Barber Quarters--Grades Please!

[lehigh96]

The photos below shows 8 AU/BU Barber Quarters from my Dansco collection. Please give me your opinion on the grades of these coins. Comments will be helpful as well. For example, will the rim ding cause a genuine grade for the 1892? Will any bag for improper cleaning?

 

 

 

I do feel the need to state that I already know that all of these coins have been dipped at some point in their history and was aware of that when I purchased them.

 

In addition, I have posted this same thread ATS, so please ignore if you have already responded over there.

 

Thanks for your time!

[Bruceswar]

the best of the bunch is the 1892 if you ask me. with the 1894 o being the low man on the totem poll.

 

Overall nice quarters!

[Mokiechan]

Okay, I'll take a crack:

 

1892 - Uncirculated Details or MS63 depending on how they view the rim ding.

 

1892-O - AU53

 

1894-O - XF40

 

1897-O - Uncirculated Details

 

1900- MS63

 

1903- MS62

 

1912 - MS63

 

Fun exercise, hope your grades are all better than my predictions.

 

Later,

Malcolm

 

[James_OldeTowne]

63

55

40

61

63

60 details with surface marks

58 details excessively cleaned

63

[J3_Dog]

I still can't get the hang of telling if a coin is cleaned.

[Chris1976]

I still can't get the hang of telling if a coin is cleaned.

 

it takes time to learn honestly, I think I purchased a handfull of cleaned coins without knowing any better in the past. Now I still buy them from time to time, but I know its been cleaned prior to purchasing it.

[brg5658]

Paul, I believe the 1897 is the dark horse. The luster is booming, and the details are absolutely stunning (look at the obverse star divisions, and the tail and feet details on the eagle reverse). I would easily see that one in an MS64 holder, and I don't see any signs of cleaning (as others have suggested). Of course, maybe I'm blind.

 

I find the 1892-O peripheral toning to be quite appealing also. That is my 2nd favorite.

 

--------------------

My guesses:

 

1892 -- MS62

1892-O -- AU58

1894-O -- XF40

1897 -- MS64

1900 -- MS62

1903 -- MS61

1911 -- AU58

1913 -- MS63

 

 

 

[jom]

I agree with brg5658 on the 1897...I don't see the cleaning there. What am I missing?

 

Then again, these are PHOTOS...so to J3_dog's inquiry: Don't worry most can't see subtle cleaning from a photo either.

 

1892 62 or 63 depending on hairlines

1892-O 55 or 58

1894-O 45 depends on luster that's left

1897 63+ or 64

1900 58

1903 58 or 62

1911 58

1913 58 or 62

 

jom