The finest Type one Standing quarter I have ever seen. Possible specimen piece?

coinlieutenant

I was able to view this coin yesterday. It is owned by a good friend of mine who bought it out of the sale linked below.

Upon viewing it, I was impressed by the luster, immaculate surfaces and eye appeal. Looking closer, the coin becomes even more interesting. It has full broad thick rims that center the portrait. Secondly, the strike is amazing. It goes beyond the normal excellent striking characteristics found on Type one '17's, it takes it to another level. Every detail is full. Finally, the coin has a very matte like look to it. After studying the coin, my impression, that I mentioned in the vault, was that it looked like some sort of a presentation piece.

The pics do the coin absolutely no justice at all....it is however, very lustrous and fully orginal.

I am no slq expert by a long shot. Anyone care to weigh in on the possiblity of a presentation piece from the San Fran mint that year? Anything in records indicate such a piece?

MrSpud

Wonder why they didn't give it the FH designation?

SUPERCARCOINS

...Looks pretty special to me..........

tmot99

Looks like it should get a "First Strike" designation.









Oh come on. You know someone was going to say it. Why not me?

rsdoug81

<< <i>Wonder why they didn't give it the FH designation? >>



Was the designation around when it was slabbed?

coinlieutenant

Pre FH designation...

tmot99

<< <i>Wonder why they didn't give it the FH designation? >>



Old fatties were probably before the FH designation was put into place. I might suggest a call to Mr. Kline(sp?) on this one. He may have the knowledge to answer it.

tradedollarnut

Hmmm - no Full Nipple...

joecheck

coinlieutenant

I think there is a nip Bruce...cant see it well in the pic, but the coin had one.

coinguy1

<< the coin has a very matte like look to it>>

<<it is however, very lustrous>>

Sorry, John, those two comments don't go together. It might be one or the other, but not both. A matte proof coin is not properly/accurately described as "lustrous". And from the images, it doesn't look matte. It looks nice though.

Sincerely, mrkilljoycoinguy1

mirabela

Doesn't a matte proof coin have luster, just of a pronouncedly different sort than an ordinary business strike? I always thought of luster as the natural texture of the metal as struck -- which may be frosty or mirrored or grainy or sandy or any number of things. Must luster always equal shininess?

Education, please ...

gemini12398

so is it for sale?

coinguy1

<< <i>Doesn't a matte proof coin have luster, just of a pronouncedly different sort than an ordinary business strike? I always thought of luster as the natural texture of the metal as struck -- which may be frosty or mirrored or grainy or sandy or any number of things. Must luster always equal shininess?

Education, please ... >>

Here's one definition of mint luster, although there are certainly others:

"The glossy sheen reflected from the surface of a coin, resulting from the flow of metal caused by the striking dies"

A typical matte proof coin is not highly lustrous, but rather grainy, often subdued and even dull. They are also usually darker than the coin shown in this thread.

RWB

There are a number of exceptional 1917 Type-I SLQs in collections. Strike and detail are well above typical, and the surfaces are smooth and satin-like, as would be expected for the first few pieces struck by new dies. In a very few instances, such as the examples in the Connecticut State Library collection, they can be traced to the Curator of the Philadelphia Mint cabinet of coins. T L. Comparette supplied selected coins struck from new dies to Connecticut State Librarian George Godard and others associated with public coin collections and to some individuals. They were struck on normal presses. Other than being from new dies, and handled carefully, there is nothing unusual about production of the pieces.

The 1917 Type-I quarter was designed by the Philadelphia Mint engravers – we don’t know which one. The much sharper appearance compared to the dime and half, or the Type-II 1917 quarter, is due to the master hub and master die being extensively retouched by hand rather than letter the reducing machine do all the work. This was the last circulating coin to be extensively hand retouched.

[Added - Comparette also selected coins from the pyx submissions for the Annual Assay Commission. The CSL has a 1917-D comparable to the 17-S, shown above.]

You can find out more about how the SL quarters were designed and produced in “Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921.”

Shamika

If anyone wants to view the original auction and see the coin much closer, take a look here. The coin is FH and then some! And the rims are so wide, the coin almost looks like it was struck out of collar.

Prethen

That coin sold once in a past Heritage auction for $46,000.

coinlieutenant

Mark,

Matteish...how about that. It has a grainy look to it, but still is very lustrous. It is not a typical look for a slq, put it that way.

J

coinguy1

Until I looked at the auction link I wasn't even aware that the coin was an S-mint. That makes it even (far) less likely that it would be a matte proof or "specimen" It sure brought a healthy price, though - I'm guessing that a bidder or two must have thought it would/could grade MS68FH.

MacCrimmon

<< <i>That coin sold once in a past Heritage auction for $46,000. >>



At $46K it is not the usual 17-s, I would think......

robertpr

Here are the Heritage photos (cropped and combined for file size) for the individuals without a Heritage account.

Moose1913

Sold for: $46,000.00

robertpr beat me to the pics...

Leiana

Thanks, Robert!

That's a pretty awesome strike. Does anyone else notice that the coin looks slightly misaligned?

-Amanda

coinlieutenant

Even as a 68FH, I dont know if the coin would be worth 46K. I know that people at the sale, including a couple of crackout guys thought the coin had a shot at 68. I dont know if it would go 68 or not. The 'pop' of the coin is somewhat diminished by its strange surfaces, despite Feld's incredulity that it could have matte properties and lustrous properites at the same time.

I am not saying it is a specimen striking, just wanted to talk about the possibility from a historical perspective. The high price could very easily be a combo of two individuals believing that the coin was a specimen...whether they are right is debatable.

J

jayboxx

In level of detail, It looks very similar to this one that ANR has in their upcoming auction, although this is a 1917 Philly:

They describe it as: If you want to know what a Full Head Standing Liberty quarter looks like, and also one with sharply struck shield rivets, bold date, and feathers on the body of the eagle on the reverse, study this coin carefully—it is definitive. There is not much else to say except that it is brilliant and lustrous, and that we would not be surprised to see this soar when it crosses the block.

topstuf

I used to own this circ of same issue. Amazing strike. Worn yet full nips.



Yours must be what it looked like new.

mrearlygold

The price of that coin is more stunning than anything else

seateddime

That is a nice coin!

AU58WALKERS

1917-s coins are typicaly the weakest strike of the type1 slq's.

This example is by far a very exceptional coin.
ms 67, 68, 69....who cares what the plastic says, this is probably the finest known example.

thanks for sharing, John.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i>Wonder why they didn't give it the FH designation? >>


it is in an early NGC holder

GoldenEyeNumismatics

just one question, why would there be a presentation piece for a 1917 S Type 1? If anything I thought they would make one fore the type 2.

coinguy1

<< <i>just one question, why would there be a presentation piece for a 1917 S Type 1? If anything I thought they would make one fore the type 2. >>

I don't think there would be

tmot99

<< <i>just one question, why would there be a presentation piece for a 1917 S Type 1? If anything I thought they would make one fore the type 2. >>



Maybe they decided that any recipients of any presentation piece might prefer to see a little extra skin.

Stuart

John: Thanks for starting a most interesting and thought provoking thread.

coinlieutenant

Instead of speculation, I was hoping that someone might have some information that could provide the possibility of a presentation piece.

I personally think it is unlikely, but stranger things have happened, and if I were to pick a coin that COULD be, this would be it.

Shamika

<< <i>I was hoping that someone might have some information that could provide the possibility of a presentation piece. >>


A presentation piece in 1917 from the San Francisco mint seems almost impossible to imagine.

This coin could be the result of a fresh set of dies that were set too close to one another. Another possibility could be that the coin didn't eject after an initial strike and was thus struck a second time. Either case would result in an incredibly well struck coin with surfaces that might look different that those struck under normal conditions with dies that have some small degree of wear.