FH vs. non-FH Standing Liberty Quarters

coinguy1 · January 2, 2003 11:35PM

It SOUNDS pretty easy to explain / define - in order to qualify for a Full Head (FH) designation, a Standing Liberty Quarter must meet three criteria : 1) the three leaves in Liberty's hair must be completely visible; 2) the hairline along Liberty's brow must be complete and 3) the indentation or ear hole must be obvious.

That definition presents three different characteristics to examine AND debate. Sometimes it is easy to make the call but many times it is quite difficult. For purposes of this discussion, I will be referring to Type Two Standing Liberty Quarters only. They are a different breed, entirely from the Type One's.

Some of the difficulty in making the FH determination is due to the fact that different issues within the series are made / struck / better than others. The 1930 is by far the most readily available in FH, based on the combined PCGS and NGC pop report numbers - PCGS has attributed 1970 FH examples of all grades, while NGC has certified 1221. Those numbers actually make a non-FH 1930 more than twice as rare as a FH one.
On the other end of the rarity scale is the 1927-S, with a combined PCGS and NGC population of only 32 pieces, making it approximately 24 times rarer with FH than without. The difference in price for an MS65 1930 FH vs. non FH is roughly $250. For the 1927-S, the value differs by roughly $90,000 (based on prices listed in the CCDN) ! And yes, because of the value differences between FH and non-FH for some issues, unscrupulous individuals have been known to "create" FH specimens with the aid of tools.

Below, you will find images of three different Standing Liberty quarters. Two of them have received the FH designation and one has not. I must say at the outset, that the images might not be large / clear enough to get a great look. but this is all I have for now - an in person examination would obviously make this exercise much more convenient and effective - sorry for the inefficiencies here. Anyone having helpful images is certainly invited to post them to this thread!

Take a look at the pics and if you feel up to it, make a guess as to which is the non-FH example. After forum members have had time to reply, I will attempt to add a bit more to any discussion that might be taking place.

Entry #1

Entry #2

Entry #3

LucyBop · January 2, 2003 11:41PM

Great post. I'll guess and say coin 1 isn't full head... They all look good....

kieferscoins · January 2, 2003 11:43PM

It is way too hard to tell with those pictures. Great photos, but there has to be a more in depth shot. If forced to guess, I would say #3 is not the FH.

Cameron Kiefer

barberlover · January 2, 2003 11:47PM

wish i could get a clear image to see the heads closer and clearer but just from over all striking deail i'd guess the 3rd one doesn't have a full head. mark, after your lat responce in my post about sliders being called mint state to often, i wrote you a question. would you please read and respond. thanks, barberlover

LanLord · January 2, 2003 11:52PM

I think you were just posting to get us to see three killer coins. I like them all, can't see close enough to the head detail to make any determinations. You must immediately forward to me and I'll return them at my convenience.

dpoole · January 2, 2003 11:56PM

My guess is #2 as not the FH. Hard to tell. Nice shots, though. What beautiful coins those SLHs were!

littlewicher · January 2, 2003 11:57PM

On numbers 1 and 3, I can make out an ear hole. On specimen number two, the ear hole isn't evident to my eyes. Therefore, I'm going to say number two is the non-FH.

coinnerd · January 2, 2003 11:58PM

Three great coins. The 27 looks to be a little short of detail in the head, coin 3.

tradedollarnut · January 2, 2003 11:59PM

The three leaves seem weak on number three.

However, without a doubt, I've seen much worse holdered as FH.

tjkillian · January 3, 2003 12:02AM

For most dates/mints are MS coins normally struck with a full head or is it the exception?

Also, is it all or nothing in a FH designation with regard to its value, i.e. a just missed FH is no where near the value of a true FH?

I've heard of dish heads? What are those?

Tom

CarlWohlforth · January 3, 2003 12:07AM

I can't make out the details (leaves, ear, ...) on any of them. The '21 (#1) appears to have the weakest strike if one judges by the rivets on the shield and the date. So I guess #1 is not FH.

If it turns out that #2 or #3 are not FH they would be excellent buys. I think nicely struck SLQs with just missed FHs are real bargains.

barberlover · January 3, 2003 12:07AM

lanlord, is that really your picture? if it is what do you think of middle age balding fat men. LOL

prooflike · January 3, 2003 12:10AM

Entry #3 looks like it may be missing some leaf detail, hard to tell though. they all look nice.

LanLord · January 3, 2003 12:11AM

<< <i>lanlord, is that really your picture? if it is what do you think of middle age balding fat men. LOL >>

No, that's not me, that's what I wish was close to me though.

jom · January 3, 2003 12:14AM

If you note everyone's response you'll notice that most have said "they all look good" or some such. To me that is why I will not buy a FH over a non-FH, all else being equal. Because each coin Coinguy showed the strike was NOT a detriment to the overall eye-appeal of the coin. In that case paying the FH premium is not worth it, IMO (for me anyway).

That doesn't mean I haven't bought FH coins, I have. But in the ones I have they both have some other attribute I liked (they were nicely toned) so I went for it....a couple just happened to be FH's.

29-D
30-P
30-S

jom

PS: BTW, the 21-P looks like the one that may not have gotten the FH designation. But, like I said, if there were two coins like the 21-P that were similar but one had the FH designation I'd still buy the non-FH and save some dough.

Spudmasher · January 3, 2003 12:18AM

Mark - Again thank you for another great post. The pictures being what they are I would say that #3 looks to be about 80% FH.

coinrookie · January 3, 2003 12:45AM

#2 NON FH.

dorkkarl · January 3, 2003 12:54AM

can't tell by the tiny scans, but my comments posted in your FSB thread would apply here, ie. pay the prem. only for a fully-struck f-h coin.

K S

mdwoods · January 3, 2003 1:00AM

I can't tell. But I have seen some very nice non FH SLQs. For my type set, I would want FH coins. For a set of SLQs, I would not be so fussy. I can't tell a FH coin without a magnifier most of the time anyway. I have seen FH coins with weak shields, and non FH coins with nice shields. mdwoods

ccrdragon · January 3, 2003 1:05AM

From the pics - #2 is not FH

EVillageProwler · January 3, 2003 1:07AM

Mark,

A blowup of the head would have been nice. From the images, I'd guess either #1 or #3 because both look like they're missing some head and cheek detail. But, as much as I try to get my head closer to my computer monitor, the images just don't get any better!

Thanks for the thread...

EVP

Clankeye · January 3, 2003 1:12AM

If, as ccrDragon says, #2 is not full head (and it is the only scan I can see any difference in) then IF I collected these, that's the kind of coin I would be looking for. I would not be inclined to pay the FH tax. But, I am not a specialist in these, and I can imagine that someone who is might dismiss me in the same way I would someone who says that The Bridges of Madison County is a better book than Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Clankeye

tradedollarnut · January 3, 2003 1:21AM

I 100% agree. There's value in them thar NFH's (Near Full Heads). Just like in NFB's and NFBL's!

With regard to the lack of blowup pictures, isn't that sort of the point? If you need a darn electron microscope to tell the difference, paying a large premium just doesn't make much sense!

Bear · January 3, 2003 1:22AM

Mark - You are awarded Bears coveted "GROWL OF APPROVAL AWARD"" for excellence

in an educational thread. Well done!

jcping · January 3, 2003 1:24AM

The #2 coin (23S) is a stong Full Head coin; someone calls it Arm length Full Head and Cline calls it sharp Full Head. I believe it is a very high grade Full Head coin (should be at least MS66FH).

Both #1 and #3 will be graded as Full Head coins by PCGS/NGC (I am not sure today's ANACS standard) with today's standards, IMO. Going back 10 years, the #3 (27P) might be a liner.

I believe the photo for 21 is not so clear because of the grey color on the liberty's head. I wish you could post a better one.

BillJones · January 3, 2003 1:32AM

I'd say the one that missed is #2 because there is no earhole.

dpoole · January 3, 2003 2:14AM

You sound very authoritative, jcping.

Would you educate us about the details of your conclusions here, based on these photos? Obviously, most of the rest of us are all over the lot.

FC57Coins · January 3, 2003 2:15AM

For the visually impared (me included) - per Mark's request

littlewicher · January 3, 2003 2:19AM

Just as I thought. Coin #2 has almost no earhole, leading me to believe that it's the non-FH.

Placid · January 3, 2003 2:22AM

#3

TomB · January 3, 2003 2:40AM

Obviously very tough to tell with the resolution offered on a monitor, however, I go with coin number three as being the non-FH. Even though I write that I will also write that coin number three has the best eye appeal, by far, of all three coins listed, in my opinion. That is the coin I would buy.

dorkkarl · January 3, 2003 2:45AM

now it looks like bad resolution just blown up, but i'll say #2 definitely IS f-h, #3 seems to have the earlhole, etc., so i guess #1 is NOT F-H

K S

UncleJoe · January 3, 2003 3:57AM

From what I can see on my monitor, #2 in my opinion has the best struck head but I don't see the earhole so I guess that's the non-FH.

Joe.

berylcoin · January 3, 2003 4:53AM

I'll say #2, as I too see no clear earhole. I'll also say that I wouldn't pay a premium for any of these coins over the other two based only on the FH designation.

BC

Rotts · January 3, 2003 5:40AM

#2,imo

Rotts

coinguy1 · January 3, 2003 6:04AM

First, I would like to apologize - I apparently started a thread, without providing images which were adequate to allow for thorough enough examination, to make for a truly informative post.

Second, I would like to publicly thank Frank for taking the time and trouble to provide larger images within this thread.

The non-FH coin is #3, the 1927. The reason it misses the FH designation (and granted, it is very tough to tell from the image) is that one of the three leaves (the one that points to 9:00 clock-wise) in Liberty's hair, is not fully visible. Additionally, the hairline along Liberty's brow is weak / lacking at the area of her temple. That example is still quite close to FH, while the other two, are all there in that department. Again, I realize that it is difficult to tell that from the images.

Some time this weekend, I will reply to the various questions and comments contained in this thread. On that subject, I have a question - do you think it's ok for me to write a long post that contains responses to numerous posters, all in one message? Or, do you prefer that I post shorter messages to a few individuals at a time? It might seem like a silly question. But, I am aware, that sometimes my messages get quite lengthy when I try to reply to many people at the same time.

kieferscoins · January 3, 2003 6:05AM

All in one thread works great, as long as you put the persons name in front of each response.

Cameron Kiefer

berrydingle · January 3, 2003 6:13AM

.

kranky · January 3, 2003 6:27AM

All in one reply is fine.

I'm also interested in the question that tjkillian raised concerning all-or-nothing value-wise with respect to a FH designation. If so, the 90% FH coins would seem pretty attractive.

Also, what about coins that have a full shield, etc. but come up a little short on FH? There are FH coins that lack full shield detail, and it seems to me since the shield is a heck of a lot more prominent it should certainly count for something. Just another way of saying FH doesn't equal full strike, but it seems like the market prices them by FH on one hand, and everything else on the other.

LucyBop · January 3, 2003 6:31AM

<< <i>tasteless remark deleted >>

Is this necessary? What are you trying to say?

berrydingle · January 3, 2003 6:36AM

Whoa,easy kiddo
Just saying that you like benjaman franklin half dollars and not standing liberty quarters.
#1 looks full head
next question, isn't there a bugs bunny variety on the franklin series and how did it get that way

LucyBop · January 3, 2003 6:37AM

Well watch how you say things. That wasn't funny. Why don't you go down the list and make a dumb remark about everyone that missed the grade on this one?

MacCoin · January 3, 2003 6:53AM

the 27 is a type 3 it is not fair to compair it with the poorer strick of the type 2. all three coin are very nice
Mac

berrydingle · January 3, 2003 7:48AM

get over it plumpy

EVillageProwler · January 3, 2003 7:51AM

Berrydingle,

Why can't you exhibit some decorum and courtesy? No one deserves to be talked to like that. If you are any bit of an adult, you should apologize and stop with the crass behavior.

EVP

Clankeye · January 3, 2003 7:57AM

I second what EVP said on that one.

Clankeye

SportsModerator2 · January 3, 2003 8:01AM

I'll third it.
Sometimes "all in fun" can go a little to far when we don't know the other person.

Carol

banknote1 · January 3, 2003 8:07AM

I looked at several FH Standing Libs in PCGS holders, a few weeks ago, and none had all 3 leaves???? Also no ear hole. I passed on them!

benloe · January 3, 2003 8:10AM

I think there is still a lot of room for discussion about FH verses full strike. I got into a major
hassle with a dealer over this exact same thing. Coin had FH but weak shield. The money difference
is just too great to have such a limited criteria to go on.

LucyBop · January 3, 2003 8:10AM

Mark, sorry your thread turned out this way... Thank you for this thread, I have learned what to look for in a full head quarter. This is why I enjoy this forum, I become a better and smarter collector because of posts such as these. Everybody else, thanks for your support..

coinguy1 · January 3, 2003 8:12AM

Make me the 4th to go along with what EVP said, berrydingle.

Your initial post to Lucy appeared to be a very transparent and inappropriate innuendo. It was also a failed attempt at humor, in my opinion, at least. Then you went on to act like Lucy misinterpreted what you wrote. I believe she was correct in her assessment.

If I am accusing you falsely, I apologize. I'd be quite surprised if that were the case, however. I will not reply further to any of your posts on this topic, if any are forthcoming. You have already received far more attention than you deserved and taken away from what might have been a decent thread. Of course, you are free to disagree.

FH vs. non-FH Standing Liberty Quarters

Comments

Leave a Comment