Is this a Fr-2 or an AG?

HTubbs

HTubbs

Just to settle a disagreement,and yes I know the rev. pic is bigger then the obv.

ar18

going with ag-3

HTubbs

<< <i>going with ag-3 >>


Which is what I said,but Steve27 says it's a FR-2

ar18

I think there is far too much detail to be fair.

poorguy

washington quarters take alot of wear because of their relief. I think that one is an ag-3 to g-4 because the date and much of the reverse is still visible. JMHO

I added that it looks closer to g-4. I'm no expert on grading heavily circulated washington quarters though.

HTubbs

Hmmm...If Steve undergrades this bad......I wonder if he's got any coins for sale

No harm intended for Steve,we all have grading issues

coinguy89

The wear isn't too even too call it FR-2 I was going to go with AG-3, possible G-4

JadeRareCoin

I would say AG-3, but it's pushing it. At that grade level, I prefer to grade by price. In other words, a coin be a "technical" Fr-2, but if it has a full date, nice color, no problems (i.e. cleaning), I would call it a Fr-2, but price it as an AG or slightly under. Overall, your coin is an AG-3 and should be priced accordingly.

ziggy29

Tough call. It has the wear of a high-end Fr-2, I think, but it's very problem-free and just has lots of even, honest wear so it would probably "net" closer to AG-3 money.

braddick

Just a tad too much detail for an FA02. Wonderful quality coin and it deserves a price bump for pure originality. The rims would have to be a bit more worn into the lettering on the reverse, especially between 10:00 and 2:00. Textbook AG03.

Neat coin!

sliderider

I'm going with AG-3, as well.

Colorfulcoins

AG3. Here's a FR02 for comparison.....its a 32D and a quite toned one at that...

dorkkarl

i think it's ag-3 w/out a problem by today's standards. 30 years ago, it would of been "fair".

K S

braddick

<< <i>i think it's ag-3 w/out a problem by today's standards. 30 years ago, it would of been "fair". K S >>

and 60 years ago the coin was problaby "AU".

TheNumish

72 years ago the coin was BU.

dorkkarl

60 years ago, there WAS no "au".

it was basically "good", "fine", "very fine" & "unc".

ahhhhh, for the "about-good" old days....................

K S

Smittys

I Think AG3 is the right call good date more than enough detail
Just my Two cents worth,
Smitty

LanLord

<< <i>60 years ago, there WAS no "au". it was basically "good", "fine", "very fine" & "unc". ahhhhh, for the "about-good" old days.................... K S >>

Karl, I think Pat's comment went right over your head!

dorkkarl

yeah yeah yeah, i get it. ha ha it is to laugh



K S

Steve27

From Photograde "About Good (AG-3) Obverse: The rim will be worn down halfway into the letters and date. Reverse: The rim will be worn halfway down into the letters."

Pic from Photograde:



Most of the reverse lettering is completely missing, it's a FR-2 (a nice FR-2, but an FR-2).

ar18

Sorry, I don't agree

To back it up, look at the graded FR-02, AG-3 all the way.

oreville

I have collected quarters since 1963.

It is an old FR-02 based on technical standards. Probably will now grade AG-03 based on the looser standards of today.

It is a nice FR-02 at that.

Boom

What I want to know is why is Smittys using my personal icon?
BTW, there is much more to it than the fellow member's Fr-02 shown,
For my money it hinges on G-4 (JMHO)

nwcs

AG 3- The reverses are well known to wear more than the obverse.

cladking

It's a beautiful coin and appears fully original. The wear is even enough even if the strike wasn't.

It probably doesn't make much difference in value how it's graded but I'd have to go Fair, simply
because the reverse design is worn into the rim. There aren't many Washingtons with this much
wear.