Alright, everyone jump on me and tell me how this one is properly graded

[mumu]

But this time I wont post the grade. If you saw the thread ATS on it don't cheat. Let's instead do this:

 

"Hey guys, I just got this MS 64 - do you think I should crack it out and go for the upgrade?"

 

 

[FishyOne]

Is there a reverse image to view?

[mumu]

Is there a reverse image to view?

 

There isn't, but let's assume the grade depends on the condition of the obverse.

[mumu]

I don't think even an MS 70 reverse should save that coin, but you bring up a good early candidate for why I will be wrong on this one, no reverse pics. Well start the lines at No reverse pics at 5 to 2, Cant grade from pics at 2 to 1, and PCGS knows best at 3 to 2. Long shot will be hits look bigger in the pics with 7 to 2. Mark Feld agreeing with me will be the 1000 to 1 prop bet.

[MarkFeld]

I do not know the assigned grade for the coin. I will guess MS66, with a shot at 65 and hope it is not graded 67.

 

I don't know if you think it's undergraded or overgraded, but that makes no difference in trying to provide an objective grade guess.

[lehigh96]

I understand that you think that the reverse is not important, but without it you can't evaluate the strike of the coin. So in essence, you are asking us to ignore one whole element of grading while attempting to grade this coin. My other problem with your framing of this issue is your repeated use of huge photographs. Blow up anything that big and even the tiniest flaws will seem significant. When displaying photos of quarters or smaller, I don't use bigger than 500x500 pixels.

 

 

Now the boxers cut over the eye is certainly a problem, and it is on a focal area of the coin. That said, it is the only significant mark on the coin. There is a small tick on the cheekbone, a few in the hair, and some minor hairlines on the neck, but the fields are pristine and the eye appeal is tremendous. It is hard to gauge the luster on this coin from what appears to be a Heritage photo. In the premium gem grades, luster is paramount.

 

I grade the coin as a low end MS66 or an MS65+ depending on the luster. The cut above the eye should preclude any chance at an MS67 grade IMO unless the reverse is MS68 quality with phenomenal strike, luster, and eye appeal.

[BillJones]

To me this coin grades MS-65 when one is generous. If this were a Liberty Seated quarter with a mark like that on Ms. Liberty's arm or leg you would get all kinds of static from a dealer to whom you wanted sell it if the slab had a grade on it higher than MS-64.

 

Even at MS-64, I think you might have trouble, but part of that is due to the design. For some the mark above Washington's brow "blends in" with the design.

[wdrob]

 

3 - 6 seconds on a coin and thats what you get.

 

MS65 if it is highly lustrous.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I don't exactly what the goal is, but this coin was posted ATS as an MS-, which clearly it is not because of the big mark over Washington's eye. But one of things you learn when you post ATS is that you don't bring up such touchy subjects when the coin is graded by the host.

 

To me this coin grades MS-65 when one is generous. If this were a Liberty Seated quarter with a mark like that on Ms. Liberty's arm or leg you would get all kinds of static from a dealer to whom you wanted sell it if the slab had a grade on it higher than MS-64.

 

I think the poster was looking for unbiased grade guesses without knowing the assigned grade in advancece

[lehigh96]

I don't exactly what the goal is, but this coin was posted ATS as an MS-, which clearly it is not because of the big mark over Washington's eye. But one of things you learn when you post ATS is that you don't bring up such touchy subjects when the coin is graded by the host.

 

To me this coin grades MS-65 when one is generous. If this were a Liberty Seated quarter with a mark like that on Ms. Liberty's arm or leg you would get all kinds of static from a dealer to whom you wanted sell it if the slab had a grade on it higher than MS-64.

 

I think the poster was looking for unbiased grade guesses without knowing the assigned grade in advancece

 

Mark,

 

That was a nice touch, deleting the assigned grade from the quoted post of Bill. Now if we can get Bill to edit his post and delete the assigned grade as well, we might get some more responses to this thread. Otherwise, we will have to hope they don't scroll down before responding.

[physics-fan3.14]

I would call it a borderline 64/65 - but would much rather see it bodybagged for damage. There is a huge gash across his eye, through his temple and into his hair. That giant scrape really kills the grade.

[mumu]

I understand that you think that the reverse is not important, but without it you can't evaluate the strike of the coin. So in essence, you are asking us to ignore one whole element of grading while attempting to grade this coin. My other problem with your framing of this issue is your repeated use of huge photographs. Blow up anything that big and even the tiniest flaws will seem significant. When displaying photos of quarters or smaller, I don't use bigger than 500x500 pixels.

 

 

Now the boxers cut over the eye is certainly a problem, and it is on a focal area of the coin. That said, it is the only significant mark on the coin. There is a small tick on the cheekbone, a few in the hair, and some minor hairlines on the neck, but the fields are pristine and the eye appeal is tremendous. It is hard to gauge the luster on this coin from what appears to be a Heritage photo. In the premium gem grades, luster is paramount.

 

I grade the coin as a low end MS66 or an MS65+ depending on the luster. The cut above the eye should preclude any chance at an MS67 grade IMO unless the reverse is MS68 quality with phenomenal strike, luster, and eye appeal.

 

Pretty sure PCGS applies weakest link(side), not net grades. Unless youre thinking ICG graded this coin which does net grade. As posted coin is in a PCGS 67 holder. The coin is not mine and the thread ATS I stole it from only had the obverse but I think it suffices.

 

As for the picture, I don't think this one qualifies as HUGE, far from it. The HA pics yes are huge, but not this...I would say this is ~about what a 5x loupe would show.

[mtnstyne]

MS65 but washies are not my thing. I don't like the look of it with the cuts, mottled toning, and it looks like rubs on the high points of the neck.

[MarkFeld]

I understand that you think that the reverse is not important, but without it you can't evaluate the strike of the coin. So in essence, you are asking us to ignore one whole element of grading while attempting to grade this coin. My other problem with your framing of this issue is your repeated use of huge photographs. Blow up anything that big and even the tiniest flaws will seem significant. When displaying photos of quarters or smaller, I don't use bigger than 500x500 pixels.

 

 

Now the boxers cut over the eye is certainly a problem, and it is on a focal area of the coin. That said, it is the only significant mark on the coin. There is a small tick on the cheekbone, a few in the hair, and some minor hairlines on the neck, but the fields are pristine and the eye appeal is tremendous. It is hard to gauge the luster on this coin from what appears to be a Heritage photo. In the premium gem grades, luster is paramount.

 

I grade the coin as a low end MS66 or an MS65+ depending on the luster. The cut above the eye should preclude any chance at an MS67 grade IMO unless the reverse is MS68 quality with phenomenal strike, luster, and eye appeal.

 

Pretty sure PCGS applies weakest link(side), not net grades. Unless youre thinking ICG graded this coin which does net grade. As posted coin is in a PCGS 67 holder. The coin is not mine and the thread ATS I stole it from only had the obverse but I think it suffices.

 

As for the picture, I don't think this one qualifies as HUGE, far from it. The HA pics yes are huge, but not this...I would say this is ~about what a 5x loupe would show.

 

Whether you wish to call it "huge" or not, the image you posted is multiples of the actual size of the coin. Therefore it shows the flaws in an exaggerated light.

 

Still, I agree with you that the coin looks to be over-graded. So there should be free pizza from you for all posters!

[mumu]

 

And again, its not that I don't think the reverse matters. I do, I constantly look at hits on the eagle when looking at these and feel that hits on the breast feathers are even more distracting than hits in Washington's hair, in this thread alone seems some people didn't notice the huge hits in the hair behind the eye cut. But there is no pic that could find quickly for the reverse. I tried to browse thru users photobucket to get it but no dice.

[mikew148]

I've seen boxing matches stopped for less. That gash over the eye is ugly, even in the smaller images.

 

64 tops for me but I wouldn't buy it for 63 money. Just don't like the look, even though the rest of the obverse is fairly clean.

[mumu]

I understand that you think that the reverse is not important, but without it you can't evaluate the strike of the coin. So in essence, you are asking us to ignore one whole element of grading while attempting to grade this coin. My other problem with your framing of this issue is your repeated use of huge photographs. Blow up anything that big and even the tiniest flaws will seem significant. When displaying photos of quarters or smaller, I don't use bigger than 500x500 pixels.

 

 

Now the boxers cut over the eye is certainly a problem, and it is on a focal area of the coin. That said, it is the only significant mark on the coin. There is a small tick on the cheekbone, a few in the hair, and some minor hairlines on the neck, but the fields are pristine and the eye appeal is tremendous. It is hard to gauge the luster on this coin from what appears to be a Heritage photo. In the premium gem grades, luster is paramount.

 

I grade the coin as a low end MS66 or an MS65+ depending on the luster. The cut above the eye should preclude any chance at an MS67 grade IMO unless the reverse is MS68 quality with phenomenal strike, luster, and eye appeal.

 

Pretty sure PCGS applies weakest link(side), not net grades. Unless youre thinking ICG graded this coin which does net grade. As posted coin is in a PCGS 67 holder. The coin is not mine and the thread ATS I stole it from only had the obverse but I think it suffices.

 

As for the picture, I don't think this one qualifies as HUGE, far from it. The HA pics yes are huge, but not this...I would say this is ~about what a 5x loupe would show.

 

Whether you wish to call it "huge" or not, the image you posted is multiples of the actual size of the coin. Therefore it shows the flaws in an exaggerated light.

 

Still, I agree with you that the coin looks to be over-graded. So there should be free pizza from you for all posters!

 

If I knew where to find free pizza I would.

[lehigh96]

I understand that you think that the reverse is not important, but without it you can't evaluate the strike of the coin. So in essence, you are asking us to ignore one whole element of grading while attempting to grade this coin. My other problem with your framing of this issue is your repeated use of huge photographs. Blow up anything that big and even the tiniest flaws will seem significant. When displaying photos of quarters or smaller, I don't use bigger than 500x500 pixels.

 

 

Now the boxers cut over the eye is certainly a problem, and it is on a focal area of the coin. That said, it is the only significant mark on the coin. There is a small tick on the cheekbone, a few in the hair, and some minor hairlines on the neck, but the fields are pristine and the eye appeal is tremendous. It is hard to gauge the luster on this coin from what appears to be a Heritage photo. In the premium gem grades, luster is paramount.

 

I grade the coin as a low end MS66 or an MS65+ depending on the luster. The cut above the eye should preclude any chance at an MS67 grade IMO unless the reverse is MS68 quality with phenomenal strike, luster, and eye appeal.

 

Pretty sure PCGS applies weakest link(side), not net grades. Unless youre thinking ICG graded this coin which does net grade. As posted coin is in a PCGS 67 holder. The coin is not mine and the thread ATS I stole it from only had the obverse but I think it suffices.

 

As for the picture, I don't think this one qualifies as HUGE, far from it. The HA pics yes are huge, but not this...I would say this is ~about what a 5x loupe would show.

 

PCGS does not apply "weakest link" grading. All of the TPGs grade holistically and in instances where one side is several grades higher than the other, the resultant grade will fall in the middle. That said, both PCGS and NGC are prone to lend more weight to the obverse than the reverse. The photo that you used is huge. My photo is more like a 5X loupe. Lastly, if you know that the obverse photo is a Heritage pic, it should make the reverse photo pretty easy to find.

 

1942-D Washington Quarter PCGS MS67 HA 2014 CSNS

 

I'm not sure why you are arguing the little details with me when it is obvious that you already won the war. Everybody agrees that MS67 is and overgrade given the mark above the eye. That is one that should qualify for their grade guarantee. What toppings do you want on your pizza?

[mumu]

I understand that you think that the reverse is not important, but without it you can't evaluate the strike of the coin. So in essence, you are asking us to ignore one whole element of grading while attempting to grade this coin. My other problem with your framing of this issue is your repeated use of huge photographs. Blow up anything that big and even the tiniest flaws will seem significant. When displaying photos of quarters or smaller, I don't use bigger than 500x500 pixels.

 

 

Now the boxers cut over the eye is certainly a problem, and it is on a focal area of the coin. That said, it is the only significant mark on the coin. There is a small tick on the cheekbone, a few in the hair, and some minor hairlines on the neck, but the fields are pristine and the eye appeal is tremendous. It is hard to gauge the luster on this coin from what appears to be a Heritage photo. In the premium gem grades, luster is paramount.

 

I grade the coin as a low end MS66 or an MS65+ depending on the luster. The cut above the eye should preclude any chance at an MS67 grade IMO unless the reverse is MS68 quality with phenomenal strike, luster, and eye appeal.

 

Pretty sure PCGS applies weakest link(side), not net grades. Unless youre thinking ICG graded this coin which does net grade. As posted coin is in a PCGS 67 holder. The coin is not mine and the thread ATS I stole it from only had the obverse but I think it suffices.

 

As for the picture, I don't think this one qualifies as HUGE, far from it. The HA pics yes are huge, but not this...I would say this is ~about what a 5x loupe would show.

 

PCGS does not apply "weakest link" grading. All of the TPGs grade holistically and in instances where one side is several grades higher than the other, the resultant grade will fall in the middle. That said, both PCGS and NGC are prone to lend more weight to the obverse than the reverse. The photo that you used is huge. My photo is more like a 5X loupe. Lastly, if you know that the obverse photo is a Heritage pic, it should make the reverse photo pretty easy to find.

 

1942-D Washington Quarter PCGS MS67 HA 2014 CSNS

 

I'm not sure why you are arguing the little details with me when it is obvious that you already won the war. Everybody agrees that MS67 is and overgrade given the mark above the eye. That is one that should qualify for their grade guarantee. What toppings do you want on your pizza?

 

 

It is not an HA pic. You referenced that I always post huge pictures. Assuming you were referencing the HA picture I posted with the P$, I agreed that THAT picture was huge. The picture in this thread is FAR from huge. If you right click the image and choose properties, youll see this pic is from photobucket, OR you could read where I said it was a photobucket pic.

[Walkerfan]

I don't like the marks above the brow or on the temple. I would call it a 64.

[lehigh96]

I understand that you think that the reverse is not important, but without it you can't evaluate the strike of the coin. So in essence, you are asking us to ignore one whole element of grading while attempting to grade this coin. My other problem with your framing of this issue is your repeated use of huge photographs. Blow up anything that big and even the tiniest flaws will seem significant. When displaying photos of quarters or smaller, I don't use bigger than 500x500 pixels.

 

 

Now the boxers cut over the eye is certainly a problem, and it is on a focal area of the coin. That said, it is the only significant mark on the coin. There is a small tick on the cheekbone, a few in the hair, and some minor hairlines on the neck, but the fields are pristine and the eye appeal is tremendous. It is hard to gauge the luster on this coin from what appears to be a Heritage photo. In the premium gem grades, luster is paramount.

 

I grade the coin as a low end MS66 or an MS65+ depending on the luster. The cut above the eye should preclude any chance at an MS67 grade IMO unless the reverse is MS68 quality with phenomenal strike, luster, and eye appeal.

 

Pretty sure PCGS applies weakest link(side), not net grades. Unless youre thinking ICG graded this coin which does net grade. As posted coin is in a PCGS 67 holder. The coin is not mine and the thread ATS I stole it from only had the obverse but I think it suffices.

 

As for the picture, I don't think this one qualifies as HUGE, far from it. The HA pics yes are huge, but not this...I would say this is ~about what a 5x loupe would show.

 

PCGS does not apply "weakest link" grading. All of the TPGs grade holistically and in instances where one side is several grades higher than the other, the resultant grade will fall in the middle. That said, both PCGS and NGC are prone to lend more weight to the obverse than the reverse. The photo that you used is huge. My photo is more like a 5X loupe. Lastly, if you know that the obverse photo is a Heritage pic, it should make the reverse photo pretty easy to find.

 

1942-D Washington Quarter PCGS MS67 HA 2014 CSNS

 

I'm not sure why you are arguing the little details with me when it is obvious that you already won the war. Everybody agrees that MS67 is and overgrade given the mark above the eye. That is one that should qualify for their grade guarantee. What toppings do you want on your pizza?

 

 

It is not an HA pic. You referenced that I always post huge pictures. Assuming you were referencing the HA picture I posted with the P$, I agreed that THAT picture was huge. The picture in this thread is FAR from huge. If you right click the image and choose properties, youll see this pic is from photobucket, OR you could read where I said it was a photobucket pic.

 

Saving an HA photo to a photobucket account does not alter the fact that it is HA photo. And if a photo takes up the whole screen on a computer, the photo is huge, hence to big to serve any useful purpose with respect to grading. Stop arguing with me and accept reality, the photo you showed in the OP was too big.

 

But while we are on the subject of the Heritage photo, since when do $400 coins get "beauty shots" as Heritage calls them?

[lehigh96]

That picture is 840x843 pixels. If that's taking up your whole screen its time for a new monitor/computer.

 

I have a 2008 iMac, I don't need a new computer, you need a life.

[coinman1794]

But this time I wont post the grade. If you saw the thread ATS on it don't cheat. Let's instead do this:

 

"Hey guys, I just got this MS 64 - do you think I should crack it out and go for the upgrade?"

 

 

 

The obverse could make MS65 on a good day, because the fields are very clean and the patina is choice for a 42 (and probably a 42-S). I would prefer to see it graded MS64 due to the size and position of the marks on Washington's head and face, however. I have even seen similar pieces grade as high as MS66, but those are usually freak occurrences.

 

A coin like this might be a candidate for a plus-grade. I wouldn't argue if it were a 64+.

 

 

[coinman1794]

MS65 but washies are not my thing. I don't like the look of it with the cuts, mottled toning, and it looks like rubs on the high points of the neck.

 

Many Washington specialists would love this toning. I do.

 

The neck has circular lathe die polishing lines on it, as seen on many/most 30s and 40s silver coins.

 

I would still only grade it MS64 or 64+.

[19Lyds]

I understand that you think that the reverse is not important, but without it you can't evaluate the strike of the coin. So in essence, you are asking us to ignore one whole element of grading while attempting to grade this coin. My other problem with your framing of this issue is your repeated use of huge photographs. Blow up anything that big and even the tiniest flaws will seem significant. When displaying photos of quarters or smaller, I don't use bigger than 500x500 pixels.

 

 

Now the boxers cut over the eye is certainly a problem, and it is on a focal area of the coin. That said, it is the only significant mark on the coin. There is a small tick on the cheekbone, a few in the hair, and some minor hairlines on the neck, but the fields are pristine and the eye appeal is tremendous. It is hard to gauge the luster on this coin from what appears to be a Heritage photo. In the premium gem grades, luster is paramount.

 

I grade the coin as a low end MS66 or an MS65+ depending on the luster. The cut above the eye should preclude any chance at an MS67 grade IMO unless the reverse is MS68 quality with phenomenal strike, luster, and eye appeal.

I'm seeing slider damage in the hair directly behind the eye.

 

As for the sixe of the photo? To assess the grade of a coin from a photograph it needs to be "at least" 5 to 10 times larger than original size since a 5x loupe is used for grading and most buyers use a 10x loupe. You'll see exactly the same thing in a loupe as a 10x photo except that you can see the entire coin.

[Kurtdog]

That cut on the brow looks like it could start bleeding at any given moment.

[michael]

net very choice unc. details

[AstroTrain]

I don't know, something about that gash in the eyebrow does it for me. Its Washington meets Rocky. I have no input grade wise, just love the quarter.

 

Thank you for the reminder why I left full time poker. I loved the game, hated the egos. I made a decent living, but too many "spoons" to keep enjoying it.

[bochiman]

I may get into "discussions" with people here, or there, or anywhere, about coins and things that are related to coins, but what I have failed to understand after awhile, is why anyone cares what someone online thinks of their own personal life/status or why worry about someone else (online) and their job/status.

 

To me, it isn't worth a post here, much less a long drawn out diatribe in multiple posts.

 

So what if someone is a janitor, business exec, pool boy, porn star, poker player, fireman, policeman, teacher, mailman, etc? If they pay their taxes, don't go around stabbing other people, don't rip off people, etc, then more power to them and happy collecting.

 

I also know that coin collectors (not all, but many) have BIG egos and "their way" is usually the "only way" and the "right way", so disagreements will happen....but about what someone does for a living? Come on guys. Everyone here is better than that

[James_OldeTowne]

To me, this is an MS-64 as pictured. At MS-65, I'd be disappointed with the cut above the eye.

 

If the coin had absolutely astounding luster or blazing presence, then maybe MS-65 would be all right.