GTG - 1896-S barber quarter, caution: "dirty" obv
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Difficult to make a call without seeing the coin in-hand. The "dirt" marks are distracting and could be hiding some wear. If I had to guess I'd say MS-62.
Not a coin that I would want.
If they were just giving it away, I'm sure I could find a spot in my collection.
My initial impression was 63.
Me neither, but you don't see coins like this for sale but once in a blue moon.
I wanted one & had to settle one in an anacs holder.
63 and better than most people could ever hope for
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
....& it looks original
I think it could be "cleaned up"
Looks NICE to me. A tough date; I'll guess 63.
AU-58 based primarily on the light scratch on Miss Liberty’s Upper Cheekbone area, and what I interpret to be very light circulation rub on the Eagle’s Neck & head.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
I'm having trouble with the photo. Looks like an old grey-scale you might see printed in a book. Sucked all the life out of the coin(?) Sure appear pretty mark free, though....
Poor image. Unable to see luster although I assume it's full of it.
58.
a 58.
BHNC #203
62
I grade it AU-58, but it's probably in an MS-62 or 63 holder.
@Stuart said: "AU-58 based primarily on the light scratch on Miss Liberty’s Upper Cheekbone area, and what I interpret to be very light circulation rub on the Eagle’s Neck & head."
No, argument here. Take this as just an opinion - given as if you and I were in a grading class as that's where I got this idea. IMO the ONLY thing that can take coin from MS to AU is friction from whatever the cause. Therefore, a scratch, a hole, a test mark on the rim, etc. on a coin do not affect its "technical" grade. Yeah, all those affect the coin's value so very beat-up true Unc's are often called AU - that only counts in the "real world" outside of class.
While I see the tiny amount of friction you point out on the reverse, a much larger area of rub where the luster is gone is on the cheek under the dirt.
IMO, due to the value of this coin, it is graded AU-58 and this date in such a high grade must be very difficult to find. If it were raw, I'd grade it AU-58 and price it as a MS-63. I'll bet someone would buy it at my price just to clean it up!
@dogwood said: "Poor image. Unable to see luster although I assume it's full of it. 58."
I would not go so far as to call the image poor. The image is not perfect but it's pretty good - just a little washed out. Look at the fields. All the "white" you see is the luster. Start at 5 o'clock. You can trase the luster across the field and up on to the neck until it hits the gray worn spot.
The technical grade might be AU-58 if there is any luster under the dirt or whatever it is, but to me the market grade would be AU-50 because it is "esthetically challenged.”
Personally not a coin I would buy, but a lot of details are present!
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
Technically AU58. With negative eye appealing, my guess will be AU55 (or AU53).
55-58
My thoughts also.
Apparently the "dirt" does cover up wear. A good example of why grading by photos can be dangerous.
Late to the party... would have said 58..... Not sure what the 'dirt' is on the obverse. I would have given it an acetone bath... likely covering some wear though.... Cheers, RickO
@ricko said: "...would have said 58..... Not sure what the 'dirt' is on the obverse. I would have given it an acetone bath... likely covering some wear though...."
Agree with your grade; however, no acetone! Dirt covering a luster loss looks much better than a dull, gray, patch of friction in a prime focal area!
@Insider2 You are correct... I just have an aversion to dirt.... I can tolerate wear although graders do not like it. Cheers, RickO