Raw 58 proof quarter, grade opinions please EDIT new pics out of plastic
gumby1234
Posts: 5,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
0
Comments
Any chance of taking the coin out of the holder? Is that a slab?
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Pr64
I can't tell if the wipe is on the plastic holder or coin. It looks lkike it could go CAM,
64
Mr_Spud
PR65 with tbe usual disclaimer about grading from pics...
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Trying to grade Proof coins accurately from pictures is usually a futile exercise.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Pics out of the plastic. EDIT I don't like taking proofs out of holders to take pics because its sooo easy to lower the grade with some hairlines.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
It had acquired a nice golden orange rim tone in that holder over 30 years.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Attractive coin for sure....Looks gem to me.
PR66 Eye appeal with that toning is great!
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
I am going PR66CAM or PR67CAM but there is no way of determining if there are any/many hairlines from pics
@davewesen it looks just like the second set of pics
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
No reason it's not PF 67 cam.
I'm at 67DCAM, Those fields are looking very watery.
Collector, occasional seller
Put it in a flip, send it to PCGS and it'll come back in a DCAM holder around 67 unless there are hairlines that aren't visible in the images.
I don't think it will go DCAM. A 67CAM or around there seems more likely to me.
Coin Photographer.
And THAT is the primary issue with trying to grade Proof coins from images. The grades of Proofs are usually most impacted by hairlines, the extent of which is rarely apparent in images.
Edited to add: In this thread, thus far, the grade guesses have been PR64, 65, 66 and 67, with 67 being the most frequent choice. Based on the images, I don’t see why the coin wouldn’t grade 67 or even 68. BUT for all we know, it could have hairlines that aren’t apparent in the images, which should cause it to grade 66, 65, 64 or 63.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Certainly looks like it will go 67CAM.... but as @MFeld has cautioned... Proof coin pictures can be so misleading.... Cheers, RickO
Looks like two different coins. That must be the slab that's messed up. I too was at 64 on the first set.
@Pizzaman an old hard plastic coin holder. It been in for 30 plus years. Has some scuffs on the plastic etc.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I agree with Mr. Feld - such a coin could grade from 63 to 68 depending on hairlines which on occasion can only be seen from one or a few angles and lighting conditions.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Based on my experience with proofs of this era I wouldn't think there are any hairlines, but that question needs to be answered by the OP who has the coin in-hand. What say you @ gumby1234?? There isn't enough open field on the reverse for any hairlines and the obverse looks really clean with the portraits on both sides looking nice. Overall, the coin is quite clean.
--- I'm reminded of a thread by @Russ about 20 years ago where he showed a 1964 Kennedy(big surprise, right???) that had everyone wetting their pants because it was so frosty and reflective. After a short while he tilted the coin to reveal the obverse hairlines that plagued the coin. It was one of the better coin photography threads shown here, how an image can be manipulated to highlight attributes and hide flaws.
@Maywood I dont see any hairline at any angle. Coin in hand looks just like the pics if not better.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I'm just curious why the title to this thread says "raw 58"?
I'm not trying to be controversial by any means. I have no reason to be. Maybe I can learn something here.
My only concern with that coin is the faint tone, PCGS doesn't seem to like designating proofs as DCAM when they're toned. Although it's not a really expensive coin in higher DCAM grades it might be worth the cost to have it conserved by either PCGS or NCS.
“Raw”, as in not graded and “58”, as in 1958 quarter.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Lol I thought this was the grade as well. How stupid of me. The whole time I'm thinking this coin is in no way an AU coin. Good catch. That's what happens when you post something when you first wake up.
Sometimes I just need to laugh at myself.
'58 would have cinched it.
Because the Quarter is dated 1958.
Pete