Crack it out? 1935-S MS66 Washington Quarter
Matt04
Posts: 312 ✭✭✭
I recently obtained this incredible 1935-S Washington Quarter for my Personal Collection. It immediately caught my attention! The luster and originality was undeniable & the fact it was in an older NGC holder. Over the past year with the help of many fellow collectors on here I have learned to grade & understand what to look out for when it comes to WQ's.
From my own experience and opinion, Its hard to come by real, real nice blast white 1930's quarters in higher grades, especially ones with nearly perfectly clear fields with none or minimal hits, great luster & minimal marks on Washington. For me these are points I look at when deciding if it fits my criteria to be seen as a well graded or nice Washington Quarter.
Graders, would this be seen as at least a 66? My opinion is that it has a shot at getting a 66+ based on the luster. It is usually the case that the reverse is nicer than the obverse from what I have seen in the past, but on this coin it is the complete opposite. There are a number of hits on the eagle on the reverse and on its wing. Since this is on the reverse, would that be less of an issue because the obverse is much nicer?
I am not sure how true this is, but a dealer once told me graders see it as 80 percent obverse and 20 percent reverse. In addition, an area of concern I have, which I brought up to, is the haze on the obverse. He stated this is consistent with what is seen on coins from the 1930s. Upon closer inspection there are small specks of greenish patina and a fingerprint mark on this haze. Is this a concern for being PVC?
All my Washington Quarters are PCGS graded & slabbed, I'd like to crack this one out and send in to PCGS. I'd love to hear opinions! Is this older NGC slab carry any value worthy of retaining in this shape? Do you think it has the potential of grading higher?
Comments
I think it would be a 66.
Proud follower of Christ!
@TomB tried to @ in the post but kept giving me a post under review issue wouldn't allow in edits
If you crack it, I’d recommend a quick acetone bath to remove what may be PVC haze.
I don’t really think that generation of NGC holder carries any additional value.
As far as the tics on the reverse, I’d heard that the reverse tends to hurt the grade if there are issues, but seldom helps the grade if it’s nicer than the obverse. My experience supports that logic.
You have a very nice looking coin in a major brand slab. Just leave it as it is.
The generation holder appears to be that used from about 1997-2001 and I don't know of anyone who is actively searching for that holder.
For those unaware, we have been discussing this coin in the Washington quarter thread on the Registry forum. I had only seen the last, obverse-reverse composite image in that thread, so the other images are new to me. These are the things I wrote about this coin in that thread-
"Lots of OBW Merc, WQs and WLHs from the 1930s era have a haze or similar skin on them that is not PVC. I haven't seen your coin in-hand, but I am not afraid of its surfaces."
"@Matt04 here is an example of a coin I own that might have similar skin to yours. Mine is a 1934 WQ and I suspect it was stored for decades in a paper OBW. I write this because many of the more common mid-1930s issues of WQs, WLHs and Mercs have similar skin and these were coins that were more readily available in high grade MS decades later. Also, I owned an original roll of 1932 WQs and its paper OBW was tearing and brittle and the coins falling out. Inspection of the coins in the roll revealed that nearly all of them had a healthy skin and the reeding was toned darker. Perhaps two decades ago I wrote a thread about the coins and included some images, but over the years those images have been lost so the thread is not very useful."
" Also, it has been my experience that the 1939 Philadelphia issues for both the WQ and WLH are most often encountered in high grade with thick skin that I have termed "phlegmy toning". The term isn't exactly complimentary, but I like the look of the coins."
So, if you were my client and only wanted PCGS certified coins in your collection and you didn't have a timeline when the decision needs to be made on this coin, I would suggest to the following-
Submit to CAC for evaluation. If they flag it as PVC then you have good input right there. If they give it a green sticker then you can feel pretty safe to submit it as-is to PCGS for crossover to limit your downside. If they give it a gold sticker then you either decide to keep one special WQ in an NGC holder in your collection or you sell the coin for the gold sticker bonus (bonanza) or you still consider a cross-over at PCGS, but you have to keep in mind that you cannot, if I recall correctly, ask for a full point upgrade in a cross.
I wouldn't, however, just crack and bathe in acetone. My strategies generally follow going from least intrusive to more intrusive.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
My entire WQ collection is PCGS, so I'd like this one to be in a slab of theirs as well.
Instead of cracking send it in to CAC for a sticker.
Do you just leave it to sit in the acetone Overnight?
it might not go 66 due to a lot of chatter on the eagle's right leg and there are a few marks on the obverse. perhaps someone can say if that which looks like chatter is just not fully struck off the blank
would you be happy with it if it went 65 at pcgs?
I would leave it alone.
Do not crack it out and submit it to CAC for a green sticker. Then if you still want the PCGS slab then document your submission to PCGS only if it gets a green sticker first.
The obverse looks like nice 66, the reverse 65/66 but less important.
The dealer stating 80/20 obverse to reverse is pretty much on the ball. I might correct him as 70/30.
It is definitely PQ. Would want all the money. Perhaps sticker to increase CPG MV, otherwise leave as is.
You think that reverse is enough to keep it at a 65? Only reason I say that is because the obverse is really nice & it has incredible luster. I find it hard to see it getting a 65 vs those in 65 with many bits on the obverse.
Ya got a good thing, leave it alone
I've looked at a dozen MS66 PCGS on ebay today and none look as nice as yours, even some with nicks on the obverse. I believe it would cross, but that's always a gamble as even graders have a bad day. If I needed it for the registry then I would send it in to cross. My opinion.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I would leave it like it is.
That light haze would likely be removed in less than a minute.
But since you want it in a PCGS holder anyway, send it to them in the current holder for cross and restoration. More costly but less risk.
Leave it alone.
Since you are ultimately wanting it in a PCGS holder why not send it for crossover with the same 66 minimum grade noted.
Cross = Coin in your preferred holder at same grade at minimum
Didn't cross = Glad you didn't crack it
Afterwards, search for a PCGS MS66 or higher if that is what you're shooting for.
If a lesser grade in a PCGS holder is fine with you go ahead and give it a shot.
Were it my coin, my primary concern would be potential PVC. The green area on the cheek (circled) and the brown haze on the bust (arrow) may be indicative of the issue.
If I absolutely had to have it in a PCGS holder, I’d first send to CAC and ask for “JA feedback”. Worst case, he confirms it’s PVC. Best case, it stickers which (IMO) helps the coin cross in an in-holder crossover situation. This mitigates risk.
The riskiest approach would be to crack it, give it an acetone bath, and submit raw. Whether it has PVC or not would be good to confirm before making this decision (hence the CAC submission). Anything can happen after a crack out.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I purchased an additional MS66 PCGS graded 35-S for fun to compare, this one has a better reverse but it's blast white and seems less original vs the NGC 66. Check em out below:
Ex. 66+ by PCGS recently on herritage. Lots of chatter on the reverse.