Richard L. Hurley 4 posts Report post Posted December 29, 2018 (edited) I was very happy to purchase this Washington earlier this year at a B&M- sunk a whole $7 in purchase. At first; I thought this may have been a proof because the obverse was fully mirrored. The reverse is closer to a semi-pl. Beautiful coin IMO. Edited December 29, 2018 by Richard L. Hurley Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coinbuf 921 posts Report post Posted December 30, 2018 I don't really follow; or know the requirements for the PL designation for any series; but wouldn't this coin need more (some) frost on the design to get the PL? 1 Richard L. Hurley reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conder101 7,698 posts Report post Posted December 30, 2018 PL should only relate to the depth of the mirrors, frost on the devices should not have anything to do with it. Frost on the devices is important for Cameo not PL. 2 Richard L. Hurley and Abuelo's Collection reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
numisport 772 posts Report post Posted December 30, 2018 I like that prooflike look. Looks like worn dies polished to remove some problems. Nice coin worth holdering but maybe not fully prooflike. 1 Richard L. Hurley reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14 14,787 posts Report post Posted December 30, 2018 Good luck and for your sake I hope you get it. I'll be honest though, I really don't see it on the reverse. It has to be all-the-way there, and they've been stricter on PL's lately. You'll more likely to get a Star. 1 Richard L. Hurley reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richard L. Hurley 4 posts Report post Posted December 30, 2018 My typical user name here is @PocketArt- been so long that I've been here I forgot I had two accounts when I posted last night. Use one for submissions to NGC, and other for chat boards- guess I exposed my alt, hehe. I tried to find if you could delete but couldn't locate that function. Anyway, yes Jason I agree with you- probably just star. The reverse just isn't quite there, as much as I'd hope it would be; but still nice. @numisport, actually there isn't any die polish marks as would be typical for most PL Washington quarters from say like the '40's. The various marks on obverse would be wear/chatter. I'm almost convinced that an obverse proof die may have been thrown into production for business strikes. Maybe not to far fetched as over a half billion were produced at the Philadelphia mint. Hard to determine with obverse- not like the reverse type "B" that has attributes associated with proof. Yet, you could be right as I don't know what methods had changed to polish dies, and if far less abrasive? IDK. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
numisport 772 posts Report post Posted December 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Richard L. Hurley said: My typical user name here is @PocketArt- been so long that I've been here I forgot I had two accounts when I posted last night. Use one for submissions to NGC, and other for chat boards- guess I exposed my alt, hehe. I tried to find if you could delete but couldn't locate that function. Anyway, yes Jason I agree with you- probably just star. The reverse just isn't quite there, as much as I'd hope it would be; but still nice. @numisport, actually there isn't any die polish marks as would be typical for most PL Washington quarters from say like the '40's. The various marks on obverse would be wear/chatter. I'm almost convinced that an obverse proof die may have been thrown into production for business strikes. Maybe not to far fetched as over a half billion were produced at the Philadelphia mint. Hard to determine with obverse- not like the reverse type "B" that has attributes associated with proof. Yet, you could be right as I don't know what methods had changed to polish dies, and if far less abrasive? IDK. Proof obverse die sounds plausible as there must have been hundreds used. Roger Burdette conceded there's very few mint records of 50 to 64 proof die preparation but I was lucky to get my '64 as minted from an early die state. 2 Richard L. Hurley and rrantique reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coinman1794 4,863 posts Report post Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, Richard L. Hurley said: My typical user name here is @PocketArt- been so long that I've been here I forgot I had two accounts when I posted last night. Use one for submissions to NGC, and other for chat boards- guess I exposed my alt, hehe. I tried to find if you could delete but couldn't locate that function. Anyway, yes Jason I agree with you- probably just star. The reverse just isn't quite there, as much as I'd hope it would be; but still nice. @numisport, actually there isn't any die polish marks as would be typical for most PL Washington quarters from say like the '40's. The various marks on obverse would be wear/chatter. I'm almost convinced that an obverse proof die may have been thrown into production for business strikes. Maybe not to far fetched as over a half billion were produced at the Philadelphia mint. Hard to determine with obverse- not like the reverse type "B" that has attributes associated with proof. Yet, you could be right as I don't know what methods had changed to polish dies, and if far less abrasive? IDK. The die polishing "typical of most PL Washington quarters from say like the '40s" is an as of yet unexplained finish that is unique to the 1934-1955 period. It is found on virtually all denominations. It is mostly found on S-mint coins, with some D-mint coins seen, and seemingly zero Philadelphia coins. It is not seen after the closer of the San Francisco Mint, after 1955. The PL coins of 1964 are the result of some completely different process. There are many 1964-D, and fewer 1964-P quarters, that show a PL obverse and a reverse that just misses, due to slight die erosion in the centers, around the eagle. Generally, these coins look very much like SMS coins of 1965, with mirrored fields and noticeably frosted devices. It is theoretically possible that the obverse dies were Proof dies or unfinished Proof dies, or some experimental hybrids. I have been looking for a fully PL 1964/64-D for a long time but have not been able to find one. NGC does list a handful of PLs for the date, so they are out there. I agree that the reverse of the original poster's coin falls short of PL, and will likely receive the Star designation, as do most of these 64 and 64-D PL Obv coins. The 1964-D shown below is a good example of the Denver version. Edited December 31, 2018 by coinman1794 Added pics 2 numisport and Richard L. Hurley reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richard L. Hurley 4 posts Report post Posted December 31, 2018 Nice '64 deep cameo @numisport! Also, thanks for your insight into these '64 PL's @coinman1794. The '64-D you posted is outstanding. I hope to receive at least a MS63 grade on coin with star; should be close. I also submitted a '64-D Type C reverse that is BU, so, naturally I'm excited with this particular submission. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richard L. Hurley 4 posts Report post Posted January 25 No Star for You!!! I'm a little upset the quarter was not at least given a star. The obverse is PL. https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4719164-002/65/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mk123 180 posts Report post Posted January 27 looks great in the NGC cert look up! Sorry you didnt get a star! 1 PocketArt reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
