Everyone's talking about PMs, let's talk about coins. How bout a 1916 SLQ?
doh
Posts: 6,457 ✭✭✭
Talk about the most boring coin ever right? IMHO it's WAY overpriced. Sure 52,000 is low, but $4,000+ for a Good that probably only has a shadow of a date?? No thanks. It was the first year minted, so there are plenty of MS and high end AU examples available. Most of the big dealers' websites have them available. I just don't see the draw of the coin. I'm not an SLQ guy, so all of this is just my opinion, but *yawn* what a boooooring coin! 
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
0
Comments
the coin has some history, too....more than a 16D Winged
i like the SLQ
I say, I say, I say there, somebody slap some sense into that boy!
<< <i>if you like a bare breast Miss Liberty....nothing can compare. >>
Sure it can, buy a 1917 for 1% of the 1916 price. You still get some boob action.
<< <i>I say, I say, I say there, somebody slap some sense into that boy! >>
Well, make your case why it's so great.
-David
Overpriced? Certainly. Just like the 1909-S VDB which has a lot of similar characteristics - small mintage, first year of issue, key to a very popular series, widely available, and... overpriced. But I'd like to have either one.
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 1916 STANDING LIBERTY QUARTER
FINDINGS, THOUGHTS, AND OPINIONS ABOUT THE MOST SOUGHT-AFTER MEMBER OF THE STANDING LIBERTY QUARTER SERIES - by Steven J. Sabatino, SLQ Coins
The 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter is probably the most sought-after member of the entire Standing Liberty Quarter series. In this article, I will explore some of my personal findings, thoughts, and opinions about this highly publicized, and often misunderstood rarity.
The known history of the 1916 Standing Quarter gives us an insight into the circumstances that have generated the physical appearance, present interest, demand, and price structure for this classic American rarity. The first indication that minor coinage changes from the Barber series were being considered appeared on March 3, 1916 (Kelman, Standing Liberty Quarters, 1976). According to J.H.Cline, in his magnificent treatise Standing Liberty Quarter (3rd edition, 1997), the actual dies for the 1916 Standing Quarters were completed for use in July of 1916. Cline indicates in his text that the actual striking of the new 1916 quarters began on December 16, 1916. Author Keith N. Kelman (1976) indicates, in his text, that the mint completed striking and shipped the 1916 Standing Quarters on December 29, 1916. Author Cline (3rd edition, 1997) further indicates that the 1916 Standing Quarters were released for actual circulation in January of 1917.
The research provided by authors Keith N. Kelman and J.H. Cline gives us a rationale for the extremely low first-year mintage of 52,000 1916 Standing Liberty Quarters. Their research collectively suggests that the mint only worked on the total production and shipment of 1916 Standing Quarters from December 16th to the 29th, or, 14 possible days (if weekends and holidays were included). Move realistically, if one deducted two-weekends and at least one holiday, the mint probably worked less than 9 total days on the new 52,000 quarters in addition to other minting responsibilities. Low mintage 20th Century quarters that approximate the mintage figures of the 1916 Standing Quarter include the
1901-S (72,664) and 1913-S (40,000) Barber Quarters, and the 1918/17-S Over-date Standing Liberty Quarter (3-15,000 estimated mintage - Cline).
Based upon available information, the 52,000 1916 Standing Liberty Quarters minted were apparently released at (or about) the same time the famed Type I Bare-Breasted 1917-P, D, and S quarters began their appearance in January of 1917. Whether the new 52,000 1916 dated quarters were rolled homogeneously or mixed in rolls with their 1917-P counterparts still remains speculative and unclear to any literature I have personally read. One must speculatively assume that both heterogeneous and homogeneous rolls of Type I 1916 and 1917-P Standing Liberty Quarters existed (or exist) until definitive evidence proves to the contrary.
Many collectors shopping for a 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter are many times disappointed in what they find when they find it. Existing records and research indicate that the actual working dies for the 1916 Standing Quarter were completed in July of 1916, while the actual striking of the new quarters began on December 16 of 1916. The period of time from July to mid-December permitted natural oxidation (oxidation-reduction or "rust") to occur on those 1916 dated obverse working dies requiring rust removal before use. The rust removal process also removed some of the above details from the obverse dies which transcended into coins that were struck with soft (or mushy) details- especially in the center stars, shield, gown and head areas. The much stronger and sharp reverse strikes of the 1916 Standing Quarters were the result of (virtually) unlimited reverse working dies available at the Philadelphia Mint as preparation for the 1917 quarter production was well on it's way. The normal and expected weak (or mushy) obverse strikes of the 1916 Standing Quarter, contrasted by the sharp and classic Type I strong reverse strikes normally seen on the 1917-P Type 1 quarter, makes one wonder if these 1916 dated coins were struck on two different planets. Image the appearance of a 1916-P Standing Quarter if produced from both original July, 1916 obverse and reverse "deoxidized" dies - a mushy bare-breasted Liberty and a nearly featherless Bald Eagle - a real potential ugly scene indeed!
A common question that is frequently asked of us is "Just how 'really' rare is the 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter?" It is my personal opinion that people are prone to making a natural and instinctive correlation between original mintage figures and rarity. It has been generally concluded by Numismatic Researcher's that first-year issues of coins are generally saved in proportionally larger quantities than subsequent issues. The curiosity of the public to keep a first-year issue coin for a child or grandchild seems to be a rather predictable American behavior. The impact of this practice would translate into an unusually high survival rate of near mint and full mint-state specimens. To illustrate this point, let's compare two classic 20th century low mintage rarities - the 1916 Standing and the 1901-S Barber Quarters.
The 1901-S Barber Quarter has a mintage of 72,664, or approximately 1.4 x (140%) greater than it's 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter counterpart at 52,000. The 01-S Barber is considered mid-issue (1892-1916), while the 16-P Standing is a first-issue (1916-1930). The October, 2001 PCGS Population Report shows a total of 81 total certified 01-S quarters with 24 being mint state survivors. The same population reports show a total of 817 total certified 16-P Standing Quarters (non-PH plus FH) with 441 in mint state. For every one 01-S quarter in a PCGS holder, there are 10 16-P quarters. For every one mint state 01-S quarter in a PCGS holder, there are approximately 20 16-P Standing Quarters. The 01-S Barber is much more rare (certified PCGS) than the 16-P Standing Quarter - by a factor of
10-20:1. Let's examine the price structure!
Using Coin World Trends approximations, the 01-S Barber Quarter is roughly (and only) twice the price of a 16-P Standing Quarter; however, the certified PCGS 01-S quarters are roughly 10-20 times as scarce (rare). Why, might one ask? The price structure of the 1916-P Standing Quarter has been strengthening over the past several years - almost at an unbelievable rate. A coin that sold for 5M a year ago could easily fetch 6M+ today. I personally witnessed (and was part of) the bidding of two PCGS-63 (non-FH) 1916-P specimens that saw three dealers push the hammer price above the 9M mark (with fees) - certainly above and way beyond any known printed price structure that I am aware of. What are some of the factors (both past and present) that have led to this price spiraling of 16-P Standing Quarters despite the "relative" abundance of known survivors (via a first-year issue) - compared to the 01-S Barber Quarter?
The 1916 Standing Quarter has been given incredible print-media coverage within (and outside) the Numismatic Community for as far back as my coin-collecting and dealing memory goes (late 50's), with the primary focus on that magic "52,000 mintage" leading the charge. Disrobing the right side of the exterior chest cavity along with it's sisters, the 1917-P, D, and S Type 1 triplets for a few more million, and you have a short-lived "type" collector's bonanza. There are a lot of type collectors out there! If you enter Miss Liberty Type I in any numismatic beauty contest, you're almost guaranteed a finalist (at worst). The investors and/or speculators have always had a keen interest in the well-publicized and fabled "52,000 mintage 16-P Standing" - A.K.A. - "if you invest in this coin, you can't go wrong". And, just think, there are those out there who actually collect the series as a series (A.K.A. the purists). It almost seems, at times, that the series collectors are the minority of all those seeking possession of this absolutely great American classic.
Take a moment and try imagining what the price structure would presently be of a 1919-D quarter with only 232 total MS survivors (graded by PCGS - same population report) if the demand were equitable, and the 19-D MS population approximating one-half that of the fable 16-P? For present comparison sake, the MS-63 1919-D price in Coin World is $1,100., while the MS-63 Standing (and completely outdated at that) is $7,500. The 16-P Standing lists for approximately seven times as much and exists in twice the numbers.
One of the most frequently asked questions about Standing Liberty Quarters that is heard at our table (at shows), especially by young Numismatists, is how to tell the difference between the dateless Type #1 P-mint quarters - 1916 or 1917? The differences are very pronounced to the trained and experienced eye that regularly views both issues; however, this is not the case with many seeking answers. Let's visit two references that you can read which address this particular question.
THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION (by PCGS, 1st Edition, 1997), pages 255 to 256, offer several diagnostics - both visually and descriptively. PCGS offers the hair strand configuration, shield-shape, and gown-attachments as prime focal points.
(1) The single prominent hair strand with the barely visible secondary and recessive hair strand (back of head as pictured, PCGS, pg. 255) is much different on the 1916 than the two equally distinct primary and secondary hair strands on the 1917. (2) The gown on a 1916 extends and is attached to the foot-toe region of Liberty (as pictured and edited, PCGS, pg. 256). The gown on the 1917 is attached in the calf region and is completely separated from the foot-toe region. On a personal note, I have always viewed the base (bottom portion) of the gown that attaches to the toe-foot region on 1916's as appearing more rectangular in this area with the base of the gown being only slightly curved. On the 1917's, the bottom portion of the gown will appear more oval (less rectangular or boxy) and especially more rounded (or curved) at the bottom (or base) of the gown. (3) PCGS indicates the 1916 shield is more "shorter and squatter" than the 1917, but becomes less diagnostic as excessive wear in the area occurs.
J.H. Cline's STANDING LIBERTY QUARTERS (3rd edition, 1997), page 59, indicates 6 diagnostics which will aide in distinguishing the dateless 1916 from the 1917-P Type One's. Among the six noted in Cline's text, two of my favorites include: (1) the gown (right hand of Miss Liberty) draping behind (or below) the shipboard (left side facing coin to viewer) while the 1917-P gown drapes in front; and,
(2) the cut-split read above Liberty's head on 1916's.
Obviously, the best advice one can give is to obtain these two references cited above and arm yourself with a couple of 16's and 17's of different grades and do some comparisons. Of course, not everyone has the availability of a half-dozen 16's laying around collecting dust. When at a coin show, ask to look at available 16's and 17's and start learning through doing. The rewards of your efforts may prove fruitful as I have seen certified DATELESS (by ANACS) 1916's sell for between $400 and $800 - pretty impressive for a "dateless" and low-grade coin!
ULTIMATELY, the supply-demand ratio, supported by tons of print, RULES - and truly more rare coins, such as the 01-S Barber and 19-D Standing Quarters, are relatively undervalued (as are many others) in today's (and yesterday's) market - this man's opinion. The 1916 Standing Quarter will, with almost total certainty, remain very high on the want-lists of those varied and diverse segments of the marketplace who wish to own her. Anyone who would attempt to undermine this classic's future as a solid investment would not have a true grasp of those circumstances that have made this beautiful lady so popular in the eyes of so many.
Best Regards: Steven J. Sabatino, SLQ Coins, October, 2002 (revised)
It all boils down to what interests you. The "overpriced" argument is always weak, in my opinion. If a Bust half has a population of 20, should I be ecstatic about owning one? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Is a coin desirable because very few exist? the answer; sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Unlike you, I find the 16 slq and this series in general to be the most fascinating and beautiful of all U.S. coins. The finite, extremely low mintage for a 20th century introductory issue is worthy of all the attention it gets. I've supported my case many times before in here; low mintage, separate type, popular series etc. But, I probably won't convince you and you might never convince me that a particular "rare Bust Half" is worth anything near its current inflated value.
I own a nice AU-58 93-S Barber Half. In this state of preservation, this coin is so much rarer than the 1916 SLQ, but a fraction of its value. You might say, the 93-S is "a better value." But is it really?
I wish my 93-S would catch up to the 16 SLQ, but it will never come close. Unfair? In my opinion, no way.
I knew it would happen.
Here are a few historical corrections (original documents and references are in Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921)
The first indication that minor coinage changes from the Barber series were being considered appeared on March 3, 1916 (Kelman, Standing Liberty Quarters, 1976).
The first recorded mention was by Assistant Treasury Secretary Malburn in a memo on Jan 18, 1915. The Philadelphia Mint was given authority to make new designs in June 1915. The mint director consulted with the Commission of Fine Arts in December 1915, etc.
According to J.H.Cline, in his magnificent treatise Standing Liberty Quarter (3rd edition, 1997), the actual dies for the 1916 Standing Quarters were completed for use in July of 1916.
Pattern dies were made in late May and test pieces struck in June 1916. MacNeil was permitted to make changes (as was Weinman) and this resulted in the “dolphin” version approved in September. To correct inconsistent thickness and excess relief the mint made multiple versions of obverse and reverse, including a new reverse with stars instead of laurel wreath. They tinkered with this until the last moment, then struck a small quantity in December 1916.
Cline indicates in his text that the actual striking of the new 1916 quarters began on December 16, 1916. Author Keith N. Kelman (1976) indicates, in his text, that the mint completed striking and shipped the 1916 Standing Quarters on December 29, 1916. Author Cline (3rd edition, 1997) further indicates that the 1916 Standing Quarters were released for actual circulation in January of 1917…. Whether the new 52,000 1916 dated quarters were rolled homogeneously or mixed in rolls with their 1917-P counterparts still remains speculative and unclear to any literature I have personally read. One must speculatively assume that both heterogeneous and homogeneous rolls of Type I 1916 and 1917-P Standing Liberty Quarters existed (or exist) until definitive evidence proves to the contrary.
Both 1916 and 1917 quarters (from a revised and improved design – again by mint engravers, not MacNeil) were released on January 17, 1917. The two dates were mixed together for distribution to banks. Coins were shipped in bags, never in rolls from the mint in that era.
Their research collectively suggests that the mint only worked on the total production and shipment of 1916 Standing Quarters from December 16th to the 29th, or, 14 possible days (if weekends and holidays were included). Move realistically, if one deducted two-weekends and at least one holiday, the mint probably worked less than 9 total days on the new 52,000 quarters in addition to other minting responsibilities.
Striking 52,000 quarters would take less than a day. Unfortunately, we have no documentation on exactly when the 1916 SLQs were struck.
Many collectors shopping for a 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter are many times disappointed in what they find when they find it. Existing records and research indicate that the actual working dies for the 1916 Standing Quarter were completed in July of 1916, while the actual striking of the new quarters began on December 16 of 1916. The period of time from July to mid-December permitted natural oxidation (oxidation-reduction or "rust") to occur on those 1916 dated obverse working dies requiring rust removal before use. The rust removal process also removed some of the above details from the obverse dies which transcended into coins that were struck with soft (or mushy) details- especially in the center stars, shield, gown and head areas. The much stronger and sharp reverse strikes of the 1916 Standing Quarters were the result of (virtually) unlimited reverse working dies available at the Philadelphia Mint as preparation for the 1917 quarter production was well on it's way. The normal and expected weak (or mushy) obverse strikes of the 1916 Standing Quarter, contrasted by the sharp and classic Type I strong reverse strikes normally seen on the 1917-P Type 1 quarter, makes one wonder if these 1916 dated coins were struck on two different planets. Image the appearance of a 1916-P Standing Quarter if produced from both original July, 1916 obverse and reverse "deoxidized" dies - a mushy bare-breasted Liberty and a nearly featherless Bald Eagle - a real potential ugly scene indeed!
The error in dates has been addressed earlier. As for the idea of removing “rust” and thus weakening the design on the obverse – total hogwash. A mushy obverse design is because the mint engravers kept trying to “fix” MacNeil’s design so it would strike properly, but without significant hand retouching. (This occurred between September and late November.) The final pattern version dates from November and Secretary McAdoo noted at the time that there were several problems – these were corrected on the 1917 version, and the 1916 was “let go” with a token mintage so the Wilson administration could say they struck all three new designs as scheduled in 1916. The reverse looks much better because the mint engravers concocted it, so they got the kind of detail they wanted though hand retouching and engraving.
<< <i>Fletcher, that looks like a pretty nice coin ya got there!
Thanks ... another RCNH winner
Interesting information.
I see the 1916 as a separate type. The 1917 T1 shield and head detail are significantly different from the 16.
I know this must sound strange to most, but I find an uncirculated 16 to be more aesthetically pleasing than the retooled 17 T1. The 16 has a softer, more delicate appearance. The 17 T1 appears a bit cartoonish, almost overkill in its linear clarity.
RWB:
Since you obviously have an interest in these coins as I do, have you ever heard anyone express a similar opinion?