Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 3630938, member: 15309&quot;]While I agree that the mark is less prominent in the slab photo, the mark is still a significant mark in the focal area visible to the naked eye.&nbsp; This coin reminds me of the thread that I posted about 5 years ago.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/should-a-significant-mark-in-a-prime-focal-area-prevent-a-gem-grade.110657/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/should-a-significant-mark-in-a-prime-focal-area-prevent-a-gem-grade.110657/">Should a significant mark in a prime focal area prevent a gem grade?</a></p><p><br /></p><p>To the purists (eg. Doug), that mark is a grade limiting mark that will always preclude a gem grade.&nbsp; To the people who grade more holistically, as the TPG&#039;s do, the mark may be overcome by the other elements of grading.&nbsp; That is where I believe we diverge on this coin.&nbsp; You are interpreting the luster on the coin to be strong, but washed out by Heritage&#039;s photos, which is extremely commonplace.&nbsp; I on the other hand think that the luster is muted by what I perceive to be a light milky patina that I have seen on many Washington quarters in my travels.&nbsp; It is entirely possible that if I had a chance to see this coin in hand, and you are right about the luster, that I would instantly agree with the MS65 grade, but until then, I&#039;m at MS64.&nbsp; That said, I still think the coin is really close to MS65, hence my original grade of MS64+.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in