How did this make it into a 67 holder?

Bikingnut

Check that ding on Georges chin. Look at the starting bid! I think if someone buys that its for the grade and not the coin inside.

61D MS67 PCGS

Baley

another 5 figure coin, destined for a top Registry collection!

reminiscent of the infamous 1963 cent, isn't it?

How did this make it into a 67 holder?

maybe the submitter was "connected"

ksteelheader

Guys, thats the ONLY mark on the whole coin. What grade would YOU expect if you sent in that very same coin?????

Steve27

The grade doesn't bother me, I've seen MS68 State Quarters with dings. It's the price I find funny.

darktone

who cares if it should be in a 67 holder and should be in a 66 holder or whatever? the big question is why do people pay these big prices for coins that can still be found in pocket change with a little luck? mike

Steve27

" who cares if it should be in a 67 holder and should be in a 66 holder or whatever? the big question is why do people pay these big prices for coins that can still be found in pocket change with a little luck? mike "

You obviously don't understand the Registry game; it's not about coins, it's about numbers.

dorkkarl

what's wrong w/ the ding??? "67" doesn't mean "perfect"

K S

itsnotjustme

I received a gold commemorative from the mint with a ding that big. I didn't return it within 30 days and had to decide what to do with it. If selling it raw I would feel compelled to mention the ding. So, I decided to have it graded, and sell it as an MS67 or 68--whatever it graded. It came back MS69 to my surprise. I sold it sight seen to someone with no complaints.

As far as the only mark, not quite. There is a fair tick in the curl behind the ear, and a couple near the base of the neck. The line on the left wing looks like a die crack. Otherwise, looks exceptionally clean/strong strike. Without the marks above, we'd be looking 68.

Barry

<< <i>Check that ding on Georges chin. >>


That's not a ding. This coin is so well struck, it shows a zit, which no other quarter has had enough detail to show

nwcs

I think it's possible the overall merits of the coin outweight the one problem which is probably magnified because it is a photograph. It's very possible the coin is correctly graded according to PCGS standards. As for finding this in pocket change... not very likely.

darktone

<< <i>As for finding this in pocket change... not very likely. >>

I agree not in this grade but I do have every silver quarter from the 60's that I have got out of pocket change in the last twenty years. mike

Bikingnut

Guys, thats the ONLY mark on the whole coin. What grade would YOU expect if you sent in that very same coin?????

If I sent that coin in, I'm reasonably sure it would probably come back in a 65 holder with a slim chance of 66 on a good day. I can say this because I have quite few that I thought would make 66 easily that are mark free with strong strikes, but are in 65 holders. I would probably bid on it as a 66, but not a 67. I wouldn't mind seeing it in person.

jeffnpcb

Another case of buying the plastic and not the coin!

coinguy1

I think some of you guys are being WAY too tough on the coin.

Based on the MAGNIFIED images, at least, I see no problem with the MS67 grade. If you want to talk about people buying the plastic and not the coin, this does not appear to be a good coin to make your point with. Just another opinion being offered here.

marcmoish

I think if someone buys that coin he/she will have gotten a super 67. I agree with those that evidently know what a 67 would look like - that is a super coin. Without that ding it would be higher. Not sure what all the fracas here is on this one other than why the heck someone would pay so much for this date etc etc. THAT should be the gist of this message not the grade.


Marc

zenny

the pops show 99 in 66 and one in 67.

I'm the guy that sent in number 99.

It is a nice coin, well deserving of the grade. (I thought it just might seven).

This coin is without a doubt at least one grade better.

without a doubt.


z


edited to add: whether it's worth five figures, well......

IrishMike

Mark and Marc, I find myself agreeing with both of you. Nice coin with an outstanding strike for a 61-D. This is an example of a coin photo blown up and it will show any tiny imperfections. Graders use 5X not images. A 67 isn't meant to be a perfect coin. I like the coin in a 67.

IndianHeadMan

also a ding on rev on the leg.

XpipedreamR

Are you sure that thing on the cheek is a ding and not struck through a little piece of crud or something like that?


Would that that have an effect on the grade?

nankraut

Barry said: "That's not a ding. This coin is so well struck, it shows a zit, which no other quarter has had enough detail to show."

Barry...That's brilliant!!!

geb209

<< <i>also a ding on rev on the leg. >>



and the dings on the obverse neck.

hookooekoo

The "mark" on the lower section of the cheek looks more like a striking error and not an after-mint ding.

I'd be more concerned with what at first look is a scratch accross the wing tip between "United" and "Quarter" as well as the minor black spots (most obvious on the same wing, with a few more smaller on the obverse).

Baley

What grade would YOU expect if you sent in that very same coin?

MS64

and no, I'm not kidding, that's what they'd give me
For the record, I think its a nice MS66 coin, and that the hit to the chin is not as bad as it looks. I agree it's the only mark of significance on the coin.

stujoe

I think that particular coin can be both a 67 and not a 67. That may be why grading will always be mostly an opinion.

quattrocoins

How 'bout his younger brother?

Don

MS67 '61 & '62 "D"s and

BigE

It is better to bash coins than other forum members----------------BigE

quattrocoins

or their little brother?
Now this one purdy!

Maybe we can expand this thread into an NGC vs. PCGS (crossing) discussion.

Don

MS67 '60s "D" mints and

Boom

As of late I have refrained from stating my opinions. However in this case I will. For any peron to pay this kind of money for one quarter is insane! I have strung out my first Blue box and have noted many inconsistencies in side by side comparisons involving coins of the exact year and mint mark. For example I have two of several coins. In 9 out ot 10 cases the older Green labeled, lower graded coin is much sharper struck. I don't like "taking chances" as the big man once told me to do-to resubmit! TAKING CHANCES! Are you kidding me? So, we take chances on how a grader feels on any given day? There is supposedly a # of graders to examine each coin and then a so-called "verification room". If this is true, how is it that 1) A coin that I submitted for cross- DID CROSS but came back to me in the original competitors'a slab? 2)How is it that coins bought sight unseen and later examined are not even what is written on the label? (Example-1944-S PCGS 66-NOT EVEN! The coin in the plastic is a 46-S!) So what is all this re-submission about...to make more MONEY? I was under the impression that this is the Premier Grading Service in the world! I have seen coins better than this "1961-D PCGS 67"...BETTER- come back as low as 64! Scrutinized for HOURS, I could not find a defect ,yet this "zit-face" with wear on the cheek bone is a 67? I don't know but the whole of ALL I've said reeks of MONEY..You have enough MONEY-you can buy the grade... ALL OF THIS IS VERY DISAPPOINTING TO ME...the thought that I'm taking chances, that there are no 2-3-4 graders, grading as suggested-no verification room, "Guaranteed turnaround times" mean nothing and THEN to insinuate that graders use no magnification to grade our coins when the obvious difference between a 66 and a so-called 67 is THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, is totally ridiculous! There-I have gotten it off my chest and you all know by now that I sure am not short on balls when it comes to stating my beliefs! Disheartened and Disgusted-BOOM!

Bikingnut

I looked at that 62 as well. Not sure what's going on in the neck area, but if you look at the motto, In is flat, as well as the T in Trust.

Boom

Not so very long ago, at a large coin show I plopped down some PCGS 64 FBL Franklins and this dealer raised the biggest scene about his disdain for grading services-especially PCGS! He said and I quote,"PCGS prostitutes itself!" My first reaction was to jump down his throat as I am loyal to my allies. You could have heard a pin drop! David Hall and Peter Ma know the story well as I have conveyed it to them both! After my hot blood cooled somewhat because I was defending PCGS' honor and ready to have it out, I let the man explain his opinion. He did and I will not get into it here...let's just say, for the sake of being brief, that this is a prime example of what this very wise older gentleman was referring to. If you have enough money............... OK??? I am saying ,straight up, that in side by side comparisons, with the same date and mint marks involved, there ARE "inconsistencies"! I BELIEVE had I submitted this coin, judging by what I am seeing in these pictures and what is right in front of me NOW under a 100 Watt bulb, scrutinized with the naked eye, the 5X and a loupe that I have 1961-Ds that look MUCH better than this, that they would not come back MS 67!! I also happen to be one of the owners of the other 99. If and when someone comes out with a hoard of 61-Ds and 62-Ds and destroys "population" , my high priced coins will diminish greatly in value....and I'm not too thrilled about THAT either-because I happen to own solid rolls of them as well as Mint Sets AND I SURELY AM NOT ALONE!!

zenny

wouldn't mind seeing some photos of the alleged better coins....

geb209

<< <i>wouldn't mind seeing some photos of the alleged better coins.... >>



Comparing apples and oranges? The coins would have to be photographed under exactly the same conditions and with the same camera to make a justified comparison. Further, we all know that those auction photos are more like drawings than photos.

Boom

We are workin on that! I stayed up late trying to learn to do just that in the testing forum. I will have to buy a digital camera and learn THAT as well, as all of this is new to me although I have been a collector for 43 years! Don't worry....REST ASSURED...when I learn and obtain what I need I'll be a picture providing fool. Trying to give dead on "photos" with an hp psc scanner that makes every MS coin look devoid of luster just ain't gettin' it!

nwcs

Or an explanation of how this coin doesn't meet PCGS's grading guidelines. From all indications, it does grade a PCGS MS-67.

Boom

Please do not take this the wrong way as I have no differences with any of you...but with all due respect, what do you collect? Do you own a Washington Quarter Registry Set? Let's not deviate from the topic and onto one another. I have stated very clearly that I have seemingly PERFECT Washington Quarters...not a nick on them anywhere, with totally unbroken cartwheel luster that grade 66. I also own some 67s...just click on the link below- there is an obvious bias towards MS 67s having Mint Set toning. All one needs do is look thru the Baltimore Catalog. Bottom line is..it seems the more I learn -the less I know! I mean this truthfully! 1 Chron 4:10- "Oh that You would bless me indeed and enlarge my territory. Oh, that Your Hand would be with me. Guide me and keep me from evil and NEVER let ME CAUSE pain!"

razorface1027

This was probably graded amidst the PCGS "Work training program." I wonder who sponsers it.

nwcs

Boom, I don't know if your comment was towards me. But if it was, remember that grading is a personal or professional opinion. If PCGS has a standard and adheres to it, then the coin is correctly graded to that standard. If that standard doesn't match someone else's then it grades differently to that standard. All I ask is for someone to demonstrate how this coin is not correctly graded by PCGS according to PCGS standards.

Boom

Late for a two o clock dentist appointment to have a tooth extracted. I'll be happy to continue the dialogue when I return! Gotta go NOW!

jom

The "problem" with this coin is the picture. The ding doesn't have to be a problem if it has BOOMING luster. But you can't see that with Superior's inferior photographs.

jom

geb209

<< <i> ... grading is a personal or professional opinion. If PCGS has a standard and adheres to it, then the coin is correctly graded to that standard. If that standard doesn't match someone else's then it grades differently to that standard. All I ask is for someone to demonstrate how this coin is not correctly graded by PCGS according to PCGS standards. >>



Coin grading is the opinion of one (and sometimes more than one) person. PCGS can have all the standards in the world but it still comes down to someone's opinion. Here are PCGS's standards for the coin in question:

MS/PR-66 Few minor marks/hairlines not in focal areas, good strike
MS/PR-67 Virtually as struck with minor imperfections, very well struck


Now, which one seems more accurate? Minor imperfections or few minor marks not in focal areas? It's all an opinion and when you've got more than one grader, opinions may differ. An organization can't adhere to a standard because the organization doesn't grade coins -- people do. A person can't adhere to a standard either. S/he can try to adhere, but there will always be differences between graders.

nwcs

While technically true, it is possible to be consistent to the standard. And given all the variables of a grade, it is possible that this coin -- in hand -- is a 67 according to PCGS standards. Grading by picture is a shot in the dark at best.

Boom

ttt

oreville

OK here is my non professional opinion on that quarter. The obverse, despite a single ding would would normally allow for a 67 since the fields are perfect would have graded 66 based on the old technical grading standards since the ding is NOT in a obscure, protected area of the coin. It sticks out like a sore thumb, possibly magnified by the blown up pics.

In todays grading standards, that obverse makes a 67 since it is the only bag mark and it is in the device and the fields are perfect and the strike is very strong with loads of eye appeal. The fact that the ding is in a focal area seems to not matter anymore.

The reverse, old standard a 66 since the wings appear to be somewhat softly struck. New standard.................the pivotal issue here since that should not have 67'd. But then again, reverse looks perfect in the fields a can't see much of anything in the device, eye appeal is ok. I rate the reverse under the current standards still a 66 but a strong 66.

On the whole, on the obverse a low 67 and the reverse a strong 66. 20% of the time that coin will 67.

The price? I am astonished. I would never pay that. But then again, I just bid $1065 for an PCGS AU-55 1884-S $1 and LOST!

RGL

For that kind of money, I expect NO hits in the focal areas ...

Boom

Preisely my argument all day! I have one of those other 99 that has NO FLAWS! Now just how is it THIS THING is one grade higher? This reeks of a statement made in homerunhall's thread that he is David Hall and can do whatever he pleases! Oh really? Money talks!

razorface1027

I just bid $1065 for an PCGS AU-55 1884-S $1 and LOST!

Oreville....YOU GOTS TO BE KIDDIN' ME? They've(1884-S) surpassed $1000 for a mere 55? WHOA!

wondercoin

MY COMMENT ON THE OTHER RELATED THREAD CONCERNING THE 1961(d) AND 1962(d) QUARTERS:


Craig: Superior did a great job in selling off these coins. As was reported on the Registry Forum, I bought the 61(d) quarter recently in an older MS66 holder (normally a $300 coin for a typical MS66 which cost around $1,800 at auction and I was prepared to bid much, much higher for it) and I believe the coin pedigrees to the fabulous R. Green collection. The 62(d) was technically even cleaner than the 61(d) IMHO, but the 61(d) had amazing luster for the issue (6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other).

I figured the 61(d) quarter could achieve a $15,000 bid at public auction and the 62(d) possibly a $12,500+ bid, but, again, I am pleased with the outcome.

And, speaking of big money for 20th century coins- while these quarters fetched roughly $12k coin, a 1919(d) Walker in PCGS-MS65 commanded around $140,000 later in the evening and a 1919(s) Buffalo nickel in PCGS-MS66 close to $100,000!!!! Perhaps Craig's comment oncerning the "good" prices on the pop 1/0 silver Wash quarters was not so far fetched.

Wondercoin

wondercoin

The 1961(d) and 1962(d) Wash quarters in PCGS-MS67 are both very cool coins. I personally made a decision last month to add to my silver Wash collection the very, very rare 1937 DDO in PCGS-MS66 (pop 2/0 with -0- coins in the undergrade) and had to part with the 61(d) and 62(d) to do so. Incidently, the other 37 DDO quarter in PCGS-MS66 is in the FUN Heritage sale (being sold as part of the Windy City #1 Registered collection) and opening bid is close to $35,000, which is LESS than the coin I bought was figured for in the deal. If I had not bought the 37 DDO, I would have kept the 61(d) and 62(d) quarters in a heartbeat. I try to be a disciplined collector and my budget for Wash quarters upgrades for my set for 2003/2004 was greatly impacted by my decision to add the 37DDO to my set. As I have mentioned before, I also am building a respectable pattern nickel collection (1865-1896) and funds are being directed that way as well.

I may regret selling the 61(d) and 62(d) quarters down the road, but, I have the 37DDO to show for it. Life is full of trade-offs, as you know.

Wondercoin

mnmcoin

I have looked at perhaps thousands of 1961 d and 1962 d quarters and I have never seen any with that strong of strike and appearance. I have no problem with the coins in 67. The mark in question (on the 61d) is probably an as struck mark. Again as stated, the coin is so well struck that flaw as such come into existance. The high cheek on both coins (which is always the first place you look and the place you spend 99% of your time eyeing the coin) is super clean and very impressive, for any Washington, let alone these uber tough dates.

All that has been said, but when viewing coins of this magnitude, you have to take in the context. I for one know (as well as all the other top pop coin makers) for a pop 1 coin to be graded by PCGS the nut grade, it has to be the grade plus another half a point or higher...i.e. this coin has to be a 67.5 or higher. Just talk to Lincoln Cent guys, trying to find 67 quality Lincolns from Philly on 1946-1958 dated coins) I don't see many mistakes by PCGS period, let alone on top tier pop 1 coins.

morris <><

oreville

37DDO quarter is irreplaceable! You will never regret that decision.