GTG: 1932 Washington Quarter

Yaaaaaayyy!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

MS-64...possibly not worth to send in

 

Good graders don't tell people they're good graders, Ed. They just grade good and let the good grading speak for itself.

 

Looks like AU58 to me, which is an almost certain guarantee that it is not. My grading skills on US coins are not that good.

 

You are so good. Gods gift to the hobby.

 

So many diff. opinions here...with modern silver strikes, I tend to give a bit of lenience to circulation strikes, especially the earlier ones. Sure, there are some hits and abrasions, but overall, with eye appeal and age to consider, I still think this coin is in a higher numeric condition than many think. I,ll stick with my first opinion of 64, as I would compare it to many others of the same vintage. If not a 64, 63 would be a more conservative choice.

 

I think the criteria should be the same if it is a 1932 or a 1964. Why should age matter when basically both sides are exactly the same except for the date?
But we know that is not the case as old rare issues get more lenient grading as compared to existing examples. (Extremely old silver dollars, large cents, half cents, Fugio's, etc.) And as has been pointed out, key dates get a little over graded than they should be.

 

This is an important point. We are grading a coin by looking at pictures of the coin on a computer (like buying a coin on eBay). Not the same as having the coin in hand with proper lighting but still a good exercise since you get to hear what others are seeing and thinking.

 

MS62

 

I should have said "then" too late to edit.

 

It is a light strike, but slight wear on breast and cheeks, AU55.

 

Is there such a grade as AU-59? Or AU-57? (Not that this is AU-59 just asking). Because the gap between 58-60 is almost 3%. That's a large space not to be grading any coins. Since there are so many grades and nuances.