Some More Barber Quarters--Grades Please

Lehigh96

Earlier this week, I asked everyone to grade my 1897 Barber Quarter. Most members voted MS64/65. The photo below shows 8 AU/BU Barber Quarters from my Dansco collection including the 1897. Please give me your opinion on the grades of these coins. Comments will be helpful as well. For example, will the rim ding cause a genuine grade for the 1892? Will any bag for improper cleaning?











I do feel the need to state that I already know that all of these coins have been dipped at some point in their history and was aware of that when I purchased them.

Thanks for your time!

STONE

The 1894-O will probably bag, but as for the rest:

1892 = 63
1892-O = 63/64
1894-O = AU-53, net graded, if not bodybagged
1900 = MS-61/AU-58
1903 = MS-62
1911 = MS-63
1912 = MS-63

georgiacop50

94-O is the only one that jumps out at me as says, "Jenny". The 92-O would be a real sweet coin if it was only left original (but how many times have you said THAT re a barber!)

rhedden

1892 = 63
1892-O = MS62 or Genuine. Obverse has possible surface issues; may be just the photo, but I'm not seeing full BU luster.
1894-O = Genuine; AU50 details, but cleaning is too obvious.
1900 = AU58
1903 = MS62
1911 = MS62
1912 = MS62

shorecoll

I'm not a quarter guy but the small scratches on the 1900 might be from an old cleaning. Whether it would bag? Who knows?

Lehigh96

Anyone else want to share their opinion?

Twinturbo

I would say the AU are the 1900 and 1903 (look at her high points, slight rubbing)
1894-o may be gennie due to pin holes...
Also 1900 would gennie due to old cleaning IMO

pursuitofliberty

Without seeing them in hand, and sans the 97, which is too small to tell but looks 63

62
55
harshly cleaned, net 30
58
60
60
62

MikeInFL

Hi Lehigh. I hope you are well. Nice coins.

63
either a PL 64 or a dipped out Genuine
cleaned
58
63
64
63

darktone

Sorry but I don't think any are mint state. They are all white from dipping but all look to have wear on the face. My guess is you bought these all from the same dealer?

PQueue

I agree with darktone, not a single Unc. in the lot.

MFH

I am somewhat suspect about the 1900 Philadelphia issue.
Looks like it may have been cleaned. My friend Todd is very
harsh on the 1894-O - I would guest mate it as AU 53, at best.

Otherwise, I agree with the two posts above, not a MS in the group
and most in the 55 area. Still, not a bad group and I wouldn't worry
about the 1892-Philadelphia issue, it's a bad rim knock, but it should
still grade - as a 55.

DIMEMAN

The Barber Man has spoken.

Lehigh96

<< <i>I am somewhat suspect about the 1900 Philadelphia issue.
Looks like it may have been cleaned. My friend Todd is very
harsh on the 1894-O - I would guest mate it as AU 53, at best.

Otherwise, I agree with the two posts above, not a MS in the group
and most in the 55 area. Still, not a bad group and I wouldn't worry
about the 1892-Philadelphia issue, it's a bad rim knock, but it should
still grade - as a 55. >>



Okay, you guys have now confused me. Are you saying that there is legitimate wear on the cheek of all of the coins or that they will silently net grade to AU as a result of overdipping?

@ Darktone, I bought them all from different places.

darktone

They all have a similiar look to them. Yes they all have wear. What they would grade at PCGS is hard to tell from the pics but the ones that do grade will be in the mid AU area in my opinion.

roadrunner

I would agree that all the cheeks look flatish and scuffy. Even the 1897 doesn't quite look "full" enough from the small photo. But that's one I'd rather see in hand
before making judgement.

roadrunner

MFH

Lehigh96,

Stop by Holsonbake Numismatics table [ # unknown at the present ] if you are coming to FUN.
There will be a display of nice AU Barber Quarters for you to examine and compare to your coins.

Looking forward to meeting you.