The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 1

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by physics-fan3.14, Jul 28, 2019.

?

What does the Washington grade?

  1. AU-58

  2. MS-60

  3. MS-61

  4. MS-62

  5. MS-63

  6. MS-64

  7. MS-65

  8. MS-66

  9. MS-67

  10. MS-68

Results are only viewable after voting.
Page 5 of 5
  1. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    lackluster photos.... or luster lacking photos... :snaphappy: ;) :D

    Same thing I reckon......
     
    Johndoe2000$, Aug 2, 2019
    #81 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    I’m still with lehigh96 and Doug. The mark limits it from gem grade. It’s in a prominent focal point. Im not a Washington quarter expert but I feel any major marks in a prominent focal area keeps it to 64. On any series ok maybe exceptions for draped bust gold. I feel the coin a solid nice 64 but no more. I think current gradeflation and market grading gave it the extra point. And I’m well acquainted with interpreting heritages pics. I’ve bid on and bought hundreds of coins there
     
    Mainebill, Aug 2, 2019
    #82 + Quote Reply
  4. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    To be clear, I don’t mind the coin having the mark in the prime focal area as long as the luster and eye appeal are such that market grading the coin to a gem grade is appropriate. In this case, the luster looks subdued and doesn’t provide a reason to ignore what most would consider a grade limiting mark.
     
    Lehigh96, Aug 2, 2019
    #83 + Quote Reply
  5. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    Forgive me but I don't have any experience buying from big auction houses, but...
    If that coin has luster, what do the coins with no luster look like when they photograph them.
     
    Johndoe2000$, Aug 2, 2019
    #84 + Quote Reply
    Paul M. likes this.
  6. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    Why are there folks trying to kill a well graded. Thick skinned coin. Forget the contact mark. Are we now trying to grade only well cleaned coins.

    That coin gets a bump because of it's originality.

    Huh kicking a smaller coin for less hits than a half that graded two more.
    Add for color but take away from the one that isn't altered.
    Go figure.
     
    Pickin and Grinin, Aug 3, 2019
    #85 + Quote Reply
  7. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I'm sure not. Nor do I think others are either.

    Reasonably certain that's not what is going one. Even what you call a thick skinned coin can have high quality luster. But the simple fact is - this coin does not, it has low quality luster. And there's a good reason for it if you look at it closely. Either the previous toning had already partially destroyed the luster, or the coin was dipped a tiny bit too long. In either case the end result is low quality luster.

    Both statements are echoing the same sentiment, the same philosophy if ya will - that there should not be limiting factors when grading a coin. Now I'll grant you, there are those who hold that opinion. But limiting factors is what makes grading standards - grading standards to begin with. Limiting factors are the very essence of grading and they always have been. If you do not have limiting factors then there are no standards.

    With every grade there is from the very bottom to the very top it is limiting factors that distinguish one grade from the next - in either direction. Start ignoring limiting factors and you have just eliminated grading standards.

    A heavy, large, significant, (use the adjective of your choice if you wish), contact mark in a prime focal area prevents any coin from being worthy of a gem grade, (and that's defined as anything higher than 64), just like any contact mark prevents a coin from being graded as 70. There is no difference. Any limiting factor prevents any coin from being graded as a 70. So you cannot chose to ignore a limiting factor with a given grade, and not ignore it with another grade.

    If you do that then there are no standards anymore.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 3, 2019
    #86 + Quote Reply
    Mainebill and thomas mozzillo like this.
  8. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Cause luster is important. I view “thick skinned” like “wholly original” and it’s akin to complimenting a person for their personality.
     
    Lehigh96, Aug 3, 2019
    #87 + Quote Reply
  9. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    I know you don't buy coins anymore, but if you compare in hand to Heritage's photos, the coin will always have more luster in hand. Heritage photo's just don't show luster well. I'd bet that, in hand, this coin has good luster.
     
    physics-fan3.14, Aug 3, 2019
    #88 + Quote Reply
  10. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Well-Known Member

    thomas mozzillo, Aug 3, 2019
    #89 + Quote Reply
  11. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I'm all too well aware of what you're saying, and I agree with it. I review coins for people in Heritage auctions on just about a daily basis - and always have. But I'll give a little tip that many find helpful when viewing Heritage coins. It's typically the blowup pics that they use that have luster limiting effect. Quite often, far more often than not actually, if you look at the full slab pics you get a much better idea of the luster the coin actually has, or does not have.

    All of that said, I simply don't think it's the case with this particular coin. What I believe to be true is what I wrote above. The coin has obviously been dipped, I don't think that's even debatable. And I believe it was the dipping, and or previous toning, or a combination of both, that partially destroyed the luster on that coin making it look the way it looks in the pics provided.

    If ya saw it in hand, I'm reasonably certain it would look pretty much like it looks in those pics.
     
    GDJMSP, Aug 4, 2019
    #90 + Quote Reply
  12. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    I may or may not agree with you, if we were looking at this coin in hand. Having photo'd a few Washington's in my collection with outstanding eye appeal and luster.
    They can be a beast to show contact marks and luster at the same time. Don't forget the slab makes for a bunch of clarity interference.

    As far as I know the limiting factors for a 65 is multiple contact marks, but not excessive in the focal areas. This happens to have very clean fields the ear and high points of the coin do not show any flattening, besides strike. The mark is eye catching but does not deserve a less than gem grade.

    Hey, I wanted to give it a 64 when I first posted, but that coin has many a more qualities than it does defects.
     
    Pickin and Grinin, Aug 7, 2019
    #91 + Quote Reply
Page 5 of 5
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page