hone your grading skills -- Washington Quarter

Cheaters!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I was a slow learner but the beans spilled a few months ago. No Harm, No Foul... But, with that you've got some darn BEAUTIFUL coins. :bow::thumb::bow::thumb::bow:

 

I would mark it MS65 because of the toning. Not saying the toing is not a nice set of colors but based on the fact that the toning is on some spots more distracting then appealing like around Washingtons eye. Perhaps a TPGs wouldnt consider that and grade it as hi as say MS67.

But for me MS65 .

Nice looking in any case.

 

Ms-62

 

Taking eye appeal into consideration, I will say MS65. It doesn't have too many marks...more on the obverse than the reverse. I personally don't like the toning. It looks like Ol' George has a black eye and a mustache. I do like some toned coins, but I like a more even toning with no breaks...a rare spectacle on Washington quarters. I do like the reverse of this coin more than the obverse. The toning appears more even to me and doesn't get as close to black. I am also aware that toning and whether or not one likes it is very subjective and people have very strong opinions. With all that said, I may just be being hard on the coin because I just don't like Washington quarters...The details are just so blah and mushy.

Thanks for sharing Leadfoot!

 

i guess i'm one of the harsher graders in the bunch - looks like some scratches and dings on the hairline to me...

i'd say MS-63.

-steve

 

So what is the actual grade?

 

First off, I appreciate the chance to view the coin and the experienced feedback by everyone.

Being new to the hobby and grading, my impression was MS 63.
Why?

first off, conservative.
next, based on the photo, I see what I believe is a pretty serious nick on the obverse by the mouth, along with additional scratches. Again, most likely the photo.

Additionally for me, I don't like the toning, but that is a personal preference.

Again, very new to grading and just now going thru my quarters.
As noted, thanks for sharing and allowing me to comment.
(wish I had my book here so I could review what to look for on Qtrs.)

 

NGC graded the coin MS 66*.

I'll post later this evening my subjective thoughts on the coin.

Until then...have fun...Mike

 

Whew!:smile

 

Niiiiice. Lol, sweet coin, very deserving of the grade IMHO. :thumb:

Phoenix

 

that was very generous of them in my opinion

 

It was spot-on, in mine.

 

I agree.

 

Ah well it seems that my first attempt to grade was off by a hair. I said 65. Congrats.

 

Thank you all for your comments and guesses. Here are my subjective thoughts on the coin, and having the benefit of having the coin in-hand....

The coin has great luster and cartwheel, despite the heavy toning, and it really doesn't come through in the photos provided. The few marks on the coin, mostly on the obverse, show pretty well in the photo, although the large size of the photos, I believe, has caused a few of you to undergrade the coin due to these hits. (It is an easy hole to fall into as was alluded to in posts earlier in this thread, and that's part of the reason I always include smaller photos in these types of posts.) As was also noted earlier in this thread, the coin suffers from a bit of a weak strike, most easliy seen in George's hair on the obverse, in UNUM and the branches on the reverse, and to a lesser extent in the eagle's rightmost wing. The toning is splotchy, as is very typical on toned silver Washies. Quite frankly, if you see toning on an early Washington that isn't splotchy, this is cause for concern. Regardless, I suspect the coin was in a roll for an extended amount of time, and the toning, while rather dark on areas of the obverse, hasn't caused any diminishing luster -- something I try and pay close attention when seeing dark toning and high mint-state grades.

In short, I agree with the 66 grade, and also the "*", and I think the coin would likely grade 66 at PCGS based upon the examples I've seen. FWIW, I do not see this as a 67 coin because of the lack of strike and the hits on the obverse.

I paid about 2x what a 66 goes for in retail circles. A bit on the high-end of what I'm comfortable in paying for toners, but nowhere near the over fifteen hundred dollars a 67 goes for. All in all I'm very happy with the coin and price.

As an aside, this coin was offered to me by a friend and fellow collector I met through online forums (LeeG) -- who purchased from another friend of the forums (TomB), who purchased it at FUN in 2002. This is the third coin I've purchased from Lee, and in addition to the knowledge and cameraderie on the forums, it just goes to show you how valuable coin-collecting friends and the forums can be.

Again, my thanks for the many guesses, comments, and discussion about the coin. I hope you all enjoyed it...Mike

p.s. Mr. Feld, gloat while you can :hail:--- you might have gotten this Washington (mostly) right, but you didn't do so hot on the other one ATS (and neither did I).

p.p.s. Congrats to Flyer10 who nailed the grade!!!

 

Thanks for the thread and the post Mike. Due to the subjective nature of grading and shortcomings of even the best images, I don't believe in gloating for guessing (mostly or even completely) right or getting upset at guessing wrong. However, I do think that exercises such as this one can be helpful.

 

All that counts is that you are happy with the coin. Prices does not matter, because in many cases the personal value of a coin can far exceed is value in a monetary way. And you are too right. It is always a great help having friends who collect. These people know how bad it feels to see a coin that you love and get ripped for it. They value their fellow collectors. In any event, congratulations.

 

i stand by my grade of MS63 and thus the reason i pass on many slabbed coins.

-steve

 

You are obviously free to do so. But it means that you grade by an entirely different standard than the major grading companies and most collectors and dealers do. And that can lead to significant difficulties when you try to buy or sell coins.