MS67 Washington?

I picked this beautiful Washington out of a mint set and have been toying with the idea of including it in an NGC submission. However, I wonder if this contact mark on the cheek would be too distracting for a 67 and bump it down to a 66. Plenty of PCGS/NGC-certified 67's seem to have some Chatter on Washington himself, but I am curious if you think this is simply too much. That plus, despite good luster, it doesn't quite have the eye appeal of something like this.
Edit: Please forgive the washed-out photo. I'm not yet great at getting the lighting looking good with my microscope.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hello and Welcome!

 

Thank you, glad to be here! Been playing the guess the grade games a lot and figured I should join.

 

Now days I don't think they are nearly lenient enough to grade that a 67 in for '82's.

 

Welcome!! and sorry to say have to agree with cladking... 66 maybe with that cheek ding, but hard to judge with just one partial pic.. Please post full pic's of both side of a coin when asking for grading advise (makes it a whole lot easier on us, and will keep the grumpy old guys off your back )

 

No. I also don't think a submission will be economically beneficial to you.

 

I would not submit it as it only looks like a MS-65 to me.

 

Thanks all...I'll probably leave it out of the submission and wait to send the package when I have more material that I'm more confident on. Only thing I'm for sure sending in at this point is an accented hair Kennedy, but submitting one coin is by no means economical.

 

I don't think I will, but I'm also curious as to what you think knocks it all the way down to 65? I figured it would get a 66 without much issue. I know the reverse isn't posted here, but it is quite good. Just wondering what the clues are you found on the obverse.

 

This is an MS67... I think you can see the difference between the 2... The 84 is a very nice quarter and MS, even Gem... but not a 67 (sorry I have very few clad quarters and any dates i have close to yours are 70s)

 

That is a little unfair, though, as a comparison, because it is a SMS....and cameo.
Play nice.

Don't hit me. Posting here is just a cameo role for me, not a full time gig.

 

Looks like a small mark by the L and Y in LIBERTY, another one by the mint mark and a thin longer one on the neck. The mint mark looks like it’s from a wear when minted. Nice but to me looking at photos not good enough to make it any higher. I could be wrong but that’s my opinion.

 

Yes I put a link in my original post to a pic of a PCGS 67 (regular business strike, not SMS), and I felt in my gut that this didn't look as nice, but did notice quite a few marks on it, which is why I posted here. Anyway, into the roll it goes.

 

That is a Specimen coin, and not comparable to an MS 67, even though the grade is listed as MS.

 

NANANANANA...I said it first.....

 

Ok ok but it was the only MS67 clad I had for comparison both of the 68s are satin finish so couldn't use those lol

 

Welcome to the wide wide world of coin collecting….. The TPG’s are much more strict with modern submissions than they are with older coins. You seriously must have first strike, perfect specimens to even remotely consider grading moderns. I been collecting fifty years and I won’t play that gamble.

 

Good to know. I've collected a long time and consider myself generally very knowledgable on US coins, but I've never submitted to a TPG so I will wait until I have enough things that really need to be certified. Maybe I'll try to cherrypick more accented hairs.

 

I stick to the general rule of only submitting only coins that authenticating/gradeing will increase the value to greater then the cost of having it done (there are exceptions and always some mistakes, even by the "experts" submitting for grading is always a bit of a gamble

 

It is a gamble and modern coins need to be able to grade very high. Both these coins have a ghost image on the reverse but lest than $10 at my LCS. They were graded very high but not enough to cover the grading cost.