1932-D Washington Grade?

bigtonydallas · February 7, 2003 12:26AM

Do you all think this would grade AU?

Cam40 · February 7, 2003 2:22AM

AU55 is my guess.
Is the weight right?
It almost looks counterfeit.

dorkkarl · February 7, 2003 2:24AM

ef

TomB · February 7, 2003 2:55AM

IF the coin is genuine it is far nicer than EF.

Android · February 7, 2003 2:56AM

My guess would be AU50.

Andy

braddick · February 7, 2003 3:34AM

At least your 1932-D is WAY nicer than my 1932-D!

Elcontador · February 7, 2003 3:38AM

Look at the PCGS grading book; they have an area under the counterfeit section that provides info re how the 'D' looks on a geniune '32 D quarter.

Tom, you're the Washington Qtr. guy around here, but I always thought that these days, if a coin did not have some original mint luster left, that it was precluded from an AU 50 or better grade.

I have a 23 S Lincoln cent that is similar re detail to this coin & that is what I was told by several people in the buiness whose opinion I respect.

airplanenut · February 7, 2003 3:44AM

Something about the obverse doesn't look right to me- could the hair be tooled?

TomB · February 7, 2003 3:45AM

Well, I really don't think that it's genuine, however, I would still stand by the statement I made, above. I have seen many, many coins grade AU that have terribly muted or absent mint luster. Of course, these coins were not Washington quarters as Washington quarters are typically not sent in for grading if they are not high grade MS pieces.

BillJones · February 7, 2003 4:27AM

EF. So far as I'm concerned if a coin has no mint luster, it's not AU.

As for whether or not it's genuine, there is some darkness around the mint mark. That's not unusual for a 1932-D because the mint mark is very high and quite prone to catching dirt. This coin may have been treated with something to dull down hairlines or hide other problems, like a glued on mint mark. It's hard to tell without a personal examination.

Bikingnut · February 7, 2003 4:31AM

Doesn't look quite right to me.

AbesNeighbor · February 7, 2003 4:37AM

Prbably EF lightly cleaned

KlectorKid · February 7, 2003 4:47AM

Looks kind of tooled/fake to me.

ScarsdaleCoin · February 7, 2003 5:09AM

depends who is grading it....my 3c no way....

coppercoins · February 7, 2003 6:48AM

The coin looks like a counterfeit to me.

bigtonydallas · February 7, 2003 7:05AM

This coin was in the collection of a friends aunt for 40-50 years. It could be fake. I thought the hair has a lot of detail as well but this was the first year of issue so could just be a well struck coin. The mintmark was the frist thing I looked at and it looks good to me. I am going to send it in to ANACS with my other coins within the next month or two.

Elcontador · February 7, 2003 8:08AM

I don't know if this is the case with all 1932 quarters, but the motto on my 32 S is weak, and I believe that this is a common feature of these coins. The motto here seems to be rather bold.

parkave · February 7, 2003 8:48AM

Braddock, Be proud, you own the worst graded - beat the hell out of the cost of the finest known and probably has the same population!

DHeath · February 7, 2003 9:47AM

BigTony,

Here is a pic of a ANACS 32-D reverse in a side-by-side. Looking at the R in Quarte"r", the genuine R has a much narrower vertical, and is a different look than the first. Additionally, the distance of the branch from the "O" in d"o"llar is wrong. My guess is the coin on the right is a 32-P with an added mintmark. JMO

jdimmick · February 7, 2003 9:57AM

The coin would not grade an AU-50 there is no luster left. Coin is an xf-45, however, really dont matter cause it aint genuine

Ill bet the farm with out seeing it any closer??

bigtonydallas · February 7, 2003 10:28AM

They made more than one die for the reverse. Could this have been from a test die and they just put into production?

DHeath · February 7, 2003 10:35AM

Tony,

Without a doubt, it could be a different die and an original coin. My opinion was only based on the second R matching the 32-P design. If I owned it, I'd submit it, and based on wear I like it as an AU.

clackamas · February 7, 2003 10:37AM

There is something that is just not right. It looks fake to me, but what do I know about Washingtons.

mr1931S · February 7, 2003 10:45AM

I concur with some others that this quarter's lack of luster rules out AU grade.As for genuineness,it's not obvious to me from the images that it is a counterfeit.Could it be one of the Denver mint's first strike 1932 Washington Quarters and that's why it has atypical crispness in its details?

oreville · February 7, 2003 10:46AM

Indeed forgetting about the date the coin looks like an EF-45. Definite wear can be seen. No luster apparent and cannot be an AU-50 (ok ok some you you call it XF). But I agree with many posters that this coin looks odd for a 32-D. I do not trust this coin. But then I would never vouch for the authenticity of a 32-D without personal inspectiuon unless they are slabbed by a reputable grading service.

editing for error in typing....geez.

bigtonydallas · February 7, 2003 10:49AM

I am going to have to get my stereo microscope out to look at the mintmark.

Here is a close picture.

mr1931S · February 7, 2003 11:01AM

The serifs are well-defined on the 'D'.That's a good sign that it might be authentic unless a method other than gluing a 'D' was used.Your quarter still looks like it could be good to me,tony.

An acetone bath wouldn't hurt this coin at all to see if the 'D' stays on.

robertpr · February 7, 2003 11:50AM

I agree that there's no way this coin is AU unless you're high. As to the authenticity of the coin I will leave that up to the experts.

DHeath · February 7, 2003 12:39PM

Breast feathers are almost full, hair detail is present, and little wear on the highest curls. It's just filthy. There's a very nice coin under there. PCGS says up to 100% of the luster can be disturbed on an AU50. Perhaps it would be more to some's taste if it was dipped, but I like the coin much better the way it is, and wouldn't find it very interesting cleaned. PCGS's definition for EF-45 says 95% of the MAJOR detail is still evident. This coin is much nicer than that, since 100% of the fine detail is evident. I'll bet it gets a bath.

TomB · February 7, 2003 12:45PM

That's a pretty strong statement, robertpr, since I am definitely not high.

bigtonydallas · February 7, 2003 2:02PM

My friends Aunt had a bunch of quarters in 2X2 manila envelopes and all the silver is toned this same way. I believe the wear you all are talking about is the parts of the coin that was touching the envelope and did not get toned. I may give it an acetone bath. I may not. I have used Acetone on other coins but hate to get a cleaned designation!

What would be the best to dip this puppy? How to do it? Cautions?

mnmcoin · February 7, 2003 3:34PM

IMHO...it's counterfeit, the obverse is too well struck to be a real 1932 Coin. MS coins don't ever have that nice of detail.

mo <><

mr3holesinone · February 7, 2003 3:53PM

Looks like a job for a grading services. I hope you catch them on a good day and get it graded AU, looks to be XF in my opinion. Hope it does turn out to be authentic for you too, nice looking coin. I wouldn't dip it myself, I love the look of this one. If it comes back as XF you can always promote it as being undergraded.

bigtonydallas · February 15, 2003 3:37AM

I sent this coin today to ANACS for their 2 day service. They should get it by Tuesday and be sending back by next Thrusday. I should get it back by next weekend. I will let you all know if it comes back genuine and AU that would be great. It may also be MS with just a few weak spots. It has a lot of detail in the hair that does not look like it was messed with. We shall see. My guess would be AU58. What grade would you all guess?

1932-D Washington Grade?

Comments

Leave a Comment