Questions Concerning The Only 1932-D Washington Graded MS66
AKrick
Posts: 518
Only know that it went up for auction in the 2001 Atlanta, GA Signature Sale and sold for $89,125. Curious if anyone can give a little history of this coin? Who was the original owner that submitted it to PCGS and what year was it done? Who won the coin in the Atlanta Signature Sale? Has it ever been in any Registry set? Where is it now?
If you had to pick one coin in the Washington quarter series, that's been graded by PCGS, to be "The King Of Washington Quarters" this would have to be it.
If you had to pick one coin in the Washington quarter series, that's been graded by PCGS, to be "The King Of Washington Quarters" this would have to be it.
0
Comments
Based on the above I don't see a MS66 1932D as the king of the Washies. If a MS67 shows up that might be the coin. There are no doubt some other rarities in the series (overdates, varieties etc.) that would be a better signature coin that the 32D is MS66.
roadrunner
<< <i>If a MS67 shows up that might be the coin. There are no doubt some other rarities in the series (overdates, varieties etc.) that would be a better signature coin that the 32D is MS66. >>
I agree that an MS67 would definitely be the ultimate Washington quarter to own. Until the time when another MS66 or 67 is made, I will still give my vote to the lonely MS66 32d. Price wise I doubt another Washington quarter has come close to this one, not even any of the few MS68 quarters made. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. And I have to admit it is the prettiest 32d I've ever seen. Somebody got one prettier please show it!
Nobody knows any of the history behind this 32d? Wondercoin, Bob Z, anybody???
but i have only seen a few ............................. LONG LIVE THE KING !!!!!
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>...dude , you are good ! u answered my question b4 i posted it !! >>
Watch it Mike! Craig says he's a kidney specialist or something like that, but I believe he's a Witch Doctor with a little Voodoo on the side.
I was told (rumor only) the coin started its slabbed life as a first generation PCGS-MS64 - since I never saw the coin in a first generation PCGS-MS64 holder (or in any holder personally), I can not verify that 100%. Perhaps someone knows that information one way or the other? I left a bid of $57,500 on the coin in the auction and really thought I had a shot to win the coin at that level (so, obviously where the coin started its life didn't mean a whole lot to me). My bid wasn't even close.
I agree no regular issue Wash quarter comes to the price of this 32(d). My pop 1 1932(p) MS67 certainly ranks up there with the 1932(s) MS66 and 1934(d) MS67 coins - but, none of the coins come close to that value IMHO. With respect to MS68 graded Washingtons - my 1945(p) sports the lowest undergrade pop and the highest undergrade value in the series last I checked (that could have changed) - but, again, the coin can't hold a candle to the 1932(d) MS66.
Wondercoin
OK, just almost kidding.
<< <i>..............hey ! cut it out. >>
Definitely a poor chose of words...
haletj,
Remember Wondercoin said it was just a rumor. If it was in a 64 holder, then going by the pictures, I would say it was definitely undergraded the first time through PCGS.
Wondercoin
We are back to the issue of what the "extra point" is worth. I like my 1932(d) MS65 in my set as I know Craig likes his. At best, they are $25k - $30k coins. Is the extra point worth $50,000 - $75,000 extra? Hard question - I think I would personally rather have (5) different R-7 pattern nickels from the mid-1800's to add to my collection if given the chose right now. On the other hand, I am not convinced the (5) rare pattern nickels would "outperform" the MS66 32(d) quarter over the short term. If I had more money, I would probably buy them both
Wondercoin
So, if there are $100 increments and a coin tops out at $86,400 and the underbid was at $86,300 -- then that is what the coin is "worth."
The extra $100 that won the coin is the "froth."
Just my idea of it all.
Frankly, I think that 32D in MS66 is worth every bit of the money paid for it-- UNTIL A SECOND IS MADE.
cheers, alan mendelson
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
MANOFCOINS - The 32 D has always been the quintessential Washington quarter to own.To compare a 32 P or a 1961 P in the same paragraph is to show a complete lack of Numismatic collector history.I'm certain that rolls of gem uncirculated 32 P's or 61 P's exist.Try finding a roll of gem 32 D quarters.
Stewart
My humble guess would be that it will be a long time before we see another '32-D MS66 made at PCGS. As this is the obvious key to the set, certainly PCGS is really tough/takes a very hard look at any potential MS65 candidates before they give them the MS65 grade. As I do not get to major shows much, I have only seen a handful of PCGS MS65 '32-D's. Many of the '32-D's I have seen are just not that pretty. I have not actaully seen the lone MS66, but have heard from Bob Z. that it is a true 6 and is gorgeous. I personally know someone who bid 75K on the 6 when it was up for auction. This person thought they had a chance of winning it, but as you may/may not know, I believe it sold for almost 90K...a heck of a price for a coin minted little more than 70 years ago! Will we ever see another MS66 made? There's the million dollar question! Not having seen many '32-D's in MS65, I feel that my '32-D MS65 is as nice as any I've ever seen, probably just as nice as any MS66 I own. It's white, with solid luster, a light patina and technically as solid as they come. I think that if it were a different date, it would already be in a 6 holder. I will give it a try at upgrading at the Central States show next Spring in St. Louis. I know even as nice as it is, it would probably be a long shot at getting it to upgrade, but I think it could. Rick, if it does upgrade, I will sell it to you!
Personally, I feel that there has not been a tougher/better coin issued since the '32-D. I would not be surprised to see prices continue to steadily rise for this date in grades at and above the MS63 level. I said about 5 years ago that within 7-10 years, I thought MS64's would probably be selling for upwards of 10K...we're not far from that level now...and I still think we are yet to see the full potential of this particular coin and the series, overall.
Tom Schiera
Stewart,
What a lousy thing for you to say about Craig Norris! NO ONE knows the Washington series better than Craig. Craig is one of my best friends, and he is a true asset to the collector community. His collector knowledge is vast and respected among fellow collectors, as well as his ability to grade the Washington series. And more than you, he's a really nice guy and would never stoop to your level to make such a cheap comment about another fellow collector's reply. Didn't your parents ever teach you that if you can't say anything nice about someone, then just keep your big mouth shut?! Your comment about Craig was totally uncalled for! Get off your high horse, geeze!
Tom Schiera
<< <i>His collector knowledge is vast and respected among fellow collectors, as well as his ability to grade the Washington series. And more than you, he's a really nice guy and would never stoop to your level to make such a cheap comment about another fellow collector's reply. Didn't your parents ever teach you that if you can't say anything nice about someone, then just keep your big mouth shut?! Your comment about Craig was totally uncalled for! Get off your high horse, geeze!
>>
Rick: It really isn't a big deal, one way or the other - I am well informed that one of the 1932(s) quarters in MS66 was also an MS64 at one point in its "slab career". Two point upgrades are not that uncommon - indeed, if I am not mistaken a spectacular MS67 1935(s) quarter also started its life as a PCGS-MS65 and so on and so on and so on... Indeed, I believe one of the posters to this thread may have enjoyed a 2 point upgrade on a semi-key date Wash quarter.
Knowing ones series strongly affords a collector on a modest budget the ability to build a spectacular collection of "one grade under coins" with an evenual eye towards upgrades.
Wondercoin.
Agree, it's no big deal but I started the thread to get a really good history of the coin that this thread is all about. Appreciate all that has been said so far with the exception of what Stewart felt he had to add. I love the Washington quarter series and thought it would be nice to know as much as possible about the "The King" (my opinion). I find it really interesting to learn the lineage of certain coins. Take for instance that 62d with the dropped letter I recently won. It was pretty cool to learn that it had gone through your hands undetected a few years back before Dave Dallen discovered the extra "D" on the obverse. Knowing the history of a coin is something I appreciate and it adds to the enjoyment of the hobby. Cheers!
Rick
What I did say was there is NO comparing a 1932 quarter or a 1961 quarter to a 1932 D quarter.I don't care if a 1961 quarter is an ms 69 star.I think it is time that YOU get off your high horse and study Numismatic History.And it did not begin with the PCGS set Registry.I think you also need to undertstand the PCGS return policy
(guaranteed resubmission) and then you may understand why it is difficult to obtain certain grades with certain coins.
stewart
Very-well said! Your comments about this not being totally uncommon to see two-point upgrades were good ones! Good memory, Mitch, as well! I believe the MS67 '35-S you referred to in your post was mine. It began "slabbed life" as a PCGS MS65 about 9 years ago when I bought it. For the life of me, I will never understand that one, but suffice to say, there are always going to be some coins which are under-graded, as well as over-graded. Fortunately, I got it really cheap (MS65 vs. MS67 money!) and now it resides in a 7 holder, and rightly so, I think. The nice thing about our hobby is that even if a coin is slabbed, we don't have to agree with the assigned grade, one way or the other. The reasons I bought the '35-S were A: it really looked like a upgrade candidate to me and B: I loved how it looked. If there was a method found to remove the human factor for grading coins, then it would be no fun for us collectors. Removing the human element would then make this more of a science than a hobby. Grading is not an exact science, nor should be the hobby, that is for sure. I think the way that the better third-party graders grade our coins works just fine. It's always nice to get an upgrade, too!
Tom
Tom: Your (2) point upgrade (on a semi-key date!) is a perfect example of a dedicated collector "cashing in" on his vast knowledge of his series of choice. You buy a $300 coin and turn it into a $5,000 - $10,000 coin. Not bad!!
On a separate note - condition rarity coins are quite important to even the most well seasoned "professional collectors" of a particular series. If, for example, a 1961(d) Wash quarter existed in MS69 grade, that coin could very possibly rival a 1932(d) Wash quarter in MS66 (certainly be in the "same league"). Indeed, a fair comparison might be to compare a 1909(svdb) cent in PCGS-MS67RD (a $50k-$60k coin last time I checked, unless prices rose again) to a common date 1919(p) cent in the uncommon grade of PCGS-MS69RD ("priceless").
Wondercoin
Thank you for the compliment. In 1995, whn I got my MS65 '35-S, I traded my existing (raw) '35-S, plus $50. cash to make the deal. Suffice to say, I really got lucky.
Good comments regarding very high grade, common-date Washingtons vs. the '32-D in MS66. Theoretically, I think it is quite possible to believe that a MS69 silver Washington (if we ever see one) could rival the MS66 '32-D in price, to the right person. Do you think we will ever see a silver MS69 Washington? I seriously dobt it, but then I was shocked when there were (3) MS67 '34-D's graded in the same year after there being none for almost 18 years. My quest next year is going to be to try and find a raw '55-D that is a true MS67 candidate. Probably won't happen, but I won't ever say it's not possible...there were some significant, low-pop. Washingtons graded this year at PCGS that suprised me. If I do ever make a MS67 '55-D, I will offer it to you, Mitch! 40K sound about right?
Tom
I do agree with Stewart that it seems unusual to mention those two dates in the same breathe as the 32-D. That post raised my eyebrows as well....
IMHO, in time, PCGS will recognize just what an "as good as it gets" 1955(d) quarter looks like and may start to award a few coins the MS67 grade, which is why I, personally, would not be that aggressive in considering the first graded 55(d) MS67 quarter - and, hence, Craig would simply likely add another point to his lead on me
Wondercoin
We just haven't discussed the "gradeflation" in virtually every series out there! There are sure plenty of Classic Silver Commem stories out there with MS66's going to "incredible pop 1 or 2" MS68's (but, I'll leave those stories to Monsterman). I bet you have a few Trade Dollar stories of your own!
Wondercoin
I have never heard of a trade dollar going from MS64 to 66 or MS65 to 67. I do know of one coin that went from first generation 66 to 68. But it was always a fleur de coin - always the finest known. It just bumped into the 'glass ceiling' the first time graded in the late 1980's.
Why do so many Washingtons jump two grades?
I think you and Stewart missing the point as to why Craig Norris mentioned those two Washington dates in the same breath...
Tom S.
I've read time and again in this forum that certain individuals can discern with remarkable success which of the coins graded the same is the better one. I've also read many times that coins get submitted time and again till they receive the proper upgrade. So if I understand the grading game correctly that there is no such things as PQ for the grade then at some point in time the coin must of been undergraded. It is so confusing, isn't it?
Very good thoughts on the "ups and downs" of grading. Seems pretty certain that the only thing for sure about grading is that nothing is for sure! And I love some of these dealers who want to sell you a coin for way over 6 money, saying that it is a shot 7 coin...if it is, then why don't they send it in and get in upgraded?! I refuse to give into that kind of dealer monopoly... I agree that there can be some high-end and low-end coins for respective grades, but it is all subjective and opinions of individuals, but I for one won't pay excessive prices for a very high-end coin. Does that mean that we get a price break on coins that are at the low end of the respective grade? Not likely. How many dealers give is that offer??
Again, good comments, Mike!
Tom S.
Good question. Here is my take on the subject:
1. Many Wash quarters (historically) have not been "worked hard" as they have in other earlier classic series. For example, I hear repeatedly (and have seen) that it is very tough to find high end MS Barbers in the typical auctions (not the auctions of great collections, but the typical sales). Indeed, dealers and collectors have been trying to upgrade them nearly since slabbing became a business. Not the case with most Wash quarters - perhaps 75-80 out of the 83 silver dates in the series have not been "worked" literally at all, let alone "worked hard". For example, one of the PCGS-MS67 1956(d) Wash quarters I had (since replaced with a rainbow coin) came from an MS66 holder that cost around $50. Very few dealers would even want to bother with it I have found. Many other coins in my collection were upgrades as well. The series was never "ultra popular" ten years ago best I can tell and many of the different coins (other than a few dates) were largely ignored by "professional upgraders" (besides Walker upgrades and Merc upgrades were worth a whole lot more money).
2. It appears the series has proven a bit difficult to grade. For example, take a look at 1954(s). Compare the PCGS pop to the NGC pop in the MS67 grade. These coins typically come with very clean surfaces but soft strikes, especially the reverse strike. I believe PCGS has taken a very "technical" stand over the years on considering a coin for MS67 that has a somwhat weak strike (and I have no position here on which company is "right" or "wrong"). BUT, every now and then, a relatively weaker struck 54(s) quarter has found its way into a PCGS-MS67 holder (perhaps a stricter grading team from another time period may have thought the coin to be no better than MS65 or MS66 as a consequence of the weaker strike). Perhaps another grading team might forgive the strike a bit especially if the coin displayed booming luster and great eye appeal.
Remember also that there really have been very few public auctions of world class Wash quarter collection to date (with the exception of the Widycity collection recently). When Benbow sold his landmark collection, it was through private treaty. When Green sold his great collection, it was, once again, through private treaty. Same for the Heller set, Epstein set, and a number of other folks. Indeed, when Green's collection wa resold at auction last year, his pedigree had been removed from all of the coins and very few folks even were aware it was his old collection. It did not appear the coins had been "worked hard" either, at least judging from the fact that a number of coins upgraded after the auction.
More and more "upgraders" are now aware of the Wash quarter series and the coins have been worked a bit harder over the past year or so - hence, explaining some of the more important (and long overdue) upgrades of late.
Wondercoin
<< <i>"Thanks everybody for all the info. About the only mystery left is if there is any truth to the rumor that it started out as a PCGS MS64. With any luck somebody will step up and either confirm the rumor or put an end to it. "
Rick: It really isn't a big deal, one way or the other...
Wondercoin.
>>
<< <i>Mitch,
Agree, it's no big deal... >>
Please tell the person who last sold the coin in an ms64 holder that it is no big deal...
Doesn't anyone besides me think this inconsistency in grading is a HUGE DEAL...
In virtually all series, grading evolves - I believe it is common knowledge that what was a nice MS65 in many coin series in 1986 may very well be an MS66 or even MS67 today. The grading companies have had the benefit of having seen MILLIONS of additional coins since the 1980's to fine tune its grading scale. Why hide the obvious?
Wondercoin
As always, great observations and thoughts regarding the Washington series!
Irish Mike,
Also, good observations on the grading of Washington quarters. I think it's probably like any other series, in that the more coins you look at, the better you can grade them, as you eluded to with the coins you like/collect. With this series, my opinion is that the coins which get the best grades are like those that lack marks and have a good strike. Strike is especailly an important factor in getting a Washington quarter to grade well, since the series is notorious for coins having a weak strike. Some dates do come better struck than others, though. Coins with superior luster and/or oustanding color are usually the ones which grade best, if they have the other technical merits in their favor. Coins minted after 1958 were produced in such high volumes and handled so poorly that it is very difficult to find one that will qualify to grade MS67...like trying to find a needle in a haystack!
Tom
too many goofs and the market will fall apart.
cheers, alan mendelson
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
Wondercoin
"Alan: Again, I personally view it as a maturation process. One is not "inconsistent" if they learn even more in graduate school after college. The grading companies are expected to learn after grading 10,000,000 additional coins. They begin to feel more justified using the entire 70 point grading scale. I just don't view coins being graded differently 18 years apart as "inconsistent" grading. Now, if we are talking 18 hours apart.... (never mind)"
Mitch... we're again at a vital and critical point in the coin market. Once again, the market is moving to record highs and big Wall Street money is again considering rare coins for portfolios.
Whether the "errors" are 18 hours apart or 18 years apart, the "big money" has no tolerance for errors. Big Money needs a secure market to buy into.
If coins are undergraded, then Big Money will fear a speculative run; if coins are overgraded Big Money will fear that the floor will collapse under them.
The BEST thing to attract big money is stability and certainty.
You know that.
Errors with key coins such as 32d washingtons can block the entry for big money. period.
cheers, alan
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com
<< <i>If there is inconsistency in grading it is a VERY BIG DEAL. Because much of the success of pcgs and the graded coin market depends on the SECURITY of third party grading.
too many goofs and the market will fall apart.
cheers, alan mendelson >>
there have been MANY goofs over the years ; but the madness goes on !
Craig - I don't know about your attitude but it seems as though your envious that you don't own the 1932 D in ms 66.FYI the same gentleman that owns the 32 D use to own a red and brown 1969/1969 s double die Lincoln.I know he likes to buy the finest.I also heard he was prepared to pay considerably more than $100,000 when he won the 1932 D quarter.He is not afraid to step up to the plate.
So anyway I'm just an idiot that annoys you.Enjoy your Washies !!!
Stewart
I think the word "envious" might be a little strong. Jealous is even stronger so that word is no good either. Desirous, covet, etc. might work but can't seem to pin the right word down.
the madness, as you put it, returned to the coin market about two years and mainly because of the Registry competition.
Unfortunately, the market overall is yet to recover from the crash of the mid-1980s, which you might not remember or even know about. That crash followed a huge influx of cash from Wall Street and then a rapid retreat when "fear" pulled the rug.
once again wall street is talking about numismatic portfolios but even the hint of "mismanaged risk" would scuttle those plans.
wall street can accept market forces, but wall street will not tolerate scandal, deception, errors in accounting or grading.
just look at the stock market carnage after companies report irregularities in their books... so imagine the carnage if it was revealed that a major grading service which was responsible for the "security" of large portfolios had a problem with its grading?
cheers, alan mendelson
www.AlanBestBuys.com
www.VegasBestBuys.com