Ugly. Okay. Attractive?

Dave99B · May 11, 2003 4:11AM

1916-D Barber .25 PCGS MS64

???

Dave

relayer · May 11, 2003 4:17AM

It looks a little bit of all 3

jonesy · May 11, 2003 4:18AM

That thing is just butt ugly. If it was raw and placed in my hand, I would have thought it was circulated.

Glenn

pmh1nic · May 11, 2003 4:19AM

Dave99B

I think you really can judge that coin from what I believe is a poor photograph. I wouldn't be surprised that under better lighting a lot more luster and color would be pouring through.

JOsborne · May 11, 2003 4:26AM

Looks like it fell into my grill 3 months ago.

jonesy · May 11, 2003 4:29AM

I think pmh 1nic is right. This coin series is always beautiful.

Glenn

ARCO · May 11, 2003 4:35AM

I like the reverse a bit more than the obverse. It does seem a bit too dark, even though all my scans of toned coins limit the colors and darken it some. However this looks like it really is dark. You would be forced to love it as is or resort to the great coin blasphemy of dipping it!

Tyler

rainbowroosie · May 11, 2003 4:36AM

Original, but way too dark. Cheek's condition challenges 64 grade.

Fairlaneman · May 11, 2003 4:40AM

Probably the general comment here will be that the coin would have to be seen in person. From the picture it does not look very attractive at all. If there was a return policy and I collected the series a shot at it would be taken by myself just to see what it really looks like. The interior design and color looks just fine but the rim area looks very dark and that concerns me. The luster does not show at all and that is what would make this a 64 coin if indeed it is.

Ken

foodude · May 11, 2003 4:41AM

I like the eye appeal of the reverse. The front is a bit strange, but I've seen, and have originally toned silver coins with similar toning charaterstics. I don't like the cheek of this coin, but you have to expect some defects on a 64. I agree with one of the comments above, that this coin may look different (maybe better) when viewed in person with proper lighting.

One other comment, I have a 1955 MS65 FBL Franklin in a similar boat. Neat eye appeal on the reverse, and not so neat, strange toning on the obverse (in fact it is so strange it is appealing in a way- can't proviide a scan as it is in a bank vault). When I had it reslabbed about 6 years for the FBL desingation, I had PCGS reverse holder it (i.e., the reverse of the coin shows on the front of slab). If you do get this coin, you might want to have that done.

jonesy · May 11, 2003 5:11AM

I like the 65 much better!

Glenn

tjkillian · May 11, 2003 5:13AM

Way to splotchy and dark for my tastes. My vote is: Ugly.

Tom

pmh1nic · May 11, 2003 6:02AM

Although not the best picture here is one with a little more light on the coin to bring out the luster and color:

roadrunner · May 11, 2003 7:11AM

That type of deep auburn or russet toning is fairly common on MS Barber quarters. Unfortunately these aren't that desireable as such.
The luster is probably muted quite a bit. Even though TT's photos are usually poor and appear too dark, this one likely is.

roadrunner

prooflike · May 11, 2003 7:40AM

I think it is a poor image and will look just great in person

Dave99B · May 11, 2003 9:19AM

I like it, but not at $360 + Teletrade fees (and it may go higher --- two hrs left).

Dave

Dog97 · May 11, 2003 9:23AM

Some people don't like dark toning. I don't hold it against a Barber and think it's kinda neat. Notice I didn't say pretty.
What I do hold against it is the fingerprint smudge in the right obv field & on the face and the partial print in the rev stars.
TeleTrade even says the mint luster is soft, which is their way of nicely saying it's a POS and I agree.

Ugly. Okay. Attractive?

Comments

Leave a Comment