1952 Proof "Superbird" Quarter - My first cherrypick

ModCrewman

I attended my first coin show this morning and made my first variety cherrypick. I found a 1952 Proof Set that included a Superbird quarter. Here are some photos, I'd appreciate your grade opinions, as I'm evaluating whether it will be worth certifying prior to sale. IMHO it looks as good as some of the PF67's on Heritage, but definitely has a little haze that I will want to dip off before sending it in.











Yes, I know...I need to work on my photography skills.

chumley

I happen to be holding a PR 67 superbird,I would say yours may be a 66

djdilliodon

I use to own one that had some lightly frosted devices in an NGC PF68. Wonder where that coin is today.

1tommy

<< <i>I happen to be holding a PR 67 superbird,I would say yours may be a 66 >>

if he has one in hand, i am like you new to guessing any grades my only concern was your saying something about dipping? Again don't know enough about but have always been told Not Too congrats and hope you enjoyed your first show ....................

robkool

PR65...

Type2

Nice cherrypick your going to get hooked on the picking. I'll guess PR-66.

Edit for PR not MS.

Cocoinut

I'd say yours is a 66. I used to think the Superbird was an easy coin to cherrypick, as I found 2 of them in six months in the early 1990's (both already slabbed, with no designations for the variety). There have been a lot of them offered on Teletrade in recent years.

Jim

fcloud

I'll say 67.

segoja

65

approx 20-25% of the 52 mintage is superbird.

Hendrixkat

Forgive my ignorance - what exactly is a Superbird ?

ModCrewman

PCGS Superbird Article

Thanks for the input guys, I actually stopped at my local B&M when I got home to talk about getting it submitted. But of course before I did, I asked to see their 52 proof sets...sure enough of the 3 they had one was a Superbird also. That one has some nice rainbow toning (Capital Plastic holder) as well! I put some money down and put it on layaway as the first set at the show already caused me to spend more today than I had planned. (I honestly think that one is better than this one.) The owner who I really want to talk to about the variety wasn't in, so I'll have to catch him later this week.

This picture highlights the "S" on the eagle's chest better than the first picture above.

coinguy1

It is pure folly to attempt to grade a proof coin from images, especially when they are of the type provided. Sure the coin might grade 65 or 66 or 67 - but that's already a huge, three point grade spread. And it could also be a 64 or 63 or 62, due to a multitude of light hairlines which don't show up in the images.

InternetJunky

I'll be quite honest I had no knowledge of this variety up until now. Thanks for the info and detailed pictures and congrats on the cherrypick.

ModCrewman

<< <i>It is pure folly to attempt to grade a proof coin from images, especially when they are of the type provided. Sure the coin might grade 65 or 66 or 67 - but that's already a huge, three point grade spread. And it could also be a 64 or 63 or 62, due to a multitude of light hairlines which don't show up in the images. >>

Now Mark...when has that ever kept anyone on the board from attempting to grade from pictures.

But after seeing your comment I took a look at it and don't see any hairlines (at all)...does anyone see any hits on the coin? How is the strike quality compared to other comparable proofs?

coinguy1

<< <i>

<< <i>It is pure folly to attempt to grade a proof coin from images, especially when they are of the type provided. Sure the coin might grade 65 or 66 or 67 - but that's already a huge, three point grade spread. And it could also be a 64 or 63 or 62, due to a multitude of light hairlines which don't show up in the images. >>

Now Mark...when has that ever kept anyone on the board from attempting to grade from pictures.

But after seeing your comment I took a look at it and don't see any hairlines (at all)...does anyone see any hits on the coin? How is the strike quality compared to other comparable proofs? >>

I don't see hairlines either. But the problem with trying to assess Proof coins from images, is that light hairlines are not usually evident. And sometimes even heavy ones can't be seen.

Also, keep in mind, that Proof coins don't usually have hits and strike is rarely an issue. Far more times than not, it is the extent of hairlines which accounts for the grade on a Proof coin. And those hairlines don't show up well in images.

sinin1

wheres the 64 option - see hairlaines on neck - and suspect they are on right field
also depth of mirrors looks questionable


what are you going to dip the coin with, and how will this help the eye appeal or grade?



I would not pay $50 to get graded/attributed
and would keep in my collection or sell as raw


what are the estimates on 1952 superbirds? 10-15% of 1952 proof quarter population?

ModCrewman

<< <i>wheres the 64 option - see hairlaines on neck - and suspect they are on right field
also depth of mirrors looks questionable

what are you going to dip the coin with, and how will this help the eye appeal or grade? >>


The "stuff" in the fields is some haze/milky substance (cellophane residue?) that I believe from my reading here and elsewhere would likely come off in an acetone dip (non-doctoring dip). I'm certainly not going to attempt to do it myself (for the first ever attempt at such) on this coin. I hope to stop at my dealer later today and see what his take is on how to clean it up (if at all) and whether he'd assist in that process.

IM(V)HO I see it similar to issues I've seen HRH recommend a "dip" for on this forum.

If that dip can be accomplished without adding any hairlines, I do believe the fields and devices are clean enough to warrant grading. But I also recognize that this would be the first coin I've ever submitted (if I elect to do so) and I will be seeking "in hand" expert advice before proceeding with that. (For further reference please refer to my signature. )

bstat1020

Here is Chumleys superbird.(Formery mine) Based on the images provided your would be PR65 IMO.


PCGS PR67