1932 Washington Quarters - Quality Question

[LINCOLNMAN]

I noticed in the thread regarding the recent prices realized by GC that the population of MS67 1932 quarters is quite low, something I didn't realize. And, both the 32D and 32S have very low populations at the MS66 level with none higher. One would expect that many specimens of this first year of issue would have been saved, some in roll quantity, yielding a respectable number of high-end examples. Of course 25c was a more meaningful amount of money in 1932. On the other hand, collecting was ramping up seriously as evidenced by the availability of high grade cents from the 30's. So, is it the case that the quality of coins leaving the mint was poor? Seems odd that this would be the case at all three mints, but those were pretty hard times. Can anyone shed light on this? 

[World Colonial]

The actual quality difference between an "accurately" graded MS-66 versus MS-67 is immaterial. Since I don't consider the differences material, I don't see that there is anything out of the ordinary in the population reports. 

1932 was the bottom of the depression for the stock market and economically, in 1933.  1933-1937 or thereabouts was an economic expansion.  (DJIA rallied from 41 on July 8, 1932 to 190 on March 5, 1937.) So I think you are right that the difference in value between a quarter and a cent is a factor, as a few years of harsh economic times with a lower level of collecting versus a few years later could easily account for the variance.  

To my knowledge, widespread album collecting didn't occur until the late 1930's.  I believe somewhere around 1938.  I've heard of some rolls for 1930's quarters (don't know which offhand) but not it was that many, only enough to make these coins common in high grades as indicated in the TPG reports.

The mintages for the 32-D and 32-S were both really low, even for the time considering population.  Adjusted for mintage, it doesn't seem to me that the population counts in MS-66 are really that low.  Not having calculated ratios, I'd attribute the survival rates to random chance.

[LINCOLNMAN]

Looking just at PCGS pops and just at 1934 (small motto), we see this pattern:

        63      64     65    66   67    68

32P  687   1330  649  241  7

34P    250   669   736  374  111   2

It appears that the Philadelphia quarter coinage was inferior in '32 to subsequent coinage, at the highest level. Eyeballing the other years the '34 pattern generally repeats itself for Philadelphia issues, '32 stands out as an anomaly.. 

 

 

[coinman1794]

The 1932 Washington quarter was intended as a 1 year, circulating commemorative to celebrate Washington's Birthday. The Depression ensured that few were saved, and most coins went straight into circulation. The original mintages were certainly not the highest quality of the series. Aside from bag marks and circulation wear, the luster tends to be flat and the patina tends to be mottled; and both of these factors lead to lower grades.

[Conder101]

Also being the first year of issue probably any striking issues had not been worked out yet.

[BillJones]

8 hours ago, Conder101 said:

Also being the first year of issue probably any striking issues had not been worked out yet.

I have read that the mint tinkered with the Washington Quarter design for years because they couldn't strike coin as crisply as they wanted. The sad part is, it was not a very good design. The portrait of Washington was weak, and the reverse devices were crowded. The Fine Arts Commission favored the design by Mrs. Laura Frazer, but the mint officials selected John Flannigan's design instead. Weak strikes can result in lower high end grades, like MS-66, 67 or higher.

The Washington Quarter was not a popular design with collectors. When the mint offered Proof sets in 1936, the mintage of Proof Washington Quarters was the least.