The ES in STAT[ES] look like they're touching...which would make it a Type-A (business strike) reverse. I was expecting a space like this Type-B (proof) reverse... The finish on the graded coin doesn't look right, either. To me, it looks like a business strike coin in a proof slab. Which, I understand, is valuable in its own right...as a TPG error...assuming that's a real slab. The slab number is for a 1952 PF-67 Washington quarter, but there's no picture. I've seen where a real coin will be cracked out, then a counterfeit slab is created for a different coin of the same year. I'm not 100% sure that's what's going on here, but I'm suspicious.
It doesn't look like a proof to me, either. I've never tried it, but I'm told that some of these ANACS slabs that were used following the "soap box" were not very sturdy and could be cracked open with bare hands.
Read my reply again...that Obv/Rev picture is of a real proof...for comparison. The coin in question is the one in the ANACS slab.
I'm trying to decide if I should report it to eBay. I wanted to see what the CT experts thought before I did anything.
The first large generation, with the round top and bottom are sometimes referred to as "quick release" slabs -- by people at ANACS, no less. The more normal shaped ones are better constructed. The OP coin is a proof. The mirrors on the die are a bit faded from use. This is not unusual for early 50s proofs. Later, the coins all tend to be more brightly mirrored. 1950 Franklins that look like 1956s are few and far between, most are lustrous, but still very flashy. Were that quarter a business strike, in that kind of shape it would be worth a lot more than a proof.
I would not report it. Some of the early 1950s proofs don't have as strong of a mirror finish as the later years. Also the photo isn't the best and might be clouding the true view of the coin. Plus the 1952 sells for pretty similar amount as a PF 67 and an MS 67 (so it wouldn't make much sense to deceptively market it as one over the other).
I see three (3) possibilities... 1. The coin is a properly graded PF-67 coin. (no problem) 2. The coin is an MS-67 business strike coin erroneously attributed by ANACS. (Potentially a rare TPG grading error). 3. The coin is an MS "details" coin used to replace the Proof coin that had been removed (aka. Fraud). I understand about the fading mirrors...but that doesn't explain the Type-A reverse. Are you suggesting the Mint produced a Proof coin using a business strike die?
FWIW...looks like a business strike based on the pictures. I know nothing of the diagnostics you guys are bandying about so no opinion in that regard. Purty coin though!
No. That's a type B reverse on the OP coin. Lower left edge of S right of left side of R, leaf tip above arrow tips.
Not too mirrored, but it's a proof. More of a satin finish. This is the look I prefer. Mostly seen in 1950, fewer in '51, etc.
I have mentioned this dozen of times. A Proof is not determined by how they shine, or frosty, proof coin are all made with an edge ( even with milling) that is 90 degree angle straight across , no beveling(chamfering) that the business coins have. If you are looking at slick's coins and he is only showing a shocking flashy coin as a proof ~ Ask to see the edge or you lose! Jim