Some raw toner 1940's Washingtons.

[SkyMan]

Here are a few raw toner 1944-45 toner Washingtons I picked up last summer. The images are by Shane Canup and I think he did an excellent job.

 

 

 

[bsshog40]

Nice ones Sy. Haven't seen you post any in a while. Nice comeback!

[robec1347]

Nice additions Sy. You know how to pick 'em!!

[AstroTrain]

Very nice!!!!

[physics-fan3.14]

That 44S looks really nice.

[kryptonitecomics]

The 1944 is so clean I have no idea what would keep it out of a MS68 holder...I really couldn't find any marks on it but it doesn't have booming luster so I don't know?

[jayman1970]

Great looking group of quarters!

[Gunny]

Nice. The 44-S is my favorite.

[BLive1972]

That 44s is awesome. All are great, but that one is gorgeous.

[physics-fan3.14]

The 1944 is so clean I have no idea what would keep it out of a MS68 holder...I really couldn't find any marks on it but it doesn't have booming luster so I don't know?

 

Help me interpret what I am seeing on that one - is that a giant fingerprint covering almost the entire obverse?

 

If so, that automatically limits it to no higher than 65 in my book. If it is just spotty toning, I could see it in a 66 holder. Marks-wise, it may be extraordinarily clean - but the weak-ish strike, lack of booming luster, and vaguely spotty toning should preclude a prestige grade like 67 or 68. It may sound like I'm being negative about the coin - I'm not. Except for the fingerprint, I think it is an attractive coin. I just don't think it is worthy of a 68.

[SkyMan]

Thanks guys, glad you like them!

 

...Help me interpret what I am seeing on that one - is that a giant fingerprint covering almost the entire obverse?...

 

It is indeed a fingerprint. I think "giant" is a bit of a misnomer about how large it is... it's a pretty standard size fingerprint that covers George's neck.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

How do you know it is a fingerprint?

[kryptonitecomics]

The 1944 is so clean I have no idea what would keep it out of a MS68 holder...I really couldn't find any marks on it but it doesn't have booming luster so I don't know?

 

Help me interpret what I am seeing on that one - is that a giant fingerprint covering almost the entire obverse?

 

If so, that automatically limits it to no higher than 65 in my book. If it is just spotty toning, I could see it in a 66 holder. Marks-wise, it may be extraordinarily clean - but the weak-ish strike, lack of booming luster, and vaguely spotty toning should preclude a prestige grade like 67 or 68. It may sound like I'm being negative about the coin - I'm not. Except for the fingerprint, I think it is an attractive coin. I just don't think it is worthy of a 68.

 

Jason I don't think your being negative and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion but...I am glad you don't work for the tpgs because a finger print or the remnants of one isn't and shouldn't relegate a coin this clean to a MS65/MS66. I take the approach when I grade that you have to be subjective and not let your personal feelings get in the way....as if you were grading for NGC or PCGS. That's not to say there will never be any bias at all...but I try to look past a white coin and grade it like I think the TPGs would grade it even though I don't like the looks of untoned coins. I don't think you can look at a flat image of a toned coin and get a good sense of the strike either...I don't think the coin is weekly struck though it may not have a razor sharp strike....it really depends on what is typical for the date.

 

Now when shopping for a coin it's all about personal tastes...but I don't want new collectors coming into a thread like this and thinking wow that coin is real clean but it's considered damaged goods and the tpgs will downgrade it because someone touched it 50 years ago. I think we have a responsibility as more knowledgeable collectors to provide a more facts based approach to grading vs the usual well I would only grade it X because I personally don't like something about it.

 

Others might disagree with me...but if NGC doesn't grade limit a coin for the print then I don't think we should either from a purely grading standpoint.

 

Here some examples of MS68 Washington quarters that appear to have similar toning though perhaps not the print and I don't see booming luster on any of them. I also see more marks on some of these examples then I see on Sy's coin?

 

 

1944 MS68

 

 

with print..

 

1939 MS68

 

 

 

1939 MS68

 

splotchy toning

 

1943 MS68

 

 

splotchy toning

 

1953 MS68

 

 

splotchy toning

 

1942-D MS68

[physics-fan3.14]

Very good, well argued post, Shane. The TPG's may award higher grades for coins with fingerprints - but I will not. I would not buy a high grade coin with a fingerprint. If you take market grading as an appraisal of the value of the coin, then the value of the coin dictates the grade of the coin. I value it at 65 or 66.

 

Plenty of people don't mind fingerprints on their coins. That's fine for them - its a choice each collect must make. I have chosen to avoid coins with fingerprints (unless it is a very rare coin, and the chances of finding another are slim). I value them significantly less than an equal coin without a fingerprint. But hey, that's just me - I find fingerprints ugly, distracting, potentially damaging, and avoid them. You make your own decisions about whether or not you like them or accept them on your coins.

 

And Shane, one final comment - there is a difference between what the TPGs actually do, and what they should do. Should they give high grades for coins with fingerprints? That's an entirely different question from "do they give high grades for coins with fingerprints?" My opinion is no, they shouldn't. But your opinion may differ.

[SkyMan]

How do you know it is a fingerprint?

 

When you've seen enough coins over time you get familiar with certain characteristics. Specifically in this case, you see a coin with somewhat linear features (more or less going in a SE to NW direction) on the neck, extending up to just around the ear. This is caused by the, basically invisible, oils deposited by a finger on a coin. Over time the oils react with the metal and cause the fingerprint(s) to become visible. On other coins, these fingerprints can often show up like the swirls of a fingerprint you would see on a police blotter.

 

Personally, as far as fingerprints on coins go, I find they range from the distinctly distracting and unappealing, through more or less neutral, to actually creating an interesting and appealing toning pattern. On a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being really appealing, in hand I'd call this specific set of fingerprints on the 1944, something in the 5 range. It is noticeable, and somewhat distracting, but given the look of the coin in hand, it's not a major distraction.

 

 

[kryptonitecomics]

Very good, well argued post, Shane. The TPG's may award higher grades for coins with fingerprints - but I will not. I would not buy a high grade coin with a fingerprint. If you take market grading as an appraisal of the value of the coin, then the value of the coin dictates the grade of the coin. I value it at 65 or 66.

 

Plenty of people don't mind fingerprints on their coins. That's fine for them - its a choice each collect must make. I have chosen to avoid coins with fingerprints (unless it is a very rare coin, and the chances of finding another are slim). I value them significantly less than an equal coin without a fingerprint. But hey, that's just me - I find fingerprints ugly, distracting, potentially damaging, and avoid them. You make your own decisions about whether or not you like them or accept them on your coins.

 

And Shane, one final comment - there is a difference between what the TPGs actually do, and what they should do. Should they give high grades for coins with fingerprints? That's an entirely different question from "do they give high grades for coins with fingerprints?" My opinion is no, they shouldn't. But your opinion may differ.

 

 

I am all about the technical merits of a coin....which basically means the surface conditions, bag marks, rim bumps etc. When folks say a coin can't or shouldn't grade higher than X because of toning, or luster or a weaker strike...I usually don't agree. While toning, luster and strike are all key components of a coins overall grade they rate much lower to me...and I believe the tpgs then do the overall contact marks.

 

I don't have a problem with anyone not liking finger prints or toning or whatever is there preference...but I firmly believe that too many folks hand out opinions without thinking things through...I believe you are allowing you personal dislike of prints to cloud your judgement on coin grading. We can't have a Jason grading scale, a shane grading scale, an NGC grading scale, a PCGS grading scale. There should be one grading scale for all with minor variations in how we each interpret that scale.

 

How do you feel about a person with limited to no knowledge of toning jumping into threads and providing AT opinions on coins. Do you feel that's a responsible act or do you just not care what is posted because you make up your mind for yourself? I assume it's the later and you have that luxury because your not a newbie but what about the newbies who read all of the misinformation and uninformed opinions posted daily on the coin forums....do you think it slows down the learning curve?

[physics-fan3.14]

I realize that you care a lot about the newer people and their learning curves, Shane. I do also. I wouldn't be here and do what I do if I didn't.

 

However, I feel like I am giving them something to think about. You post that a coin should grade 68 - and this new person rushes out and buys a 68 that has spotty and ugly toning for a full 68 price, not realizing that its an ugly coin. I'm pointing out that eye appeal plays as much into the value of a coin as any of the technical merits. I personally don't like fingerprints on a coin - but I'm leaving that option and choice up to the person deciding. I feel this is a legitimate concern. A coin which may technically grade 68 based on marks and luster and strike may be valued at 66 due to spotty and ugly toning or fingerprints. Remember, this hobby is complicated with a lot of different aspects - and all of them must be thought about.

 

I think the bigger disservice is done by ignoring the issue of fingerprints and the affect they can have on value.

[TomB]

That '45-S is absolutely stunning.