Picked up a 32 Washington quarter maybe a mistake?

jabba

Thanks for all your valuable comments I’m going to hold onto the coin but it will be a upgrade item down the road I’ve still got a long way to go on my set!

’m just not sure she’s a keeper? just not an attractive coin, It is a 64 in my price range am I being to hard? I guess I’m use to all the 66/67 in the set. A 66 in a 1932 is big $$$ to me so I thought 64 in my range give it a try

Smudge

Keeper, I think.

keyman64

The reverse looks good to me but I would prefer an obverse that more closely matches. As a MS64, it looks like CAC doesn't have an issue with it. You have at least two solid opinions on the grade so there is no reason to be worried about that. For a coin like that, I would prefer a mostly white, cleaner look to both sides. If it bothers you at all, then it is NOT the right coin for your set and it will be easy to sell.

jabba

@keyman64 said:
The reverse looks good to me but I would prefer an obverse that more closely matches. As a MS64, it looks like CAC doesn't have an issue with it. You have at least two solid opinions on the grade so there is no reason to be worried about that. For a coin like that, I would prefer a mostly white, cleaner look to both sides. If it bothers you at all, then it is NOT the right coin for your set and it will be easy to sell.

I’m up in the air I will have to look at it for a few days see if it fits thanks for the awesome reply gives me a lot to think about

ad4400

Not my series at all, but can feel your dilemma if you’ve set the bar pretty high but have some show stoppers at the higher grades. I’ve come to accept that some of the keys will just lag or not be a perfect match. If in your shoes I’d ask if you like the piece stand-alone, and if so I’d keep it, if not, move on. Since you’ve said it’s not attractive in your eyes, I think you’ve answered your question. 64 is not 67 but have to believe you can find a pleasing one at 64 or 65.

coinpalice

the reverse looks nice, but not a fan of the toned obverse, this might of been a end of the roll coin. pretty deep scratch on the cheek also

MedalCollector

Didn’t even need pics. PCGS? CAC? It’s a keeper.

291fifth

Poor eye-appeal. You are not going to like the coin in the long run so why hold it for the long run.

joeykoins

I like! This is the coin I've been searching for. The '32p, is a hot coin right now! Slowly rising in value. To me, very under rated. Think of it. It's the beginning coin of the forever ongoing Washington Quarter series. Sure, it's not as low Mintage as it's brother's, '32d/32s, but the same debut year. I'm looking for even a better grade than yours. The coin you mistakenly bought was meant to have in your collection I think.

TomB

Going simply by the images provided, I wouldn't have purchased that coin. The obverse has negative eye appeal and will always have negative eye appeal and you will never be satisfied with it, so why park your money in a poor rental coin?

Hydrant

@291fifth said:
Poor eye-appeal. You are not going to like the coin in the long run so why hold it for the long run.

Exactly.

privatecoin

Looks fine to a low budget guy like me.

CoinJunkie

I'm with the majority. The reverse is choice, but the obverse kills it. Shame.

ShaunBC5

I think it’s a good looking coin. What are your plan for the D and S? I assume they won’t match the rest of the set, either, so for all of 32, just go for coins that have a look you like.

pursuitofliberty

I'm also with the majority.

@keyman64 is spot on, as are others.

Unfortunately, the grade does not always equate to eye appeal, and this one, in my opinion, is slightly negative to neutral. Depending on how it fits in a specific collection and the tastes of the collector, it could go up or down from there. .

Some have stated they kind of like it, and that's a good thing, because we all have different tastes, and all reasonable coins need love.

Unfortunately, price point coins are tough. Usually that is a recipe for disappointment when picking a couple grades down, although not always.

If you want a 64 because a 65 (or a 66) is just to far out of reach, make sure to hold out for the best eye appeal 64 that matches the rest of your set, and be ready to pay up to secure it when it shows itself. A 64 that shows like a 65 that matches your set is worth paying an extra dollar for if it makes the collection feel right to you, despite the grade.

Do what's right by your collection, and it'll almost always work itself out.

I

I

Anyway, not that you looked at it this way, but some might, so I'll share this, for whatever it's worth.

Is this coin worth a premium? Even thought the coin is in an OGH with a bean, not in my opinion, at least from the picture. Many will agree with me there.

Grade and acceptance is important, but those rarely trump eye appeal, no matter what grade the coins sits at technically.

Is it a CAC worthy coin? Sure it is. It appears original and it has marks consistent with, or maybe slightly better than average for the grade. However that doesn't always equate to pretty.

Relaxn

Buying the holder it is great. Once observing the coin the obverse noise is too much for me to handle. She would be in the collection just because of the holder but I would continually be looking for an upgrade/better one.
If it were up to me I would replace the coin.

coinbuf

I don't think its a bad coin, however I would have continued to look myself. As mentioned if you have reservations now is the time to move on.

baseballjeff

I like it. I feel like it tells a story of just sitting there for many years collecting natural toning on the obverse and the moment it was discovered it was found to have a flawless reverse. However, if you have any doubt, listen to your gut!

mannie gray

I'm not really a fan....it's ok.
I think you could find a more eye appealing coin.

Mark

I am at a point in a commemorative collection where it is difficult to find what I need that has a look I like. So, rather than buy something I know would dissatisfy me whenever I looked at it, I've been buying other coins. If this is the point you have reached with your quarters, I think @keyman64, @Hydrant, and @coinbuf 's comments are right on the money--you may well always be unhappy with this quarter. If you agree, I'd return it and keep looking. If you "need" to buy a coin, buy something you think is nice. To heck if it's a quarter or even in your mainstream collection(s), just so long as you smile when you look at it.

ricko

I am with the majority of comments....Attractive reverse, warrants the grade, but the tarnish on the obverse is not nice at all.... It seems you are not happy either....sell it and move on...Cheers, RickO

tommy44

I like it and bet it looks nicer in hand than in the photos. I'm thinking the photos are picking up some of the background color of the item it was sitting on when photographed.

I don't think it would be hard to sell so if you can afford it why not keep it as a hole filler until the right one comes along.

MFeld

If you’re not happy with or excited about a coin at the time of purchase, odds are probably very good that you won’t be later, either.

jabba

I’m going to hold onto it but will keep a lookout for another down the road will be on the upgrade list!

olympicsos

1932 is a nice date to have in the Washington Quarter series as a first year of issue. It's certainly made much better than some of the later silver dates.

AUandAG

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1932-P-PCGS-MS65-Washington-Silver-Quarter-25C-Lustrous-Coin/353150361937?hash=item523966e151:g:1QkAAOSwpItfHIAm

CoinHoarder

I like the coin with one exception. My eyes immediately go to the mark on the cheek, That would be enough for me to pass.

MFeld

@AUandAG said:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1932-P-PCGS-MS65-Washington-Silver-Quarter-25C-Lustrous-Coin/353150361937?hash=item523966e151:g:1QkAAOSwpItfHIAm

Why link that, when the asking price is roughly 50% more than some have sold for?

TomB

@tommy44 said:
I like it and bet it looks nicer in hand than in the photos. I'm thinking the photos are picking up some of the background color of the item it was sitting on when photographed.

That may be the case, but the areas along the obverse rim from just below IGWT through the first three numbers in the date and again in front of Washington's forehead and into LIB of LIBERTY look like that milky, creamy, opaque stain that can plague some of these coins and that, if it is there, is neither an artifact nor something that most folks can ignore.

metalmeister

No worries. I have purchased multiples of the same date to get just the right one. Should be easy to pick up a real nice 64 or 65. Good luck!

AUandAG

@MFeld Because it is a lot nicer example? Where do you find them for 50% less, PCGS graded, Mark?

bob

MFeld

@AUandAG said:
@MFeld Because it is a lot nicer example? Where do you find them for 50% less, PCGS graded, Mark?

bob

Apologies, I should have said roughly 35%-40% (not 50%) less. In checking auction archives, I found a few that had sold for between $174 and $196 during the past several months. And a couple of 65+ examples that beought less than the linked MS65 did.

TurboSnail

May be just me. But I feel it would cost you extra time and money just to get rid of it.

jabba

I was kinda surprised someone actually sent it to CAC no way it was going to gold sticker unless people just assume older holders are always under graded

jabba

@TurboSnail said:
May be just me. But I feel it would cost you extra time and money just to get rid of it.

I don’t fool with that anymore when I have a group to sell it’s off to GC no muss no fuss

tommy44

@TomB said:

@tommy44 said:
I like it and bet it looks nicer in hand than in the photos. I'm thinking the photos are picking up some of the background color of the item it was sitting on when photographed.

That may be the case, but the areas along the obverse rim from just below IGWT through the first three numbers in the date and again in front of Washington's forehead and into LIB of LIBERTY look like that milky, creamy, opaque stain that can plague some of these coins and that, if it is there, is neither an artifact nor something that most folks can ignore.

Except for JA.

MFeld

@tommy44 said:

@TomB said:

@tommy44 said:
I like it and bet it looks nicer in hand than in the photos. I'm thinking the photos are picking up some of the background color of the item it was sitting on when photographed.

That may be the case, but the areas along the obverse rim from just below IGWT through the first three numbers in the date and again in front of Washington's forehead and into LIB of LIBERTY look like that milky, creamy, opaque stain that can plague some of these coins and that, if it is there, is neither an artifact nor something that most folks can ignore.

Except for JA.

Or perhaps PCGS. A coin can be accurately graded, but still exhibit characteristics which make it undesirable to many viewers.

roadrunner

PCGS does grade C coins....and sometimes lower. But CAC is supposed to only sticker B's and A's. As photographed above doesn't look like a B. Huge difference in a 64.0 coin vs a 64.9.

MasonG

You guys understand that the numbers on slab inserts and the stickers on the slabs are opinions, not objective facts, right?

keets

As a MS64, it looks like CAC doesn't have an issue with it.

my initial thought is "who really cares what CAC thinks when the coin is sort of ugly, just from those images. as TomB said, I wouldn't have bought it.

keets

here's a 64 I could live with.

MWallace

@keets said:
here's a 64 I could live with.

I like it too. Where is it? Not that I need one.

DNADave

Crack it out and dip it !

CoinJunkie

@DNADave said:
Crack it out and dip it !

That's not going to get rid of the mark on the cheekbone. It's also going to eliminate any value added by the OGH and sticker.

MFeld

@CoinJunkie said:

@DNADave said:
Crack it out and dip it !

That's not going to get rid of the mark on the cheekbone. It's also going to eliminate any value added by the OGH and sticker.

It would also require grading and postage fees. So if the suggestion was a serious one, it seems ill advised to me.