Washington quarter ... help with grade??

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

While looking through some old pics of some of my coins, I realized I really have never learned how to properly grade Washington quarters. Having put together a nearly complete set over the years, I never really was concerned too much with the actual grade, just went by looks and what it was worth to me at the time. I realize by doing this I have probably overpaid, but it's been spread out over 15 years or so and I never paid much for any of them anyway, so I don't really care.

However, I would be interested in some opinions as to what grade you would give this one. For you experts out there, is this a different than normal variation (i.e. type 2 reverse, or whatever the proper nomenclature is...)? I obviously don't know much more than I can get from a Redbook on these.
Thanks in advance!

Windycity

Nick on forehead will hold it back... possible 65 but maybe a 64.

QuarterCollector

Strike is weak I'd say a MS63 to MS64. And no it is not a Type B reverse. This link should help.

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/coop49/Quarters_Type_B_proof_reverse.jpg

Tom

tahoe98

...fixed link

JJM

63

Billet7

64

fivecents

Enough overall chatter and also scratches in the field under the L in the word Liberty to keep it MS63.

Bubblehead

<< <i>Enough overall chatter and also scratches in the field under the L in the word Liberty to keep it MS63. >>



I agree, 63.

ldhair

I could see that in a 64 holder.

djdilliodon

From the pics im seeing a 64 but in hand it is possible it is a 63 as pics tend to hide imperfections. That would make a nice album coin.

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

Ok, no real surprises here. Looks like everyone pretty much agrees. A couple of 64s maybe, but a solid 63.

I think maybe the photos were a tad on the big side to make any fair calls.

Smaller sometimes makes them look more natural. Some of those blemishes aren't visible with the naked eye. Especially my old eyes!


How about a better picture ...
















That's gotta be worth a couple of points right there, right?

Just kidding.
Thanks guys.

djdilliodon

<< <i>Ok, no real surprises here. Looks like everyone pretty much agrees. A couple of 64s maybe, but a solid 63.

I think maybe the photos were a tad on the big side to make any fair calls.

Smaller sometimes makes them look more natural. Some of those blemishes aren't visible with the naked eye. Especially my old eyes!


How about a better picture ...
















That's gotta be worth a couple of points right there, right?

Just kidding.
Thanks guys. >>



Now im changing from 64 to 70

grip

63...silver at 20= melt.

cladking

I think it's a nice coin and the biggest strike against it is that these
come nice and the strike isn't great. It looks like a solid MS-64 to my
eyes and 65 isn't too far off.

TomB

It looks like an MS64 to me. The MS63 grade in this series usually has more chatter on the coin. The 1946-S issue was a relatively low mintage coin, but they were saved by the bucketful. They also come with good mint frost. I would imagine that the white balance is off a little in your images, too, so that the coin is less yellow in hue.