Options
The 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter. (Brief Thanks)
D
Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭
This coin is listed as having a mintage of ~52,000; making it a very low mintage date. Oddly, they're regularly available for high dollar prices. I've been trying to collect an entire set of 1916 coins is the finest grades available at my funds level since I was sixteen.(FYI I buy one coin every several months. Currently it's been almost ten months between purchases.) Being twenty now I'm looking back on what I heard about this specific date/issue. Dealers and collectors alike seemed to resonate the thought that: "This coin is overpriced for as readily available as it is, do not buy now- the price will dwindle."
Four years into this set I'm still hardly ankle deep into the water and I've not seen any price shift in the SLQ. Perhaps it will just remain adjacent to its current value? Will it dwindle? My 16-D Merc has certainly gained value; enough to distract me to buy another.
As a side note, when I started my set, there were zero in the registry. I find myself put in place
.
So I'm curious, what do others think of the 16-P SLQ? Feel free to weigh in on it, and other keys/better dates that may face similar fates.
As a sidenote, I'm feeling thankful so I'd like to thank LincolnCentMan, Sunnywood, Darin, Coinguy, Russ, JrGMan, Tumuss, Kryptonitecomics, Tom Delorey, John Kraljevich, oreville and anyone else who was instrumental to my initial numismatic knowledge. Had it not been for Tumuss(Tom) and JrGMan(George) I would've never made it out to my first show and perhaps would've never developed quite the interest I did. I know I forgot some, remember:
"If a person offend you, and you are in doubt as to whether it was intentional or not, do not resort to extreme measures; simply watch your chance and hit him with a brick. That will be sufficient. If you shall find that he had not intended any offense, come out frankly and confess yourself in the wrong when you struck him; acknowledge it like a man and say you didnt mean to." -Mark Twain
Though I hope to see no bricks flying.
-D
Edit: I also find it neccissary to thank Julian Leidman, while I've never bought from him, perhaps some time I will have that joy.
Four years into this set I'm still hardly ankle deep into the water and I've not seen any price shift in the SLQ. Perhaps it will just remain adjacent to its current value? Will it dwindle? My 16-D Merc has certainly gained value; enough to distract me to buy another.
As a side note, when I started my set, there were zero in the registry. I find myself put in place
. So I'm curious, what do others think of the 16-P SLQ? Feel free to weigh in on it, and other keys/better dates that may face similar fates.
As a sidenote, I'm feeling thankful so I'd like to thank LincolnCentMan, Sunnywood, Darin, Coinguy, Russ, JrGMan, Tumuss, Kryptonitecomics, Tom Delorey, John Kraljevich, oreville and anyone else who was instrumental to my initial numismatic knowledge. Had it not been for Tumuss(Tom) and JrGMan(George) I would've never made it out to my first show and perhaps would've never developed quite the interest I did. I know I forgot some, remember:
"If a person offend you, and you are in doubt as to whether it was intentional or not, do not resort to extreme measures; simply watch your chance and hit him with a brick. That will be sufficient. If you shall find that he had not intended any offense, come out frankly and confess yourself in the wrong when you struck him; acknowledge it like a man and say you didnt mean to." -Mark Twain
Though I hope to see no bricks flying.
-D
Edit: I also find it neccissary to thank Julian Leidman, while I've never bought from him, perhaps some time I will have that joy.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
0
Comments
Ray
Having had three PCGS graded 1916 SLQ's at once - a 53FH, 58FH and a 63FH - and I paid dearly for them
when I bought them. Their value rose to a point that it was prudent for me to sell them off. Fast forward
a couple of years and they have continued to escalate in price.
The demand exceeds the supply - regardless of how many are available - but I still feel that this
date is over priced. I have to compare this 1916 to the 1913-S - which has a lower mintage - and
yet is still priced substantially lower than the 1916 in choice AU + grades.
Granted, the 1916 was released into circulation mixed in with 1917 Ty 1's - and generally,
few people noticed the difference - so fewer were actually saved in MS than otherwise
would have occured for a first year of issue. On the other hand, the 1913-S was released
immediately into circulation and it was a known fact shortly after that only 40,000 were issued.
Imagine locating a few MS rolls back in 1914 or there abouts.
My last PCGS POP Report - dated 10/07 - lists over 1,270 of 1916's in all grades
but - for the 1913-S - it lists only 552.
I'm trying to justify the value of the 1916 - but can't - but I'm sure there are far more SLQ collectors than there are Barber Quarter collectors - so that alone would boost the ask/sell prices of the 1916 SLQ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
I had never heard that the 1916's were released mixed in with the 1917's, but that would certainly make sense and explain why so few were saved.
Thanks for the info.
TD
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)
You ask some very good questions. I always have strong opinions regarding this date and the slq series in general.
In my opinion, the 1916 is one of the most interesting coins in the US numismatic world.
Many collectors think too logically when discussing this issue. Barber collectors see other dates in their beloved series worthy of much higher price tags. But it is important to keep in mind what separates the 1916 from most other 20th century coins:
Firstly, the mintage is exceptionally low for an introductory issue from this era. A respectable amount were plucked from circulation, but most slipped through the cracks. Despite population reports, the factual finite mintage is a big deal and attracts tremendous attention.
Number 2:
There are no branch mint variations of this date. There is one and only one 1916 produced at the Philadelphia mint, so if you wanted a date set of standing liberty quarters, you must acquire the 1916.
Number 3:
Astute collectors are aware of the significant design differences between a 16 and any 17 T1. Knowledgeable collectors can spot a 16 from a mile away, regardless of the heavy wear and no date visible. This date is really a separate type, and ideally, one would want an example for a high end 20th century type set.
Number 4:
The 1916 SLQ is part of one of the most beautiful series ever produced in US coin history. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but most collectors agree that this series is on a much higher artistic level than all 18th and late 19th century US coins. The beauty of this series attracts so many people to these coins, including the 1916.
Number 5:
The series is extremely popular, and once you acquire the 1916, the rest of the series is relatively affordable in most circulated grades.
Number 6:
Unlike Barber coins, for example, the 1916 loses much of its charm in grades below AU. The detail is so delicate, that even the slightest wear diminishes its eye-appeal. On the other hand, a Barber quarter looks perfectly acceptable in grades as low as FINE. A 1916 in FINE has no shield detail a flat right leg, and a weak or almost nonexistent date! These facts force many collectors to seek the highest circulated or mint state grades. There are certainly very few of these to go around.
As I've said in other threads, the "overpriced" argument is weak. Again, it's the empirical crowd coming out of the woodwork again. I say, just because a coin is hard to locate, does not mean that it "deserves" a high price tag and overwhelming collector support. In my opinion, the 1916 SLQ will always have "star power" and justifiably so. And as for the future of this coin, don't expect any serious price reductions. I predict an overall increase in price with some dips along the way.
1. The coin is more or less dateless in Fine or lower
2. They're readily available in most large dealers' inventories in AU and above
3. In collector grades, F - XF, Standing Liberty Quarters are ugly coins. AU and MS they're beautiful to be sure, but when they get a little wear the design does not hold up well.
That's my two cents, but hey, collect what you want
Odd considering that the PCGS pop report shows 40% of all graded as AU58 or higher to have FULL HEADS. Maybe Cline is considering that all heavily worn coins are flat heads by definition. And of course most surviving 1916's are well worn. However it would appear by PCGS data that far more than 3% made it out of the mint as Full Heads.
I would also expect that dealers specializing in SLQ's would favor the long term investment of a 1916. From that same standpoint, I favor the 1872-s quarter over the 1901-s over the 1916. It's 50-100 times rarer than either with a higher mintage than either. Mintage investors would never understand this. Forget full heads or full claws, I'd be happy to own it in unc even with a flat strike.
roadrunner
Keep thinking "first year of issue, the only slq to carry the 1916 date, unbelievably low mintage, unique design details, high demand, high artistic standard."
I just finished my set of proof Liberty V-nickels minus the 1913 ( but i know where those keys are. when i want to add it) The last 2 i bought was the 1885 and 1886. Those 2 keys are everywhere. I had the hardest time finding a 1900 proof liberty v-nickel.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>To me the keys to most series are the easiest coins to find. Go to any show and they are all over the place. Go look for a 1920 d unc standing liberty quarter at any show. You will find more 1916's. To find a really nice 1916 that is probably hard. To find a good or average 1916 will be easy. I WOULD WAIT. IF YOU BUY NOW IT WILL BE EASIER FOR THE COIN TO GO DOWN THAN UP IN PRICE!! I have not been a lifelong collector but i have bought a lot over the last 5 or 6 years. Maybe i am wiser now but i am paying less for better coins now than i was last year or the years before. I saw a 1918/7 SLQ low grade went for peanuts a few weeks back. I was asleep at the wheel. Of course had i wanted it the price would have probably doubled. >>
But pennyannie,
The 20D slq is not nearly as interesting as the 1916. No promotional campaign in the world could ever make a 20D as desirable as the 1916.
Same is true for a 1919D or 1919S. Scarce as they are, they are high on the list of "comparatively" dull issues. I love the 18/7S, but despite its rarity, I would still rather own a 1916 in circulated grades.
Now this leads me to another point:
In uncirculated grades, a 1918/7S slq is a major rarity that blows away any 1916. But given the attached price tag, I think it's ridiculously "overrated."
Buy more 16 d mercs. They will be a easier sell than the SLQ, they will rise faster in price than the 1916 SLQ. In essence you will be able to aquire a 16 SLQ for less. I always try to buy multiplies of same coin if funds allow. It helps me to upgrade when the right coin comes along. If you buy smart, your money will go a long ways ( of course i forget to follow this rule) I have gotten to the point that i am able to buy and sell to get the coins i want without having to put money from my pocket to make the buy. What i am trying to say is if you have 2500 set a side for coins in the bank at most you get a few percent intrest if you have it set up that way, but if you spend the 2500 on good coins you should have 3000 or more buying power months down the road. Follow and look for trends. The best thing you can do is establish GOOD contacts, a good dealer or 2 and a few guys/gals at coin shows. Many a time i have used another dealer to buy a coin from a dealer i could not deal with. Saves me lots of money and NOT ONE dealer coin store has asked to be paid for doing this for me. Of course i throw them a bone. Some times they take it sometimes they don't. Friends are your best bet in coins. ( keep one eye open at all times)
If my collection became worthless overnight to face value i would be upset but not heartbroken. Any money i put in coins could be lost and life will go on for me. To me this is my hobby and i enjoy making money when i buy and sell coins but it is my hobby. Guys that make a living doing this probably view it a lot different.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
Point not missed. The 1872-s quarter is a key to the seated quarters. It too has never dropped in price since I've been tracking it from 1974. An XF back then might have run you $100-$300 depending on who had it. Today it would be pushing $8-10K imo.
Money in the bank, all blue chip, and no hype, no hoarding that counts, etc. With only 150 or less surviving it will continue to do well over the years, recession or otherwise. While the dealer promotions and "market trading velocity" on the 1916 have driven the price up immensely, it also lends those same coins to fall in price when the dealers stop stocking them or adding their 10% cut for every transaction.
When times get tougher down the road, the 1916's will be unloaded despite all those attributes above. Most of the 1872-s quarters will stay in strong hands. It has the attribute that matters most - rarest date/mint quarter for circulation surviving today. You can order up 20 - 1916's in one day and get them....probably from 2 or 3 dealers. You cannot be assured of gettig 6 - 1872-s quarters even if you raided every major dealer's inventory over the next 6 months.
Speculators (includes dealers) have been hoarding key dates like the 1916 for several years now. It has created a new type of collector or investor: the "key date guy." They don't collect a set or anything, just the key dates. Sort of like a futures contract on key dates. It doesn't matter how many they have either, they will strive to get every one. There were many such KDG's on this forum. But in the case of the 1916 25c most hoarding forumites have already sold off or have stopped buying them. They had helped fuel the rise along with the dealer's who had to get in on the 10-15% for providing these to other specs/investors/collectors.
I also feel that key dates, esp the 1916 25c and 1893-s dollars will suffer from falling prices in 1-3 years. The specs, dealers, and weak hands will dump theirs to pay mortgages, for college, and to buy food. It will be the first time in over 50 years where key dates fall in price. While I understand the reasons for the allure of the 1916, that doesn't cloud my judgement of which coin should do better over the next 5 yrs: the rarest one, under intense "collector-only" demand should do better and have the best chance of holding value.
Collectors didn't drive the price of the 1916 25c up, it was the dealers and specs who felt it was underpriced. They call that a self-fullfilling prophecy.
roadrunner
One word comes to mind: overrated.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
Available EVERY day... but ALWAYS in demand.
This is one of the coins IMHO that fuels the coin market.
As far as first year coins being saved, that was more difficult to do because the 1916 and 1917 Ty-1 were mixed together for release on Jan. 17, 1917.
Broadstruck inserted a nice, if out of date, article with many good points! Below, copied from a previous post are some corrections. Original documents and references are in Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921 which corrects errors in the “standard” SL quarter story. You should buy a copy if you are serious about the series – esp 1916 and 1917.
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. I recently learned this hypothesis was first advanced by David W. Lange in about 2003 – 2 years before RAC 1916-21 was released) 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). More 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>I also feel that key dates, esp the 1916 25c and 1893-s dollars will suffer from falling prices in 1-3 years. The specs, dealers, and weak hands will dump theirs to pay mortgages, for college, and to buy food. It will be the first time in over 50 years where key dates fall in price. While I understand the reasons for the allure of the 1916, that doesn't cloud my judgement of which coin should do better over the next 5 yrs: the rarest one, under intense "collector-only" demand should do better and have the best chance of holding value.
roadrunner >>
You are stating that the 1916 value is the result of "hype" and "advertising", implying that the issue does not deserve anywhere near the current high price tag. In your future predictions, have you thought about the possibility of a dramatic increase in collecting standing liberty quarters as a series? What about the simple fact that slq collectors need this date to complete the series. Will they "leave the hole blank" until that dramatic price drop occurs? And when the price drops, what will happen to the availability of this date? I remember a coin world article from about 10 years ago. The article described the difficulty dealers were having locating the 1916 slq. Will that happen again when the price plummets?
The way you describe the 1916 slq, I would think you were commenting g on a "rare" MS70" modern proof with an "extremely low population." In other words, speculative, lacking substance.
For almost 100 years, the 1916 has experienced an upward price increase. Granted, in recent years, the price has jumped dramatically, but so have many classic popular coins.
And in response to your Liberty seated quarter of choice, a coin like that is always "hyped" in all major auctions. Personally, I would like to own that coin, but would I LOVE to own it and bank on its financial gain? Maybe.
If you were to invest in one 1916 standing liberty quarter in the grade of AU55 in 1974, where would you be now? Where would you be in 3 years or longer? I suspect you would be significantly ahead.
<< <i>veryfine- I agree the 20 d is nothing. But when building a complete set it is harder to find it and others. Part of that could be dealers can only bring so much to the show they leave those dates at home. I built a complete set of AU+ SLQ's minus the 1916. I have been looking for 5 years for the 1916 that i want for the price i am willing to pay. >>
pennyannie,
I agree.
By the way, congratulations on your AU set. That is a major accomplishment. Once you get the 16, you will be even more proud.
And don't get me wrong. the 20D is a great date, as are others in this great series.
I love the 1921, another of my favorite dates.
<< <i>According to J.H. Cline, out of the total inventory of 1916 SLQs only 3% have a full head.
Odd considering that the PCGS pop report shows 40% of all graded as AU58 or higher to have FULL HEADS. Maybe Cline is considering that all heavily worn coins are flat heads by definition. And of course most surviving 1916's are well worn. However it would appear by PCGS data that far more than 3% made it out of the mint as Full Heads.
I would also expect that dealers specializing in SLQ's would favor the long term investment of a 1916. From that same standpoint, I favor the 1872-s quarter over the 1901-s over the 1916. It's 50-100 times rarer than either with a higher mintage than either. Mintage investors would never understand this. Forget full heads or full claws, I'd be happy to own it in unc even with a flat strike.
roadrunner >>
<< <i>
<< <i>According to J.H. Cline, out of the total inventory of 1916 SLQs only 3% have a full head.
Odd considering that the PCGS pop report shows 40% of all graded as AU58 or higher to have FULL HEADS. Maybe Cline is considering that all heavily worn coins are flat heads by definition. And of course most surviving 1916's are well worn. However it would appear by PCGS data that far more than 3% made it out of the mint as Full Heads.
I would also expect that dealers specializing in SLQ's would favor the long term investment of a 1916. From that same standpoint, I favor the 1872-s quarter over the 1901-s over the 1916. It's 50-100 times rarer than either with a higher mintage than either. Mintage investors would never understand this. Forget full heads or full claws, I'd be happy to own it in unc even with a flat strike.
roadrunner >>
>>
From what I have read, and I am new to this, there is a big difference between what PCGS considers a Full Head and what J. H. Cline does. Searching to complete a date set I have found tons of quarters that PCGS, NGC, and other TPG consider full heads. Then looking closer you can see that most are slightly flat and missing liberty's hair curl. I believe the 3% that Cline was referring to is for a complete full head.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>According to J.H. Cline, out of the total inventory of 1916 SLQs only 3% have a full head.
Odd considering that the PCGS pop report shows 40% of all graded as AU58 or higher to have FULL HEADS. Maybe Cline is considering that all heavily worn coins are flat heads by definition. And of course most surviving 1916's are well worn. However it would appear by PCGS data that far more than 3% made it out of the mint as Full Heads.
I would also expect that dealers specializing in SLQ's would favor the long term investment of a 1916. From that same standpoint, I favor the 1872-s quarter over the 1901-s over the 1916. It's 50-100 times rarer than either with a higher mintage than either. Mintage investors would never understand this. Forget full heads or full claws, I'd be happy to own it in unc even with a flat strike.
roadrunner >>
>>
From what I have read, and I am new to this, there is a big difference between what PCGS considers a Full Head and what J. H. Cline does. Searching to complete a date set I have found tons of quarters that PCGS, NGC, and other TPG consider full heads. Then looking closer you can see that most are slightly flat and missing liberty's hair curl. I believe the 3% that Cline was referring to is for a complete full head. >>
You are probably correct.
TD
I always have to defend my position among a sea of hostile Liberty Seated or Barber collectors
Both are readily available and imo, rather expensive for what you are getting. I think it is because the demand is there for these coins and always has been. People want these coins and are willing to pay a premium for them. Personally, I'd pass.
An extreme example of this demand is common as dirt 83 CC and 84 CC Morgans in MS 65. Years ago, when I found someone willing to pay me $300 each for them, I sold them in a New York minute.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
You are stating that the 1916 value is the result of "hype" and "advertising", implying that the issue does not deserve anywhere near the current high price tag.
I don't believe I stated that. The price increase comes from dealers and specs purposely seeking these coins out and stocking them while adding their 10-15% to the transaction. This leads to higher prices since you now have "feeders" in the loop that didn't exist their before. How many people hoarded piles of 1916's back in earlier decades? I figure multiples more did that over the past 5-10 years. Remove these feeders and what would have happened? I don't believe zillions of full set collectors just appeared since 2001.
What did appear were opportunists who don't collect the sets, just the keys. Based on current supply and demand they do deserve the current price. But remove the opportunists from the structure and where do we go? At that point I don't want to be an owner of one of these. Prior to the last few years when was it commonplace to see a dozen or 2 dozen 1916's in major auction catalogs? answer: almost never. But now commonplace. Are these the holdings of individual "set" collectors plucking out their precious 1916 to take advantage of the higher prices? Probably not. Specs or single key dates collectors/investors? Probably. And those that do build sets often leave the 1916 or 1901-s for last because 90% of them cannot afford it. And most "sets" when sold lack a 1916.
In your future predictions, have you thought about the possibility of a dramatic increase in collecting standing liberty quarters as a series?
Independent of other sets experiencing the same demand? Of course not. That's why I believe opportunists run the 1916 market and collectors who have the $$ have had to pay the bucks to get theirs before prices were speculated higher. This is the same scenario in the stock market as players run up a hot stock. Ultimately this is the securization of coins, where key dates are the bluest of blue chips and a source of investor or spec (not set collector) demand.
What about the simple fact that slq collectors need this date to complete the series. Will they "leave the hole blank" until that dramatic price drop occurs?
Yes. Most collections of 20th century coins when sold lack the keys.
Don't assume that Forum Members speak for the other 99% of the collecting hobby. Our tastes, moods and logic are not the norm. I almost never see a full set of anything hit B&M shops. 95% of the sets lack the keys and semi-keys.
And when the price drops, what will happen to the availability of this date?
As supplies hit the market, prices will drop, not the inverse. Same deal with the FED. Prices don't rise independent of the FED pumping money supply first. Let's keep the cart behind the horse.
I remember a coin world article from about 10 years ago. The article described the difficulty dealers were having locating the 1916 slq.
10 years ago was about the bottom of this market, when prices were very low and not high enough to draw coins out. You can't compare a market bottom with a market peak. If you can't find a 1916 for sale in 24 hrs then you aren't calling the right dealers. I'm not saying you won't have to pay up for it. Those dealer specs bought the coin to profit 10-15%. They want in on the self-fullfilling prophecy. They bought a circ 1916 and not an 1870-cc to speculate with. You go with what's hot regardless of how that heat is applied.
The way you describe the 1916 slq, I would think you were commenting g on a "rare" MS70" modern proof with an "extremely low population." In other words, speculative, lacking substance.
If it's population is enough to easily promote, then it's usually an area I don't want to hold long term. Hence my own particular desires for rarer type coins or dated seated liberty. I do get comfort in owning finest known seated coins or dates where entire existing pops may by only 100-250 pieces. Coins with pops in the thousands per date are common to me. I'd much rather own a pop top gem 1848 quarter than say a gem MS65 1916 where many others can say they own one (with dozens and dozens in higher grades). It doesn't necessarily equate to which coin will fare better price-wise over time. But if you have a gem 1848 25c please ring me up. I can always buy a gem 1916 by attending any major auction or major show.
If you were to invest in one 1916 standing liberty quarter in the grade of AU55 in 1974, where would you be now? Where would you be in 3 years or longer? I suspect you would be significantly ahead.
Hardly. In 1974 I was looking for rare date seated quarters that sold for a song. Example: 1867-s XF45+ quarter for $130. That was one of my better purchases. And an XF 1916 was $550 per Coin World pricing back then. Today, the 1867-s is worth $5000+. Today the 1916 is $10,000+. So who did better? Even then, it was clear to me that the 1867-s was a give-away. Other seated coins I bought back in that era were 1871-s 25c in XF45+ at $190 and a 1870-cc half in Fine15 at $175. They've all beat out the 1916 just on rarity and slowly increasing demand. I still say that most people who start to collect an SLQ set never get to the 1916. The same is true for 1877 Indian cents, 1916-d dimes, 1901-s quarters, etc.
The 1916 has proved to be a worthy coin indeed. But I don't like to be part of a price structure where much of the recent gains are solely due to dealer cuts for handling them. Back in the 1970's, 80's and 90's you didn't as a rule see dealers with hoards of single dates in their cases. Now it is quite the norm. I equate to buying multiple shares of a stock when it seems too cheap and riding up the wave as more poeple see easy money being made. The wave doesn't last forever. Such logic did not exist in any appreciable quantity prior to say 1998. But I could be wrong. Either way, you won't find me owning a 1916 anytime soon....at least for not more than a few weeks until I get a 10% cut (lol).
In 3-5 years from now I expect the AU55 1916 to be worth less money than today. The specs and dealers who have multiples of these will be forced to sell them just like their 2nd homes and beach cottages. Collector demand shored up the demand back in the 1980-1982 and 1990-1996 blow offs. But the spec factor in key dates was not with us then. The next blow off will include different people who no longer have use for a small group of 1916 quarters in their one coin SLQ "sets." And new collectors at that time won't buy them until prices have fallen far enough down. You will even have set collectors selling out because they need the money for something else more dear to them.
These arguments apply to many different coins besides the 1916 so I'm not singling it out. It just happens to be one that was posted about today. Remember that coins like the 1916 were cheap back in 1996-1998 because there were few new buyers. In 2011-2013 we get to go through another market period where there will be fewer coin buyers. I just can't see these coins coming through unscathed. Home were a great value investment up until the past few years where people were speculating with on 2nd and 3rd homes, flipping them, etc. It's folly to think that same mentality didn't seep into the area of blue chip key dates. It's one thing to be a blue chip because of 90% collector demand such as was probably the case 15-30 yrs ago. If the collector demand is now only 30-60% of the total demand, what comes next in a downturn? My gut feel tells me that the majority of 1916's currently reside in dealer stock and spec/investor hands.
roadrunner
<< <i>I would like to hear from other standing liberty quarter lovers; those who appreciate or actually own this date.
I always have to defend my position among a sea of hostile Liberty Seated or Barber collectors
I got your back
<< <i> In your future predictions, have you thought about the possibility of a dramatic increase in collecting standing liberty quarters as a series?
Independent of other sets experiencing the same demand? Of course not.
roadrunner >>
While I do agree with some of your assessments, the one thing I disagree with is the issue pertaining to future demand. Yes, it's true that high prices in the last few years have drawn out the many available 16s we see today, but I believe that interest in this series will increase dramatically in the future. And yes, its popularity will overshadow the overly symmetrical, practical and formal coin design series of the 19th century. Not necessarily in 3 years, but perhaps 10 or maybe 15. Why do I say this? Because more collectors will discover the artistic magic of this series, and in low mintage issues like the 1916 slq. I also predict that the 1916 status as a separate type from the 17s will be more firmly established and possibly recognized as such by the major grading services.
Yes, the 16 might be discounted at some point, but when that happens, most US coin series, including the Liberty Seated coins will remain stagnant at best. If the 16 steps backwards, it will most certainly bounce back.
As far as population reports go, for this issue in particular, one must be very skeptical. The high prices bring the 16s out in the open and are a huge part of the resubmission game. I suspect many of the ones you see at auctions are submitted, cracked out, dipped, resubmitted, recycled, etc.
But don't misunderstand me. I have a healthy respect for the handsome Liberty Seated series and the legitimately rare dates within, but I suspect many future collectors will see coins like the 16-30 slqs as the pinnacle of artistic progress in US coinage. In addition, the Liberty Seated series are so difficult to complete, most don't even attempt such a project. My predictions may not be scientific or based on true supply and demand research, but my hunch is strong. I'd like to think that a hunch can be valid in the unpredictable world of numismatics.
I keep on wondering why I have to point out to people that a 52,000 mintage is of itself nothing important. Many classic commems have far lower mintages......with nearly every coin saved.
It really depends on what was saved. I'd rather have the whole SLQ set in untampered with XF (but no 1916 or overdate). Now those coins are underpriced and underrated and will not lose any value in the next 3-5 years. Same goes for Barber circs (less the 01-s 25c). I'd buy the 1916 only when it finally crashed in price. And I can live with the empty hole believe me. Finding the set in XF (less 1916) would be a great challenge imo. Those coins aren't priced high enough yet to bring them out of the woodwork, if they even are out there.
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>I would like to hear from other standing liberty quarter lovers; those who appreciate or actually own this date.
I always have to defend my position among a sea of hostile Liberty Seated or Barber collectors
I got your back >>
Thanks QuarterCollector.
The 19th century elitists are attacking my ship from every angle, and I fear I might sink!
<< <i>Hostile Liberty Seated collector, now that's funny. I never thought we were that intimidating (lol).
I keep on wondering why I have to point out to people that a 52,000 mintage is of itself nothing important. Many classic commems have far lower mintages......with nearly every coin saved.
It really depends on what was saved. I'd rather have the whole SLQ set in untampered with XF (but no 1916 or overdate). Now those coins are underpriced and underrated and will not lose any value in the next 3-5 years. Same goes for Barber circs (less the 01-s 25c). I'd buy the 1916 only when it finally crashed in price. And I can live with the empty hole believe me. Finding the set in XF (less 1916) would be a great challenge imo. Those coins aren't priced high enough yet to bring them out of the woodwork, if they even are out there.
roadrunner >>
But roadrunner, for an introductory 20th century coin, a mintage of 52,000 is mind boggling. And from the Philadelphia mint, no less.
You cannot compare it to earlier coin series. The factual, low mintage status draws many to this date as a curiosity or oddity, regardless of extant specimens. You Seated Liberty guys are a tough group.
And one more thing:
An Xf set of SLQs minus the 1916 is like a hot dog without the bun.
Our market is aging, Where are kids? Who will buy the next fleet of 1916 quarters in 15 years? For all we know coins may slowly erode away like stamps as real coins are removed from circulation in favor of paper or all-plastic. Kids today have no real interest in coins. Look at all the old folks (me included) now walking the bourse floors.
We aren't a 20-40 year old hobby anymore.
As far as population reports go, for this issue in particular, one must be very skeptical. The high prices bring the 16s out in the open and are a huge part of the resubmission game. I suspect many of the ones you see at auctions are submitted, cracked out, dipped, resubmitted, recycled, etc.
I couldn't have been more misquoted. I used the pops solely to argue the 3% figure offered by Cline for FH's. Now you're using that to imply that evil-doers must be selectively pulling out the FH coins to skew the pops towards a 40% MS FH number. I said nothing like that. Regardless of how many 1916's were sent in, I'd say the 40% FH percentage would probably be close regardless. How many resubmits there are won't change the 40% to 3%.
I too have a healthy respect for the handsome SLQ's, and the 1916 as well. I just can't justify owning it myself when the same money can buy me a major seated rarity. And my research has shown that 75% of all the seated quarter dates/mints are rarer than the 1901-s quarter. And those 75% are probably rarer than ALL SLQ's except possibly the overdate. It doesn't mean that seated quarters will outperform SLQ's in price. Those are diff animals.
I personally see the design of the draped bust series and even capped bust as being every bit as interesting and artistic as the SLQ.
And the fact that they are 18th and 19th century creations to me lends a touch of "ancient" history. But my opinion is only a hunch as well. It artistic designs was all that matter than commens, ASE's and other pretty coins would be barn busters as price-gainers.
Walkers are pretty as well and have much in common with SLQ's except no single date with a tiny mintage. But I have a sneaking suspicion that trying to find an XF 1921 half of any mint might be far tougher vs. price than a 1916 quarter. The mintage hype is not there and probably less were saved as people spent like crazy in the early 1920's. Why aren't walkers the equivalent artistic equal to the SLQ? In my mind they are.
roadrunner
Same is true on the high end. I'd leave a hole for the expensive CC seated quarters yet getting all the underrated P, S, O mints around them. It's about value, not always completion.
Low mintage of 52,000 is of no meaning to me. For all we know the mint records are wrong. They often were in previous years, esp during the 19th century when records meant little.
Here are some other dates with low mintages, why not them?
I believe most or all of these have lower prices than the 1916.
1872-s 25c 83,000
1993 Isabella 25c 24,000
1908-s WM $10 59,000
1908 NM $10 33,500
1909-0 $5 34,000
1911-d $2-1/2 55,000 key to the set
1913-s $20 saint 34,000
1917 McKinley dollar 5,000
1925 Fort Vancouver 15,000
1927 Vermont: 27,000
1921 Missouri: 20,428 all types (5,000 for 2x4 in field)
1936 Albany 17,000
1991 Mt Rushmore gold $5- 32,000
roadrunner
<< <i>
As far as population reports go, for this issue in particular, one must be very skeptical. The high prices bring the 16s out in the open and are a huge part of the resubmission game. I suspect many of the ones you see at auctions are submitted, cracked out, dipped, resubmitted, recycled, etc.
I couldn't have been more misquoted. I used the pops solely to argue the 3% figure offered by Cline for FH's. Now you're using that to imply that evil-doers must be selectively pulling out the FH coins to skew the pops towards a 40% MS FH number. I said nothing like that. Regardless of how many 1916's were sent in, I'd say the 40% FH percentage would probably be close regardless. How many resubmits there are won't change the 40% to 3%. >>
You are misreading me. I was referring to your earlier "thousands of exist" comment. I am merely supporting my argument that this date is not quite as common as one might think.
<< <i>I personally see the design of the draped bust series and even capped bust as being every bit as interesting and artistic as the SLQ.
And the fact that they are 18th and 19th century creations to me lends a touch of "ancient" history. But my opinion is only a hunch as well. It artistic designs was all that matter than commens, ASE's and other pretty coins would be barn busters as price-gainers.
Walkers are pretty as well and have much in common with SLQ's except no single date with a tiny mintage. But I have a sneaking suspicion that trying to find an XF 1921 half of any mint might be far tougher vs. price than a 1916 quarter. The mintage hype is not there and probably less were saved as people spent like crazy in the early 1920's. Why aren't walkers the equivalent artistic equal to the SLQ? In my mind they are.
roadrunner >>
I also find the draped and capped bust interesting but for different reasons. They have charm and are associated with a fascinating early part of our history. However, the standard portrait profile is a bit run of the mill, and the standing liberty quarter did break from that mold in a very bold way. Commemoratives do have some beautiful designs, but one must actively seek them out at the time of issue to appreciate them. The circulating coinage evokes more powerful memories as an indelible part of our everyday experience. And yes, the Walking Liberty Half is up there in the artistic aesthetics department. I never said otherwise. I also agree with much of what you said about the 21 walker. But again, it is not a first year of issue, and does not possess significantly unique design characteristics. In addition, the date 1921 wlh is shared with three minting facilities. Stop picking on the poor misunderstood and often maligned 1916 slq! (kidding)
<< <i>Low mintage of 52,000 is of no meaning to me. For all we know the mint records are wrong. They often were in previous years, esp during the 19th century when records meant little. >>
Oh come on. Ok 52,001. You're really killing my fun.
<< <i>Here are some other dates with low mintages, why not them?
I believe most or all of these have lower prices than the 1916.
1872-s 25c 83,000
1993 Isabella 25c 24,000
1908-s WM $10 59,000
1908 NM $10 33,500
1909-0 $5 34,000
1911-d $2-1/2 55,000 key to the set
1913-s $20 saint 34,000
1917 McKinley dollar 5,000
1925 Fort Vancouver 15,000
1927 Vermont: 27,000
1921 Missouri: 20,428 all types (5,000 for 2x4 in field)
1936 Albany 17,000
1991 Mt Rushmore gold $5- 32,000
roadrunner >>
Commemoratives being compared to circulating issues are like apples and oranges. And virtually none of the circulating examples you've listed possess any of the unique characteristics of the 1916 slq, with the exception of mintage figures. But remember what I said about low mintage and first year of issue, without any branch mint varieties to water it down.
That would be 2,000+ or a 4% survival rate. I don't think that's unrealistic for a first year of issue coin that was hoarded to some extent based on the number of Uncs that exist. Just based on the pops and resubmits, I think we're comfortably over 1,000. What say the SLQ researchers on the survival estimates? Using the 4% on 1909-s VDB's gets us to about 19,000 of those which seems quite reasonable.
roadrunner
<< <i>I think I'm pretty safe in stating that thousands of 1916's do exist.
That would be 2,000+ or a 4% survival rate. I don't think that's unrealistic for a first year of issue coin that was hoarded to some extent based on the number of Uncs that exist. Just based on the pops and resubmits, I think we're comfortably over 1,000. What say the SLQ researchers on the survival estimates? Using the 4% on 1909-s VDB's gets us to about 19,000 of those which seems quite reasonable.
roadrunner >>
You could be right, but I should clarify that true uncirculated examples are a significantly smaller percentage of that number.
roadrunner
<< <i>With PCGS alone showing 500 UNCs graded, and assuming a 2X resubmission rate, that's still a lot of uncs to me. roadrunner >>
But still pretty low for a first year issue, wouldn't you agree? Come on, just agree with me on this one!
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"