The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 1

Take a look at the full slab pic. That major mark that everyone was keying on is nearly insignificant when you view it from a smaller magnification. The pictures in teh first post were quite large, and magnify any small mark.

I think the luster is also probably good on this coin, but Heritage's photo technique tends to wash it out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nailed it.

My script barely changed but I have lost the ability for close up coin looks with the glasses. Doc said even with bi-foc...transitional lens I'd still need to remove them.

 

I can see why they graded it 65, as there aren't too many bag marks.
I don't find the toning attractive and I doubt it would have come out of the
mint the very first day with that big hit in the center. It's not really a true MS.
It probably circulated very lightly.

 

There are 3 people who voted AU-58. Can you explain what you see in the images, or what you are interpreting that makes you say that?

 

Absolutely, but I thought that I already had when I posted. I saw rub on the cheekbone where apparently there is none.

 

65 was my guess, too. The luster is likely much better than what you see, as it is my experience that slab shots by Heritage, taken with a rather flat light, subdue the luster. The group will start to compensate for this without realizing it (I'm wanting to say something witty like "back-propagating the derivatives of our personal loss functions", but I'll refrain). The coin has an "original skin" on it with subtle, attractive coloring. The mark on the jaw was a little off-putting, but the rest of the coin was pristine. Without the mark, it grades 66 easily.

 

This is a great thread. I know that the coin in hand may change our grade also. I didn't see a 65, though, maybe 64. Can't wait for the next one.

 

Will be posted Friday!

 

I do see what you mean by the magnification making the blemishes more prominent, but we all look at the same coin.

 

Needless to say, the cheek hit loomed large. The lack of luster (at least lack of luster in the pic) made it, well, lackluster for eye appeal IMO.
The reverse looked much better visually than the obverse.
What I saw as minor circulation wear on George's face contributed to my grade. Obviously this was just my, incorrect, take on it.
Overall, the appeal for me at least, just isn't there. Fortunately as owners of any object (coin or anything else for that matter) that we're trying to sell, we don't need for that object to be coveted by everyone. It only needs to appeal to one person who agrees with the sellers assessment. We can't sell one object to more than one person anyway.

 

I graded it MS 63.
But as for your question, this is an 80 year old coin and doesn't look as if it was taken off the assembly line the 1st day and sealed in a hyperbaric chamber for 80 years. As I stated, it probably circulated very lightly before someone put it away.
That doesn't disqualify it from being graded MS, I am just saying that technically it's not a true MS coin. I doubt it took that hit during production, although it's possible.

 

Bam, I guess?

 

I think you saw some bag marks and some “roll friction”. Notice how the luster isn’t dulled.

 

While I agree that the mark is less prominent in the slab photo, the mark is still a significant mark in the focal area visible to the naked eye. This coin reminds me of the thread that I posted about 5 years ago.

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

To the purists (eg. Doug), that mark is a grade limiting mark that will always preclude a gem grade. To the people who grade more holistically, as the TPG's do, the mark may be overcome by the other elements of grading. That is where I believe we diverge on this coin. You are interpreting the luster on the coin to be strong, but washed out by Heritage's photos, which is extremely commonplace. I on the other hand think that the luster is muted by what I perceive to be a light milky patina that I have seen on many Washington quarters in my travels. It is entirely possible that if I had a chance to see this coin in hand, and you are right about the luster, that I would instantly agree with the MS65 grade, but until then, I'm at MS64. That said, I still think the coin is really close to MS65, hence my original grade of MS64+.

 

I voted 63 due to the mark and the (lack of) luster. Thanks for posting.

 

For me, the luster was grade-limiting. The hit did not help matters.

 

Those of you that have been getting use to ( "market grading, or just plain lowering grading standards") are you giving your honest opinion, or what you think the TPGS graded it at? I usually add a point for most of the newer ones when I deem it necessary.
Is your guess how the TPGS graded it, or did you assign it by your own standards??? Just curious.

 

Sameish... I seem to be 1point lower (usually) than the TPGS's are.

Edit: in this case I wasn't aware of the photography style of this auction house, as some were. Apparently they are known for their lighting style giving such a washed out appearance IMO. The pics do show ,with clarity, most of the flaws. Overall good pics, just could have used additional shots with different angles/lighting.