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

And if you choose to think about it, you will realize just how fallacious this thinking is. The thickest layers of toning are 1000-2000nm thick. How thick is that? Well, take a meterstick. Isolate a mm. Then chop that up into 1000 slices. Each slice is 1000nm thick, which is thinner than most of the smallest cells in the human body. Other forms of corrosion (carbon spots, verdigris, etc.) are much noticably thicker and dig deeper into the coin, and are thus seen as damage. They are also unsightly, while toning can be attractive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Semantically, I agree with Lehigh96, corrosion ( toning) is the same chemical processes as corrosion( carbon spots, verdigris,etc), the difference is in size and area. Toning is a large scale issue in area and small scale in thickness. The others mentioned are usually the reverse, smaller area and more depth. However if both go to their end point, they are both bad and ugly to the same degree. Oddly enough, processes and materials to produce 'market toning' to mislead, is progressing as fast as those processes and materials to remove 'corrosion' and mislead. Small amounts of toning is beautiful and desirable to most, and a small amount of "carbon" spots or verdigris om am otherwise wanted coin is acceptable to most ( at least me). Jim

 

Furthermore, once an insignificant (as seen by a "micro grader") corrosion spot develops, it has permanently etched the underlying surface of the coin. Oh, my...

"...and a small amount of "carbon" spots or verdigris on an otherwise wanted coin is acceptable to most (at least me). Jim"

And since there is often nothing we can do to correct them without leaving a trace, we must accept them. However, I'm in the "downgrade 'em" group.

 

I know you are joking, but to even insinuate that I (or any other toning enthusiast) is Weimar White is a terrible insult. However, I do have a degree in Materials Science & Engineering with a specialization in corrosion.

 

I have admitted several times in this very thread that I believe the OP's coin was overgraded by NGC's standards, so yes, they make mistakes. Nobody is claiming that they don't make mistakes or that their accuracy is anywhere near 100%. In my time on all the coin forums, the consensus is that they are right about 80-90% of the time. None of this means that they don't have established grading standards and to believe otherwise is foolish.

The TPG's clearly state that they use a market grading system which encompasses surface preservation, strike, luster, and eye appeal. The don't divulge the details of each component, but when a coin like the 1951-D Washington in this thread has what almost everybody agrees is MS65 surfaces, how can you even doubt that they think the other elements of grading are so good that the resultant grade was MS67+?

As for your personal collecting habits, nobody is saying you can't have them or that you are wrong for having them. All I am saying is that you can't use your grading standards to say that NGC's assigned grade is wrong, because they are using different standards than you are.

Pretend you work for NGC, you don't get to use your standards. As their employee, you must follow their standards. I have tried to explain to you and everyone else in this thread that the reason why the toning on the OP's coin is considered attractive is because it is rare. I showed you an MS66 Washington with toning that is typical for the series. Here it is again.



The obverse is blanketed by a gunmetal blue patina whilst the reverse displays more of a greyish green hue. But look closely, the peripheries have the same mottled brown toning on the rims as the coin in the OP. Additionally, both sides are so deeply toned that the luster is muted. So while the surfaces of this coin are undoubtedly better than that of the OP, the visual impact of the coin is far less. NGC recognized this and rewarded the OP coin with a higher grade.



This coin has light bright rainbow pastel hues on both sides of the coin backed by what is certain to be great luster. Despite the presence of some brown toning scattered throughout, the visual appearance is strong and coveted by NGC's standards. If you worked there, you wouldn't be permitted to say the coin was ugly and had terrible eye appeal, because in doing so, you would not be following the standards set forth by NGC.
As for your last statement, if you have seen low MS Washington Quarters that look better than the coin in the OP, then show us.

 

Then how the heck did this get MS-62? The luster looks AU, and the stike is the worst I have ever seen for a shield nickel.

These statements seem very contradictory. You just agreed with me that the Morgan Dollar was undergraded and this quarter is overgraded. That is using both of our grading standards. Yet we both still say that NGC was wrong.

Anyway, my original point was that the TPGs are inconsistent, not totally wrong. You said they are right about 80-90% of the time. That means they are inconsistent with both themselves and the market 10-20% of the time. That's a fairly poor average when I'm paying $30 for each coin for a professional and accurate opinion.

 

Nobody in their right mind would hold that carbon spot against that coin. It isn't black, it isn't distracting, and there is no reason to believe it has in anyway damaged the surface of the coin. As for your ridiculous sermon on nanometers, without discussing the thickness of carbon spots in relation to the thickness of toning, it is completely worthless.

 

I was not saying you are wrong. Just the notion that all surface problems (eg. toning) are issues that should be considered damage. I was agreeing with you in that thinking that way is silly.

 

It seems apparent that the TPG believes that the coin is uncirculated and what you are discerning as wear, is actually weak strike. Since the coin has the worst strike you have ever seen for a shield nickel, that is an entirely reasonable assumption. Once they deemed the coin MS, the strike is no longer really relevant. What do you want them to do, grade is MS60 solely on strike and ignore the surfaces and luster? Not to mention, you are looking a terrible photo with an incorrect white balance whilst the TPG actually saw the coin in hand. Keep trying, this one is a nothingburger.

There is nothing contradictory about the fact that the TPGs can make mistakes in both directions, that is just silly. And I admitted that the quarter was a low end MS67 as opposed to and MS67+. That is much different than being off by two grades.

As for their inconsistency, welcome to the subjectivity inherent in coin grading. Do you own any US Coins in TPG plastic? Run a few guess the grades and see how many people get the grades right. Or you can continue to focus on the examples that are most controversial to fit your narrative that they are inconsistent.

 

He was being hyperbolic, so I responded in kind.

 

NGC MS-63

That is my coin, and I have it in hand. What I wrote are my in-hand opinions.

As I said, the TPGs are not always wrong; most of the time they are right. If they were completely consistent, then every MS-64 would be roughly equal to every other MS-64. However, there are occasionally inconsistencies (the OP coin and the thread I linked to) that show that the TPGs are not infallible. I try to find the ones where they undershot the grade.

If something is not 100% consistent, then it is inconsistent, even if it is only 0.1% of the time. I'm not preaching they are always wrong, though you are interpreting the word "inconsistent" as if I am.

 

Key date or not, that dipped coin is not better looking that the coin in the OP.

Why would you buy a coin with the worst strike you have ever seen?

Oh please, you can't achieve 100% consistency in something that is subjective. Grading isn't a mathematical equation.

 

Because it was $45.

Exactly my point.

 

Reminds me of an old coin collecting maxim. Good coins are not cheap, and cheap coins are not good.

 

I bought it raw on eBay. I have had offers in the $300 range. 6x return sounds good enough for me for my cheap coin.

Again, NGC MS-63.

 

So you bought it as a circulated coin, sent it in for grading, were fortunate to get an uncirculated grade and are presenting the coin as something that you accurately graded, they misgraded, which has given you the leverage needed to earn 6X return on your money. Do I have that right?

It is nicer than the last one, but looks lack luster and generic. Keep trying.

 

Yes, I'm joking; but in the time since my last post, I just re-read much of his book containing the columns he has written in the past. You, Jim and Mr. White are 100% correct. Toning is environmental damage; however, to paraphrase words of a Numismatic News columnist: "I'll take all the attractive, rainbow, "environmentally damaged" coins I can get!"


Lehigh96, posted: "I have admitted several times in this very thread that I believe the OP's coin was overgraded by NGC's standards, so yes, they make mistakes. Nobody is claiming that they don't make mistakes or that their accuracy is anywhere near 100%. In my time on all the coin forums, the consensus is that they are right about 80-90% of the time. None of this means that they don't have established grading standards and to believe otherwise is foolish."

Color me foolish. AFAIK, there are no written standards at any TPGS that are on the grader's desks. Any grader can check out the Internet images on the PCGS site and I know for a fact that at one time there were published guides around. One top TPGS instructor told the class that he had four or five grading books at close hand at his desk. Grading Coins by Photographs and the latest edition of the ANA Grading Guide were his favorites. He also said that the TPGS he worked at did not follow the standards in the guides and he used them only to confirm/refresh/"ballpark"/ decide "liners"...I really cannot translate what he conveyed. Additionally, he did not use his own "personal" opinions as over time, the basic "company line" became familiar and the finalizers and QC graders made sure it was followed as best they could.

Lehigh96 writes: "Pretend you work for NGC, you don't get to use your standards. As their employee, you must follow their standards. T



This coin has light bright rainbow pastel hues on both sides of the coin backed by what is certain to be great luster. Despite the presence of some brown toning scattered throughout, the visual appearance is strong and coveted by NGC's standards. If you worked there, you wouldn't be permitted to say the coin was ugly and had terrible eye appeal, because in doing so, you would not be following the standards set forth by NGC."

The coin is very attractive. However, a two grade bump is, well, I've already given my opinion.

I've been told by many folks that I have a good eye for detail. I attempt to see everything there is to see on a coin before giving it a grade. I confess to training myself to see every defect first as they are what can ruin a coin's grade the quickest. Example: corrosion spots, rim repairs, altered surfaces, etc.

When I looked at the coin, the first thing I saw was a corrosion spot. The next thing I saw was a discoloration on the high spots where the oirginal mint luster was displaced. Anyone can see the spot is black, there is a discolored reaction rim around it, and chances are 98% that the surface under it will be etched gray if the spot is removed - even by a professional conservator.

To play the game, If I was a TPG I would grade the coin MS-65.

The Shield nickel is very weakly struck but it is "Uncirculated Enough." The luster is subdued so I should only be an MS-61 and would recommend immediate conservation. Who here noticed the GREEN CORROSION PRODUCTS starting to develop on its surface?


As for the 42-D quarter, it appears there are continuous diagonal hairlines across its obverse surface along with rub on the high points; but no significant marks. Commercial Grade = MS-64.

And who can argue with this member's statement: "If something is not 100% consistent, then it is inconsistent." That is a built in problem with commercial, TPGS. One time AU-58, next time MS-65.

 

So someone should also say " I'll take all the attractive, rainbow, "environmentally damaged" coins I can MAKE !" also, as the only difference is the initial reaction it took to get started? I think not. .

 

I don't care if the toning was done in ten minutes or twenty years. If it looks original and attractive to me and all of the professional graders and 95% of the others that see it think it is OK - I'm satisfied.

I still have a lot of experimenting to do with toning and color. There are "coin doctors," hobbyists, and professional chemists who can read about coloring metal and have the equipment and chemicals to do it. Nevertheless, AFAIK, producing passable colors is beyond the reach of most of us and something we despise anyway.

 

Here's a Washington Quarter that I purchased raw. In my opinion from having it in hand, I would have graded it a 65. But that's because it had a couple hairlines in the obverse field. They are not visible in the image. Had it not been for those hairlines I would have given it a 66. What would you grade it at?