I've never owned a Standing Liberty but I think I've changed my mind after coming across this one the Heritage FUN catalog. I'm such a sucker for great original toning.
From looking at the pics, the central features lack detail. For a first year issue with fresh master hubs the coin is poorly struck. I think you could find a much better strike for a first year with little effort. The toning is nice.
IIRC there's a prettier 67FH with richer prettier toning in the same pattern. It's not FH to me either, but has fewer marks. Not enough head for Ms. Dora to be fully satisfactory. Um, will the member who brought up a pearl necklace just not.... . . . . . Long term loser. The 24P(?) in 68+ bounces around every year or two. Not enough head for the specialist and no bean for the investor. $35k-$40K for a "head"(as in "feed your head") coin for that's almost...... . . .
Better a $1000 toned MS63 Morgan for eye-candy.
Ask AB. . .
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
The 1916 Standing Liberty quarters were not nearly as well made as the 1917-P quarters. You might one with s bit more detail, but don't expect it to be as nice as the second year of issue. This is an example of where the "full head" designation does not tell the whole story.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
While I do not agree with the F.H. designation,the shield is very weak for this date. I've seen more detail on Frisbees and hubcaps. I am sure a better struck example can be found.
Secondary toning on the obverse? I had to squint to see any head detail in the primary photo. "Looks like" 85% head. The near fully white reverse is decently struck though.
Oddly, the enlarged slabbed photo shows much better detail in the head and shield. They "look" like 2 different coins based on the variations in apparent detail. The coin is not that bad based on those photos. Though I'd imagine that some buyers would just pass the coin by based on the mushy primary photos. Amazing what lighting and the camera can do at times.
RR will remember Jim O'Donnell, who more than once complained about having a full original roll of 1916 SLQ's in the early 70's and not being able to get "what they were worth". Never mentioned "Full Head", but at that era's level no one discriminated to any great degree other than bright and hopefully not marked-up.
Was it his 1895-O $1 SP65 that he was proudest of, or his 1895-O 10c MS66+ Cameo PL?
1916 SLQ's are not rare. But no "Monster Head" 1916 will ever look like the 10,000th 1917 off the dies, though there are a few here like wondercoin by whom I'd be happy to be contradicted by. Likewise anyone with photos.
Semi-OT, so when reading on, be clear I am not criticizing the OP or his intent. Nor do I want to hijack this thread, BUT
While I have to admit finding this an interesting and provocative thread, I feel I have somehow crossed a boundary in discussing a coin yet to be purchased. And I've done it before. And likely will again.
But it sticks in my mind that I'm being unfair to the consignor. This Forum is not the only group in which there is an implicit or explicit Circle of Trust. I have numerous ethical and commercial conflicts of interest. Should I pimp a friend's coin? Denigrate or praise another because I have one better (or worse)? Crap on it because I want to buy it?
I think my future comments, no matter how useful I think they might be here, will be aimed more at coins not-currently-at-auction, major rarities mostly excepted. I'd expect I'll slip a bit here and there, whatever that means, but I'll be thinking about it more often.
YMMV, there's still much to be learned here.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>RR will remember Jim O'Donnell, who more than once complained about having a full original roll of 1916 SLQ's in the early 70's and not being able to get "what they were worth". Never mentioned "Full Head", but at that era's level no one discriminated to any great degree other than bright and hopefully not marked-up.
Was it his 1895-O $1 SP65 that he was proudest of, or his 1895-O 10c MS66+ Cameo PL?
1916 SLQ's are not rare. But no "Monster Head" 1916 will ever look like the 10,000th 1917 off the dies, though there are a few here like wondercoin by whom I'd be happy to be contradicted by. Likewise anyone with photos.
Semi-OT, so when reading on, be clear I am not criticizing the OP or his intent. Nor do I want to hijack this thread, BUT
While I have to admit finding this an interesting and provocative thread, I feel I have somehow crossed a boundary in discussing a coin yet to be purchased. And I've done it before. And likely will again.
But it sticks in my mind that I'm being unfair to the consignor. This Forum is not the only group in which there is an implicit or explicit Circle of Trust. I have numerous ethical and commercial conflicts of interest. Should I pimp a friend's coin? Denigrate or praise another because I have one better (or worse)? Crap on it because I want to buy it?
I think my future comments, no matter how useful I think they might be here, will be aimed more at coins not-currently-at-auction, major rarities mostly excepted. I'd expect I'll slip a bit here and there, whatever that means, but I'll be thinking about it more often.
A darned nice example of a 20th Century U.S. coin with a mintage of 52,000. What more do you people want?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I hope the Colonel keeps on sharing his knowledge and insight regardless of the coins current "standing",i.e. current up for bid auction lot. I for one appreciate his knowledge sharing.
In answer to CaptHenway, for this much money I would like to have a much better struck coin. As the Colonel stated it will not compare to a 1917 but I would like more detail at this grade level, MS66 FH and price $24,000.
I also will take into consideration the coins current standing so as not to hurt or insult the consigner. While my comments do not have any weight as the other posters, it is the " rotten apple in the barrel " in my case.
<< <i>I hope the Colonel keeps on sharing his knowledge and insight regardless of the coins current "standing",i.e. current up for bid auction lot. I for one appreciate his knowledge sharing.
In answer to CaptHenway, for this much money I would like to have a much better struck coin. As the Colonel stated it will not compare to a 1917 but I would like more detail at this grade level, MS66 FH and price $24,000.
I also will take into consideration the coins current standing so as not to hurt or insult the consigner. While my comments do not have any weight as the other posters, it is the " rotten apple in the barrel " in my case. >>
It is one thing to argue condition and another thing to argue price. I have no idea what this coin is worth. I do not follow markets now that I am retired.
However, people are bad-mouthing the coin because it is less than perfect. Most coins, just like most people, are. I still say that this is a wonderful example of a low-mintage U.S. coin. Argue the price all you want, but leave the poor coin alone!
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Secondary toning on the obverse? I had to squint to see any head detail in the primary photo. "Looks like" 85% head. The near fully white reverse is decently struck though.
Oddly, the enlarged slabbed photo shows much better detail in the head and shield. They "look" like 2 different coins based on the variations in apparent detail. The coin is not that bad based on those photos. Though I'd imagine that some buyers would just pass the coin by based on the mushy primary photos. Amazing what lighting and the camera can do at times. >>
Roadrunner is right (as he usually is). Enlarge the slab photos and you see full shield rivets and full inner shield. The head looks a lot better too.
Comments
detail. For a first year issue with fresh master hubs
the coin is poorly struck. I think you could find a
much better strike for a first year with little effort.
The toning is nice.
.
Long term loser. The 24P(?) in 68+ bounces around every year or two. Not enough head for the specialist and no bean for the investor. $35k-$40K for a "head"(as in "feed your head") coin for that's almost......
Better a $1000 toned MS63 Morgan for eye-candy.
Ask AB. . .
very weak for this date. I've seen more detail on Frisbees
and hubcaps. I am sure a better struck example can be
found.
Latin American Collection
<< <i>I'm not reaching for my wallet >>
Thanks?
Oddly, the enlarged slabbed photo shows much better detail in the head and shield. They "look" like 2 different coins based on the variations in apparent detail. The coin is not that bad based on those photos. Though I'd imagine that some buyers would just pass the coin by based on the mushy primary photos. Amazing what lighting and the camera can do at times.
Was it his 1895-O $1 SP65 that he was proudest of, or his 1895-O 10c MS66+ Cameo PL?
1916 SLQ's are not rare. But no "Monster Head" 1916 will ever look like the 10,000th 1917 off the dies, though there are a few here like wondercoin by whom I'd be happy to be contradicted by. Likewise anyone with photos.
Semi-OT, so when reading on, be clear I am not criticizing the OP or his intent. Nor do I want to hijack this thread, BUT
While I have to admit finding this an interesting and provocative thread, I feel I have somehow crossed a boundary in discussing a coin yet to be purchased. And I've done it before. And likely will again.
But it sticks in my mind that I'm being unfair to the consignor. This Forum is not the only group in which there is an implicit or explicit Circle of Trust. I have numerous ethical and commercial conflicts of interest. Should I pimp a friend's coin? Denigrate or praise another because I have one better (or worse)? Crap on it because I want to buy it?
I think my future comments, no matter how useful I think they might be here, will be aimed more at coins not-currently-at-auction, major rarities mostly excepted. I'd expect I'll slip a bit here and there, whatever that means, but I'll be thinking about it more often.
YMMV, there's still much to be learned here.
<< <i>RR will remember Jim O'Donnell, who more than once complained about having a full original roll of 1916 SLQ's in the early 70's and not being able to get "what they were worth". Never mentioned "Full Head", but at that era's level no one discriminated to any great degree other than bright and hopefully not marked-up.
Was it his 1895-O $1 SP65 that he was proudest of, or his 1895-O 10c MS66+ Cameo PL?
1916 SLQ's are not rare. But no "Monster Head" 1916 will ever look like the 10,000th 1917 off the dies, though there are a few here like wondercoin by whom I'd be happy to be contradicted by. Likewise anyone with photos.
Semi-OT, so when reading on, be clear I am not criticizing the OP or his intent. Nor do I want to hijack this thread, BUT
While I have to admit finding this an interesting and provocative thread, I feel I have somehow crossed a boundary in discussing a coin yet to be purchased. And I've done it before. And likely will again.
But it sticks in my mind that I'm being unfair to the consignor. This Forum is not the only group in which there is an implicit or explicit Circle of Trust. I have numerous ethical and commercial conflicts of interest. Should I pimp a friend's coin? Denigrate or praise another because I have one better (or worse)? Crap on it because I want to buy it?
I think my future comments, no matter how useful I think they might be here, will be aimed more at coins not-currently-at-auction, major rarities mostly excepted. I'd expect I'll slip a bit here and there, whatever that means, but I'll be thinking about it more often.
YMMV, there's still much to be learned here. >>
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
I would like to own it also, but apparently it is not worth anything. Common junk.
<< <i>A darned nice example of a 20th Century U.S. coin with a mintage of 52,000. What more do you people want? >>
An excellent question.
regardless of the coins current "standing",i.e. current up for bid
auction lot. I for one appreciate his knowledge sharing.
In answer to CaptHenway, for this much money I would like
to have a much better struck coin. As the Colonel stated it will
not compare to a 1917 but I would like more detail at this
grade level, MS66 FH and price $24,000.
I also will take into consideration the coins current standing
so as not to hurt or insult the consigner. While my comments
do not have any weight as the other posters, it is the " rotten
apple in the barrel " in my case.
<< <i>I hope the Colonel keeps on sharing his knowledge and insight
regardless of the coins current "standing",i.e. current up for bid
auction lot. I for one appreciate his knowledge sharing.
In answer to CaptHenway, for this much money I would like
to have a much better struck coin. As the Colonel stated it will
not compare to a 1917 but I would like more detail at this
grade level, MS66 FH and price $24,000.
I also will take into consideration the coins current standing
so as not to hurt or insult the consigner. While my comments
do not have any weight as the other posters, it is the " rotten
apple in the barrel " in my case. >>
It is one thing to argue condition and another thing to argue price. I have no idea what this coin is worth. I do not follow markets now that I am retired.
However, people are bad-mouthing the coin because it is less than perfect. Most coins, just like most people, are. I still say that this is a wonderful example of a low-mintage U.S. coin. Argue the price all you want, but leave the poor coin alone!
TD
PCGS
64FH. . . . 126
65FH. . . . . 75
66FH. . . . . 12
67FH.. . . . . 3
CAC
64FH. . . . . 19
65FH. . . . . 13
66FH. . . . . . 3
67FH. . . . . . 3
<< <i>Secondary toning on the obverse? I had to squint to see any head detail in the primary photo. "Looks like" 85% head. The near fully white reverse is decently struck though.
Oddly, the enlarged slabbed photo shows much better detail in the head and shield. They "look" like 2 different coins based on the variations in apparent detail. The coin is not that bad based on those photos. Though I'd imagine that some buyers would just pass the coin by based on the mushy primary photos. Amazing what lighting and the camera can do at times. >>
Roadrunner is right (as he usually is). Enlarge the slab photos and you see full shield rivets and full inner shield. The head looks a lot better too.
The best FH I can find in their archive is
Sale 1143 - Aug 2010 - lot 3123 - NGC 67FH (dipped) with a head that makes everything else shown here or there look "wannabe"
someone linkify?
edited to add: I only checked the 66's and 67's