1932-D Washinton 25c. GRADE & PRICE? Please Help!

The 1932-S has a lower mintage...but the 1932-D is more valuable in basically all grades due to what is available to collectors. So, I would argue the 32-D is truly rarer today.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I go by the mintage numbers for the coins, there is no way of anyone tracking how many of those coins are still available in any grade, and what may have been subject to melting.

By the numbers, the 32-D is second rarest.

 

Each year of issue has its own peculiarities, especially coins made before 1940. Total minted is but a rough guide to current availability.

The 1932 Washington quarter was supposed to be a one-year commemorative. It tended to be saved as a result. No quarters were issued in 1933. The next year it was something of a surprise that the SLQ wasn't resumed. FDR's New Dealers saw it as old-looking, and preferred the modernistic aspects of the Washington design. They re-designed the $1 SC the following year for much the same reasons.

So things go.

 

This is true, but for whatever reason not many 1932-D quarters were saved in high grade. So, as the grade increases the 1932-D becomes more and more valuable when compared to the S because there simply isn't much of a supply available. I don't know why so few were saved...but that's how it ended up being.

It's kind of like Lincoln's...the 1909-S VDB might be the lowest mintage by far but since it was the first year of issue, many were saved. As a result, high grade coins aren't nearly as valuable as high grade 1914-D Lincoln's despite 3x greater mintage.

 

That is completely incorrect way of looking at it. Look at the value, it's all supply and demand. The value of a BU 1932-D is much greater than a 1932-S. This is because the supply is much lower. The 1932-D is much rarer in high grade...in lower grade they are similar (but even then the D caries a premium)/.

 

Yes there is.
It's called "experience".
Since these coins are now 75+ years old, experienced dealers plus the TPG's have a VERY accurate feeling for relative rarity.
"Experience" trumps "mintage numbers".

If you won't accept that, then I have a deal for you.
I'll buy a 1920 Saint-Gaudens in XF (mintage = 228,250).
You buy a 1920-S Saint-Gaudens in XF (mintage = 558,000).
Then we'll swap even-up.

 

As I stated, and will reiterate it for you, by the numbers the 32-D is the second rarest with 436,800 minted compared to the 32-S with 408,000 minted.

 

Use your experience and tell us with a 100% degree of certainty how many quarters minted in 1932 have been melted?

How many are still out there to be collected?

I can't even state that as there is no way of knowing how many have been melted and how many still exist for collecting.

If you're using what's slabbed as your figures, sorry but I tend to think that not all 32 Washingtons are in TPG slabs, as there are still some in raw out there.

 

Here is the problem, you are taking data that is almost 80 years old and assuming it's still accurate. It's not. How long have you been collecting coins? You seem inexperienced and that's OK, this is a good place to learn about things like this. Here is an example that is well known that I think will make it clearer how a coin with a larger mintage can be rarer:

Lets talk about Lincoln cents for a minute. It's well established that there are 2 true key coins in the Lincoln series: those are the 1909-S VDB with a mintage of 484,000 and the 1914-D with a mintage of 1,193,000. These coins are roughly 100 years old and when they were minted there was 3x more 1914-Ds. So, one would expect that the 1909-S VDB would be rarer and more valuable...but during that 100 years things have changed.

I'm going to throw out a couple values found in the 2007 Red Book. It's the newest edition I have. Red Book values aren't exact...but they do show relative trends and I don't have time to go to HA and get better values (I have to see a patient at school in an hour so I need to leave in a few minutes).

Anyway, here are some values:

1909-S VDB G4: $600
1914-D G4: $135

1909-S VDB EF40: $1000
1914-D EF40: $600

1909-S VDB MS60: $1350
1914-D MS60: $1600

As you can see, the 1914-D overtakes the 1909-S VDB despite the 3x mintage by MS60. The differences even become more dramatic as you go higher in the grades. The reason is how many have survived. The 1909 was the first year and many were saved in high grade, so they are more common. The 1914 was not saved so as you go higher in grade, the value skyrockets. Original mintage doesn't mean a whole lot when those coins are 100 years old. The trend with the 1932 Washington's is even more dramatic despite a very similar mintage.

Here are some values for the 1932-D ans 1932-S Washington's from the same Red Book:

1932-D VG8: $145
1932-S VG8: $140

1932-D AU50: $500
1932-S AU50: $240

1932-D MS65: $24000
1932-S MS65: $6750

As you can see, as the grade increases the 1932-D is far more valuable. This is because the surviving numbers are much lower. Even though 28,800 more 1932-D quarters were minted, it is far rarer today. There is no way to argue that when you look at the numbers.

 

Agreed, no one can tell with 100% certainty.
I don't even believe the published numbers of the quantity struck are 100% accurate.
Many numbers are listed in even hundreds.
I consider that unlikely.

But statistical methods can yield a reasonable estimate.
And those estimates would be generated from the population numbers posted by the TPG's.

I don't have access to those numbers since I won't pay to join PCGS.
I have some access to NGC since I'm an ANA member but even there I would have to join to see the population figures. And I won't.

If you build your collection based upon published numbers in the Red Book I personally believe you'll be in for a big surprise when buying or selling.

 

I'm taking data that is printed in Yeoman's Redbook.

 

Then also look at the data printed under the values. Red Book isn't super accurate for values but it gives you trends. That mintage data is 80 years old. The value adds to the story. The D is far more valuable because the supply is lower. Did you even read my previous post or are you just choosing to ignore those facts?

 

I read your entire post along with the personal jibs.

And I highly doubt Yeoman would be so inaccurate on those mintage figures to have made such an error of 36,000.

Maybe a + or - of 1,000, but not what anyone is suggesting.

 

The 1932-D&S Washy's are 79 years old. The mintages 79 years ago do not mean anything, what DOES matter, is how many are surviving today. Yes, the 1932-S has a lower recorded mintage than the 1932-D, but more S's were saved in better grades, and more were saved overall. It's like comparing the 1931-S Lincoln cent to the 1914-D cent, less 14-D's were saved in better grades and overall. So I wouldn't go by the recorded mintages from the time the coin(s) were minted. There were 436,800 32-D's minted, but that doesn't mean it is all there.

 

The number you are quoting are original mintage numbers, those are accurate. What everyone is trying to explain to you is survival rate per grades. The last time silver went way up, a lot of silver coins were melted, this is one way mintage numbers and survival numbers can change.

 

Its actually easier to add mintmarks on low grade coins since you can do much more to cover up the marks made from adding the MM and not raise suspicion. Its harder on a high grade coin since the evidence will be clearer.

We are not saying it IS a added mintmark, just cautioning you about it. If any washington quarter is most prone to this, it is the 32d. A longtime dealer I knew in the late 70's had about 30 of these added mintmark 32d's in his "black box" of forgeries. They were the only washington quarters in there, so this proves people have been adding this mintmark for a long, long time.

Have an experienced dealer look it over in person, short of slabbing it, that is the best way to tell.

 

Oh, hey BUncirculated!

I'll buy a 1927-S Standing Liberty 25c. in VF condition (Mintage: 396,000)
And you buy a 1923-S Standing Liberty 25c. in VF condition (Mintage: 1,360,000)

...And we can trade! Because, as some of us think *cough* ...only BUncirculated... *cough, cough*, only mintage numbers matter in determining the price of a coin.

 

...You know, I just thought I'd add this, If he had just listened to my whole, previous post of why the '32-D is rarer than the '32-S no one would be in this little argument and would not have to take the time to try and persuade BUncirculated to what is "CORRECT" and what is "INCORRECT". Besides, that was not even the intention I had for this post ... ...I just wanted the nice people of coin talk to admire my coin and give their honests opinions on what they think of it. *cry*

 

First of all, there were no "personal jibs" in my post...but that's OK if you think there were. Secondly, I never said there was an error of 36,000...that number appears nowhere in my post. I said there were 28,800 more 1932-D quarters minted than 1932-S. If you take the RedBook mintage for 1932-D (436,800) and subtract the mintage of the 1932-S (408,000) you get 28,800 more 1932-D than 1932-S coins. But, my point was...that is a very similar mintage. However, there is a vast difference in value...and the 1932-D is much more valuable. That is because it is rarer today, it may not have been in 1932...but in 2011 it is. The numbers are right there in your Red Book.

If you don't want to believe me or agree with me that's fine. I haven't made a single "personal jib" in any of my posts. I am just trying to help someone who clearly likes coins but doesn't have a lot of experience with them learn something useful. If you don't want to listen to me, that's your choice.

 

Back to the original topic, I am a still concerned as are others about the authenticity of the 1932-D in question. Would it be possible to get a better photo of the reverse of the coin so the mint mark could be examined more closely? We really don't have any accurate way of judging this coin, all we can see is a blackness around the mint mark...but its very small. I can also tell you that people on this forum have been wrong in the past (I have 2 coins in my collection that highly respected members of this forum initially thought were fake and they have since been slabbed my PCGS). So, I don't think any sure determination can be made from the photos and I don't want you to go away from this wondering about the coin. I think with better photos, a lot more information can be given.