1932 Washie Toner...Help me Grade

OneCent · January 20, 2007 4:58AM

I bought this Raw today for $25...

What do you think?

pharmer · January 20, 2007 5:00AM

62-63

Bikingnut · January 20, 2007 5:04AM

AU53

291fifth · January 20, 2007 5:04AM

AU55. Not very eye-appealing.

ArgentumRex · January 20, 2007 5:07AM

nice picture

quattrocoins · January 20, 2007 5:10AM

AU55

mcheath · January 20, 2007 5:19AM

61/62

jgrinz · January 20, 2007 5:23AM

Environmental damage

ColonialCoinUnion · January 20, 2007 5:25AM

AU53 or no grade.

OneCent · January 20, 2007 5:28AM

Environmental Damage????

How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?

ChangeInHistory · January 20, 2007 5:44AM

AU-50 or so. The dark spots in front of and behind the ear and on the upper cheek are distracting.

Sandhawk · January 20, 2007 6:11AM

Here is another 1932 Wash Toner..................

TomB · January 20, 2007 10:00AM

AU all day long, that coin is not MS.

Regulated · January 20, 2007 10:06AM

53.

OneCent · January 20, 2007 10:31AM

Does my #$@%ing $25 coin have Environmental Damage????

The toning is actually somewhat nicer than is reflected in the pic, although not a whole lot nicer. I would grade this piece MS60 based upon having the coin in hand. However, I would concede that it very well could be an AU 55 example. So, at the end of the day, I paid $25 for a coin that is worth, say $25.

Environmental Damage, with all due respect (I value all replies and opinions), seems a bit harsh.

Edited to add: Sandhawk - that 1932 toner is a spectacular coin.

TomB · January 20, 2007 10:40AM

Folks who write that the coin is environmentally damaged are likely writing about the discoloration on the high points of the cheek, hair in front of the ear, hair behind and above the ear and the hairline on the forehead. I do not view this as environmental damage. However, there is no way in the world this coin is MS. It is an AU53 or so. In my opinion, this is a $15 coin, but $25 doesn't seem terrible in the grand scheme of things as long as you like it.

nankraut · January 20, 2007 1:38PM

<< <i>Folks who write that the coin is environmentally damaged are likely writing about the discoloration on the high points of the cheek, hair in front of the ear, hair behind and above the ear and the hairline on the forehead. I do not view this as environmental damage. However, there is no way in the world this coin is MS. It is an AU53 or so. In my opinion, this is a $15 coin, but $25 doesn't seem terrible in the grand scheme of things as long as you like it. >>

Boom · January 20, 2007 3:21PM

For $25, you did real well. Especially for a 75 year old piece of history.

Cam40 · January 20, 2007 4:46PM

in the 53 camp here

jgrinz · January 20, 2007 6:46PM

<< <i>Folks who write that the coin is environmentally damaged are likely writing about the discoloration on the high points of the cheek, hair in front of the ear, hair behind and above the ear and the hairline on the forehead. I do not view this as environmental damage. However, there is no way in the world this coin is MS. It is an AU53 or so. In my opinion, this is a $15 coin, but $25 doesn't seem terrible in the grand scheme of things as long as you like it. >>

Hey TomB ... I came to the conclusion by the areas of interst in the pictures. The first picture has these all around on the coin where there is an indent which is then toned around it - Second one is the big concern for me which is right on the ear hm amoeba shaped 'splash' and darker areas in the hair and cheek seem to be of the same 'damage' - The third there is a lot of spotted tone as if something was 'splash' onto the coin and darkened at that spot.
This is my 2c

Otherwise AU53