I've thought about making a scale similar to Shelton's that describes the value of such. It would be along the lines of: 1. GM = Good Money 2. AM = Alot Of Money 3. BM = Big Money 4. CM = Crazy Money 5. SM = Stupid Money
I am not surprised. IMO there are a lot of coins from that time frame that will be future crakouts/upgrades. They were absolutely brutal on coins during that period
A pretty coin no doubt, but if it were me I'd just get a MS66 for 1% of the cost of that MS68. I think I could lower my standards some to save 99%, especially since I can't easily tell the difference between a MS66 and a MS68.
The '68-D quarter comes very nice. Top end specimens are "common" and often highly PL. Luster is very fine and very deep while strikes can be superb. But there's certainly a difference between MS-66 and MS-67 and the TPG's will usually get it right unless it's a tweener.
The coins that come back in different grades all the times are the ones with attributes that are all over the board. If a coin is a solid Gem but has a weak strike or it has questionable surfaces it can easily be graded differently dependent on the grader and his perspective. But If a coin is Gem in all categories it will grade about the same everytime. Coins are all unique and how the various attributes are rated varies over time and individual preferences.
...Like 1000 1968 mint sets. One of these would have a nice PL Denver quarter in MS-67. There would be other treasures as well.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that finds the toning unattractive. I can't imagine spending $50 on the coin, let alone $8K+.