Amazing Washington Quarter TRUE Monster Colors, but...AT or NT?

uofa1285 · October 10, 2011 6:42AM

I'm really not sure on this one...I'm leaning to 80% NT...your thoughts?

All joking aside (from last post), I humbly look forward to your replies.

Doug

coinsarefun · October 10, 2011 6:44AM

Looks natural to me.
Actually its a beautiful coin........look and see if its a type B reverse.

Congrat's!

cmerlo1 · October 10, 2011 6:49AM

It almost looks like someone put a 1963 mint set into one of the cardboard mint set holders from the 50's...

Bochiman · October 10, 2011 6:56AM

Show the other silver coins. Looking at the dime, it does not even come close to the quarter. how does the 1/2 look?
I would buy the quarter at melt+ but I would not pay much of a premium for that toning.....it "bothers" me (and, I like toned coins).
If the image isn't juiced, then I have doubts on the toning.

uofa1285 · October 10, 2011 6:57AM

<< It almost looks like someone put a 1963 mint set into one of the cardboard mint set holders from the 50's... >>

You are right! I didn't notice that...wonder IF the person put the 63 coins in the IN 1963 to get the toning...at least that's what I'm hoping for so it can be NT!

uofa1285 · October 10, 2011 6:58AM

<< Looks natural to me.
Actually its a beautiful coin........look and see if its a type B reverse.

Congrat's! >>

Thank you! Wow, type B...never heard of it! lol...I will look it up on the internet and diagnose it and let you know!

Doug

coinsarefun · October 10, 2011 6:59AM

It will grade, submit through Secure Plus and pm Mr. Willis with this thread link. Everything should be fine.

uofa1285 · October 10, 2011 7:00AM

<< Show the other silver coins. Looking at the dime, it does not even come close to the quarter. how does the 1/2 look?
I would buy the quarter at melt+ but I would not pay much of a premium for that toning.....it "bothers" me (and, I like toned coins).
If the image isn't juiced, then I have doubts on the toning. >>

The other coins are similarly unspectacularly toned as the other coins you see besides the quarter.

I'm still hoping when I get it in hand, it "feels" right. Thanks B.

cmerlo1 · October 10, 2011 7:00AM

<< 

<< Looks natural to me.
Actually its a beautiful coin........look and see if its a type B reverse.

Congrat's! >>

Thank you! Wow, type B...never heard of it! lol...I will look it up on the internet and diagnose it and let you know!

Doug >>

It's from Denver- and not a type B.

Edited to add:

There are no known Denver mint type B's, and I can tell from the pic that it isn't anyway... the ES in 'STATES' is too close together.

uofa1285 · October 10, 2011 7:09AM

<< It will grade, submit through Secure Plus and pm Mr. Willis with this thread link. Everything should be fine. >>

I wish it were that easy! lol.

Frankiefanatic · October 10, 2011 7:18AM

AT- and it may not slab due to it now being or could be labeled as environmental damage- 63's were not in card board holders from the mint...and a D Washington has never been labeled as a Type B in 63 of this year coin. Try the Philly from 55-64 and you would have a winner

otherwise it does have some cool colors in its spectrum..

relicsncoins · October 10, 2011 7:21AM

It looks like a DSOTA job. Is the coin yours?

DSOTA is an acronym for a seller on Ebay that I believe to be a blatant coin doctor.

Frankiefanatic · October 10, 2011 7:31AM

<< gorgeous coin, I have seen some incredible toning on the 1960-1964 coins, pretty good chance it will grade. >>

so says the Doc!

Frankiefanatic · October 10, 2011 7:45AM

<< Hey Frankie is it true you were a navy seal, how is that lung cancer you have? >>

no stupid I did not have lung cancer- I HAD prostate cancer- my WIFE had lung cancer- she died on 10/8/2011(stage 4)- can I come visit you with a few Morgans I have (90)? they are in old rattler holders, I hear that you have the 'cure' for bland white Morgans in rattlers. Then you can ask me personally about my past....

The washie would get a Gennie holder...and MOC, well he will be MOC...

19Lyds · October 10, 2011 7:52AM

<< 

<< Looks natural to me.
Actually its a beautiful coin........look and see if its a type B reverse.

Congrat's! >>

Thank you! Wow, type B...never heard of it! lol...I will look it up on the internet and diagnose it and let you know!

Doug >>

Don't bother. Type B's for 1963 only came out of the Philly mint.

coinsarefun · October 10, 2011 7:53AM

This is a link to the sellers other mint sets, they look ok to me
But I have never dealt with the seller.

Frankiefanatic · October 10, 2011 7:54AM

<< Your wife died 2 days ago and you are on these boards discussing AT versus NT? If true you have my condolences. >>

Opps - my mistake- it was August 10. 2 months ago today- I admit it I screwed this one up - time is not moving like it should

if she were here she might give you a piece of her mind since she bought one of them Morgans from you for ahem...me.. I still have it and will hold it for a while...

LanLord · October 10, 2011 7:55AM

<< 

<< It almost looks like someone put a 1963 mint set into one of the cardboard mint set holders from the 50's... >>

You are right! I didn't notice that...wonder IF the person put the 63 coins in the IN 1963 to get the toning...at least that's what I'm hoping for so it can be NT!

>>

Actually, it was that reason that I was leaning toward AT. I thought someone enhanced the coins, then put them into a 50s unc holder to age and mellow. I may be wrong, but it's certainly a possibility.

coinsarefun · October 10, 2011 7:56AM

<< 

<< 

<< Looks natural to me.
Actually its a beautiful coin........look and see if its a type B reverse.

Congrat's! >>

Thank you! Wow, type B...never heard of it! lol...I will look it up on the internet and diagnose it and let you know!

Doug >>

Don't bother. Type B's for 1963 only came out of the Philly mint. >>

Yes.....I did not pay attention to the mint mark

TorinoCobra71 · October 10, 2011 7:57AM

It looks NT.

19Lyds · October 10, 2011 7:59AM

<< 

<< 

<< Looks natural to me.
Actually its a beautiful coin........look and see if its a type B reverse.

Congrat's! >>

Thank you! Wow, type B...never heard of it! lol...I will look it up on the internet and diagnose it and let you know!

Doug >>

It's from Denver- and not a type B.

Edited to add:

There are no known Denver mint type B's, and I can tell from the pic that it isn't anyway... the ES in 'STATES' is too close together. >>

You are techniocally correct but 1969-D, 1970-D, 1971-D and 1972-D were all available with a Reverse Variety that was strikingly similar to the Type B. James Wiles refers to them as RDV-008 (Type H?) due to some minor differences between the Type B (RDV-002) and Type H (RDV-008). For all practical purposes, they are commonly referred to as Type B's even though it's just a little bit incorrect.

Techniocally is a word right?

Frankiefanatic · October 10, 2011 7:59AM

<< It looks NT.

>>

and you drink

TorinoCobra71 · October 10, 2011 8:01AM

<< 

<< Hey Frankie is it true you were a navy seal, how is that lung cancer you have? >>

no stupid I did not have lung cancer- I HAD prostate cancer- my WIFE had lung cancer- she died on 10/8/2011(stage 4)- can I come visit you with a few Morgans I have (90)? they are in old rattler holders, I hear that you have the 'cure' for bland white Morgans in rattlers. Then you can ask me personally about my past....

The washie would get a Gennie holder...and MOC, well he will be MOC... >>

Hey MOC, You been baking any Morgans in PCGS Rattlers lately?

TorinoCobra71 · October 10, 2011 8:03AM

<< 

<< It looks NT.

>>

and you drink

>>

Only in YOUR mind.

rainbowroosie · October 10, 2011 9:35AM

I like it.

DavidLawrence · October 10, 2011 9:36AM

I like it too.

dpoole · October 10, 2011 9:43AM

It looks NT, but I've been fooled before. Gorgeous coin

mrearlygold · October 10, 2011 9:45AM

braddick · October 10, 2011 10:03AM

Ah, if only wishing made it so.
I like it and fingers crossed, hope it grades well for you.

halfhunter · October 10, 2011 10:24AM

<< This is a link to the sellers other mint sets, they look ok to me
But I have never dealt with the seller. >>

Except that 1959 & 1960 Mint Sets did not come from the mint in cardboard.
Makes me wonder if the sets from all years are "salted".

HH

uofa1285 · October 10, 2011 10:51AM

Thanks for all the input so far.

morgansforever · October 10, 2011 11:05AM

Appears to be 1963 coins inserted into a 1958 mint set (green backing).
It natuarly toned in the cardboard, what's the big deal?
I like it.

coinsarefun · October 10, 2011 11:10AM

<< Appears to be 1963 coins inserted into a 1958 mint set (green backing).
It natuarly toned in the cardboard, what's the big deal?
I like it. >>

I agree!

Frankiefanatic · October 10, 2011 11:15AM

<< Appears to be 1963 coins inserted into a 1958 mint set (green backing).
It natuarly toned in the cardboard, what's the big deal?
I like it. >>

then you don't mind a coin that is toned artificially? Since the Mint did not produce sets in cardboard for 1963 this and any coin [past 58] should be considered as AT or as a Genuine - with questionable color- since the Mint did not provide such coin or item to do so, but then thus the market acceptance for such tomfoolery- right?

Let those that wish to doctor an item sell it to those less knowledgeable and make a killing as such may be. A fool and his money..they part only with time and stupidity..

AT and I probably would not want to show this thread to the house to vindicate the toning issue.

Julian · October 10, 2011 11:33AM

I think that the quarter is natural and gorgeous.

19Lyds · October 10, 2011 11:38AM

<< 

<< Appears to be 1963 coins inserted into a 1958 mint set (green backing).
It natuarly toned in the cardboard, what's the big deal?
I like it. >>

then you don't mind a coin that is toned artificially? Since the Mint did not produce sets in cardboard for 1963 this and any coin [past 58] should be considered as AT or as a Genuine - with questionable color- since the Mint did not provide such coin or item to do so, but then thus the market acceptance for such tomfoolery- right?

Let those that wish to doctor an item sell it to those less knowledgeable and make a killing as such may be. A fool and his money..they part only with time and stupidity..

AT and I probably would not want to show this thread to the house to vindicate the toning issue. >>

From a semantics standpoint, since it was "placed" in the cardboard holder, it could no longer be considered uncirculated.

I mean................... if you really want to get technical.

Tiny · October 10, 2011 11:44AM

The picture is like most on here, hard to really tell but looking at the Gold & Turquoise
they just don't look Natural. The cardboard holder should have some kind of discoloration that
would seem an extention of the color of the coin. That is not there in this case so I would say
the coin has been ATed and placed in the holder to give the effect of NT.

magikbilly · October 10, 2011 12:27PM

Hi,

from the image it may well be what it appears. Superb and original. Just my 2 cents.

Eric

astrorat · October 10, 2011 1:12PM

<< 

<< 

<< Appears to be 1963 coins inserted into a 1958 mint set (green backing).
It natuarly toned in the cardboard, what's the big deal?
I like it. >>

then you don't mind a coin that is toned artificially? Since the Mint did not produce sets in cardboard for 1963 this and any coin [past 58] should be considered as AT or as a Genuine - with questionable color- since the Mint did not provide such coin or item to do so, but then thus the market acceptance for such tomfoolery- right?

Let those that wish to doctor an item sell it to those less knowledgeable and make a killing as such may be. A fool and his money..they part only with time and stupidity..

AT and I probably would not want to show this thread to the house to vindicate the toning issue. >>

From a semantics standpoint, since it was "placed" in the cardboard holder, it could no longer be considered uncirculated.

I mean................... if you really want to get technical. >>

Okay ... I'll bite. Sure it can be uncirculated, it was placed in the holder before it was sent into circulation. Heck, it could be worn from handling and technically be uncirculated. It wouldn't be mint state, but uncirculated? Sure.

astrorat · October 10, 2011 1:14PM

Oh yeah ... the coin. It looks really nice and I bet it toned naturally from exposure to the holder. Whas it "intentionally toned" (IT)? Perhaps. But I bet it toned naturally in the "artificial" environment of the holder. So ... um ... I forgot the question. Oh yeah, it looks really nice ... NT.

Myqqy · October 10, 2011 1:24PM

I wouldn't be shocked if that one was "tonally accelerated" in some way.... but i like it, and would love having it in my modest collection...

wondercoin · October 10, 2011 2:39PM

I might investigate a bit further as to why the Franklin Half Dollar next to the pretty quarter is a whitish coin (is that right as I could only see a small portion of it). Perhaps the prior owner can explain that better to you or give you a lead to go on. The original, natural sets tend to often tone on a fairly uniform basis.

Good luck with the coin. If the coin turns out to be NT and is offered for sale, please let me know where it is being sold so I can also keep an eye on it.

Wondercoin

morgandollar1878 · October 10, 2011 2:45PM

Lets see the rest of the set. Personally I am leaning towards AT on that quarter.

uofa1285 · October 10, 2011 2:45PM

In a way, it's a shame the toning is on two sides of one coin...wouldn't it be nice to have one obverse and one reverse toned each like this and the other side basically white? Just a thought.

Twinturbo · October 10, 2011 2:48PM

The double sided enhances the Beauty of this coin.

LotsoLuck · October 10, 2011 4:06PM

I like it

truthteller · October 10, 2011 4:59PM

The toning is pretty. The toning did not come from the cardboard. The toning appears AT, but likely has a 50/50 chance of grading. I don't like the obverse spotting, just doesn't appear correct. The right package of coins will determine a better chance of grading. Good luck.

TRUTH

sparky64 · October 10, 2011 9:31PM

Is it being popped in and out of the cardboard holder when you take the pic?
I see the obv. of the Lincoln & Roosie in both views?
I couldn't comment on AT or NT but I like the look of it.