***what would you grade this Barber quarter? [grade revealed]

SeattleSlammer

...just curious....I know we have a lot of Barber lovers here.....

Cratylus

AU55+

PawPaul

AU 58

roadrunner

MS62.....possibly even MS63 if very clean. Looks unc and with 63/64 surfaces. But the muted luster will knock it down 1-2 pts. Is that a scrape on the cheek as well?

roadrunner

Dog97

AU-50

coinguy1

MS63, shot 58. I'm guessing that it is more lustrous in hand.

Dog, you're way too tight on this one.

Dog97

You probably right coinguy1. The black toning is making it tough for me to get a reading.

Cratylus

<< <i>MS62.....possibly even MS63 if very clean. Looks unc and with 63/64 surfaces. But the muted luster will knock it down 1-2 pts. Is that a scrape on the cheek as well?

roadrunner >>



Hmmmm... I'm not quite sure what you're seeing, but I see rub on (a) the hairline above the brow and temple, (b) the chin and jawline, (c) the bottom of the hairline where it meets the neck, (d) the ear lobe and laurel leaf nearest to it, (e) the right most strand of laurel ribbon, (f) the eagle's cheek, and (g) the bottom of the central tail feather. It would probably go 58 at PCGS or NGC, but based on the 58s I'm accustomed to seeing this one should be a 55+.

DoubleEagle59

<< <i>MS62.....possibly even MS63 if very clean. Looks unc and with 63/64 surfaces. But the muted luster will knock it down 1-2 pts. Is that a scrape on the cheek as well?

roadrunner >>

stealer

AU58 slightest of rub on both the obverse and reverse which a TPG would probably overlook and grade MS62.

SeattleSlammer

It initially struck me as MS, then I looked closer and started convincing myself that it was AU, then I looked again and thought, well maybe I'm being tough on it because it sure looks MS, then I rubbed my eyes, got a beer, came back and it seemed more AU.......I'm wondering how it will look in the morning. Anyways, it's not mine. For sale as we speak on Ebay.

ICG gave it a 62.

rhedden

I don't see any wear, but a lot of people would call it AU just because of the toning, which is unfortunate. Some dealers dip coins like this one all the time. Personally, I'd rather have it as-is, regardless of technical grade, as the toning looks 100% original. I can't tell if it's AU58 or MS63 without having it in-hand, but I like it.

rld14

To me it would depend on what the luster is like in hand but id feel safe with 53-55

TomB

The toning and/or gunk is so thick in spots that a coin like this would not surprise me if it were returned as environmental damage.

roadrunner

An ICG 62 is not quite as convincing as a PCGS/NGC 62. But I saw a lot of barbers like this in the late 1980's when they were not severly penalized for having thick toning and muted luster. This kind of toning is often seen on 19th and 20th century silver coins stuck away in sulfur-laden envelopes, albums, etc. They will just keep on turning dark brown until they become black. 1917 T.1 quarters are often seen like this as they were put away and forgotten about. They were not kept in rolls to protect them.

No obvious rub and the signs of field luster is semi-apparent in the photos. AU coins don't typically toned like this. Look how the fields are completey open and more untoned with no changes in the texture or coloration. The high pts of the coin are probably the lightest toned, and hence give the appearance of rub.

roadrunner

Dog97

Wow the grades are all over the place on this one.
I see exactly what Cratylus is seeing and that's what I saw.
In addition, what roadrunner saw <<No obvious rub and the signs of field luster is semi-apparent in the photos. AU coins don't typically toned like this. Look how the fields are completey open and more untoned with no changes in the texture or coloration. >> I saw that too but was ciphering it differently. I was taking the black tone in the protected areas to be the uncirculated surfaces and the white fields to be scuffy circulated surfaces.

We're so used to seeing everybody's tricked out pictures everyday that we forgot what an honest image from a flatbed scanner looks like. This is clearly a scan of a Mint State coin. In a scan, circulation rub would appear as dark grey.
Damnit I missed that one by a mile. hahahhahaha $hit happens.

SeattleSlammer

I really like roadrunner's take on it. In any case, I like its original crusty look.

ColonelJessup

<< <i>An ICG 62 is not quite as convincing as a PCGS/NGC 62. But I saw a lot of barbers like this in the late 1980's when they were not severly penalized for having thick toning and muted luster. This kind of toning is often seen on 19th and 20th century silver coins stuck away in sulfur-laden envelopes, albums, etc. They will just keep on turning dark brown until they become black. 1917 T.1 quarters are often seen like this as they were put away and forgotten about. They were not kept in rolls to protect them.

No obvious rub and the signs of field luster is semi-apparent in the photos. AU coins don't typically toned like this. Look how the fields are completey open and more untoned with no changes in the texture or coloration. The high pts of the coin are probably the lightest toned, and hence give the appearance of rub.

roadrunner >>





I would be surprised to see it in a circ holder, but 63 shot 58 is sensibly suggested. The cognoscenti sometimes refer to coins that look like this as "too original".

A currently popular saying sums up my thoughts "Often mystified, but never shocked".

Remember ICG's "gimmick" was that they would not certify with negative eye appeal for the grade. So I have to expect that this piece looks more lustrous "in hand".

tradedollarnut

My first thought was a butt ugly MS61. I'll stick with that...

droopyd

I'm guessing PCGS would grade this as AU58. ("Market grading" and all that.)

MFH

I love almost all Barbers - and I love this one too.
Its a slider Unc as they used to say. Makes it an AU 58.
I am not impressed with ICG's opinion.

roadrunner

I can recall selling Oaktree Coin back in 1988-89 several capped bust half dimes in grades of MS62-65 that looked just like this Barber quarter. They almost couldn't be "too original" back then. No marks and butt ugly toning could still fetch a 65 grade. Not today. But back then, one single tiny facial hairline across Miss Barber's face and you couldn't get higher than a MS64, even on an otherwise flawless coin with killer luster and color. Today, those flashy "single hairlined" 64's can make up to MS67...while those butt ugly 65's that had no hairlines or obvious marks are lucky to make 63 or 64.

roadrunner

droopyd

<< <i>Its a slider Unc as they used to say. Makes it an AU 58. >>



I'm slightly surprised it was never dipped white and sold as a BU.

MFH

Ok - same type of toning - what do you think PCGS graded this coin...no... its NOT a net graded coin.

Guess the grade...

bushmaster8

The 92 (Mike's) looks MS except for the friction on the cheek... PCGS 58+

SeattleSlammer

MFH, I like that one, too........after reading all of the replies in this thread, I have no idea what PCGS gave it!..........

grip

au 50.

SkyMan

61

MFH

I certainly would love to own this coin as an AU 58+

lordmarcovan

I would call that AU55 CCC. (Crustylicious CircCam).

Cratylus

Holy $#&%!!! A Lord Marcovan sighting!

MFH

Here is why I hate to grade MS or Near MS coins based soley on images:



AU 50, huh ? I'll take all of your AU 50 Barbers if they looked like this.

SeattleSlammer

I am also honored that The Lord has appeared in my thread.....I also can't remember when I've posted anything that hit 30......


MFH, does that mean that YOUR example is 58+ ?

SeattleSlammer

Ahhhh, got it, 63, nice!