What do you think keep this coin from MS67

[Schatzy]

Can the weak strike (8 o'clock) keep the coin from MS67.

I have a few MS67 Washingtons and this one looks better in some cases.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

The numerous marks in prime focal areas keep it back. There is no way that's a 67, and honestly I would have guessed 65 if you hadn't posted the grade. Note specifically the marks on his temple, just below his eye, several marks on his nose, and numerous ticks in his hair. The eagle is similarly afflicted, with one serious mark in particular across his chest. The weak strike hinders it some, but strike is low on the priority list. The eye appeal and color is good, how is the luster? The luster doesn't appear very strong in those images - and that is another key to very high grades. TPG's these days emphasize luster above everything except marks.

[TheCount]

IMHO its a 63 :-((

[$ilverHawk]

In all honesty, I would have offered MS64 maybe 65. Far too many hits in focal areas to grade any higher. The reverse grades higher than the obverse.

[coinman1794]

Clas Washington quarters are greated much differently than silver issues. Larger marks are accepted for higher graded by both grading services, the reason being that the general finish on clad coinage, as well as the busier, reworked design, helps to make them less apparent. And on many modern issues, fantastic strike and luster preclude many coins from anythng less than MS65 (liek it or not, that's how the services do it).

 

All that said, I grade the present coin MS65. The facial ticks are not acceptable on a 66-67. But in my experience with NGC/PCGS, the tick on the breast feathers is the killer, that spot needs to be perfect to get a 67+ grade.

[BillJones]

It looks like an MS-63 to me, and that could be pushing it. In person I'd need to put a glass on Washington's hair and the eagle's breast feathers. Is it a weak strike or is it a rub? The mark in the flattened breast feathers would take it out of the MS-67 grade instantly. And the weakness in the strike cut it down to no better than MS-65 if that.

 

MS-67 is a real "walk on water" grade. It is very hard to find a business strike MS-67 coin with any age on it.

[L1ncolnF4n]

I'd have said 64 on that, maybe 65 on a good day. The marks are small but they're there.

[Schatzy]

Thanks Everyone

 

The coin has a weak strike on the eagle breast and washingtons hair.

The coin really does look much better in hand...hence why NGC graded it MS66.

 

[michael]

too many marks in focal areas obverse and reverse as has been said

 

weak details on outer rim

 

myself even if this coin had amazing lustre i dont call it better than ms 64

 

the services might grade clad coinage differently and that is their subjective opinion the fact remains is that this coin is no even close to a gem grade

with all the marks in focal areas obverse and reverse and also in the fields and weak strike on the obverse and reverse in many areas

[coinman1794]

 

the services might grade clad coinage differently and that is their subjective opinion

 

the fact remains is that this coin is no even close to a gem grade

with all the marks in focal areas obverse and reverse and also in the fields and weak strike on the obverse and reverse in many areas

 

 

Clas coinage is graded differently because it is fundamentaly different. Also, being that these coins are worth relatively little outside the slab, the "subjective opinion" of the grading services is taken as gospel truth by many.

 

The roughness in the fields and high points is from grease-filled dies and does not affect the grade, in many cases. I'm sure this coin is much nicer in person, and that none of the actual contat marks are as obvious.

[BillJones]

Once you reach grades like MS-67, "obvious" goes by the boards. That's when you get out the high powered glasses and start looking for really minor stuff. That when you start really knit picking.

 

I know that the clad coinage is different. The metal is harder and the strikes can be less sharp as a result. But in grading those things only make achieving the very high grades harder. It should not lower the standard.

 

To make a simple example the finest known strawberry leaf cent is a VG. Since that's the best there is you don't lower standard and call it MS-60. You call it by the established grading standards, which believe it or not are not that much different from type to type. It's reason why advanced graders can grade items like Civil War and hard time tokens despite the fact that you don't have photograde guidelines for each variety.

[James_OldeTowne]

I would argue that some comments are based on a lack of experience with this particular issue in the clad series. I've discussed this issue before, and feel that 1983-P is VERY TOUGH to find nice, and in all seriousness, could be as rare as 1936-D in upper grades (MS-65 and up). You will simply never, ever find a sharply struck 1983-P, and that means they will always have those trivial little chicken-scratch marks all over the portrait. I have yet to ever see one that didn't have them to at least some extent.

 

The little marks are not post-mint handling marks, but were already there when the coin was struck. And since these coins were never fully struck, the danged marks stayed there.

 

In all honesty, my personal 1983-P is the finest I have ever personally seen, and I retrieved it from one of the old blue-envelope "souvenir sets". That is really the only way you will ever find a nice one.

 

We can argue whether known strike-deficiency issues within any series should be graded the same as other dates that had no prevalent striking problems, but the fact is that the grading services DO grade them differently, and that is what has happened here. To the casual collector, this 1983-P looks badly overgraded by NGC, but I can tell you from experience, that it is really really nice compared to most.

 

(Just not as nice as mine, of course ....)

[CHABSENTIA]

I would argue that some comments are based on a lack of experience with this particular issue in the clad series. I've discussed this issue before, and feel that 1983-P is VERY TOUGH to find nice, and in all seriousness, could be as rare as 1936-D in upper grades (MS-65 and up). You will simply never, ever find a sharply struck 1983-P, and that means they will always have those trivial little chicken-scratch marks all over the portrait. I have yet to ever see one that didn't have them to at least some extent.

 

The little marks are not post-mint handling marks, but were already there when the coin was struck. And since these coins were never fully struck, the danged marks stayed there.

 

In all honesty, my personal 1983-P is the finest I have ever personally seen, and I retrieved it from one of the old blue-envelope "souvenir sets". That is really the only way you will ever find a nice one.

 

We can argue whether known strike-deficiency issues within any series should be graded the same as other dates that had no prevalent striking problems, but the fact is that the grading services DO grade them differently, and that is what has happened here. To the casual collector, this 1983-P looks badly overgraded by NGC, but I can tell you from experience, that it is really really nice compared to most.

 

(Just not as nice as mine, of course ....)

 

I have a 1983 Souvenir set just as it was issued. I have never really examined it. Is the 1983 P Quarter the one with the most chance for value and the one you consider the most rarest compared to the others in the set?

[Schatzy]

 

I have a 1983 Souvenir set just as it was issued. I have never really examined it. Is the 1983 P Quarter the one with the most chance for value and the one you consider the most rarest compared to the others in the set?

 

The P and D quarters sell for big bucks in MS66 and even bigger bucks in MS67.

[Schatzy]

I would argue that some comments are based on a lack of experience with this particular issue in the clad series. I've discussed this issue before, and feel that 1983-P is VERY TOUGH to find nice, and in all seriousness, could be as rare as 1936-D in upper grades (MS-65 and up). You will simply never, ever find a sharply struck 1983-P, and that means they will always have those trivial little chicken-scratch marks all over the portrait. I have yet to ever see one that didn't have them to at least some extent.

 

The little marks are not post-mint handling marks, but were already there when the coin was struck. And since these coins were never fully struck, the danged marks stayed there.

 

In all honesty, my personal 1983-P is the finest I have ever personally seen, and I retrieved it from one of the old blue-envelope "souvenir sets". That is really the only way you will ever find a nice one.

 

We can argue whether known strike-deficiency issues within any series should be graded the same as other dates that had no prevalent striking problems, but the fact is that the grading services DO grade them differently, and that is what has happened here. To the casual collector, this 1983-P looks badly overgraded by NGC, but I can tell you from experience, that it is really really nice compared to most.

 

(Just not as nice as mine, of course ....)

 

Thanks James!!

[coinman1794]

Once you reach grades like MS-67, "obvious" goes by the boards. That's when you get out the high powered glasses and start looking for really minor stuff. That when you start really knit picking.

 

I know that the clad coinage is different. The metal is harder and the strikes can be less sharp as a result. But in grading those things only make achieving the very high grades harder. It should not lower the standard.

 

To make a simple example the finest known strawberry leaf cent is a VG. Since that's the best there is you don't lower standard and call it MS-60. You call it by the established grading standards, which believe it or not are not that much different from type to type. It's reason why advanced graders can grade items like Civil War and hard time tokens despite the fact that you don't have photograde guidelines for each variety.

 

I would never dream of changing the standard from one coin to the next. Some clad coins have more powerful luster and better, fuller strikes that cause surface marks (that would have devistated a silver coin) to apear less obvious. Changes to the design also contribute to hiding marks. It was not a change in standards, but rather this fundamental difference in physical properties, to which I was refering. That is the reason clad coins grade differently. A Morgan dollar is to a Trade dollar as a clad quarter is to a silver quarter.