What do you think of this 1917 Type 2 SLQ?

JxnBoy

When I bought this, I thought it to be a 63FH.

Now I'm looking harder, and I'm not sure it'll make MS. The chain mail looks a bit soft; weak strike? The shield, however, looks pretty nice, with all the rivots. The head looks to have enough separation from the face to go FH, at least to me.

The small spot at 11 or so is a reflection from the 2 x 2. I didn't 'crack' it out before I took the photos.

Should I send this in to PCGS or put it in my AU album?

airplanenut

Damn that's a close call--I like it!

Although a type 1 would have been much better

Sandhawk

IMHO, I think it looks AU due to the rub on the breast. It looks like a strong strike but will not make MS due to the rub.

BillJones

It's a nice looking coin, but if you are hoping for MS-63, FH, it's a near miss on both counts.

The ear hole is missing on the head, and there is definitely a wear spot on the knee. Having said that, there are lots of MS-63 graded Standing Lib quarters with wear spots on the knee, but I do whatever I can to avoid them.

Good photo! There is not doubt in my mind about what I just wrote.

291fifth

AU album. Looks cleaned or dipped to me.

northcoin

I have to agree that one had a nice strike which unfortunately makes the wear spots even more evident. This is most evident to me on the shield's centered vertical lines since half of them are flattened and the other half still has nice vertical lines. With a weak strike absent wear the shield would have had a more uniform appearance. The detail is especially nice though on the lower points not subject to wear including the face details on Ms. Liberty.

JxnBoy

I don't believe it's been cleaned or dipped. I believe it to be from a large collection that came out of a capital plastics holder, and none of the lot showed much toning. In hand it looks to have an original, if a bit handled, surface.

I hate what you're saying, BillJones, but I must admit that I think you're right. I really wanted this coin to be MS. Regarding the head, though, there is a small slash mark on the ear, but I do believe it may be a just-miss full head. There is a separation on the hairline and face though, which I think is more often tougher than the earhole.

And APN, I like the Type 1, too, but I must admit to loving the entire series...

airplanenut

<< <i>And APN, I like the Type 1, too, but I must admit to loving the entire series... >>

Admit all you want...

My T-1 is one of my most eye-appealing coins, and has sentimental value... so I treasure it... and all T-1s

northcoin

OK Airplanenut - thanks for the tease. Now let's see the photo of that T1.

MFH

David... Its an AU58FH...look at the rub on the leading leg. If sent to PCGS, it would go 55FH.

Nice coin though, wish I could have seen the images of the entire set inside the Capitol Holder.

Mike

mrearlygold

Not a FH by any stretch. Doesn't appear mint state but scans really don't accurately portray a coins real surfaces.

So based on the scan, a nice AU coin.

Rgrds
TP

jom

It barely misses FH BUT I have seen worse graded FH. It is AU however. Look at the flatness on the knee and just below it.

jom

aem4162

she's very pretty

Tassa

<< <i>It barely misses FH BUT I have seen worse graded FH. It is AU however. Look at the flatness on the knee and just below it.

jom >>



I agree. Still a pretty coin though.

dorkkarl

at this grade level, we need a luster shot. can't really tell from the digi-pic provided.

K S