Tigerbait Posted August 26, 2022 Share Posted August 26, 2022 How does this coin grade an MS 68? I'm not seeing, essentially flawless. Quintus Arrius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted August 26, 2022 Share Posted August 26, 2022 At that "level" photos are not a lot of help unless of high resolution and multiple lighting angles. VKurtB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerbait Posted August 26, 2022 Author Share Posted August 26, 2022 This was just passed on at Stacks. The reserve was $20,000. Amazing grace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandon Posted August 26, 2022 Share Posted August 26, 2022 The "toning"--once known negatively as "tarnish"--is probably a large component of the lofty numerical grade of this coin, which has noticeable marks and abrasions and from my standpoint nothing special about it. I see no justification for the high prices being paid for very common coins that have received the highest numerical grade. I regard those who pay these prices as collectors of grading service labels, not coins. World Colonial 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coinbuf Posted August 26, 2022 Share Posted August 26, 2022 In the current market grading that PCGS uses, luster and color are far more important than surface hits or condition. While I cannot really see it in this photo the op posted I'm betting that the luster is very strong under the colorful (as many would call it) tarnish and that those two features carried it to that loft grade. Also this is a 1964 coin and the mint quality in most of the 60's was dismal at best and while I do not think that aspect should be a factor it does seem to sway some graders. Personally, I would not pay much for it as I need the surfaces of the coin to be in much better condition to pay 68 money, but I have no doubt that a heavy hitter PCGS registry player will/has paid up for this. VKurtB and Hoghead515 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWB Posted August 26, 2022 Share Posted August 26, 2022 (edited) The correct grade of the coin is entirely separate from any tarnish. Their causes are unrelated and they should not be conflated into a meaningless mess. Using only the photo above, the coin is MS-65 or possibly 66 due to the prominent damage to GW's nose, bump on his cheek and field scratches. Toning, which I happen to like in this case, is a market/individual valuation factor. The $20,000 reserve sounds like etsy or some other slime pit. Edited August 26, 2022 by RWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Colonial Posted August 26, 2022 Share Posted August 26, 2022 As inferred in several above posts, presumably market grading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerbait Posted August 26, 2022 Author Share Posted August 26, 2022 1964-D Washington Quarter. MS-68 (PCGS). | Stacks Bowers Don't take my word for it. This is why I love to hear everyones opinion. It's the best way that I learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted August 26, 2022 Share Posted August 26, 2022 On 8/26/2022 at 7:58 AM, RWB said: The correct grade of the coin is entirely separate from any tarnish. Their causes are unrelated and they should not be conflated into a meaningless mess. This is arguably the way the world SHOULD be, but ‘tain’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerbait Posted August 26, 2022 Author Share Posted August 26, 2022 This is what makes coin grading so bewildering to me. I would not have spent much time looking at that coin after first glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted August 27, 2022 Share Posted August 27, 2022 On 8/26/2022 at 6:48 PM, tigerbait said: This is what makes coin grading so bewildering to me. I would not have spent much time looking at that coin after first glance. Don’t be conned. Stick to your guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
