Think This Will 66 or shot 67???

harveypb · May 30, 2012 5:30AM

Have a look at this 1957 Reverse B quarter. Think it might grade MS66 or 67??
Thanks for your opinions. Harvey

Meltdown · May 30, 2012 5:35AM

It looks clean, but my initial thought was there is just too much tarnish for it to grade past 66... likely PF65.

harveypb · May 30, 2012 5:39AM

Its a Business strike, not a proof...

Peacemonkey · May 30, 2012 5:40AM

When people say "impossible to grade from pics" it is usually a knee jerk reaction that has been programmed in their minds for 20 years. It is possible to grade from pics with the talents of some of the better photographers having evolved in the past 3 years alone.

But for these kind of pics, that saying fits. Especially with that kind of toning which clouds the surface.

Now that being said, if theres no rub, I think its a 65. Theres appears to be a lot going on all over GWs neck.

Meltdown · May 30, 2012 5:43AM

<< Its a Business strike, not a proof... >>

D'oh.

Well then, it does look clean but I think there's too much tarnish to tell for sure from the photos. How's the luster?

keyman64 · May 30, 2012 5:45AM

MS67 requires great luster in my experience and I just don't see it in these pics. In regards to marks on the coin, I don't see many which is good...but this may be due to the quality of the photos, not sure. In regards to strike, I am not sure if I see a weak strike or a coin that is a bit on the circulated realm.

Not sure based on all of that.

lcoopie · May 30, 2012 5:45AM

"impossible to grade from pics"

harveypb · May 30, 2012 5:48AM

Lustre appears to be subdued by the toning.

291fifth · May 30, 2012 5:53AM

The photos are of too poor a quality to make any grading decision.

harveypb · May 30, 2012 6:00AM

Here's more photos. Hopefully better.

LanceNewmanOCC · May 30, 2012 6:03AM

<< "impossible to grade from pics" >>

i agree.

usually coins with these surface don't grade too high, but some of the monsters i've seen do have similar toning
.

CarlWohlforth · May 30, 2012 6:07AM

The photo appears pixelated.

Keyman expressed my thoughts. I'll risk a guess though. I'll say 66 unless there really is a lot more luster than I can imagine.

Broadstruck · May 30, 2012 6:26AM

Second pics are better but you really need to remove it from the holder.

panther · May 30, 2012 6:46AM

I have sent in Type B's that were flawless , And came back MS-64 and 65 . My guess was because of the spotty toning.

Here Is one that came back MS-67

djdilliodon · May 30, 2012 6:51AM

My guess is it will go 66. Pcgs doesn't hand out 67's on washingtons that easy. You may have one that is technically clean enough for the 67 grade but they look for booming luster to go with it. If the color is really nice they may make an acception for eye appeal and give a break if the luster is a little muted.

michiganboy · May 30, 2012 7:15AM

OP's coin looks like it has pitting to me like either some pvc damage or corrosion, but it could just be the pixalated photo.

DIMEMAN · May 30, 2012 7:24AM

Based on the pics I would not call it higher than 64, but in hand it may be very nice.

coinkat · May 30, 2012 8:04AM

not seeing a 66

Staircoins · May 30, 2012 8:15AM

<< not seeing a 66 >>

deltadimeman · May 30, 2012 8:17AM

ms65 at pcgs

NewParadigm · May 30, 2012 8:22AM

65...@ the best.

Nice hints of color though.

tradedollarnut · May 30, 2012 8:46AM

IMO, the coin will be penalized for the drab toning. 65 at best.

georgiacop50 · May 30, 2012 9:15AM

Easily 66, possibly better.

lloydmincy · May 30, 2012 10:39AM

65 tops. Compared to that 67, even with the so-so pics, not even close. Hope I am wrong for your sake!!!

golden · May 30, 2012 10:39AM

I do not see 66.

Coppercolor · May 30, 2012 11:20AM

How's this.....

I will bet my last remaining 57 Type B PGCS MS66 washington that IMO is a 65, that this washington will grade 66

I will NOT bet my last remaining 57 Type B PCGS66 washington that IMO is a 67, this this washington will grade 66

Mint set Washington's tend to settle into 66 holders unless they've been burned by the paper or have post mint damage.

Edited because my post was stupid

NotSure · May 30, 2012 11:33AM

No 67......I don't even think it'll 66. They are grading these awfully tough, and that coin will come back in a 65 holder, IMO.

dpoole · May 30, 2012 12:03PM

Mint toning. PCGS in my experience doesn't reward it. It'd be graded altogether on the technical merits. 1957 is a lousy year for strikes, so it'd be tough enough to get a 66 on that coin. Just IMHO.

bestclser1 · May 30, 2012 1:38PM

<< 

<< "impossible to grade from pics" >>

i agree. YOU CANT GRADE FROM PICS!

usually coins with these surface don't grade too high, but some of the monsters i've seen do have similar toning
. >>

Tiny · May 30, 2012 2:11PM

I think it is hard to get a MS66 or 67 from a TPG on a coin that is not Bright White only
because graders are not able to look past tone and into the deepth of the coin and see
the quality of the coin. In my opinion this one would not get a 66 or 67 rather a 64 or 65
which it might be.

oreville · May 30, 2012 4:01PM

65

CollectingMachine · May 30, 2012 4:49PM

don't think it'll get a 67 IMO

copperhunter · May 31, 2012 12:19AM

I will say 64 or 65.

Bankerbob56 · May 31, 2012 12:26AM

<< Mint toning. PCGS in my experience doesn't reward it. It'd be graded altogether on the technical merits. 1957 is a lousy year for strikes, so it'd be tough enough to get a 66 on that coin. Just IMHO. >>

Not much eye appeal IMHO.............

I'd say a 65 would be proper. I avoid coins with this type of toning!

harveypb · May 31, 2012 1:35AM

I bought the coin on Ebay last week for $6.00

messydesk · May 31, 2012 1:54AM

The toning kills this coin. 65, tops.

Think This Will 66 or shot 67???

Comments

Leave a Comment