1983 P Quarter...

[rrantique]

Nice coinman, very nice here is your image

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I would grade it MS-60. Your example looks just like the many thousands of poorly struck, miserable-planchet coins that are available, which is very unfortunate. I've stated this numerous times to my fellow collectors, but the 1983-P is THE KEY to the clad series, and in my opinion, it is at least as rare in MS-65 or better (I mean a REAL MS-65, not a slider-slab "65") as a 1932-D.

 

Glad to see another thread on this particular coin. It's one of my favorite subjects for discussion in the Washington quarter series.

[coinman1794]

Thanks rrantique, NGC thought so too!

[physics-fan3.14]

I don't want to hurt your feelings Bruce, but I don't like it at all. Even for an 83, which I understand generally come pretty ugly. It looks clean hitwise, but the strike and eye appeal are not there. I would grade this one no higher than 63, and that seems generous at that.

[Bruceswar]

No feelings hurt! Here is what I think in hand....

 

This coin is a mid to late die state. Weak strike. Clean hit wise. As James said Technical grade of MS 60. Market Grade MS 65 in either PCGS or NGC holder. I hand the coin has a pretty cool look to it. On a lucky day I could score an MS 66.

[rbrown4]

Bruce others,

 

What is the connection if any with the condition of this year of coin and the fact that no official mint sets were produced. Only uncirculated "sovenir" sets sold at Philadelphia and Denver.

 

Rey

[Bruceswar]

This has to be the worst struck of all the clad quarters. That year at the mint was just terrible. I do not know why, but finding a fully struck one is near impossible. If they had put out mint sets it would have been the same bad news.

[DonHeath]

In my humble opinion, the 1969-P Washingtons are the worst of the clads, far worse than the 83-P's even though they were available in rolls and mint sets (the 83-P is tough though). On a side note, the TPG holdered clads I've seen or owned are graded using weighting different than mine, not that I'm right or wrong. They (NGC/PCGS) really reward strong luster and minimal marks, with less focus on strike, die state, or planchet quality. I like luster, but I really dislike mushiness or absence of detail, whether it's a 53-S or an 82-P. I suppose it's good to like something the services don't.

[cladking]

Bruce others,

 

What is the connection if any with the condition of this year of coin and the fact that no official mint sets were produced. Only uncirculated "sovenir" sets sold at Philadelphia and Denver.

 

Rey

 

Mint set coins are struck at lower speeds at higher pressures. The dies are rotated out very quickly and the coins are washed and dried. Perhaps more importantly is that the very very few collectors of clads back in 1983 knew full well that the mint set coins were superior so rarely bothered to set aside even a single example of current coinage from rolls and bags. As the years went by not only were there no gems available because of the lack of mint sets but there were no singles available because so few were saved. The date was poorly made but it doesn't stand out a great deal from that era. Indeed the '82-P was worse made and as DonHeath noted the '69-P is probably the worst with even the mint set coins being horrid usually.

 

Ironically there were probably more 1983 quarters saved than most dates of the era since everyone knew they wouldn't be in mint sets. But without the sets this number is simply insubstantial and without the sets gems are scarce.

 

That is one spectacular MS-67 example. ...virtually unimprovable.

 

The original coin pictured appears to be unc to me. You can detect some luster under the highest point of the coin so it is almost certainly unc. I'm afraid I'm not a big fan of late die state even when they're unusually clean of an unusually tough date. Because it's so clean I'm guessing the services would give it a 63 or 64 and a one point bump for being an '83.

 

I've mentioned this before but DonHeath's quarter is simply hammered. It has a look that might prove to be about unique for this date.

[DonHeath]

If you look at the auction archives, it's easy to see there are many ways for a coin to holder 66, some of them real ugly.

 

1982 PCGS MS66 - from Heritage archive, lot 11747 auction 27024

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Here is the coin that I've done a couple of threads on, and which resides happily in my Dansco set. Believe me when I say that I looked at literally hundreds of coins before settling on this one. I looked through singles, put-together rolls, eBay coins, slabbed coins, and of course, souvenir sets, and this was the best I could do.

 

My coin is actually semi-prooflike, indicating that it was struck off fresh dies, and that means that it had about the best chance of getting a decent strike, which it did. Fortunately, the planchet was fairly decent as well. Even with all that going for it, it is by no means spectacular!

 

Don mentioned 1969, and I agree that that's also a very key date. I don't have images of mine, but that's another one where I happened to luck into a semi-prooflike coin in, of all things, a PCI holder. That was years ago, and if I remember to, I'll get images of that coin.

 

[rrantique]

That is a beautiful coin James, and in a rare great condition.

[DonHeath]

James,

 

I have one PL 83-P that has a few bruises, and I knew because of that coin I'd eventually see a clean one. Great choice! There are a few 82-P's as well. The images below are not stiched together, but are two coins side by side for comparison of finish.