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

I know it isn't overgraded, it just reminded me of the mercury dime because of the toning on both.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That dime is no where close to the Washington Quarter I posted about. I would not argue about the grade. That toning on the obverse I'm sure has to be incredibly fiery with the luster that MUST be present for the MS-69 grade. The reverse toning is kinda blah..

 

I find Morgans much easier grade.

 

I really think there is a solution to this problem of market grading a coin with mix matched attributes. Play along and see what we come up with. I want everyone to grade this coin using their own standards, not NGC's. The condition is that I want you to grade each element of grading separately. I will start.

Surface Preservation: MS65
Luster: MS67
Strike: MS68
Eye Appeal: MS67

 

Okay, I'll play ball now that this discussion has moved to the topic of the Joshua II Merc. First, for everyone's reference, I've attached the TrueView. It is a better photo than the HA close-up.

I will preface my comments with the statement that I have not seen this particular 39-D in hand. I have seen numerous 1939Ds in hand in 69FB, 68+FB, 68FB, 67+FB, and 67FB, and have compared those coins to the TrueViews. I also own several toned dates in 68FB, including the 39D.

With that background, in my opinion, I do not believe the Joshua II 39-D warrants 69FB. On the other hand, I do not think it is wildly overgraded, and would say it is a solid 68FB.


SURFACES
One should be careful not to overemphasize the minuscule hits, which would be very difficult to discern in hand without a strong loupe. Overall, the surfaces are nice, but not pristine, and would likely grade 67+ or 68 without the color.

STRIKE
The strike is actually quite poor for a FB coin. Take a look at the flat T and R in Liberty -- in fact, the top of the T is almost completely gone. The hair and the feathering is average. The central bands are full but not "McDonald's arches." Without outstanding other qualities, I personally would not grade this above a 67. However, PCGS seems not to care much about strike for Mercs beyond FB. I have lamented this in other posts, so will not rehash here. It is what it is.

LUSTER
Difficult to tell from either the TrueView or the HA photos, but the luster appears to be very nice, albeit inferior to other 69s and some of the 68+s and 68s I have seen in hand and TrueViewed. I will give the benefit of the doubt to the coin and say it has 68 luster.

EYE APPEAL/TONING
The coin has gorgeous, original toning in my opinion. The toning is easily 68, and could be higher if I saw it in hand.

OVERALL GRADE

There are several 68FBs and 68+FBs I have seen in hand that I would prefer over this coin. I think it is overgraded at 69, but is a very solid 68 and a reasonable 68+ if you ignore the terribly weak lettering (as PCGS has done).

As for pedigree, the fact that this was in the Joshua II collection has no bearing on my opinion. There were some magnificent Mercs in that collection, but it had its share of dogs as well. The 44D with black spots on the obverse is one of the worst 44Ds I've seen in 68FB.

 

A little counterpoint:

Surface preservation: Agreed at 65 but I'm not far from 66 as the fields are pristine.

Luster: Not present, in these images. I'm aware Washingtons don't manifest luster the same as other coins, but I see no cartwheel at all. Quite prepared to change my mind with images more suited to depicting luster than the typical Heritage overexposure. No opinion, but leaning "favorable."

Strike: Pretty darn good but out of scope for my skills so I'll defer to your greater experience in this category.

Eye appeal: Very clear negative. Splotchy, irregular toning which in another issue would be clear sign of improper dipping; I'm not entirely convinced it hasn't been improperly dipped but again am limiting my certainty due to lesser experience with the issue. Either way, toning patterns like this are_not positives in the eye appeal department.

Added: I'm referring to the OP Quarter; I hope you were too.

 

Well played sir...........

 

I appreciate the insight into your opinions on the coin, but with respect, you didn't give me what I asked for. I want a numerical grade for each element of grading. So far, you have given me.

Surface Preservation: MS65
Luster: ?
Strike: ?
Eye Appeal: ?

A few comments though about your analysis. I agree that the luster is indeterminable from the photos. Given the assigned grade, one would assume that the luster be fantastic, yet the Heritage description calls it "satiny" which does not bode well in my experience. As for the eye appeal, I have noted earlier that the pastel toning found on this coin simply doesn't exist on many Washington Quarters. What you are calling splotchy toning is much less pronounced in the slab shots. I'm guessing that, in hand, the luster will highlight the pastel hues and minimize the brown splotches. For the record, I knocked my eye appeal grade down from MS68 to MS67 specifically because all of the griping in this thread about the splotchy toning.

Now, if you please, provide me with your grades sir.

 

Well, If I had anything to say about this wonderful MS67 Merc.

My opinion is that a MS 67 anything would have the break in lustre from Hair above ear, through the ear to the bottom of the wing.


The reverse alone exhibits too many planchet remnants, to qualify a 68+.

I am not opposed to the presentation, though induced by an album, it is Natural. MS69

This is also knowing that a Digital camera on your stand will make you a better numismatist.
If you want to look for Flaws, they will be there.

 

Not possible. One could be just as happy with the luster on a baggy MS63 as on an MS67, and aside outlier limits on the low side strike should not be a factor until (IMO) MS66 and above. If we adopt a sliding scale, with "Technical Merit" replacing "Surface Preservation" (although I believe you mean the same thing with that term) and rate the other factors on a 1-5 scale, followed by a "Net" grade, it could fly.

Technical Merit: MS65
Luster: ****
Strike: ****
Eye Appeal: **
Net: MS65

The intangibles of luster and strike, with this issue, do not seem to vary widely enough to have great impact on the ultimate grade. Luster is generally more "satiny" than "cartwheeling," and there are no features which can be held as examples of an "outstanding" strike. Therefore above a base level where they would deter from grade, it's difficult to rationalize increasing a grade via any mechanism other than "eye appeal."

And it's not a very eye-appealing coin.

 

First of all, this is a great thread - not boring and quite educational, and everyone is playing nice.

Lehigh96, posted: "Now, if you please, provide me with your grades sir." Hopefully, there will be no more of this, sir.

jtlee321, posted: "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."

This is taking a big jump into the unknown. Many do not know how this coin could possibly be graded the way it was. Others think it is correctly graded. I guess that should remove "politics" from the equation.

TypeCoin971793, posted: "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. "

That is true. Ancient collectors tend to be more mature collectors. By that I mean as many collectors learn more about their coins and numismatic history, many of them gravitate to collecting ancients. There is still a lot to be discovered.

That said, most coins posted on the ancient forum are corroded lumps of tooled-up and cleaned ugly metal. Unless you collect common, high grade Roman denarii, you'll need to sell a used car in order to get virtually any artistic, high-grade, attractive, large piece of Greek silver. That's why I gravitated to small Greek bronze. So with ancients, except for authenticity, there is not much to fight about.

Additionally, I find it extremely ridiculous to read all the bashing of ancient slabs. Quite similar to a bunch of U.S. collectors quibbling over grades. One day, as more and more ancients get entombed, you'll start to see the nits picking at the surface condition, style, and grade assigned to ancients.

Lehigh96, asked: "I want everyone to grade this coin using their own standards, not NGC's. The condition is that I want you to grade each element of grading separately. I will start.

Surface Preservation: MS65
Luster: MS67
Strike: MS68
Eye Appeal: MS67"

My opinion:

Surface Preservation: MS-63 Detracting marks in PFA. If you don't see them : MS-67
Luster: MS-66 or MS-67 Above average and fully original. NOT MS-68 as it is not attractive.
Strike: Normal, nothing special. MS-anything. I'll go with the middle MS-65 as not weak and not particularly strong either.
Eye Appeal: MS-65 to MS-66 Pleasing to above average BUT ONLY DUE to color of splotchy toning.

Final grade if I were a TPG: MS-65 Star or +

SuperDave, posted:

Luster: Not present, in these images. I'm aware Washingtons don't manifest luster the same as other coins, but I see no cartwheel at all. Quite prepared to change my mind with images more suited to depicting luster than the typical Heritage overexposure. No opinion, but leaning "favorable."

That coin is a headlight with full blazing and colorful luster.

 

What?

This confirms my theory that people are substituting their own standards for grading this coin rather than applying NGC's standards. What you are doing is technical grading, NGC employs market grading; luster, strike, & eye appeal all count.

This comment makes me wonder if you have ever collected Washington Quarters. Luster is extremely important in grading especially at the gem grades. In fact, PCGS rarely gives MS67 grades to fully toned Washingtons because the toning typically impairs the luster. That is what makes this coin different. The toning is in pastel shades and doesn't inhibit the luster at all.

You may look at the coin and think the strike is nothing special, but if you look at hundreds of Washington Quarters you will quickly appreciate how well struck this coin actually is.

In the end, your statement that luster and strike don't vary widely to have a great impact on the ultimate grade is just wrong. It is wrong with respect to Washington Quarters as well as every other series of coins. In market grading, strike, luster, & eye appeal affect the grade of the coin.

Which is why I said the "satiny" description by Heritage does not bode well for the coin.

Compared to what, a rainbow toned Morgan Dollar? Toned Washington Quarters are typically messy and splotchy. They are also usually toned in deep dark shades that inhibit luster rather than light bright pastel shades like this coin. You seem to be grading this coin in a bubble without any regard for what is typical in the series.

I asked people to play along and give me their grades for the different elements of grading. I'm not sure why you would reply if you had no intention of actually playing along. However, I appreciate that you were the only person to respond to my request.

 

Okay, so whats it gonna take to get you to start using HTML quote tags? Instead of highlighting the other persons text in blue, just place the tags around the text. For example:

{quote=Insider}Hopefully, there will be no more of this, sir.{/quote}

Change the { to [ and voila!

Not trying to bust your stones, it is just so hard to read some of your posts.

 

I don't understand that. I like to use quotes and two different colors to keep everything clear and separate between me and the other poster. That way the entire post is visible all at once. The faces can be troublesome but they are quite expressive.

I respect your opinion and that of many so I will try very hard to ditch the faces but I don't think I will change the way I pick apart (either in agreement or not) the posts of others that I reply to.

So long all my fun.

 

Your point? You need to sell a house to get a high-grade, attactive, large piece of early American silver, and there are plenty more that cost the same as a new car and many more that cost the same as a used car.

Both of these cost less than a MS-65 Morgan, and the two together cost less than a fifth of a true MS-67+ example of the OP coin.



And this one cost the same as an MS-64 Morgan. Sorry, I'm not seeing "corroded lumps of tooled-up and cleaned ugly metal."

 

My point is this: Nothing you posted is an attractive high grade coin. No, the last one is attractive. MS-65 Morgan = around $150 vs three VF ancients. U.S. collectors like nice, high grade coins - as close to the day they were made. Ancients don't come that way for various reasons. The quarter in this post is over graded. It is not a good example. Buying that coin for $XXXX would be similar to buying a counterfeit. Speaking of which...where did the first two ancients you posted come from?

 

Here, you dropped this:

 

Reputable European dealers. Plus both are die matches to known authentic coins.

My point was that collectors of ancients don't need fancy high-grade coins to be satisfied. Even US collectors don't need them. For $150, you are not going to buy a mint state capped bust half, or even an AU one. The best you can get is a VF/EF, yet you cannot deny that it can still be attractive. How are VF ancients any different? MS-65 Morgans can be found at any show, shop, and most coin club meetings. An Alexander tetradrachm shows up far less frequently, plus it has the historical appeal of being minted under Alexander the Great during his conquests of the Middle East. Fery few US coins have a historical intrigue as interesting as these ancients, and those that do cost much more than $150 to get an "attractive" specimen. I don't know what your standards are, but I find the first two silvers quite attractive.

Just a thought: 2300 years from now, how will all of the US coins look? They couldn't look that much better than these "crummy" ancients. That is where respecting their age and history comes in.

 

His point was that the majority of ancients don't lend themselves well to slabbing and grading unlike US coins

 

How is this OP coin not also dinged for strike with the piss poor strike on reverse toward edge at 10 o'clock, and that is a significant and large "defect", not a small one - they (NGC) can not be getting a pass for that. And while it is true that Washington quarters have their own special characteristics, I simply can not see this coin with much more than minuscule hits (also on the obverse as was pointed out in earlier posts) can survive these and then be apparently upgraded by luster. I'm not buying it, and have seen nicer strike and appearance quarters in 64 & 5 holders.
I appreciate the defense of NGC by earlier posters as to grading by their standards and why they reached their grade & quite educational. But bottom line, that IMO is some BS for a grade that should be a 65. Please, oh please let them grade my coins on a day they are giving away grades like this for this coin!