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

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. _________


The thing missing is a personal grade, That matters to me more than any third party grader. Yes, I have a few examples in slabs But they are just that, an example of what that Market can hold. I cant imagine how many coins that are in personal collections, that would put this coin to shame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Honest answer, far less than you think. Are there some great raw coins hiding away still sure, but this myth that there is some avalanche of them is just that a myth

 

Agreed, I am sure in the future, there will be few of them though.

 

To be on par with the thread, What do you grade this Buffalo ?

 

Ancient coins don't need to be slabbed to be appreciated, while US coins almost have to be slabbed. Very few people would pay MS-65 (and especially MS-66) money for a raw Morgan, and absolutely no one will pay MS-67+ money for a raw silver quarter. But suddenly with the plastic it is worth so much more. Not the case with ancients. Most collectors of ancients don't need a slab to tell them what they are looking at.

Plus ancients are held to a different standard than modern coins regarding problems because they are ancient. NGC does not assign details grades to ancient coins. Ancients were made and lost centuries before proper storing techniques were established.

Imagine how many slab-worthy pre-1870 US coins there would be if 95% of them were buried for 2000 years. Not many.

 

jeffB, posted an image of a Spanish dust brush?

Oh goody, do you have more nothings to post? Anyway, I prefer to dip my coins rather than brush, tool, or scrub the centuries of grime and corrosion from them.

TypeCoin971793, posted: "Reputable European dealers. Plus both are die matches to known authentic coins."

Good to know, thanks. I guess counterfeits copied from known genuine coins cannot be a die match.

"My point was that collectors of ancients don't need fancy high-grade coins to be satisfied. Even US collectors don't need them."

Somehow this thread got way off subject. We all collect what we like and can afford. The ancient guys don't fuss at each other over grades because:

1. Ancient coin grading is not intended to be precise.
2. Most ancients qualify as PROBLEM COINS! You posted three coins with problems that make my point.
3. Grade does not have as much effect on the value of most ancients and the price spreads are normally not huge (common example: $600 one grade and $1,700 in the next).

"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."

While I agree these coins are historic and neat, they are the "Lincoln cents" of the ancient world - common as dirt - cleaned and corroded to boot.

"Just a thought: 2300 years from now, how will all of the US coins look?"

Here is what I think about that thought: I don't give a corroded ancient what happens more than ten years from now as I'll be DEAD!
And I'm going to bury my coins & gems somewhere so that they will become a "treasure trove."

Pickin and Grinin, posted: "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."

Yikes young fella , I was taught that NGC (any every other knowledgeable numismatist ) also considers the number, severity, and location of non-mint-made marks!

TypeCoin971793, posted: "Ancient coins don't need to be slabbed to be appreciated, while US coins almost have to be slabbed."

That is pure NUTS! I'll bet less than 5% of the total number of U.S coins are slabbed. I also know all collectors appreciate their coins, and wish they could have more and higher grades - slabbed or not!

"Very few people would pay MS-65 (and especially MS-66) money for a raw Morgan, and absolutely no one will pay MS-67+ money for a raw silver quarter. But suddenly with the plastic it is worth so much more. Not the case with ancients."

I Disagree. IMO, very few collectors/dealers are even qualified to buy anything without a crutch of a grading label. It would be stupid not to have the "extra" protection of a TPGS slab! Those numismatists who are qualified pay both small and VERY LARGE amounts of money for raw coins.

"Most collectors of ancients don't need a slab to tell them what they are looking at."

Sorry to split hairs; I have not found that statement to be true. What is true is that MANY collectors of ancients know what they are looking at.

"Plus ancients are held to a different standard than modern coins regarding problems because they are ancient. NGC does not assign details grades to ancient coins. Ancients were made and lost centuries before proper storing techniques were established."

That is a point I've made. Virtually all ancients are problem coins. Therefore, why point out that a corroded, cleaned, tooled lump of metal is old and ancient. That's the way they come!

Note: All coins except those several decades old were made, spent, collected and lost "before proper storage techniques became widespread."

"Imagine how many slab-worthy pre-1870 US coins there would be if 95% of them were buried for 2000 years. Not many."

You got me there! Knockout!

 

@Insider "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 was posted by Lehigh, my copy and reply didn't work correctly.
I could have changed the color but didn't.

 

So what you are saying is that in the absence of published written standards, it is impossible to discern their standards for a given series through direct submissions and buying & selling of NGC graded coins?

 

He should know better than to forget "contact marks."

 

This was not directed to me but: YES! A thousand times yes.

I like to call it weasel-out, wiggle room. All the TPGS employ it. You can study their slabs, and use their services on a weekly basis; yet that will not prepare you for the "Black Swan" coins or obvious mistakes like the quarter in the OP.

Yesterday, I saw a $15,000 rare date AU $2 1/2 dollar from a very famous collection with a large and obvious gouge that was straight graded by a top TPGS. The dealer keeps getting it returned as no one wants it. IMO, that coin will never be put in a "details" holder so no point trying to get the slab corrected. I have seen much more badly damaged coins from famous collections that were straight graded.

 

MS67

 

I have already explained it several times. And those two coins, while nice, don't come close to the overall visual impact that the coin in the OP has. So while you point to a generic dipped Washington with nice surfaces as the prototype MS67, I point to this MS66 as the reason why the coin in the OP is graded MS67.



Do me a favor, please grade the following PCGS graded quarter. Give me your grade and reasons for the grade, then give me what you think PCGS graded it. Thanks in advance.

 

Lol, "weasel-out, wiggle room". The remainder of the numismatic world calls this SUBJECTIVITY.

 

Or they could post vague standards like PCGS that allow for the subjectivity inherent in coin grading. We have had this conversation several times and since you don't respect my opinion, I shall refer you back to a thread from 2010 where 3 numismatists who I know you respect disagreed with you on this very topic.

Should a significant mark in a prime focal area prevent a gem grade?

It might me useful for some of you newcomers to read that thread as well. And for those who don't know, Mark Feld is a former grader at NGC.

 

In my little part of the "numismatic world" there is a huge difference between honest subjectivity and:

1. honest mistakes.
2. purposeful "market acceptability" determinations for important, landmark collections.
3. Leeway given for rare, desirable dates and mints.
4. The occasional "bone" given?

 

So despite all the reasons I have provided in this thread about how the TPGs grade Washington Quarters, you are still qualifying this as a MISTAKE? Remember, they aren't using your standards. Therein lies the subjectivity.