Options
How the heck did this 01-S quarter get graded as an ms62?
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
Comments
Post Mint Damage. Unfortunate, since otherwise it is a good looking, high grade circulated specimen.
Textbook Environmental Damagae!
NIce coin if you can balance that of what you see. Too bad that happened.
What does the holder say?
Lot 320 Goldberg pre 9/17 LB Auction
"1901-S. PCGS graded MS-62. Well struck with lovely natural toning on both sides. The key date to this series. Just graded for the first time. A great looking Rarity. Only 72,664 struck. Pop 2; 30 finer at PCGS.
The coin came in too late to be sent to CAC. If time permits, we may send it out for the green sticker, and if approved, we'll post the result on our website (PCGS # 5630) Estimate Value $30,000 - UP "
http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=169&sale=100&lot=320
The desperation in some "quarters" is becoming palpable.
It looks to have the meat of an AU58, but looks to have environmental image.
That's convenient. Do they really think it has a chance at a sticker?
Not sure I see wear, but I definitely see some form of damage.
Of course not....It's called a 'sales pitch'.......
I told you that BB gun wasn't a toy!
That would only help. This one looks like it needs to be taken out of its misery.
Rarity points?
What's going on with the rims? Especially at 9:00 to 11:00 on the obverse.
Successful BST deals with mustangt and jesbroken. Now EVERYTHING is for sale.
Wtf? Legend bought this coin - laura thinks it's awesome. Please please please stop denigrating coins off an image.
I guess this means that the piece has already been to CAC.
So the real question is: If John Albanese presumably doesn't like it, why are we unreasonable in denigrating a seeming lackluster piece? I think Laura would pretty much agree that if a high dollar coin isn't stickered, there IS a good reason for it.
If she just bought it at the sale, it would not have been to CAC yet.
It must be an optical illusion around the eye if it is graded 62 and Laura likes it.
It is for sale at an auction house. Auction houses usually require that the coins be consigned weeks in advance of the sale.
Perhaps you should just click on the listing and then you will most likely regret the uninformed posts.
No, not really unless I am missing something. There is no pricing data nor are there auction records listed in Coin Facts for AU58 to MS62. The price spread is very narrow. The coin sold for $37,600 which could have meant that it was a solid MS62 (Price Guide Value $39k for MS62) or that it was a dumpy coin that sold for a couple grand more than the last few AU55s which sold in the $32k-$33k range with the last AU55 selling for $44k.
What grade would it receive if the last digit in the date was a "0" and not a "1"?
That's an MS-62. There's no damage on it that I see. I think some folks are reading too much into the toning. Granted, in the photos it appears to make the surface look textured, but there are just little spots of toning not pits.
I've always felt that 'eye-appeal' is nine-tenths of the law.
Sometimes you have to call the ugly baby...ugly.
Key date or not...pitiful.
"Position is nine-tenths of the law"
Archie Bunker
http://www.archiebunkerquotes.com/7.html
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Is it for sale?
No offense...but why would you say this? I shouldn't call a kettle black even though it is from what I see? Of course opinions can change once viewed in hand but from what I see in that picture if I submitted it I would get the Genny ED or corroded designation!
That one would be the nicest Barber quarter in my set! She could leave cracker crumbs in my Dansco, anyday -I would NOT mind.
Looks correctly graded to me. No wear. Splotchy toning that some would not like. I would much rather have this coin than a dipped out one made to look 64-65.
Just ugly.
I don't care for dipped out coins, but I would rather have a dipped coin than one that looks to be environmentally damaged. The surface looks pitted from the images.
One might tell me to schedule an appointment with an optometrist, but the second I saw this image, my reaction was positive.
Certainly not dazzling eye-appeal, but the toning nicely accentuates the bold details in Liberty's hair, wreath and eagle's feathers.
Man, I got 2 disagrees on a nice original coin comment.
I haven't disagreed with you (officially) on it yet, but I see definite wear all over that coin.
Maybe that's what the disagreers are saying.
So.....if you came across this coin (raw) in a 2x2 and were assured of its authenticity, what would you think of it?
And......?
So we are not supposed to comment on a coin because someone bought it and thinks it is awesome?
OK.
Dimeman 1) The coin is damaged, and 2) there is some wear or poor striking on both sides. This coin would not be graded nearly this high if it were a common date and mint combination, and would be a details coin. I tend to think this coin spent some time in the ground.
I'm certainly not a Homey for Legend. But they did not get to where they are today buying overgraded damaged coins. They saw the coin in hand and liked it. Looking at the pic I like it. And no I would not spend that kind of money on a raw coin. But I trust PCGS, Legend and myself (based on pic) enough to like this coin. I think some of you think you are seeing something that is not there. And on grading I find that PCGS is tougher not easier on coins where there is a big spread between grades.
JMHO
A big time coin and bullion dealer, recently deceased, once told me "Everybody makes mistakes, I make mistakes. But hey, when I do, I throw the thing in my showcase with a price on it, and somebody almost always comes along and bails me out."
What does Legend's/Laura's opinion of this coin have to do with the price of tea in China?
The coin obverse is ugly by any stretch of the imagination, unless the coin she bought isn't the one in the OP. The reverse is fine to my eye...but nothing to write home about.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Huh? Seems obvious- because she's the only one that's seen it in hand? The rest are pontificating off an image
This is a good example why I never buy a coin based on an image. I'd have to see this coin in hand. I find the image to be very unattractive. It appears there is some sort of secondary toning on the coin.
I have never purchased a coin in MS 62. Many in that grade I've seen IMO are sliders, and not really Unc. The few I've seen that are Uncs. were butt ugly. A number of CC Morgans from the mint sales of 1979 and 1980, plus a lifeless 1810 Classic Large Cent come to mind.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Expensive coin. This would be a good opportunity to check the CAC database of failed submissions. Alas....that service is not available.
what TDN said. I guess we all see what we see, I see a really poor image.
For Barber coinage, that isn't a bad Unc. IMO. But of course in hand inspection would be critical.
I'm thinking it's just ugly toning and the picture isn't helping anything...
My YouTube Channel
Goldberg's pictures aren't always the best. If our host thought it was a 62 the coin must have something going for it besides rarity.
it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide
I actually like it...most of the low mint state 01-S quarters which I've seen are over-dipped, and ugly white. This one is way better!
Dave
Is it just me or does across the eye and other areas appear to have encrustations from corrosion?
It does, and I don't think those are artifacts. I have seen some awful coin photography, but I have never seen corrosion looking artifacts in an image before.