Options
1916 SLQ PCGS graded at FR-2??
johnny54321
Posts: 480 ✭
A forum member on cointalk posted the obverse picture of his PCGS FR-02 1916 SLQ. Since I had been studying this coin intently for a while having just purchased one in a lot, I questioned PCGS on this coin. Though the hair curl looks more or less correct, all of the other diagnostics look like that of a 1917 to me. I hope I'm wrong and this truly is a 1916, so please give your opinions. The owner purchased this coin already slabbed at the market value of a 1916. If it is a 1917, and PCGS messed up; does he have any recourse to get reimbursed for the difference in value between the two dates from PCGS?
thanks,
John
thanks,
John
All coins kept in safety deposit box.
0
Comments
<< <i>Ummm. That is a 1917 TY-1 >>
I agree. See here for an excellent article which shows how to distinguish a 1916 from s 1917.
Lance.
http://www.cointalk.com/t98988-3/
His certification number checks out: 5704.02/21430001. He also stated that the slab looked clean and untampered with. Do you think it is more likely that PCGS screwed up and misattributed, or a counterfeit slab with a genuine 1917?
<< <i>Here is the original thread on cointalk. It was actually started by me based on a 1916 I found in a coin lot. Later, another member posted a picture of his PCGS SLQ 1916 FR-02, which is what I pictured and questioned on this forum.
http://www.cointalk.com/t98988-3/
His certification number checks out: 5704.02/21430001. He also stated that the slab looked clean and untampered with. Do you think it is more likely that PCGS screwed up and misattributed, or a counterfeit slab with a genuine 1917? >>
I wonder the same, counterfeit slabs are getting better all the time. Do you have pics of the slab?
Will’sProoflikes
<< <i>A forum member on cointalk posted the obverse picture of his PCGS FR-02 1916 SLQ. Since I had been studying this coin intently for a while having just purchased one in a lot, I questioned PCGS on this coin. Though the hair curl looks more or less correct, all of the other diagnostics look like that of a 1917 to me. I hope I'm wrong and this truly is a 1916, so please give your opinions. The owner purchased this coin already slabbed at the market value of a 1916. If it is a 1917, and PCGS messed up; does he have any recourse to get reimbursed for the difference in value between the two dates from PCGS?
thanks,
John >>
That's a 1917. In fact, I can't imagine that PCGS would also actually grade a coin that is that badly scratched... if it's a counterfeit holder I would not be shocked.
<< <i>I sure would like to see a pic of the slab; those scratches should have garnered a Genuine holder IMO. >>
I agree.
<< <i>
<< <i>I sure would like to see a pic of the slab; those scratches should have garnered a Genuine holder IMO. >>
I agree. >>
If a common date SLQ had those scratches, would they have graded it or gennied it? Do they have different standards for better dates vs. common dates within a given series?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I sure would like to see a pic of the slab; those scratches should have garnered a Genuine holder IMO. >>
I agree. >>
If a common date SLQ had those scratches, would they have graded it or gennied it? Do they have different standards for better dates vs. common dates within a given series? >>
They're supposed to be the same standards.
<< <i>If a common date SLQ had those scratches, would they have graded it or gennied it? Do they have different standards for better dates vs. common dates within a given series? >>
At least back in the days before the "genuine" slab, I think many of the more valuable coins and rare dates were quietly "net graded" down for damage instead of BB'd because the authentication was important enough to warrant a slabbing. Which makes sense, I suppose; if I have a 1916 SLQ I'm more interesting in authentication than whether it's FR-2 or AG-3 -- and more concerned about getting certified authentic than whether or not it is graded.
These days, now that an authenticated "genuine" slab is an option, I don't know if the old perception still applies (to the extent it ever did).
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I sure would like to see a pic of the slab; those scratches should have garnered a Genuine holder IMO. >>
I agree. >>
If a common date SLQ had those scratches, would they have graded it or gennied it? Do they have different standards for better dates vs. common dates within a given series? >>
They're supposed to be the same standards. >>
We all know that. Now answer the questions!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I sure would like to see a pic of the slab; those scratches should have garnered a Genuine holder IMO. >>
I agree. >>
If a common date SLQ had those scratches, would they have graded it or gennied it? Do they have different standards for better dates vs. common dates within a given series? >>
They're supposed to be the same standards. >>
We all know that. Now answer the questions!
Well since you pushed me into the corner, IMO any SLQ with many scratches will get the Genuine slab. That's why I want to see if it's a an authentic PCGS slab.
As many of you have stated, it's the slab that raises questions.
<< <i>I went to the CoinTalk thread and found this: "Here is the obverse. The real fine scratches are on the PCGS holder, not the coin." >>
I'll buy that, but what about the heavy scratches? I see one heavy scratch that stops at the edge of the coin. If it's on the plastic, that's one heck of a coincidence.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I got a 1906-D Half Genuined twice because of a VERY light and thin surface scratch (This coin has gouges) that can only be seen under the right angle, this coin isn't even a judgement call, it's a mess.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
The slab looks somewhat suspect, I'm pretty sure it's fake, although I'll let the experts determine that.
It looks like a real 1917 to me.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t98988/#ixzz0jpPCPhqI"
http://www.cointalk.com/t98988-3/
Anyone have a clue as to what is going on with PCGS here? I'm at a loss..........
<< <i>The owner on cointalk states that, "I had my Fr-2 Standing lib checked out by a PCGS grader today and was verified as authentic.
Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t98988/#ixzz0jpPCPhqI"
http://www.cointalk.com/t98988-3/
Anyone have a clue as to what is going on with PCGS here? I'm at a loss.......... >>
This is what I just posted on Cointalk in reply to his post:
"How was it examined - in person or via the images? And who was the grader that supposedly checked it out? Did he say the coin was authentic, or that it was an authentic 1916? There's a huge difference.
I don't think there is any way that it's a 1916, and either PCGS made a mistake (for which you need to get compensated) or someone placed the coin in a counterfeit holder.
But, If PCGS has examined the coin in person and declared it to be a genuine 1916, in order to try to protect yourself, you need a letter from them, detailing their conclusion and mentioning your specific coin and its unique ID number.
"The coin was examined in person and compared to a 1917 (granted, a higher grade 1917). There was no concern about the holder having been played with. The primary diagnostic was the drapery to the right of the right leg. The difference was small, but obvious. I feel comfortable with its attribution as an 1) authentic standing liberty quarter and 2) its attribution as a 1916.
Your suggestion as to getting a letter from PCGS is good. Next time I talk to them, I'll ask"
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>Just look at the head in relation to the reed-and-bead border. Clearly not the right style for a 1916. >>
I agree.
On the 17, even in the lowest grades, the protected quadrant of the shield below the "E" and "R" of LIBERTY has sharp, rounded rivets. You will NEVER find a 16 with that kind of detail. It never existed in the first place.
Here are scans of my 16 and 17 T1. The 16 is an MS63 FH and the 17 is a raw AU. In very low grades, the differences are even more dramatic, since the 16 rivet detail is nearly worn smooth. This and several other diagnostics will quickly identify a 16 or 17 T1, and the coin in question is most certainly a 17 T1.
Richard
my car art & My Ebay stuff
Anyways, the owner is convinced that the PCGS coin is genuine. I know it's obvious to the rest of us that it is a 1917, but we are all faceless internet folk and he supposedly had it examined by an experienced PCGS grader in hand....so I don't think there is much we can do except to encourage him to learn the diagnostics for himself(which we've all tried to do, but he hasn't been listening).
"The great thing about standards is, there are so many different ones to choose from!" Jim Mechan
<< <i>So, sometimes PCGS labels these as "Standing Liberty" and other times simply "Standing"? >>
I was looking through past Heritage auctions, and yes, the slightly older PCGS holders label it as "Standing".
I know the difference in the drapery fold, and the fact that it attaches to liberty's foot; but I have never heard of the diagnostic described like this. Does anyone else know what he is talking about?
<< <i>Wow veryfine!!! That looks to be a beautiful 1916.....I'm drooling as that is my dreamcoin!! I was fortunate to find a dateless one cheap. Can you post a full picture? >>
Thanks Johnny,
Here's a scan of my 1916 type set.
Will’sProoflikes