1932 D Washington Quarter - Updated with in hand photos

Bruceswar · January 23, 2012 11:27AM

Sooo I pulled the trigger on a 32 D recently for my personal collection. What do you grade the coin? I will reveal my thoughts later.

SeattleSlammer · January 23, 2012 11:28AM

Looks very lustrous..... 65?

NewParadigm · January 23, 2012 11:28AM

AU 58

Maybe it is the light intensity that is bleaching out the strength of the strike - especially on the reverse.

Very nice!

kimber45ACP · January 23, 2012 11:30AM

64?

DRUNNER · January 23, 2012 11:32AM

Hard to tell for sure . . the pic is washing out due to the brightness. But . . . I love what I see. Hard to tell strike quality with the overdone luster . .but MS64???

Drunner

(edited for spelling)

Broadstruck · January 23, 2012 11:32AM

<< Maybe it is the light intensity that is bleaching out the details.

Very nice! >>

Tough images to ponder a grade guess from.

LotsoLuck · January 23, 2012 11:34AM

Added MM? Sure looks like it from the pics, I hope not. My wag on the grade is 65

Coppercolor · January 23, 2012 11:34AM

Great key date coin.

I'd predict the cheek/chin grazes and tan haze (dip residue?) will take you to MS63, the strong reverse could bump it up to 64.

Buzzybest · January 23, 2012 11:35AM

<< AU 58

Maybe it is the light intensity that is bleaching out the strength of the strike - especially on the reverse.

Very nice![/q
You're right. I can see the fingerprints as well.

JupitarCoins · January 23, 2012 11:41AM

The mintmark looks a little suspicious from the pic.
Are you its genuine?

stealer · January 23, 2012 11:42AM

MM sure looks like it has a scraped area around it.

Bruceswar · January 23, 2012 11:50AM

Seller photos not mine. I will take some when it comes in. With that said, I think the mint mark is ok. Edited to add I think the coin is over lit and washing out some of the details.

cucamongacoin · January 23, 2012 11:51AM

Nice, original 65, unless the brightness is masking some hairlines.

Rampage · January 23, 2012 11:55AM

There is nothing wrong with that mint mark. The coin is fine. As for grade, hard to grade anything with an image like that. But, with that image, I am confident the coin is a genuine 1932-D.

Bruceswar · January 23, 2012 11:56AM

<< There is nothing wrong with that mint mark. The coin is fine. As for grade, hard to grade anything with an image like that. But, with that image, I am confident the coin is a genuine 1932-D. >>

That makes 2 of us. I gambled a bit as I knew the image was not the best for grading, but if it is a dog, I have a return policy.

Bruceswar · January 23, 2012 12:04PM

<< 

<< AU 58

Maybe it is the light intensity that is bleaching out the strength of the strike - especially on the reverse.

Very nice![/q
You're right. I can see the fingerprints as well. >>

Yeah looks like a possible light finger print. My fingers are crossed for sure.

NewParadigm · January 23, 2012 12:08PM

Looks good!

AnkurJ · January 23, 2012 12:32PM

63

seanq · January 23, 2012 12:35PM

I'd WAG it for a 64 from the photos, but I think it will not grade due to the cut in the rim on the reverse below the D of DOLLAR.

Sean Reynolds

Bruceswar · January 23, 2012 12:37PM

<< I'd WAG it for a 64 from the photos, but I think it will not grade due to the cut in the rim on the reverse below the D of DOLLAR.

Sean Reynolds >>

I think that rim bump is trivial and it will grade based on these photos. Though what do I know about Washingtons?

stealer · January 23, 2012 12:40PM

<< I'd WAG it for a 64 from the photos, but I think it will not grade due to the cut in the rim on the reverse below the D of DOLLAR.

Sean Reynolds >>

That cut doesn't look nearly deep enough to be BB'd

nwcoast · January 23, 2012 1:00PM

Looks 63-64 to me too....
Very nice.

dogwood · January 23, 2012 1:20PM

I see hairlines.
Trying to imagine they are die polish marks. I hope that's all they are. Curses to super close-up images!
It's a very pretty coin.
65.

metalmeister · January 23, 2012 1:26PM

Congrats! I need that date also in high grade.
65

SeattleSlammer · January 23, 2012 1:28PM

So I was the first in with 65.......am I ....... The Winner?

I've PM'd you my shipping address. Thanks much!

Bruceswar · January 23, 2012 1:47PM

<< So I was the first in with 65.......am I ....... The Winner?

I've PM'd you my shipping address. Thanks much! >>

65 I can dream? This coin is going to look nice in my set I think.

UtahCoin · January 23, 2012 9:05PM

From the picture, the MM looks a little dubious.

291fifth · January 23, 2012 9:17PM

Can't tell much from those photos ... poorly lit.

giorgio11 · January 23, 2012 10:17PM

<< The mintmark looks a little suspicious from the pic.
Are you its genuine? >>

Regarding the mintmarks on 1932-D and 1932-S quarters, the old saying goes, "If it looks bad it's good, if it looks good it's bad." I think this piece is fine. I'm guessing MS63.

relicsncoins · January 24, 2012 12:32AM

I had it on my watch list as well. From the photos, I would say 64 looks about right.

BillJones · January 24, 2012 12:35AM

MS-63. The hits on the obverse can't be missed, and you should not have that situation with a coin that is graded higher.

DIMEMAN · January 24, 2012 12:52AM

Looks like a pretty nice 32-D to me, but I don't know squat about Washies.

If it were a Merc. it would be a 60-62.

Tiny · January 24, 2012 1:19AM

Picture is hard to judge the grade. I see the seller said it was 63-64 and might be that but the 5% re-stocking fee
would bug me. You got a good deal if it is as nice as I hope it is for you. The two keys for my Washington set, 36 &
38 Ds I bought PCGS slabed and cracked them out and put them in a Dansco with the others. They all have a nice
even color with age in the holder. I agree with mint mark as for, looks bad is real and looks real is bad.
Nice Looking Washington

telephoto1 · January 24, 2012 1:32AM

Real with correct MM imo. Judging strictly by the pics it certainly looks like it has 65 detail but even if the lighting isn't masking something, the rim nick may be problematic.

Cocoinut · January 24, 2012 1:43AM

The lighting is so poor that it could keep marks from showing in the photo, but it looks like a decent, genuine MS coin. I'd guess it's a 64.

Jim

Bruceswar · January 24, 2012 3:21AM

<< Picture is hard to judge the grade. I see the seller said it was 63-64 and might be that but the 5% re-stocking fee
would bug me. You got a good deal if it is as nice as I hope it is for you. The two keys for my Washington set, 36 &
38 Ds I bought PCGS slabed and cracked them out and put them in a Dansco with the others. They all have a nice
even color with age in the holder. I agree with mint mark as for, looks bad is real and looks real is bad.
Nice Looking Washington >>

Sellers can say just about anything. We shall see what it looks like in hand.

Bruceswar · January 24, 2012 3:24AM

<< I had it on my watch list as well. From the photos, I would say 64 looks about right. >>

I really thought I was gonna get snipped or at least someone bid against me at the end. Though I put a nuke bid on it, so we would have clashed.

panther · January 24, 2012 4:16AM

I would think AU-58 with hairlines
If a dealer selling a key date as an MS-64 ,
I would think they would pay the gradeing fees for a $1500.00 coin.

I hope I am wrong

telephoto1 · January 24, 2012 6:55AM

<< I would think AU-58 with hairlines
If a dealer selling a key date as an MS-64 ,
I would think they would pay the gradeing fees for a $1500.00 coin.

I hope I am wrong >>

Common sense post of the thread...

I'm curious to hear about what it looks like in hand.

coolest · January 24, 2012 7:06AM

Looks like a gem which makes it very suspisious that it is not already in a holder.
Who would sell a raw 32-D that might grade 65?
What did you pay?

DennisH · January 24, 2012 7:08AM

63... but I don't know Washingtons.

kaz · January 24, 2012 8:22AM

almost looks like a little high point rub, on the rev anyway.. if so, 58; if not, 63 (I see a couple of dings on the 1 in the date which I think is one of those critical areas). MHO.

TWQG · January 24, 2012 8:27AM

Did you see the coin in hand before purchasing? Based on those pictures, the coin shows wear on the high points.

Bruceswar · January 24, 2012 10:14AM

<< Looks like a gem which makes it very suspisious that it is not already in a holder.
Who would sell a raw 32-D that might grade 65?
What did you pay? >>

I do not think the coin will grade MS 65. Many unc coins get sold raw daily. It is not uncommon to see this happening.

@ twog - This was an online purchase with a return policy. I will see what it looks like in hand once I get it.

Bruceswar · January 26, 2012 8:24AM

Just got home to my package. I am happy to report the coin looks every bit of MS64! I am really excited right now. Photos to come soon.

relicsncoins · January 26, 2012 8:30AM

<< Just got home to my package. I am happy to report the coin looks every bit of MS64! I am really excited right now. Photos to come soon. >>

Good to hear, look forward to your photos.

Bruceswar · January 26, 2012 8:31AM

I should add this coin has a super thick original looking skin!

cmerlo1 · January 26, 2012 9:12AM

I like it as a 64+...

deltadimeman · January 26, 2012 9:16AM

i'm in the ms64 camp ?

greatnortherncoin · January 26, 2012 9:24AM

added D

robertpr · January 26, 2012 10:01AM

The mintmarks on genuine 32-d's will be found within a slight depression; as on this coin.

I would grade this as a 64, but due to the distracting dark-colored hit on the neck, below the hair curls, will bring it down a grade to a 63. It is my experience that marks such as this always lower the grade. The strike looks pretty weak too, but that's likely due to the lighting.

1932 D Washington Quarter - Updated with in hand photos

Comments

Leave a Comment