struck up, it could go as high as AU55.

 

Don't you think that coin has too much luster for XF 45?

 

It is a tough call on the luster from the picture. It appears to me to have enough for an AU-50, and the piece has smooth surfaces which is a big plus.

[$ilverHawk]

The hair has a bit too much wear to be AU. I'll go with XF45.

 

Carl

[FishyOne]

Assuming it is not weakly struck - XF45. If it is just poorly struck up, it could go as high as AU55.

 

Don't you think that coin has too much luster for XF 45?

 

Certainly could be a 50. In-hand it may have good luster.

[MarkFeld]

My guess is that it is a weakly struck example which is more lustrous, in person. And that it grades AU55 or higher.

[SPeck95512]

I'm w/ Mark on this one. I was thinking AU55 and maybe an AU58 if they're generous. Everybody posting it as an XF made me seriously rethink my instincts and not post until now. I'm not much of a gold person but my guesses are usually pretty close despite my unfamiliarity with the series.

[princeofwaldo-migration]

Boy, you guys are pretty good. Would seem the concensus nailed it. AU55, with a lot more luster on the reverse than is evident in the photograph.

[Bruceswar]

Boy, you guys are pretty good. Would seem the concensus nailed it. AU55, with a lot more luster on the reverse than is evident in the photograph.

 

Photos must be hiding it a bit. AU 55 if the luster is there would be right.

[jtryka]

I think it looks AU.