CDN monthly summary article on Seated Quarters

roadrunner

I was pleased to see a nice article on the first half of the seated quarters as written by Larry Briggs (he of SEGS grading and author of the Liberty Seated quarter guide book). I had essentially no issues with Larry's comments on rarity in various grades for the dates listed (1838-1858). No great secrets were revealed here as the real issue is what things are worth in each grade. And with the CDN being next to worthless, it's a betting man's game. While he also clearly mentions how tough it is to find any early Philly date in gem, the real question is knowing what a real gem looks like...not what a TPG puts in a 65 or 66 holder. Whether an 1843, 45, 46, or 47, good luck finding a no-brainer gem. Larry likes the 1848 and that two has always been one of my favorite early dates since I first started on quarters. Someday I'd like to own a gem, if such a thing exists (contrary to the pop reports showing a couple of 65's and a 66). If I had to make a year set of Philly coins I'd choose 1848 as all the silver denominations are tough and underrated in nice UNC.

The fact that he mentioned that the 1854-0 Huge O quarter had 2 hoards being assembled sort of agree with my findings of that variety back in the 1970's and early 1980's. It was available and not considered better than the 51-0 or 52-0. But it's obvious that hoarding can cause temporary distortions in pricing, esp to those who are unaware as to what's going on. Regardless of the hoarding, I've always dreamt of cherry picking a gem 1854-0 Huge O quarter as the regular Lg. O variety. So far I've only done it as a circ.

Larry liked the 1858-0 quarter as one of the most underrated of the "common" New Orleans dates. I've always loved that date and feel stupid for having sold the 2 uncs that I once owned, one of them being the only known true gem of that date.

A "reward" was offered for the whereabouts of a real UNC 1858-s quarter. Like Larry, I don't believe any of the coins slabbed as uncs
for the 58-s to 61-s San Francisco pieces are true uncs...but rather glorified AU55's or 58's. In my mind those still are not publically known in unc. And if Eliasberg, Stack, Pittman, or Norweb didn't have them, it's unlikely anyone else did.

While the article won't tell you what to pay for the better coins, it does give a nice relative relationship of the rarity rankings. Hopefully part 2 comes out next month.

roadrunner

RYK

Thanks for the post. I will buy/download the article to fill in the details.

bidask

Why was the 56 s described as rare in higher grades compared to the 57 s described as very scarce when the latter had alot lower mintage?

partagas

re 56-s vs 57-s. Just try and find a nice 56-s xf or higher. I spent 3 years looking for and XF or better and finally found an AU50. They just don't come around to often.

Much easier to locate a 57-s.

originalisbest

Thanks rr, I enjoy reading your Seated insights!

MrEureka

Larry liked the 1858-0 quarter as one of the most underrated of the "common" New Orleans dates. I've always loved that date and feel stupid for having sold the 2 uncs that I once owned, one of them being the only known true gem of that date.


Hmmm....this story sounds familiar.....

roadrunner

That 58-0 story should be familiar......any idea who has that coin now? With unmistakable deep Raymond album toning with blasty white centers, it is a moose of a New Orleans quarter. The coin was well struck too.

There were several nice unc 57-s quarters saved. I've seen 3 or 4 of those graded as MS64. And those were the finest knowns until the Eliasberg gem PL came around...but I don't know what it graded though logically it's the lone NGC MS66.

I don't ever recall seeing an honest choice or gem unc 56-s with full luster and no rub. I recall that during the 1970's and early 1980's most of the early mint-marked pieces that came to auction listed as "gem" or even "choice" often had cabinet friction and less than full mint luster. The 1849-0 "Brilliant Unc and a tough of friction from being a gem" from the J.A. Stack collection had heavily hairlined fields. It was a decent AU coin and nothing more. That was the norm in the early days. Anything that could be construed as UNC was. And it makes it hard to go back and research old descriptions and figure out if the coins were unc or not.

Mintages are only 1/2 the battle in dated seated material. Survival rates are the key to what is valuable. What survived in unc is more a matter of chance than anything else. The 1872-s has a higher mintage than many S mint quarters than came earlier, yet is arguably tougher than all of them. One can only guess. Sometimes the mintage figures aren't even correct to begin with. Get used to ignoring mintages with pre-1873 19th century silver coinage (esp branch mints) or it can lead to erroneous conclusions and valuations.

roadrunner