Opinions on this 1969-D Wash - what grade?

DHeath

I looked at a gem roll of 40 coins today, and found some very interesting clads. Since 69 was the first year, some of the planchets were terrible, with bad flow lines. Several had copper showing at the rims, and many had bad polish lines around the right rim of the obverse. There were varying strikes, and several die varieties, with a narrow final 9 and a wide final 9. This one coin was almost prooflike with a good strike. Any thoughts as to grade?

09sVDB

Is that a mark in the field above the N in in god...? If so MS68?

DHeath

Evidence of light die polish, but absolutely zero marks. I've never tried to grade one like this. It almost has mirrors.

coppercoins

I would say it's a solid 67. Very nice coin, and quite a valuable one too!

Bikingnut

Pictures can be deceiving, but that's about the nicest clad Washington I've ever seen.

wondercoin

Is that a mild chatter on lower cheek, frost breaks or? The small chatter on the face usually keeps these coins in the MS66/67 range.

Good luck with the coin though Wondercoin

kaleidoscopic

I think you got a legit shot at a 67 there.

cladking

Wow! Spectacular looking coin. Clads from this era are extremely difficult to find in
original rolls and they rarely look like this when they do turn up. It is somewhat un-
usual for a mint set coin to show flow lines though as they are typically retired before
this point. The 69-D doesn't often appear this nice in mint sets and I've never seen
one even close in rolls. This coin is very well struck, but does not stand out on the basis
strike alone. The roughness on the cheek and below the eye will probably keep it from
MS-68, but -67 is quite possible. How about a picture of a couple of the worst with flow
lines and some comparisons of the thick and thin 9's.

Die polish is extremely common on mint set 69-D's.

Some people have all the luck.

gmarguli

I looked at a gem roll of 40 coins today, and found some very interesting clads. Since 69 was the first year, some of the planchets were terrible, with bad flow lines.

1969 was the first year for what?

DHeath

Greg,

I just reread, and see the error. 69 wasn't the first year for anything numismatic.

beartracks42

Don,
I think it is 67 for sure. BTW, is the coloring in your pic the way the coin looks? It really looks outstanding to me.

coinkat

I am probably not the best person to ask the grade on a coin like this but I will offer a suggestion... its worth the submission fees to find out and then use that coin as model for other Washington clad coinage from the same time period.

FC57Coins

Beautiful piece Don - Especially when one considers how poor most of these coins were maintained! Shoe-in 67!

Frank

DHeath

Here are pics of the dates I saw that were different. I'm not sure if one is EDS and the other LDS, or even if they're the same die, but they are noticably different. The last pic is a planchet with heavy flowlines.

cladking

The differences between the to dates is most probably related to hubbing and striking
characteristics. There is a slim possibility that he wider date is a double die but there
are none reported for this date and I've never seen one. Note that the date is not struck
up nearly so well on this coin.

The flow lines on this coin are somewhat extreme for a mint set coin but
I have to believe this is a mint set roll. This would be consistent with the relative populations
of original and mint set rolls. Original rolls are far more likely to contain varieties but rarely
will have any gems.

TomB

It's beautiful and it looks like it came from a Mint Set as I have a '70-D that is more or less a twin of that coin and I took it out of a Mint Set that I bought simply for that coin. Submit it.

braddick

Send it to PCI: They'll grade it!

GaCoinGuy

Wow! Thats nice! I'd give it at least a 67, possibly 68. As purty as the 69 Washington I made in PR69DCAM a while back.