My first impression was someone stabbed her in the eye with an icepick, if that's just a toning artifact from the pic, I apologize. It DOES show you can't go by a photo.
@Icollecteverything said:
What's going on with the rims? Especially at 9:00 to 11:00 on the obverse.
Nothing. Many coins have those marks. I've seen them on Barbers (all denominations), Morgan dollars, and other reeded edge coins but I don't wish to add anything specific that I cannot visualize at the moment.
@thebeav said:
I've always felt that 'eye-appeal' is nine-tenths of the law.
I concur BUT I also will take the opinion of someone who has actually seen the coin that I respect over that of opinions on an online image 9 out of 10 times.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@brg5658 said: "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."
It appears to me that you have an exceptional eye for key date Barber coins. I agree that is an ugly coin as it stands, and the eye + other spots on the obverse appear to have small gouges. IMO, that coin is going to get conserved. In my limited experience, this is a rare condition for this "slider." If LS does not have a customer for it already, it will be sold at a profit as soon as it is fixed. It is lucky we have the Internet. Decades ago, this coin would have appeared back on the market with beautiful color.
BTW, the coin is graded MS-62 to reflect what it is worth. Apparently, LS knows it is worth more. From what I have read, she has a pretty good track record. It's too bad she never posts here as she could teach us some things.
@thebeav said:
I've always felt that 'eye-appeal' is nine-tenths of the law.
I concur BUT I also will take the opinion of someone who has actually seen the coin that I respect over that of opinions on an online image 9 out of 10 times.
Seems pretty clear that the splotchy patina is being mistaken for a non-existent problem. I thought the coin looked fine but was confused to see everyone ragging on it.
@jmlanzaf said: "That's an MS-62. There's no damage on it that I see."
Look again. The eyebrow has what looks like a gouge. Unconfirmed so forgetaboutit. Confirmed: There is a diagonal scratch from the ear and a scrape at the base of the shield. I would not take the coin down to white due to that, and just lighten the black patches. I'll bet a true artistic "doctor" could turn the pig into a beauty.
'Seems pretty clear that the splotchy patina is being mistaken for a non-existent problem. I thought the coin looked fine but was confused to see everyone ragging on it.'
Luckily it didn't confuse PCGS. That bugger pushed 40K. Wow....
Dave
Always looking for original, better date VF20-VF35 Barber quarters and halves, and a quality beer.
I'm somewhat surprised at the reaction among some. Damage? The mottled color around the eye is the same toning pattern as in the leaves in her hair. Doesn't look like an ice pick.
Since Laura owned this, would you happen to have the certification number? I am wondering if it was added to a registry and if so whether the new owner has an alternative set of images.
@afford said:
I happen to like it great deal. I like the toning, I like the originality. Does Mss Barber's eye and the Eagle's eye look shot out or picked out by "The Birds", sure but we all know it is part photo and part toning. The coin has great meat and excellent eye appeal and I realize that many here love the blast white Barber that had to have been dipped albeit dipped properly compared to an original one that may not have the grandeur of rainbow tong. Frankly I am sick of conventional rainbow toning give me a natural and original piece any day of the week.
I think it is unfair to say or imply that those who hate this coin, myself included, would love a blast white Barber quarter and hate all original coins. I prefer original coins; however, the piece must be both original AND attractive. I hate ugly all together whether it is original or not.
I been seeing your comments, and I am betting it looks better in hand. Crusty original, although I am not always a fan of crusty original, several barber guys are. Its definitely a Mint state coin. I also don't think its corrosion, but that its the toning giving it that look around the eye and such. Scratch on the cheek actually bothers me the most to be honest. If laura bought this , it must have something going for it, I can assure you, they(legend) don't by marginal mediocre coins of this caliber.
That coin is very interesting. It appears to have some damage - a corrosive appearance in some areas - i.e. the eye.... I cannot be sure from the picture if it is a photographic artifact or real. I do agree that Laura does not buy dreck...she has a superb eye for coins. The debate here is certainly split....would love to see more pictures or have input from those who have actually held the coin... Cheers, RickO
The so-called "scrape" on the lower shield looks to me to be roller marks or drawing bench marks or whatever.
I question whether it is Mint State or not, being a picky technical grader, but I do not think that the coin is damaged in any way.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@DIMEMAN said:
Again...we are looking at a pic. I like the coin a lot. The fact that PCGS liked it and L.S. bought it is enough for me.
I just wonder if the nay-sayers here would change their tune....IF....it got the almighty CAC sticker!!??
I wonder what the responses would have been if it was in a NGC holder. As for CAC, I find it interesting that some of the CAC only proponents (not you) are falling all over this coin although it obviously failed CAC. CAC would have only rejected it if the chief complaints here were well founded, namely that: it is either lightly circulated or it has been damaged in some way. If the surfaces are not damaged and there is no wear, there would have been no reason for CAC to decline to sticker it. There are PLENTY of ugly CACed coins out there. With the photos and CAC denial, I wouldn't give this coin the benefit of the doubt.
And I say that the coin "obviously failed CAC" because Laura obviously would have submitted it. We can assume that with a similar degree of certainty that we can that the sun will rise tomorrow.
@amwldcoin said:
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.
I see lousy coin photography for sure. HST, there seems to be some black, terminal toning on this piece. That is not going away with a better image. Nevertheless, decent images and seeing it in hand is a must before laying down that kind of money.
@DIMEMAN said:
Again...we are looking at a pic. I like the coin a lot. The fact that PCGS liked it and L.S. bought it is enough for me.
I just wonder if the nay-sayers here would change their tune....IF....it got the almighty CAC sticker!!??
I wonder what the responses would have been if it was in a NGC holder. As for CAC, I find it interesting that some of the CAC only proponents (not you) are falling all over this coin although it obviously failed CAC. CAC would have only rejected it if the chief complaints here were well founded, namely that: it is either lightly circulated or it has been damaged in some way. If the surfaces are not damaged and there is no wear, there would have been no reason for CAC to decline to sticker it. There are PLENTY of ugly CACed coins out there. With the photos and CAC denial, I wouldn't give this coin the benefit of the doubt.
And I say that the coin "obviously failed CAC" because Laura obviously would have submitted it. We can assume that with a similar degree of certainty that we can that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Could be that it is not back yet from CAC. Even if it failed CAC........I still like it based on what I have already mentioned.
While there may not be anything wrong with this coin, I certainly can tell if a woman is hot from a picture. This girl is not hot to my eye.
Good luck with the sale.
I don't see anything wrong with it as a MS62. This is how many better date or rare seated coins look in mint state....until the dippers get their hands on it and turn that blast white (turning them into either an AU58 or a MS63). So many 1917 SLQ's and 1916 Merc Dimes get this kind of original toning that the majority end up getting dipped out. After 40 years of doing this, so few even recognize this is how they originally came. In that light, it is sort of surprising that the deeply toned James Stack MS67 1901-s quarter has avoided the dipping machinery in search of a MS68 grade after all these years.
What's wrong with the obverse rim from 9 to 2:00? Nothing. Those are luster flow lines/original striking roughness on the rim where the low spots have deeply toned...giving the appearance of acid etching. It's a good sign those rims are rough and craggy...and no doubt loaded up with luster. Many TPG graded MS62 coins are really AU and the worn rims verify that. I'd bet an originally toned MS61 to MS64 1901-s quarter is a tough nut to find. If you want a never dipped, totally original Barber set, you have your work cut out for you.
One of the many good things about this hobby is that not all people like the same thing. I say, to each their own (and this one is definitely not for me).
Vern l It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
@barberkeys said:
One of the many good things about this hobby is that not all people like the same thing. I say, to each their own (and this one is definitely not for me).
@tradedollarnut said:
FYI: JA's opinion is that the coin is:
Not environmentally damaged
properly graded (C)
could even go up a grade if properly dipped
I agree. Once you decide a coin is Unc (even with :cabinet friction") an MS-63 can have detracting marks (scratch) in prime areas. One grading instructor who is an old time conservative grader tells the story that he once graded a coin MS-63 and the finalizer explained that there were 10 levels of Unc. Six to go after MS-63.
@barberkeys said:
One of the many good things about this hobby is that not all people like the same thing. I say, to each their own (and this one is definitely not for me).
@tradedollarnut said:
FYI: JA's opinion is that the coin is:
Not environmentally damaged
properly graded (C)
could even go up a grade if properly dipped
Now I am confused, and I mean that genuinely. The level of ugliness in the original image would not preclude a MS63 grade if there is no wear or damage. As such, if it is only an ugly MS62 "C" coin as is, why would it be a MS63 if dipped? Ugly, crusty toning doesn't appear to have stopped CAC from stickering many other seated and Barber coinage. I wish I could see this piece in hand.
Edited to add: I'm not questioning the veracity of what was said. I hope my post didn't come off that way. That was never my intent.
@Moldnut said:
While there may not be anything wrong with this coin, I certainly can tell if a woman is hot from a picture. This girl is not hot to my eye.
Good luck with the sale.
I think it's a guy.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@barberkeys said:
One of the many good things about this hobby is that not all people like the same thing. I say, to each their own (and this one is definitely not for me).
....and apparently neither was this:
sorry I can't help it.
I much prefer the OP's coin to this one!
This one dipped out and hairlines, the other with terminal black toning. And at least $33K (yikes). And 1200 of these have had grading events at TPG's, surely one could wait to find something without either of these issues? Hmm......
@barberkeys said:
One of the many good things about this hobby is that not all people like the same thing. I say, to each their own (and this one is definitely not for me).
....and apparently neither was this:
sorry I can't help it.
I much prefer the OP's coin to this one!
This one dipped out and hairlines, the other with terminal black toning. And at least $33K (yikes). And 1200 of these have had grading events at TPG's, surely one could wait to find something without either of these issues? Hmm......
Best, SH
Agreed. There was a decent MS63 that sold for $46k 8 years ago. I would rather have that or keep saving up for one of the more original gem unc. coins that have been graded.
I've seen the fabled1901-S 25c PCGS MS68+ CAC both before its dip (PCGS MS66) and after (NGC MS68). 1989'ish
This ain't it.
But Jewel-Luster sprang to mind instantly Could be the 3rd or 4th option on the road to conservation.
edited to add:
Just saw TDN's comment on JA's take. Exactamundo
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Comments
My first impression was someone stabbed her in the eye with an icepick, if that's just a toning artifact from the pic, I apologize. It DOES show you can't go by a photo.
Nothing. Many coins have those marks. I've seen them on Barbers (all denominations), Morgan dollars, and other reeded edge coins but I don't wish to add anything specific that I cannot visualize at the moment.
I concur BUT I also will take the opinion of someone who has actually seen the coin that I respect over that of opinions on an online image 9 out of 10 times.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@brg5658 said: "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."
It appears to me that you have an exceptional eye for key date Barber coins. I agree that is an ugly coin as it stands, and the eye + other spots on the obverse appear to have small gouges. IMO, that coin is going to get conserved. In my limited experience, this is a rare condition for this "slider." If LS does not have a customer for it already, it will be sold at a profit as soon as it is fixed. It is lucky we have the Internet. Decades ago, this coin would have appeared back on the market with beautiful color.
BTW, the coin is graded MS-62 to reflect what it is worth. Apparently, LS knows it is worth more. From what I have read, she has a pretty good track record. It's too bad she never posts here as she could teach us some things.
The number of people here who mistake originality for environmental damage doesn't bode well for the hobby.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Just don't take the word of the seismologists.
Seems pretty clear that the splotchy patina is being mistaken for a non-existent problem. I thought the coin looked fine but was confused to see everyone ragging on it.
Dealing in Canadian and American coins and historical medals.
Insider...she doesn't post here because she was banned, maybe multiple times. Someone else will have to provide details.
She doesn't post here because it's not worth the time or effort. She is unbanned.
Well, hopefully she lurks. Hi Laura.
@jmlanzaf said: "That's an MS-62. There's no damage on it that I see."
Look again. The eyebrow has what looks like a gouge. Unconfirmed so forgetaboutit. Confirmed: There is a diagonal scratch from the ear and a scrape at the base of the shield. I would not take the coin down to white due to that, and just lighten the black patches. I'll bet a true artistic "doctor" could turn the pig into a beauty.
'Seems pretty clear that the splotchy patina is being mistaken for a non-existent problem. I thought the coin looked fine but was confused to see everyone ragging on it.'
Luckily it didn't confuse PCGS. That bugger pushed 40K. Wow....
Dave
I'm somewhat surprised at the reaction among some. Damage? The mottled color around the eye is the same toning pattern as in the leaves in her hair. Doesn't look like an ice pick.
Looks like a decent, original coin.
This thread reminds me of the children's fairy tale about the emperor having no clothes.
@tradedollarnut
Since Laura owned this, would you happen to have the certification number? I am wondering if it was added to a registry and if so whether the new owner has an alternative set of images.
Does anyone have any other numismatic Rorschach tests available for another thread? This was actually interesting...
I think it is unfair to say or imply that those who hate this coin, myself included, would love a blast white Barber quarter and hate all original coins. I prefer original coins; however, the piece must be both original AND attractive. I hate ugly all together whether it is original or not.
I been seeing your comments, and I am betting it looks better in hand. Crusty original, although I am not always a fan of crusty original, several barber guys are. Its definitely a Mint state coin. I also don't think its corrosion, but that its the toning giving it that look around the eye and such. Scratch on the cheek actually bothers me the most to be honest. If laura bought this , it must have something going for it, I can assure you, they(legend) don't by marginal mediocre coins of this caliber.
That coin is very interesting. It appears to have some damage - a corrosive appearance in some areas - i.e. the eye.... I cannot be sure from the picture if it is a photographic artifact or real. I do agree that Laura does not buy dreck...she has a superb eye for coins. The debate here is certainly split....would love to see more pictures or have input from those who have actually held the coin... Cheers, RickO
White and gold or black and blue?
Dealing in Canadian and American coins and historical medals.
Again...we are looking at a pic. I like the coin a lot. The fact that PCGS liked it and L.S. bought it is enough for me.
I just wonder if the nay-sayers here would change their tune....IF....it got the almighty CAC sticker!!??
Adjustment marks on reverse...
The so-called "scrape" on the lower shield looks to me to be roller marks or drawing bench marks or whatever.
I question whether it is Mint State or not, being a picky technical grader, but I do not think that the coin is damaged in any way.
@earlycoins
@CaptHenway
Disagree. However, the fact that this is an "S" mint and the lines cross over the weak arrow flights lends credence to your opinions.
Not me!
Don't you think you could be wrong based on the fact that she (LS) has seen the coin in hand and you are looking at a pic??
Actually Brandon, you would be surprised to find out that Legend indeed has leverage in the tea market........
Best, SH
I wonder what the responses would have been if it was in a NGC holder. As for CAC, I find it interesting that some of the CAC only proponents (not you) are falling all over this coin although it obviously failed CAC. CAC would have only rejected it if the chief complaints here were well founded, namely that: it is either lightly circulated or it has been damaged in some way. If the surfaces are not damaged and there is no wear, there would have been no reason for CAC to decline to sticker it. There are PLENTY of ugly CACed coins out there. With the photos and CAC denial, I wouldn't give this coin the benefit of the doubt.
And I say that the coin "obviously failed CAC" because Laura obviously would have submitted it. We can assume that with a similar degree of certainty that we can that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I see lousy coin photography for sure. HST, there seems to be some black, terminal toning on this piece. That is not going away with a better image. Nevertheless, decent images and seeing it in hand is a must before laying down that kind of money.
Best, SH
Could be that it is not back yet from CAC. Even if it failed CAC........I still like it based on what I have already mentioned.
I would take it in a heartbeat.
FYI: JA's opinion is that the coin is:
Not environmentally damaged
properly graded (C)
could even go up a grade if properly dipped
While there may not be anything wrong with this coin, I certainly can tell if a woman is hot from a picture. This girl is not hot to my eye.
Good luck with the sale.
EAC 6024
I sure as heck would not dip that coin! She's a beauty as is. JMHO.
As I said before...My opinions are based on the pictures and not in hand. No one makes a decision for me as to whether I like a coin or not!
I posted a response but decided I had a hard time understanding exactly what was being said. Erased.
I don't see anything wrong with it as a MS62. This is how many better date or rare seated coins look in mint state....until the dippers get their hands on it and turn that blast white (turning them into either an AU58 or a MS63). So many 1917 SLQ's and 1916 Merc Dimes get this kind of original toning that the majority end up getting dipped out. After 40 years of doing this, so few even recognize this is how they originally came. In that light, it is sort of surprising that the deeply toned James Stack MS67 1901-s quarter has avoided the dipping machinery in search of a MS68 grade after all these years.
What's wrong with the obverse rim from 9 to 2:00? Nothing. Those are luster flow lines/original striking roughness on the rim where the low spots have deeply toned...giving the appearance of acid etching. It's a good sign those rims are rough and craggy...and no doubt loaded up with luster. Many TPG graded MS62 coins are really AU and the worn rims verify that. I'd bet an originally toned MS61 to MS64 1901-s quarter is a tough nut to find. If you want a never dipped, totally original Barber set, you have your work cut out for you.
One of the many good things about this hobby is that not all people like the same thing. I say, to each their own (and this one is definitely not for me).
l
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
....and apparently neither was this:
sorry I can't help it.
I agree. Once you decide a coin is Unc (even with :cabinet friction") an MS-63 can have detracting marks (scratch) in prime areas. One grading instructor who is an old time conservative grader tells the story that he once graded a coin MS-63 and the finalizer explained that there were 10 levels of Unc. Six to go after MS-63.
I much prefer the OP's coin to this one!
I think it's a bunch of bag marks with unusual toning.
Is there a cert number so we can see if there's a TrueView?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Now I am confused, and I mean that genuinely. The level of ugliness in the original image would not preclude a MS63 grade if there is no wear or damage. As such, if it is only an ugly MS62 "C" coin as is, why would it be a MS63 if dipped? Ugly, crusty toning doesn't appear to have stopped CAC from stickering many other seated and Barber coinage. I wish I could see this piece in hand.
Edited to add: I'm not questioning the veracity of what was said. I hope my post didn't come off that way. That was never my intent.
I think it's a guy.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
T
This one dipped out and hairlines, the other with terminal black toning. And at least $33K (yikes). And 1200 of these have had grading events at TPG's, surely one could wait to find something without either of these issues? Hmm......
Best, SH
Agreed. There was a decent MS63 that sold for $46k 8 years ago. I would rather have that or keep saving up for one of the more original gem unc. coins that have been graded.
I must say, these pics have been studied more then the Zapruder film!
I still love this 01-S...keep it away from the doctors!
Dave
KK - No, neither was yours (back when you owned it).
l
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
I've seen the fabled1901-S 25c PCGS MS68+ CAC both before its dip (PCGS MS66) and after (NGC MS68). 1989'ish
Could be the 3rd or 4th option on the road to conservation. 
This ain't it.
But Jewel-Luster sprang to mind instantly
edited to add:
Just saw TDN's comment on JA's take. Exactamundo
And does anyone wonder why there is so much crap in slabs?
l
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.