Scan+Photo, Guess the PCGS grade, 1957 Washington Quarter

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I didn't see "ugly" as an option..

 

While PCGS may give it a higher grade, I won't. The fingerprint automatically limits it to 65 in my book (and for a huge print like that, I'm more likely to lean towards 64). The pictures are dark, which doesn't allow me to see the coin very well - so I'll guess 64. I'm probably wrong on this one. Don't want to hurt your feelings, but I really don't like this coin.

 

Sorry

I hate posting negative opinions, but sometimes I have to.... Fingerprints are my pet peeve, although they don't seem to bother most other people (including the TPGs) nearly as much as they bother me. I've seen coins up to 66 with unacceptably large fingerprints.

 

One of my favorite graded photo examples which demonstrates that MS i still MS, regardless of prints...



Did you touch on fingerprints in your book? What do you do, lower the grade due to fingerprints?

 

I don't talk too much about fingerprints in my book, because they are a controversial topic. I have a strong bias on the subject, and in my book I tried to be as well balanced as possible.

If you think of a grade not as a grade, but as a value, then my position makes more sense (and of course, this is the entire idea of market grading). I personally will not pay a strong price (and will actually heavily discount) for a coin with a fingerprint. While the coin may technically be a 66, I'll only pay a 64 price for it - and thus will assign a 64 grade to it. Obviously, with this philosophy, I don't buy too many coins with fingerprints.

 

64.... i guess im not the ONLY member who's coins get beat up on here!! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!!

 

Yeah, I figured my ugly duckling should follow your ugly duckling. How much was your ANACS match box special?

 

I don't know how controversial. If you have any links, toss'em in. I'm sure that I prefer the filthy fingerprint look, to the fake looking rainbow toning, any day of the week. I guess that's what you get for growing up with raw coins. The natural toned look has an entirely different meaning under those circumstances.

 

I believe i paid $20 for mine which,looking back on it,seems sorta steep.... maybe i should start posting b4 buying all these crazy toners i cant resist... how much was yours?

 

I'll post the price with the grade, promise.

 

ive always wondered about this topic. as a younger numismatist and from working at a coin/gold exchange I see them them sell with substantial discount however as a young memberand as forensic science adavances I could forecast these contreversial pieces actually selling with higher premiums. I also think theyre kinda cool its like a form of provenance.

 

AU58

 

I always saw it as an authentic circulation quality that sets aside real coins, from prefab, prepackaged proofs meant for collectors, instead of historical use as coinage.

 

I see what ur saying,, u dont wanna give any hints/clues and skew the whole game show... pat sayjack would be proud!!

 

I think you are onto something... these make unique original collectibles and any toner i see the wheels immediately start to turn as i wonder how said toning formed... so what if.the old timers want blast white coins! Us greenhorns may start a whole new trend/fab and balk @ the plain jane dipped coins 20 years from now... well put young numis!!

 

64 with eye appeal (including the fingerprint) and luster being the limiting factors.

 

It looks like a 65 to me.

 

I think the surfaces of this coin are certainly gem quality if not premium gem. While I don't really like the toning or the overall eye appeal which is negatively affected by the fingerprint, I just can't see the coin not getting a gem grade as long as the luster is not muted. From the second photo, the luster looks good enough to preserve an MS65 grade IMO.