| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,036 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
Any thoughts on this Washington? George was freshly liberated from a cardboard original mint set that was placed in a drawer in 1958. I am not really much of a "toner" and have mosly white Washingtons but this coin is very appealing in hand. There are two small nicks on the upper cheek but the rest of the obverse is nick free though some toning may look like a nick... There is very deep cartwheel luster that glows through the toning. The reverse has only a couple tiny nicks that are only visible under mag. There are some images below in different lighting. You can click on the images to open huge images...     I previously posted this coin on another forum and received "grades" of "nice coin" and "not so nice coin" ! Edited by dgleich
12/16/2010 4:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
462 Posts |
I'd say MS64. The nick on the obverse rim at 7:00 and the nick on GW's cheek are detractors for me. I also can't tell if the eagle's left leg (the one on the right) has a big ding.
In general, I check the knot in GW's for any signs of wear (difficult for weak strikes). And then look for clean fields, face and eagle legs. Some people can look at the eagle's feathers and determine grade, but I'm no there yet.
With toned coins, I find fields are difficult to judge. Any one have any pointers?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
173 Posts |
It's a 64 that would sell for more than 64 money. It is a very attractive coin that I'm sure, looks way better in hand. The hits on the cheek keep it <65.
As far as toning in fields, if you can easily see the blemishes than they are still there. If you have to look real hard to see them, than they're only there when your determining 67 +. There are a ton of graded 66's that fall into this category.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
Welcome to the CCF forum. just making MS64 toned I think.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
93 Posts |
Thank you for chiming in... I am not used to toned Washingtons either as most of my coins are white. If it were white, it would be in a choice bu 2x2, nice but not great. As it is, the coin is really a wow coin due to the unique toning and luster. I know it is not a big money coin but it is a perfect example of my confusion about grading toners... It is difficult for me to judge toners like this especially when compared to PCGS graded toned coins... perhaps that "eye appeal" trumps a few nicks at times... I have many examples of PCGS images of deeply toned Washingtons with higher grades that if white, I would consider MS63 or less. I have a 67+ somewhere that would shock most people as it is beaten. Here are a few examples of what I mean: PCGS MS66 I would have written BU on this in a 2x2 and never pulled it out again if white...  1955 PCGS MS65 I would say MS60 if white  1936 MS67 Nicer coin but I would have never thought those hits would be on a 67  |
|
Valued Member
United States
173 Posts |
The TPG's give toners a pass IMO. I grade #1 a 64 at the highest, #2 a 65, and #3 a 65. You're grading too strictly I would say. |
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
Thank you Jessie... Did you click on the images to see the HUGE pics? That 1961 MS66 is beaten badly. Yes, perhaps I am as many of my white Washingtons are nearly pristine yet I find fault... The toners that I see in high grades with multiple bag marks really throw me for a loop. Here is another one (Click on the image to see a larger image):1940-S PCGS MS67 - Nice looking toned coin, but look at the large image... several bag marks.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
You have taken some amazing pictures. I think you could be extremely helpful in the photography section of the forum no doubt.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15472 Posts |
 Please contribute as well to the photography forum ..... I would enjoy reading how you made those amazing photos. Also .....  to the CCF ..... you seem to have some knowledge and opinions so I hope you pull up a stool and stay awhile. David Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.artEdited by nickelsearcher
12/17/2010 8:58 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
173 Posts |
The 1961 MS66 is beaten pretty badly. Of the three, I think it is the most incorrectly graded. The birdshot contacts, heavily hit portrait, and rough looking fields, should cerainly keep this coin's grade as lower ms. The toning is very nice. This is an excellent example of a coin I was referring to when I said "there are a ton of graded 66's that fall into this category."
Now, all the coins you've posted are VERY attractive and VERY enlarged. When I grade, 5 power magnification is sufficient. Anything more than that, and we start getting unreasonably or abnormaly picky. I think one grading standard suggests that if you can't see imperfections WITHOUT magnification, than the coin is 65. Food for thought.
The last coin you posted falls in this category. Drastically enlarged, we can just barely make out that hit in the middle of the neck. Super-Enlarged, we start seeing some more imperfections, but again, the coin is now the size of a computer monitor. It's beautiful toning and relative lack of what we could call, reasonable imperfections, justifies a minimum grade of 66 IMO.
The difference between the first 58 you posted and all the rest, save for the 61, is that we can see the face hits (the one on the cheek especially) immediately, with the 58. Saving face is very important.
I still believe that if you can properly grade a Washington that other moderns are easy.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
93 Posts |
Jessie, I see what you mean now, thanks. Yes, with the availability now of huge, detailed images any coins looks or can look "hit hard". The 58 I posted has become a personal favorite despite not being as technically high of a grade than many others I have... I liked it the moment I opened up that crusty proof set!
Thanks everyone, but I can only take credit for the first images... I was once a professional photographer so that helps though. I still need to update some equipment, lenses after switching to digital. I do enjoy the photography aspect and will be posting many more images. Thank you all again!
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,036 |
|
Posted 12/16/2010 5:26 pm
