Here's hopin'......? 1916 SLQ

guitarwes · June 20, 2008 12:08AM

I've been looking at the comparisons of the dateless 1916 and 1917 TI quarters and just don't know about this one. The gown appears to be unattached from the date bar and the draping gown thing on Mr. Liberty's right side doesn't appear to be going in front of that thing with the Motto on it. I don't really know how "squatty" the shield needs to be on the '16 as I've read several different things on that. Being that this is not a series of interest of mine, I'm kinda rusty on the diagnostics.

I'm sure I'm not that lucky to find a dateless '16 (not that it's worth super huge money or anything), but just would like some clarification on the particular diagnostics.

Thanks.

seemyauction · June 20, 2008 12:10AM

Info can be found here

1916

1917 gown has more of a rounded look

seanq · June 20, 2008 12:12AM

I'm pretty sure that on a 1916 the head interrupts the dash-bead pattern just inside the rim, I took a quick look for a photo on Heritage but I couldn't find anything definitive. I'll keep looking for pictures until someone who actually know what they're talking about chimes in.

Sean Reynolds

Placid · June 20, 2008 12:20AM

http://www.slqcoins.us/educational.html

UncleJoe · June 20, 2008 12:30AM

No cigar. Sorry.

See link. Notice how the head is in the border and notice the shape of the bottom of the gown by her right leg.

1916 SLQ

Joe.

savoyspecial · June 20, 2008 12:34AM

the sharply defined (depite lower grade of the coin) beading around the rim of her shield screams 1917 to me

greg

guitarwes · June 20, 2008 12:38AM

yeah, I see now about the hair in the dash-bead pattern.

thanks everyone.

-wes

Newcomp103 · June 20, 2008 12:48AM

I like that coin...kind of spooky looking actually!

JxnBoy · June 20, 2008 1:38AM

The rivets on the shield are far too defined for this to be a 1916. That right there is an easy indicator. Even hammered 1916's have much weaker definition on the shield.

And yes, the head into the reed and bead (or lack thereof in this case) is an easy tell on this coin as well.

veryfine · June 20, 2008 2:34AM

In addition to the above diagnostics, you will never a see a 1916 with the obverse stars as clearly defined as you will see in a 17 T1. This is true, even in very low grades, as is evident in the example you have.

Walkerguy21D · June 20, 2008 2:40AM

Good post, Wes.
There are a lot of these dateless TI quarters around, hopefully the insightful answers provided here will help someone to be a lucky winner!

jmcu12 · June 20, 2008 2:57AM

Agreed with everyone, just look at the head and it is easy to tell it is a 17.

RichieURich · June 20, 2008 3:26AM

I agree with the consensus, it is a 1917.

duck620 · June 20, 2008 3:56AM

sorry ,it's a 1917.i've got one just like it.drove me crazy trying to figure out if i had a 1916.

ricko · June 20, 2008 4:23AM

Very interesting.... good to learn those diagnostics.... Thanks, Cheers, RickO

Veep · June 20, 2008 5:41AM

Oops, never mind. Already mentioned in a link.

MFH · June 25, 2008 3:39AM

I wish I knew these pick-up points back when I was a teenager in the 1960's:

1916 Dateless SLQ's:

1) Head breaks into the Dots and Dashes.
The shape of the head dresses.

2) The shape of the left facing gown fold

3 ) The shield bosses are very weakly struck on ALL 1916's

What you have is a 1917 Ty. One...but you already know that.

Broadstruck · June 25, 2008 3:45AM

<< <i>Info can be found here

1916

1917 gown has more of a rounded look

>>

Great pics seemyauction!

Broadstruck · June 25, 2008 3:46AM

<< <i>I wish I knew these pick-up points back when I was a teenager in the 1960's:

1916 Dateless SLQ's:

1) Head breaks into the Dots and Dashes.
The shape of the head dresses.

2) The shape of the left facing gown fold

3 ) The shield bosses are very weakly struck on ALL 1916's

What you have is a 1917 Ty. One...but you already know that. >>

Now it's the 60's... wheren't you already a teen in the 1950's

veryfine · June 25, 2008 4:51AM

<< <i>

<< <i>I wish I knew these pick-up points back when I was a teenager in the 1960's:

1916 Dateless SLQ's:

1) Head breaks into the Dots and Dashes.
The shape of the head dresses.

2) The shape of the left facing gown fold

3 ) The shield bosses are very weakly struck on ALL 1916's

What you have is a 1917 Ty. One...but you already know that. >>

Now it's the 60's... wheren't you already a teen in the 1950's

>>

Broadstruck, you and MFH are right on target with your information, but there is one point that I wanted to clarify about "strike."
The rivets or "beads" on the 1916 are not only weak, but also different in design. A brand new, fully struck 1916 does not have defined rivets on the shield. The clear, raised, circular "dot" shapes on the 17 T1 were never in the original 16 design. This is one of many reasons I feel the 1916 should be classified as a seperate subtype (T1, T2, T3 and T4, with the 1916 as the one and only T1

MFH · June 25, 2008 5:05AM

Broadstruck...at least I admit to being over 39...

I'd be careful...July 17th is coming up very fast.

Yes, I was a teenager back in the 1960's...I was in grade school in the 1950's.

I remember looking thru rolls of quarters and pulled out all the type one coins
I could find - and with out any adult mentor to show me the difference - I only
kept coins with partial dates - all of which were 1917's. Almost all of the type two
SLQ's had no dates left on them back then, but there were plenty of decent type
three's with recessed dates. I found quite a few 1927-S's in F-XF.

I agree with Veryfine... the 1916 should be called a Type 1,
and the same basic design of 1917 be called Type 2, etc.

Here's hopin'......? 1916 SLQ

Comments

Leave a Comment