<< <i>I spoke with a representative of the seller's affiliated company, here at the Las Vegas show yesterday.
I was told that they had received a number of inquiries - I wonder how THAT happened? : ) - checked the coin out, and confirmed that it is correctly attributed as a 1916. >>
I must admit, I am surprised. If the coin in question is in fact a genuine 1916, it is not typical for this date. The comparitive pictures that Steve posted show us a standard low grade 1916 and 1917 T1. That's the 16 I'm used to seeing.
"I was told that they had received a number of inquiries - I wonder how THAT happened? : ) - checked the coin out, and confirmed that it is correctly attributed as a 1916."
I still wonder if they had the correct pics.
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
<< <i>I was told that they.....checked the coin out, and confirmed that it is correctly attributed as a 1916.
That's odd, did they happen to mention which diagnostics led them to that conclusion? >>
"Hey Joe, we're getting a lot of questions about whether that standing liberty quarter we have up for sale is really a 1916. Can you check it out and make sure?"
"Sure I'll get right on it." Joe looks at label on the slab. "Yeah, it's a 1916!"
<< <i>I must admit, I am surprised. If the coin in question is in fact a genuine 1916, it is not typical for this date. The comparitive pictures that Steve posted show us a standard low grade 1916 and 1917 T1. >>
Must be one of those fabled 1916 proofs and it got into circulation, worn down to nothin.
This is very strange. I tried to be humble and accept the fact the coin in question could possibly be a unique 1916, but, it still bothers me. FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, THAT COIN IS NOT A 1916
There have been circulated 1916 Merc dimes found which turned out to be patterns with very slight differences from the final version. I wonder if by some chance this is the same situation.
Or else Jay Cline will have to revise his book on SLQs since the definitive diagnostics he cites for 1916 SLQ's do not fit this coin.
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.
The seller could settle a lot of these questions just by showing the entire slab with the insert. Just from the pics of the coin and what I know about the diagnostics, I'm inclined to think it's a 1917 as well.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>There have been circulated 1916 Merc dimes found which turned out to be patterns with very slight differences from the final version. I wonder if by some chance this is the same situation.
Or else Jay Cline will have to revise his book on SLQs since the definitive diagnostics he cites for 1916 SLQ's do not fit this coin. >>
Yes, that thought did go through my mind. But, if you look at the existing 1916 patterns, they all have the same soft subtle detail typical of any 1916. The sharpness of the 1917 T1 was made in response to the 1916 detail. That's why 1917 T1s have clear obverse stars and some shield detail even in the lowest grades.
<< <i>I think they had the wrong pics shown; otherwise, there was no reason to end the auction. >>
That could be, but it's difficult to believe that a worthless dateless 17 T1 could ever make it into any slab. The coin pictured is in a PCGS slab and we both believe it to be a 1917, so I'm thinking the label incorrectly says 1916. Of course since we can't see the friggin label, I can only guess at this.
I am a new member and I am also new to coin collecting. I was wondering if someone would share their expertise. I went to EBay and I saw the 1916 quarter, but the difference in price has me confused (which isn't difficult). I have a 1916D quarte that is in very good condition (I think) so I was just curious how I would determine the value of my coin. Thank you for any help. Tom
In addition to the 1916 SLQ patterns listed in Judd and discussed in much more detail in "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921," sculptor Hermon MacNeil saw several other versions when he visited the Philadelphia Mint in early January 1917. No one knows what these others looked like or if any made it into circulation. All of the pattern quarters struck after June 1916, and the 1916 circulation pieces and 1917 Type-I were adaptations and concoctions by the mint engravers, not MacNeil.
Comments
<< <i>I spoke with a representative of the seller's affiliated company, here at the Las Vegas show yesterday.
I was told that they had received a number of inquiries - I wonder how THAT happened? : ) - checked the coin out, and confirmed that it is correctly attributed as a 1916. >>
I must admit, I am surprised. If the coin in question is in fact a genuine 1916, it is not typical for this date. The comparitive pictures that Steve posted show us a standard low grade 1916 and 1917 T1.
That's the 16 I'm used to seeing.
I suppose I need re-educate myself!:
I still wonder if they had the correct pics.
That's odd, did they happen to mention which diagnostics led them to that conclusion?
<< <i>I was told that they.....checked the coin out, and confirmed that it is correctly attributed as a 1916.
That's odd, did they happen to mention which diagnostics led them to that conclusion? >>
"Hey Joe, we're getting a lot of questions about whether that standing liberty quarter we have up for sale is really a 1916. Can you check it out and make sure?"
"Sure I'll get right on it." Joe looks at label on the slab. "Yeah, it's a 1916!"
<< <i>I must admit, I am surprised. If the coin in question is in fact a genuine 1916, it is not typical for this date. The comparitive pictures that Steve posted show us a standard low grade 1916 and 1917 T1. >>
Must be one of those fabled 1916 proofs and it got into circulation, worn down to nothin.
FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, THAT COIN IS NOT A 1916
Or else Jay Cline will have to revise his book on SLQs since the definitive diagnostics he cites for 1916 SLQ's do not fit this coin.
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.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>There have been circulated 1916 Merc dimes found which turned out to be patterns with very slight differences from the final version. I wonder if by some chance this is the same situation.
Or else Jay Cline will have to revise his book on SLQs since the definitive diagnostics he cites for 1916 SLQ's do not fit this coin. >>
Yes, that thought did go through my mind. But, if you look at the existing 1916 patterns, they all have the same soft subtle detail typical of any 1916. The sharpness of the 1917 T1 was made in response to the 1916 detail. That's why 1917 T1s have clear obverse stars and some shield detail even in the lowest grades.
<< <i>I think they had the wrong pics shown; otherwise, there was no reason to end the auction. >>
That could be, but it's difficult to believe that a worthless dateless 17 T1 could ever make it into any slab. The coin pictured is in a PCGS slab and we both believe it to be a 1917, so I'm thinking the label incorrectly says 1916. Of course since we can't see the friggin label, I can only guess at this.
I went to EBay and I saw the 1916 quarter, but the difference in price has me confused (which isn't difficult). I have a 1916D quarte that is in very good condition (I think) so I was just curious how I would determine the value of my coin.
Thank you for any help.
Tom
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>If a mechanical error, who eats the 2K? >>
If this really is a 1917 and it's in a PCGS 1916 holder, I believe the party that would eat the $2K is...PCGS. >>
You can't tell diddly squat form the so-called PCGS guaranty of authenticity!!!