That's an awesome 55-D, and certainly very close to 67 in my book
I have 4 rolls of 55-D's which I should go through them to see if any are 67 candidates! I did open 1 roll and it had a good amout of 65's and maybe a 66, so this roll definitely wasn't a junker
<< <i>66 on both coins, but very attractive patina they do possess!
the '55-d would be 67 without the gash under the eye >>
Even without the gash I don't see it as the first PCGS 67. The first 55-d ms67 will be a 15k coin, that coin even without the gash
is not a 15 k coin. The first 67 will need to be nearly a 67+ to get the 67 grade. >>
True, true. I'm just basing my opinion from the images, which usually hides something especially when showing off the toning. But it's a 66 for sure
If the '55-d was virtually contact free and had blazing luster, then a 67 grade would be appropriate. But it's almost impossible with this date, as the mint had a tough time with quality control for some reason?
Even if that made 67 I just don't understand how modern collectors justify 15k when this MS66 brings pennies to the dollar and almost as many registry points. While I am not saying that that is the best looking 66 out there there are plenty to chose from and most people can not really tell the difference between the grades, esp without blown up pictures or a more than x5 loop. And to be honest a choice MS64 for less than 12$ goes a long way saving for the multiple rolls of UNC that are sure to have some GEM's in them.. But you say, " you can't duplicate the color that comes out of the mint sets" Go buy 135 (full mint sets that is) of them for that 15k you were going to spend..
While nice coins no doubt, I just don't understand modern guys and their understanding of "rarity" or justification of the pricing structure.
Unless the coin was demoted, there was a 55d that graded ms67. Don Willis posted a video holding hte coin and talking about it. It was contraversial because it had been in a 66 holder and had some hits on the wings but was numped up to a 67 when a VIP submitted it after many attempts were made including a former owner of the coin here on the forum. This was about 2 years ago.
I'm not saying there won't be somebody to buy those later. I'm saying why spend 15K on a 67 when you can get a 66 for $675????????? And most couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I'm not saying there won't be somebody to buy those later. I'm saying why spend 15K on a 67 when you can get a 66 for $675????????? And most couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I just don't get it!? >>
People who buy coins like that have money to burn. There is nothing wrong imo with spending crazy money on coins, cars, and other things as long as you have it.
Usually a pop 1 coin in the Washington series is really a stand alone type coin. Meaning you can clearly tell the difference b/w a high end 66 and the pop 1
67.. >>
That's just not true, that line helps your argument and makes a fine point but is not related with the facts. Most 67 are made out of high end 66's in was's and just about every other series and most people can not tell the difference. While there are some super 67's out there that are head and shoulders better(future 68's ) they are the exception not the rule like you state.
<< <i> Some folks will pay the price the nicest looking and highest graded pop1 coin even if it is 15-30x the next lower grade. I am talking about hall of fame type collections >>
This is 100% true and i can't argue it but I will add there are also people who send money to "Nigerian Princes" off of spam email too. It only take one sucker for money to change hands.
I'm not saying there won't be somebody to buy those later. I'm saying why spend 15K on a 67 when you can get a 66 for $675????????? And most couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I just don't get it!? >>
Both WQs posted in this thread are quite lovely, especially for the date/mintmark combinations. I also agree that PCGS might think an extra second or two about rewarding a 1955-D with the MS67 grade because of the likelihood that the coin would be worth five figures in the holder. However, this price structure shouldn't be too astounding for folks to understand considering there is an otherwise ordinary and typical 1936 Mercury dime with die gouges near the date that sells for many multiples of other 1936 dimes in the same state of preservation, but lacking the die gouges.
I have never seen the pop charts show a 55-d 67, I check fairly often. >>
May have never made the pop chart but there was a video of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67. There was a big stink about the coin here with a former owner claiming it was 100% a 66. I guess it got pulled back down to a 66. It may be a topic that was swept under the ground but i am 100% certain it happened.
<< <i>Crypto are you telling me you can't tell the difference b/w a high end 66 and a high end 67?
I can. >>
I guess it depends on if I am building the coin up or tearing it down. While some graders are better then others, the lack of absolute consistency with the core standard in what defines such a lofty state of preservation makes your statement appear to me to be based off of confidence and ego(not always a bad thing) and not technical comprehension. One of the people who thought me to grade said that "you'll know one(Superb Gem) when you see one" & but I always thought what I know and what others know when they see it will differ.
<< <i>Unless the coin was demoted, there was a 55d that graded ms67. Don Willis posted a video holding hte coin and talking about it. It was contraversial because it had been in a 66 holder and had some hits on the wings but was numped up to a 67 when a VIP submitted it after many attempts were made including a former owner of the coin here on the forum. This was about 2 years ago. >>
current pops from today :
5859 1955-D 25C
MS 3 34 166 734 535 147 0 0 1,628
..........the 147 is the current MS 66 pop- none higher
but hey , ..............a MS 67 Quarter is not perfect or mark free , strong luster and attractive color can push a 66 into 67 territory
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ?? >>
I think it was after it got into the 67 holder. It has that nick on the wing which is pretty substantial but the argument was that the luster was off the charts and bumped the nick away. surely SOMEONE remembers that. It was like a 20 page thread.
.......I searched the archives here of past posts and could find nothing on an actual PCGS MS 67 '55-D.......if the post existed , it may have been poofed
After carefully examing both 55-D specimens shown within this thread, I'd like to point out that IMHO neither specimen should be PCGS 67. There simply are too many disractions on both, IN THE FOCAL AREAS, to merit being graded PCGS 67.
Both are attractive in each their own right but there are too many hits, nicks & "distractions" on both to be definitive 67s for the very tough 1955-D.
Take a good long look at both and you'll see the flaws I am referring to.
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ?? >>
Don't worry, I know what you are talking about. I remember that video and the stink on this board about how it got such a high grade. I think it was Hall but the problem is I don't remember the date/mm.
I think it was after it got into the 67 holder. It has that nick on the wing which is pretty substantial but the argument was that the luster was off the charts and bumped the nick away. surely SOMEONE remembers that. It was like a 20 page thread. >>
No joke ... I began my work on trying to obtain the nicest superb gem 1955-D quarter I could find back around 26 or 27 years ago (and there were some years in there where the search was quite exhaustive). Have never stopped looking since then. I have come across some wonderful specimens along the way. No luck yet though with getting a coin into a PCGS-MS67 holder, but the hunt is far from over (and there are number of coins from the early years of the hunt PCGS has yet to see)!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I beleive it would depend, in part, upon what the coin looked like. Monster toned or brilliant, etc? I think the $15,000 figure might be pretty close to reality. Perhaps closer to $10,000 for a "non-exciting" one (remember the 54-S MS67) ... perhaps closer to $20,000 for a mega-exciting one. Do you agree Craig?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ?? >>
Don't worry, I know what you are talking about. I remember that video and the stink on this board about how it got such a high grade. I think it was Hall but the problem is I don't remember the date/mm.
>>
>>
It was the 55-d !!! It was the first one ever which is why there was such a big stink.
55-D is an impossible coin in 67. Like ManofCoins and Wondercoin, I have searched for years and bought many original rolls... never came close. Easily a $15K coin if a true 67 were to be found.
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ?? >>
Don't worry, I know what you are talking about. I remember that video and the stink on this board about how it got such a high grade. I think it was Hall but the problem is I don't remember the date/mm.
>>
>>
It was the 55-d !!! It was the first one ever which is why there was such a big stink. >>
Mumu, if the thread you are writing about was with respect to a 1947-d WQ, and not a 1955-D WQ, then I recall the thread. If not, then I have no recollection of such a long thread and I am a serious follower of WQs.
Well the lack of anyone remembering has me seriously thinking Im the one mistaken. Was there a similar issue regarding a WQ being the first ever PCGS 68 ?
not that one ..........but you did step hard on my bids for a couple others
the Baseball feller thinks there's some out there .........and worth only 2500$ ;
maybe he's right , who know's ...................... but twenty years of PCGS submissions have yielded a big fat ZERO in the MS 67 column of the pop. report ,
and I'd be willing to bet a well heeled Registry feller would cough up 20 grand for one in a heartbeat
PawPaul
Posts: 5,845 ✭
Comments
<< <i>67 no 66 yes
I have 4 rolls of 55-D's which I should go through them to see if any are 67 candidates!
I did open 1 roll and it had a good amout of 65's and maybe a 66, so this roll definitely wasn't a junker
The hit under the eye may prevent a 67 though.
and yes , there is that mark under the eye - but you fellers ain't gonna make me put up pix of PCGS MS 67's that have similar marks ...are you ?
<< <i>.....to my knowledge , there is not a single PCGS MS 67 of this date ;
and yes , there is that mark under the eye - but you fellers ain't gonna make me put up pix of PCGS MS 67's that have similar marks ...are you ? >>
yes we are
the '55-d would be 67 without the gash under the eye
<< <i>
<< <i>66 on both coins, but very attractive patina they do possess!
the '55-d would be 67 without the gash under the eye >>
Even without the gash I don't see it as the first PCGS 67. The first 55-d ms67 will be a 15k coin, that coin even without the gash
is not a 15 k coin. The first 67 will need to be nearly a 67+ to get the 67 grade. >>
True, true. I'm just basing my opinion from the images, which usually hides something especially when showing off the toning. But it's a 66 for sure
If the '55-d was virtually contact free and had blazing luster, then a 67 grade would be appropriate. But it's almost impossible with this date, as the mint had a tough time with quality control for some reason?
is not a 15 k coin. The first 67 will need to be nearly a 67+ to get the 67 grade.<<<
That is the most ridiculous reasoning for a coin not getting a grade I have ever heard!
A coin is what it is and should be graded by that only!
<< <i>>>>Even without the gash I don't see it as the first PCGS 67. The first 55-d ms67 will be a 15k coin, that coin even without the gash
is not a 15 k coin. The first 67 will need to be nearly a 67+ to get the 67 grade.<<<
That is the most ridiculous reasoning for a coin not getting a grade I have ever heard!
A coin is what it is and should be graded by that only! >>
Might be ridiculous, but it is spot-on and is reality with PCGS.
Russ, NCNE
While nice coins no doubt, I just don't understand modern guys and their understanding of "rarity" or justification of the pricing structure.
I'm with you crypto.......stupid money!
......I can tell you this '55-D has astounding , chrome-like luster
I'm not saying there won't be somebody to buy those later. I'm saying why spend 15K on a 67 when you can get a 66 for $675????????? And most couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I just don't get it!?
<< <i>MOC -
I'm not saying there won't be somebody to buy those later. I'm saying why spend 15K on a 67 when you can get a 66 for $675????????? And most couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I just don't get it!? >>
People who buy coins like that have money to burn. There is nothing wrong imo with spending crazy money on coins, cars, and other things as long as you have it.
<< <i>
Usually a pop 1 coin in the Washington series is really a stand alone type coin. Meaning you can clearly tell the difference b/w a high end 66 and the pop 1
67.. >>
That's just not true, that line helps your argument and makes a fine point but is not related with the facts. Most 67 are made out of high end 66's in was's and just about every other series and most people can not tell the difference. While there are some super 67's out there that are head and shoulders better(future 68's
<< <i> Some folks will pay the price the nicest looking and highest graded pop1 coin even if it is 15-30x the next lower grade. I am talking about hall of fame
type collections >>
This is 100% true and i can't argue it but I will add there are also people who send money to "Nigerian Princes" off of spam email too. It only take one sucker for money to change hands.
Text
<< <i>MOC -
I'm not saying there won't be somebody to buy those later. I'm saying why spend 15K on a 67 when you can get a 66 for $675????????? And most couldn't tell the difference between the two.
I just don't get it!? >>
Both WQs posted in this thread are quite lovely, especially for the date/mintmark combinations. I also agree that PCGS might think an extra second or two about rewarding a 1955-D with the MS67 grade because of the likelihood that the coin would be worth five figures in the holder. However, this price structure shouldn't be too astounding for folks to understand considering there is an otherwise ordinary and typical 1936 Mercury dime with die gouges near the date that sells for many multiples of other 1936 dimes in the same state of preservation, but lacking the die gouges.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I like the looks of them though...
U.S. Type Set
<< <i>It looks like it was demoted but im pretty sure this was the coin that was temporarily bumped to a 67:
Text >>
That is one nice coin!!
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
<< <i>
<< <i>It looks like it was demoted but im pretty sure this was the coin that was temporarily bumped to a 67:
Text >>
I have never seen the pop charts show a 55-d 67, I check fairly often. >>
May have never made the pop chart but there was a video of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67. There was a big stink about the coin here with a former owner claiming it was 100% a 66. I guess it got pulled back down to a 66. It may be a topic that was swept under the ground but i am 100% certain it happened.
<< <i>Ehhhh, they are all modern junk.
I like the looks of them though... >>
<< <i>Crypto are you telling me you can't tell the difference b/w a high end 66 and a high end 67?
I can. >>
I guess it depends on if I am building the coin up or tearing it down. While some graders are better then others, the lack of absolute consistency with the core standard in what defines such a lofty state of preservation makes your statement appear to me to be based off of confidence and ego(not always a bad thing) and not technical comprehension. One of the people who thought me to grade said that "you'll know one(Superb Gem) when you see one" & but I always thought what I know and what others know when they see it will differ.
<< <i>Unless the coin was demoted, there was a 55d that graded ms67. Don Willis posted a video holding hte coin and talking about it. It was contraversial because it had been in a 66 holder and had some hits on the wings but was numped up to a 67 when a VIP submitted it after many attempts were made including a former owner of the coin here on the forum. This was about 2 years ago. >>
current pops from today :
5859 1955-D 25C
MS 3 34 166 734 535 147 0 0 1,628
..........the 147 is the current MS 66 pop- none higher
but hey , ..............a MS 67 Quarter is not perfect or mark free , strong luster and attractive color can push a 66 into 67 territory
<< <i>It looks like it was demoted but im pretty sure this was the coin that was temporarily bumped to a 67:
Text >>
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ??
"Oh Mr. Willis " ; what happened to the alleged MS 67 PCGS 1955-D quarter MuMu is referring to ?
.......and thank you in advance for your answer
<< <i>
<< <i>It looks like it was demoted but im pretty sure this was the coin that was temporarily bumped to a 67:
Text >>
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ?? >>
I think it was after it got into the 67 holder. It has that nick on the wing which is pretty substantial but the argument was that the luster was off the charts and bumped the nick away. surely SOMEONE remembers that. It was like a 20 page thread.
After carefully examing both 55-D specimens shown within this thread, I'd like
to point out that IMHO neither specimen should be PCGS 67. There simply are too
many disractions on both, IN THE FOCAL AREAS, to merit being graded PCGS 67.
Both are attractive in each their own right but there are too many hits, nicks &
"distractions" on both to be definitive 67s for the very tough 1955-D.
Take a good long look at both and you'll see the flaws I am referring to.
Happy Holidays,
BOOM ~
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It looks like it was demoted but im pretty sure this was the coin that was temporarily bumped to a 67:
Text >>
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ?? >>
Don't worry, I know what you are talking about. I remember that video and the stink on this board about how it got such a high grade. I think it was Hall but the problem is I don't remember the date/mm.
I think it was after it got into the 67 holder. It has that nick on the wing which is pretty substantial but the argument was that the luster was off the charts and bumped the nick away. surely SOMEONE remembers that. It was like a 20 page thread. >>
Wondercoin
PawPaul - Did I outbid you on this one?
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It looks like it was demoted but im pretty sure this was the coin that was temporarily bumped to a 67:
Text >>
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ?? >>
Don't worry, I know what you are talking about. I remember that video and the stink on this board about how it got such a high grade. I think it was Hall but the problem is I don't remember the date/mm.
>>
>>
It was the 55-d !!! It was the first one ever which is why there was such a big stink.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It looks like it was demoted but im pretty sure this was the coin that was temporarily bumped to a 67:
Text >>
interesting - never knew of the coin , it do look like a cherry though
I'd be very curious as to how/why it got removed from the pop reports ( meaning what happened to it)- maybe it crossed to a NGC MS 68 !
of either willis or hall examinging the coin and justifying its grade of ms67..........wow, that only thickens the mystery ; if they/he strongly stood by their grading it MS67 , how could they/he save face if they put it back
in a 66 holder ?? >>
Don't worry, I know what you are talking about. I remember that video and the stink on this board about how it got such a high grade. I think it was Hall but the problem is I don't remember the date/mm.
>>
>>
It was the 55-d !!! It was the first one ever which is why there was such a big stink. >>
Mumu, if the thread you are writing about was with respect to a 1947-d WQ, and not a 1955-D WQ, then I recall the thread. If not, then I have no recollection of such a long thread and I am a serious follower of WQs.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Wondercoin
I do have a nice 32-36 set mostly in 65
I have a 1953p in MS67
100% Positive BST transactions
<< <i>
PawPaul - Did I outbid you on this one?
Wondercoin >>
not that one ..........but you did step hard on my bids for a couple others
the Baseball feller thinks there's some out there .........and worth only 2500$ ;
maybe he's right , who know's ...................... but twenty years of PCGS submissions have yielded a big fat ZERO in the MS 67 column of the pop. report ,
and I'd be willing to bet a well heeled Registry feller would cough up 20 grand for one in a heartbeat