(Accidentally posted this on the "new acquisitions" thread, when I meant to post it here.) The nice thing about circulated Barbers with this sort of look is that they are easy to image. I did all the pictures of my old VG-F Dansco set of halves with a flatbed scanner and they still came out looking good. (Bright and lustrous coins, on the other hand, are not very scanner-friendly, even though I had a good scanner.) I like a good crusty circ Barber that did its time in commerce, got well circulated but not worn flat, and then was unmessed-with after that.
I bought this quarter sometime last year - NGC MS 62 - it has full luster and shine, as it should - I'm guessing that this is pretty close to what a fresh Barber would have looked like to someone living in 1914. My now deceased Great Aunt, who was born around that time, had given me a 1913 Barber Quarter when I was a kid, but it was worn almost completely hockey puck smooth - it probably looked closer to the one below when she first saw it back when she was a kid - it sometimes feels a little like time travel to look at old mint state coins.
@Bedilia, welcome to CT! You should start a new thread, in either the U.S Coins or Error forum, with pictures of your find. You'll get a better response. This thread is about Barber coinage (1892-1916) and your question about a modern Washington quarter is off-topic and won't get much response here.
You say you like worn Barbers...well, here are some worn Barbers! These came to me from a family friend. I plan to purchase them this week along with a whole mess of other similarly worn old US coins.
That 95-S looks like it would make F! It doesn't fit in the set at all. You should send it to me. I didn't pay close attention when I moved to the second set. I thought it was more halves, and that 1916 made me do a double-take!