I am completely stumped on this MS-67+ Washington Quarter

This particular coin is the reason why some folks laugh at grading services!

MS67+

Nothing short of a joke since the hits alone preclude it from even a 66.

CAC'ed?

Definitely mud in CAC's face and a prime example of "cookie cutter" grading.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

We have already said the TPGS do not use anything close to the ANA standards:

68: 3 or 4 miniscule contact marks - none in prime focal areas.

67: 3 or 4 miniscule contact marks - 1 or 2 may be in prime focal areas.

66: Several (my several is 4-6) small, a few (my few is 3-4) may be in prime focal areas.

65: Light and scattered w/o major distracting marks in prime focal areas.

This coin has perhaps 30 + light and scattered marks with many in the prime focal areas.

The coin is a 64 (my original grade) or 64+ that SHOULD GET a bump to 65 for the nice fields, and color. It's over graded.

Can someone post a photo of that dead horse getting beat?

 

The surfaces of this coin clearly meet the criteria for MS65, Light & scattered without major distracting marks in the prime focal areas. There isn't a single major mark on the entire coin.

Beating a dead horse is utilizing your grading standards to criticize the grade of a coin graded by NGC who uses their own standards. We get it, by your standards, it is an MS65. The real question is when are you debuting your grading service?

You decided to go on an absolute rant about my enlightenment comment a few days ago, but all I am trying to do is explain the differences between how the TPGs grades compared to how people on this forum grade coins. I don't see anything wrong with that pursuit.

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with it; it's an honorable goal. You do, at times, come across as a TPG apologist whether that's your intent or not. To the extent that I've fallen afoul of that belief, I apologize.

 

Lehigh96, posted: "The surfaces of this coin clearly meet the criteria for MS65, Light & scattered without major distracting marks in the prime focal areas. There isn't a single major mark on the entire coin."

Ah, you are finally coming around (now it is a 65 rather than 66) to the consensus written by most of us ; however,our definition of "major" is different.

"Beating a dead horse is utilizing your grading standards to criticize the grade of a coin graded by NGC who uses their own standards. We get it, by your standards, it is an MS65. The real question is when are you debuting your grading service?"

Insider's Coin Grading Service is coming to Coin Talk soon. BTW, I've had the luck and time to have been instructed on many occasions by former and present NGC graders and finalizers. Obviously, I need much more instruction. Nevertheless, IMO, this is a coin they should not be proud of.

"You decided to go on an absolute rant about my enlightenment comment a few days ago, but all I am trying to do is explain the differences between how the TPGs grades compared to how people on this forum grade coins. I don't see anything wrong with that pursuit."

You should be commended (you are here-all the time-including by me) for all the TRUE enlightening posts you have made. That's what this forum is for.

However, arguing what is at best a MS-65 (see I've loosened up a bit too) is a MS-67+ because that's the way NGC grades is too much of a stretch. They made a mistake. The coin is overgraded by any standard. Shame on CAC too! As soon as a bigger fool than its future buyer cracks it for a try for MS-68, the error will be corrected.

 

Perhaps I should start giving my grade opinion based on my personal standards before attempting to explain the TPG's crazy ways. If I was a serious Washie collector and I came across this coin, my initial impression would be "Oh, come on!" followed by the feeling that I was just majorly teased. This coin does not meet my personal standards for the assigned grade and I would never buy it for MS67 money.

This has happened countless times in my search for registry quality Jefferson Nickels and when it happens, I always wish the TPGs would knock it off.

 

Lot's of times I write that my PERSONAL grade is "X" but I believe the TPGS will grade it "X." I do that each time I pick up a TPGS slab while my thumb covers the grade on the label. IMO, that's the best way to learn how each TPGS grades. Instructor's in grading classes put stickers over the grade before letting the students see them. After the questions are answered for each round of slabs, the instructor goes over the grades.

IMO, the best instructors do not know the grade on the label either and they go through their personal thoughts for each part of the grading equation. Then they grade the coin. Then they look at the grade.

 

Correct me if im wrong or am missing something. Doesnt NGC, on their newer slabs, take pictures of the coin and slab to appear when you look up the cert number on their website? Almost all my NGC slabs (except the older ones) have pictures when you enter the numbers under the cert verification. This quarter being in a newer slab doesnt show a picture when you enter the number. Being a top pop coin You'd think they would have a picture for it.

 

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I have no problem saying that the surfaces of this coin are MS65 quality and have already done so within this thread. But to ignore what appears to be a premium gem quality coin in every other aspect of grading and stick with MS65 seems unjust as well. And not because the methodology that you and others used to reach that conclusion is wrong. It is just that I used to collect Washington Quarters (briefly) and I ran into so many coins in MS65 & MS66 grades that this coin absolutely crushes that I have a hard time putting it in that class. For example, consider this MS66 1951 Philly Washington.



I won't dispute that the surfaces are better, but there are still minor marks on the focal areas on both sides of this premium gem coin. IMO, there really is no comparison with respects to the other elements of grading. The 51-D has far better eye appeal, luster, and strike than this coin. Simply using surface preservation as the default to grade a coin is technical grading, not market grading. If you are market grading coins, then the 51-D deserves a higher grade.



I will say that my defense of the TPG's grading of this coin made me feel like a defense lawyer trying to get a murder off the hook even though I knew he was guilty. Personally, I would like to see the coin in an MS66* holder.

 

On this I would agree with you. But I think that NET grade would end up as a 65 rather than a 67 or even a 66. A coin is only as good as it's weakest part. If it's muted luster, it will suffer. If it's a low eye appeal, it will suffer. If it's a roughed up surface, it will suffer. It takes all the parts to add up and to propel that coin to Superb Gem. Not just 3 out of the 4.

 

Boy, I did not think this thread would blow up quite like this. I feel like a guy who covered a stick of dynamite with peanut butter, lit the fuse and threw it in a dog park and ran away.

I just get upset at what can only be described as politics going on at the TPG's. And each and every time I come across a blatant example such as this, I will out it, as I hope anyone else would.

 

Oh the vision.........

 

There's more explanations than that. Lehigh has posted some of them as an example. People choose to believe it was just politics though. I will add this, Washington's are incredibly hard to grade even for people that grade a lot of other series well.

 

The Washington Series is a series that I have come to really admire. I used to think of them as bland and boring. But, I've really come to appreciate and love the look of a high gem Washington. When the fields are super clean and lustrous, it has a mesmerizing effect. Personally they don't seem too difficult to grade. I think of them as smaller Morgan's. I could be wrong with this thought process, but it seems logical.

 

I'm with baseball, they are extremely hard to grade.

 

That Quarter reminds me of this MS 69 1939D Mercury dime. I wouldn't pay 67+ money for that and I would not pay 69 money for this.

 

There isn't any of this drama over in the ancients forum.

No nitpicky grades, no competing in registry sets, no being anal about actually handling your coins... and a blatant (friendly) loathing of slabs. Everyone loves their coins for the stories they tell and the history they witnessed. A very different attitude from collectors bashing each other for the sake of 1-2 points on a grade, or the presence of a DDO, or a berry in a different place than on other coins. I get a feeling that very few people appreciate the history these coins represent as they have become just a commodity.

I can't say I am immune from this when it comes to modern coins as they are a source of money for college. As a type collector, I like how each piece in my collection tells a story. All of the coins I commoditize are coins for which the story is represented by an example I already have.

 

I have no idea why the Washington in this thread would make you think of that superb Mercury Dime. That 1939-D Dime, MS69 Full Bands 'The Quintessential Type Coin' is from the Joshua II collection which was the finest PCGS registry set of Mercury Dimes for years. The coin is one of the finest extant Mercury Dimes in history.





If you want to make the case that the coin is overgraded, then make your case, but you don't get to just drop in and equate that Mercury Dime with the Washington in this thread, and leave.

 

I personally find the coin very unattractive, you can disagree and that's fine. Sure, it has nice detail, but it's but the yellow and brown toning looks like grease like the Quarter. It also has a very splotchy reverse that looks ugly. I am not disagreeing with the grade, however, the ugly toning doesn't make me want to pay the price of an MS 69 Mercury dime. All of this is just my opinion, of course.

 

And that's fine, nobody is suggesting that you have to like the eye appeal of that Mercury. My point is that this thread is about overgraded coins, and I don't think this Mercury is overgraded at all. IMO, your comparison of the two coins was apples to oranges.