Standing Liberty Quarter Pickup - FH?

spyglassdesign

Wondering if you think it might qualify as FH? Opinions appreciated. I spent a fair bit of time trying to photograph this thing... it has a lot of luster to deal with.

spyglassdesign

Tried to get a couple pics through my loupe with my phone. Hopefully these help.

Coinscratch

Looks full enough but better closer pics are needed.

spyglassdesign

@Coinscratch refresh and see my updated second post.

Coinscratch

Not so sure anymore looks kinda flat - wait for an expert to chime in.

pursuitofliberty

Interesting. That's a rather flat head for a Type 1 Philly, and there's a minor break where the hair seems to blend to the cheek/brow, so my guess will be no

BillJones

Most 1917 Type I quarters are full head. This one appears to be a trifle flat and a near miss.

lermish

Nice looking coin! My guess is no but that guess is not worth face value.

TomB

These can come with incredible frost and very well struck head features. However, not all of them were produced in this manner. Perhaps it is the lighting or the angle that the images were acquired, but the coin appears to have muted luster (though you have stated it has great luster, which makes me think my interpretation is off); some hairlines, a possible partial fingerprint on the obverse and maybe wear on the high points. I would guess an AU58, but I doubt many would agree with me and I might be waaaaay far off.

spyglassdesign

@lermish said:
Nice looking coin! My guess is no but that guess is not worth face value.

I appreciate the feedback 👍

spyglassdesign

@TomB it's the lighting. I'm still experimenting, and the shinier the coin I find it harder to get good pics of. It is very frosty. Too much light and it just glares. Not enough light and it doesn't sparkle. That's why I took it with lighting feon a couple different directions.

The pics in my second follow up with my phone are probably closer to true to life as far as color goes, and you can see how much it reflects the bright light on my loupe.

oih82w8

I don't think the OP's is detailed enough for FH designation;

1916

1917 Type I

1917-1930 Type II

The images above were in an article from our host, but it seems to have been updated.

https://www.pcgs.com/news/what-does-full-head-mean-on-standing-liberty-quarters?gid=20

Connecticoin

Looks just short of full head, like the right hand 17 T-1 picture above.

spyglassdesign

@oih82w8 based on those images and a close 40x magnification, looks like it's somewhere between 'just short' and 'minimum'. Looks like it would be a toss up. It's very subtle but there is separation all the way across the bottom of the cap but ever so barely.

winesteven

You may know this, but the standard for FH designation is different for Type 1 coins from Type 2.

PCGS says, “ Type I Standing Liberty Quarters earn the FH designation when there is a clear and distinct separation between Miss Liberty’s hair cords and her cap.”

Steve

lilolme

Here is the pcgs video that contains the FH designation. The FH starts at 17 seconds into video and is about 6 minutes worth on the FH (about 3 minutes on each type).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRJMDTaSfs&t=17s

ricko

I would say that will not get the 'full head' designation... details are flattened and looks to blend in at one point. Cheers, RickO

spyglassdesign

Now comes the big question... now that we've decided it may not get an FH label (that's what it was sold to me as), do I return it and keep looking or go ahead and get it slabbed as it's still a good piece? I know pictures are hard to tell from... opinions appreciated!

rooksmith

Those are hard to find in that condition, FH or Not. Where did you find it?

spyglassdesign

@rooksmith said:
Those are hard to find in that condition, FH or Not. Where did you find it?

eBay of all places. I've been looking at lots of terrible and great examples, studying on what to look out for and how to detect wear vs weak strike etc. This one popped at what seemed like a fair price, especially if it grades well.

I have been learning to be more patient and picky, especially on these older coins as there is usually some decent samples that don't cost an entire arm and leg... just maybe a hand, or a couple fingers

lermish

@spyglassdesign said:
Now comes the big question... now that we've decided it may not get an FH label (that's what it was sold to me as), do I return it and keep looking or go ahead and get it slabbed as it's still a good piece? I know pictures are hard to tell from... opinions appreciated!

I have a tendency at times to shoot first and ask questions later so I totally understand your dilemma.

Do you like the coin? I think it's a good looking coin but that is up to you.
Is the designation super important to you? If yes, I think buying one pre-slabbed is probably the best option.
Is it worth grading? It's very tough to tell from pictures but I think it's a low MS example. That value is probably ~$400ish. So that depends on your cost and if you are planning to flip it or hold it.

spyglassdesign

@lermish I'm more interested in potential value slabbing may bring more than the designation per se. I do think it's a nice looking coin but may flip depending on slabbed value.

Can you tell me what about the coin makes you think it may be low ms VS mid ms? Appreciate the feedback!

oih82w8

My track record on raw submissions, other than crackouts, is terrible. If I want a problem free coin, I get TPG certified versions.

TomB

@spyglassdesign said:
@lermish I'm more interested in potential value slabbing may bring more than the designation per se. I do think it's a nice looking coin but may flip depending on slabbed value.

Can you tell me what about the coin makes you think it may be low ms VS mid ms? Appreciate the feedback!

I realize the question was directed to @lermish but my thoughts for why this is an AU or a low end MS coin have already been stated. It appears to have muted luster (though you state it doesn't) and muted luster is often due to being dipped repeatedly or improperly, the coin has hairlines visible in your images, it has what appears to be a partial fingerprint in the field between the letters LIB in LIBERTY in your images and there might be wear on the knee.

Additionally, since you stated you purchased it from ebay, I went there and found the original listing for the coin and the listing has red flags on it. My opinion is that you paid more than the coin is worth and that after grading fees you will be further in the hole. However, I am merely going by two sets of images (yours and the original seller) and I could be entirely wrong...but I have a lot of experience with such coins and I might be right.

lermish

@spyglassdesign said:
@lermish I'm more interested in potential value slabbing may bring more than the designation per se. I do think it's a nice looking coin but may flip depending on slabbed value.

Can you tell me what about the coin makes you think it may be low ms VS mid ms? Appreciate the feedback!

EDIT: @TomB is very good at this and I would definitely defer/concur to him.

First disclosures. I am not good at this so I would definitely take other people's opinions prior to mine. Also, this is very tough to do via pictures.

Wear on the helmet and breast with some light lines across the chest. Contact marks on left leg and some wear on right leg. Wear on eagle's breast on reverse. Whether that's enough to keep it from 64 or not...dunno, like I said, I'm not good at this.

I don't think it is but I could also see it come back as Unc-Cleaned depending what the pictures are hiding.

spyglassdesign

@TomB thanks. I don't see the fingerprint on the coin itself, that could be the plastic it was in for the second set of photos. It was bare for the first set of photos though. I do see a couple hairlines on the chest though. And the fact that it's a toss up fh at best...

As far as luster, I literally blind myself looking up close with my lighted loupe 40x multiple times while looking at it. That would indicate at least decent luster if it's that reflective no? IF it does have good luster, with a few hairline on the chest (only visible under magnification, including on the reverse field), and otherwise clean fields, would that still be indicative of low VS mid grade ms?

@lermish thanks, I can't see any wear under magnification, the surfaces are consistent throughout. There are a couple bag marks on the right leg as you noted. There are also micro 'scratches' (for lack of a better term) on her chest and a couple in the reverse field. They aren't consistent in direction or length, and there's only a few, seemingly random. The obverse field looks mint as far as I can tell - being the lowest point of the coin that's not surprising though.

Thanks guys for the feedback. I'm learning a lot!

TomB

Please always keep in mind that I haven't seen this coin in-hand, but I can attempt to show you how I am evaluating the images. Below you will find a pair of your images where I have circled or noted various things.

In the first set we go from a cropped version of your shot to the identical shot showing the nicks on and around the knee as well as possible wear on the knee. This line, from kneecap to the toes, is the high point of the obverse and will often show wear first. The third shot shows some of the speckles on the obverse and this area is problematic in that the speckle along the base of the wall looks to my eyes to be burnt onto the surface of the coin and will not remove easily or without underlying damage. These speckles might be why the coin was dipped (or overdipped) in the first place.

The second series of images go from a cropped version of your shot to the identical shot with the partial fingerprint outlined. It might not be obvious in the image so a third shot has the lines from the partial print highlighted. These may be from the plastic, as you have suggested, but are often found on coinage after a dipping when the coin is not handled properly or rinsed properly. The last image shows the hairlines visible on the upper portion of the coin.

TomB

Regarding my comments on luster; your images make it look flat. Flat luster does not mean the coin ins't white and it doesn't mean the coin can't blind you. Heck, brilliant proof coinage does not have luster, but it can blind the heck out of you. Similarly, polished coinage does not have much, if any, luster and it can also blind you. True mint luster is seen as a glisten or vibrant dance of the light when the coin is rotated slowly. I don't have many white coins, but can give you two examples from pieces I own.

The Barber half dollar has great luster and the pebbled effect is true mint frost that dances with the light and explodes in every direction. The Washington quarter has the type of luster often seen on these late 1940s through mid 1950s coins where the metal looks like it is a boiling pool of reflection. They have different characteristics from one another. Of the two, the Barber half dollar is more likely what you would see on an early SLQ.

spyglassdesign

@tomb yeah I know in hand is always best but I appreciate your analysis!

I'll look again at the fingerprint to confirm it's not on the coin itself but I did see the spots too. I'll look closer at those. Do you think those could hurt the grade? The markings on the chest, at least some of them are on the coin but only under magnification. Would a couple marks like those significantly degrade potential grade? I know with Morgan's for instance you can sometimes have a fair amount on the cheek before it hurts it too much.

spyglassdesign

@tomb good points. Forgot about the ring dance/cartwheel effect. I'll take a look under light to see if/how it does.

TomB

I don't grade coins by parsing out deductions for this impairment or that impairment, but rather grade coins based upon how the coin presents itself to me as a whole.

Wispy hairlines will be noticed immediately and may limit the grade, a partial, essentially untoned fingerprint may or may not be noticed and may or may not affect the grade while the spotting will be the first thing anyone sees and they may or may not hurt the grade, but they may cap the grade. The nicks on or around the knee will be something seen on virtually all business strike coins. Truly, it will be a matter of if there is or is not deemed to be wear on the coin that will have the greatest affect in this instance. If there is wear and everything else checks out nicely then I see an AU58. If there is wear and the coin really does have flat luster and the spots or hairlines are worse than is apparent then perhaps AU55. If there is no wear then the luster will determine the high end of the grade, but my guess would be MS6-63.

Please keep in mind these are just interpretations and I could be wrong.

TomB

That should be MS62-63, not MS6-63!

spyglassdesign

@tomb I just checked inside and outside the plastic... It doesn't have huge cartwheels like some of my Morgan's (which of course I know are much bigger and have more areas to see cartwheels) but they are there, particularly on the reverse. It's more muted on the obverse but can be seen.

spyglassdesign

Took another of the area where you saw the fingerprint. I can't find it on the coin /phew

airplanenut

@TomB has done a great job explaining things, but I'll add that before I saw any of his replies, I had the same thoughts, especially regarding the surfaces of the coin. While a coin with natural surfaces can be lit in such a way that it may look a bit off or the lustre, some coins are just likely to produce an off look with most lighting because the surfaces have issues. The first photo in the OP has uniformly bright fields and lower relief, while the higher relief is dark but slightly glossy. That's a pretty common trait for how dipped or wiped surfaces photograph. Similarly, the next two photos have rather weak lustre bands where other parts of the coin's surfaces are relatively uniformly illuminated. At the very least that makes me think there's some rub, but again, it's a trait of how coins with impaired lustre photograph.

spyglassdesign

@airplanenut thanks, that's very helpful. Between you and @TomB I'm leaning towards returning it and trying again at this point. Figured it was worth a pull of the handle... You win some you lose some! And now I have actually seen one in person so I'll have a better idea what I'm looking at and what to look for.

airplanenut

@spyglassdesign said:
@airplanenut thanks, that's very helpful. Between you and @TomB I'm leaning towards returning it and trying again at this point. Figured it was worth a pull of the handle... You win some you lose some! And now I have actually seen one in person so I'll have a better idea what I'm looking at and what to look for.

I'd definitely return it. I also looked up the original listing, and you paid a good amount for the coin, and you could buy a nice graded one for the same amount (maybe not FH, but hey, there's a reason the coin sold for what it did). With that said, GSC has a long-held reputation for selling coins with flattering photos (if you don't know how to read them) of coins that usually aren't in a holder for a reason. The warning in their description is actually quite telling:

"If you are bidding on raw coins, we STRONGLY RECOMMMEND that you have knowledge of the coin industry, coin pricing, and coin grading before you bid.

We guarantee AUTHENTICITY ONLY!!!

We do not offer grades on raw coins, and we do not guarantee grades on raw coins."

Yes, it's possible to cherrypick a good deal from somewhere, but you need to be really well versed in interpreting photos and knowing exactly what to look for. I'd suggest sticking to graded coins and/or working with trustworthy dealers until you have more of that experience. It's easy to get a mediocre coin that looks like a good deal, but with some patience and education, you can get much more rewarding pieces for your collection.

spyglassdesign

@airplanenut thanks for the feedback... yeah I'm familiar with their tactics. And I was before the purchase. Figured it was worth a shot. I studied the pictures along with pics from coin facts for a long time before deciding to give it a shot.

airplanenut

@spyglassdesign said:
@airplanenut thanks for the feedback... yeah I'm familiar with their tactics. And I was before the purchase. Figured it was worth a shot. I studied the pictures along with pics from coin facts for a long time before deciding to give it a shot.

One thing I’ve learned from photographing an ungodly number of coins which has been very valuable is how to read photos. On purpose or by accident, I’ve photographed all kinds of coins in every conceivable kind of lighting. My personal rule for someone like GSC os that I wouldn’t touch anything of theirs unless I’m convinced there’s an upside even with every possible hidden flaw I can imagine coming to light. Even when their coins look nice at first glance, I still see right past that and find major flaws. My only advice is to avoid them. Let someone else take the loss.

spyglassdesign

@airplanenut yeah I knew their reputation and was trying to be extra picky but it still didn't work out. If it was actually a fh and not a borderline flip a coin yes/no, I may have kept it as it was still attractive (less the lack of mint luster).

I will definitely be even more selective if I ever buy from them again.