1930 Standing Liberty Quarter - Grade Opinions (CAC Update)

Kyle · June 9, 2015 4:12PM

Recent purchase, how do you think it would grade?

Sellers images.

Received the coin today.

lordmarcovan · June 9, 2015 4:23PM

Looks pretty nice.

Can't tell if it's a slider or not, based on the pix?

This is one of those that I'd guess AU58 on, to be conservative, but wouldn't be surprised to see it as high as MS63.

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say MS63.

Not sure about a Full Head designation. Looks mostly complete, but kind of flat on the high points, too? SLQ collectors will have a better idea of that.

Nice coin, regardless.

lasvegasteddy · June 9, 2015 4:26PM

sweet example that i could see in a 66 holder
frost on top of luster with sweet toning for a slq

huge congrats and thanks for sharing it's beauty
update us when she grades please

TopographicOceans · June 9, 2015 4:32PM

<< Looks pretty nice.

Can't tell if it's a slider or not, based on the pix?

This is one of those that I'd guess AU58 on, to be conservative, but wouldn't be surprised to see it as high as MS63.

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say MS63.

Not sure about a Full Head designation. Looks mostly complete, but kind of flat on the high points, too? SLQ collectors will have a better idea of that.

Nice coin, regardless. >>

I think there is some wear on the hair from the photo, but in hand who knows?

lordmarcovan · June 9, 2015 4:53PM

<< I think there is some wear on the hair from the photo, but in hand who knows? >>

That could just be the strike.

<< sweet example that i could see in a 66 holder >>

LVT went a lot higher in his grade guess. I wouldn't go that high, but maybe my MS63 guess is too low. Hmm.

BustHalfBrian · June 9, 2015 6:17PM

<< sweet example that i could see in a 66 holder
frost on top of luster with sweet toning for a slq

huge congrats and thanks for sharing it's beauty
update us when she grades please >>

66 is a big grade to assign to this coin, especially since you've seen it only in photos. The surfaces appear to be virtually free of abrasions, however the luster doesn't look quite there for a "gem" coin, IMO.

All of this said granted the pics represent the coin accurately.

ajaan · June 9, 2015 8:08PM

MS62

ricko · June 9, 2015 8:35PM

MS64..... Cheers, RickO

Walkerguy21D · June 9, 2015 9:18PM

63, shot 64 if the luster is brighter in hand.

BIGAL2749 · June 9, 2015 9:21PM

I find it very hard to grade pictures but

When I see a clean and fully struck up kneecap I start thinking 64 up

lasvegasteddy · June 9, 2015 10:30PM

i'm always seeing a trend in lofty grades of frost sitting on top of luster
to me this image is capturing that "frost"

i've been more wrong then right but to me this should sit in a min 65 holder

fullhead...not a chance...not as important when it comes to finding an example with color

myself i'd be a lil taken back in anything less then 65 as her central area of focus is an amazing eye captivating gorgeous leg there...graders can't miss this

coin to me has satin luster..not the usual orange peel...cooler die?...slower speed of strike?

great coin as stated and i hope ya update us

ms70 · June 10, 2015 12:16AM

64, no FH.

Bodin · June 10, 2015 1:02AM

65

deltadimeman · June 10, 2015 1:53AM

64, maybe 65 ?

clarkbar04 · June 10, 2015 2:03AM

I had this one on my watch too, I think you bought it well. Seller could not answer a simple question I had asked several days earlier so I elected not to bid.

That leg looks nice and clean and is well struck, fields are clean too, but I was also concerned about it being a slider due to the luster break in the mail over the boob. May just be the photo angle though.

Would like to see photos posted when you get it.

jcping · June 10, 2015 2:40AM

If it can survive cleaned (aka no grade) contest, then my guess is MS64.
From photo, this coin has been dipped many years ago and starts to be re-toned. Without examining it in hand about how much luster remaining and how much hairlines on its surface, it is very hard to grade based on photo

CoinJunkie · June 10, 2015 2:56AM

<< frost on top of luster with sweet toning for a slq >>

Frost? Looks more like a grainy photo to my eyes.

Bankerbob56 · June 10, 2015 2:58AM

63 definitely not FH.

Weak shield keeps me from going higher along with what appears to be streaking across the obverse.

asheland · June 10, 2015 4:48AM

MS63?

roadrunner · June 10, 2015 5:59AM

63 to 65....all dependent on how bold/unmessed with the luster is.

I'd guess 64.

Kyle · June 10, 2015 5:59AM

Thanks for all the opinions so far, I will update the thread with new pictures when the coin arrives.

Kyle · June 13, 2015 4:07PM

I'm hoping this coin arrives this week sometime.

Thought I would bump the thread, before I get the coin in hand.

DollarAfterDollar · June 13, 2015 8:21PM

Understanding that it's not FH, there's nothing I see that keeps it from MS 65. It's all about luster at this point.

darktone · June 13, 2015 8:27PM

Really no luster can be seen. I am not really into these so I don't know if they come satiny with no luster? I would put it from cleaned AU to MS 63 not full head.

bcdeluxe · June 13, 2015 9:41PM

I agree with everyone else in that the pictures are not helping to accurately grade this.

With that caveat, 1930 being a last year of issue was saved more than almost all other dates, except for the 1917's. 1930 and 1917 always seem to be the most plentiful dates up for sale. The mintage figures were not huge but also not scarce. For these reasons, I think a lot of high grade 1930's are out there.

It is clearly not a Full Head. There is not enough definition of the leaves or hairline.

There is no wear on this coin. It is UNC. The first wear points on the obverse are on the knee and the right chain mail breast. Sometimes the chain mail is seen not fully struck and can be more difficult to discern from initial wear and friction, but I don't see that on this coin.

Back to the pictures. It's really difficult to grade from these, but if it's not cleaned, I don't see a reason why this couldn't hit gem status, 5 or 6. It's not like it's a 1919-S, and gem 1930's are not at all uncommon.

It does have the look that it could have been dipped and is retoning. Could be the photos. I look forward to seeing better pics when you get the coin.

TPRC · June 13, 2015 9:45PM

64

mercurydimeguy · June 13, 2015 10:32PM

To me (from the photos) the coin looks dull, dipped retoned. I would limit grade opinions to 62 without being able to examine for signs of wear, which I suspect might be there. This is a common coin that comes brilliant and struck up so for it to be this "flat" looking leads me to believe it might have sub-toning rub.

AngryTurtle · June 14, 2015 12:23AM

<< 64, no FH. >>

Kyle · June 22, 2015 3:45AM

Unknown · June 22, 2015 3:51AM

This content has been removed.

Wabbit2313 · June 22, 2015 3:56AM

I agree with FTB. Gotta have luster to get 65 and up. I will be in the 64 camp myself. If the luster is there, I go 65!

MFH · June 22, 2015 4:05AM

I like the coin - it's as well struck as I have seen in a non-FH holder.
The shield inner shield has all the verticals, but no horizontals. Still,
I would say you did well for buying a raw coin.

It's a touch nicer than a 63 - and not as nice as 64 - so, my friend
my call is 63+

Hope I am wrong and you get a 64 out of the grading room !

johnny9434 · June 22, 2015 4:07AM

ms 64, ms 63 at worst. jmo

jcping · June 22, 2015 4:21AM

Can't see enough luster. Dipped and re toned so that my guess is MS63.

clarkbar04 · June 22, 2015 4:36AM

I had a feeling it would not have that dark olive tone in person. Nice coin, 63/64, and you got it for a good price. How's the luster? (looks like plenty based on new photos) But still kind of hard to judge as they are a bit overexposed but otherwise good to see contact marks/chatter.

Kyle · June 22, 2015 4:37AM

Thanks for all of the grade opinions on the new set of images. Here are a couple more pictures, just to try and show off the underlying luster a little better.

Connecticoin · June 22, 2015 5:17AM

Wow, tough crowd. That coin looks like it would have booming luster in hand, and I see no marks that would preclude a Gem grade. Appears to have original skin to boot.

I say 65 no FH, shot - 66

Unknown · June 22, 2015 5:19AM

This content has been removed.

coinbuf · June 22, 2015 5:59AM

I would say 64 maybe 63 most 1930 SLQ's that I have viewed have blazing luster, yours looks like it's been dipped and has some dip residue/toning imo. Here is my MS65 to compair, pics by Mark Goodman

Wabbit2313 · June 22, 2015 7:59AM

Maybe many do not know what a modern 66 with luster looks like? They have to look a lot better than they did in the old holders, contrary to what so many believe. Don't forget that the fields have to be like glass!

Kyle · June 22, 2015 10:38AM

Incredible SLQ Wabbit.

Have any larger close up images?

coinkat · June 22, 2015 10:40AM

Nice coin and I suspect it is more attractive in hand. Having said that, I still am unable to grade the image higher than 64.

lasvegasteddy · June 22, 2015 7:15PM

after just looking at Larry Shapiro's latest offerings on ebay...

yeah i'm in the ms64 crowd

Kyle · August 18, 2015 9:18AM

Came back MS-64.

DoubleEagle59 · August 18, 2015 9:27AM

<< Came back MS-64. >>

Congrats!

I would have guessed very possible ms65 and a no-brainer ms64.

LanceNewmanOCC · August 18, 2015 9:27AM

.
what am i missing here?
.

lasvegasteddy · August 18, 2015 9:32AM

<< .
what am i missing here?
. >>

beer

congrats on the grade

Unknown · August 18, 2015 9:45AM

This content has been removed.

winky · August 18, 2015 10:38AM

I would have said 65 but the rust down grades to a 63+ maybe.

asheland · August 18, 2015 11:25PM

64

oih82w8 · August 18, 2015 11:35PM

I was going to say AU58 or MS62 there are so many of these sliders being posted here that it is really hard to tell from an image.

Nice coin.

1930 Standing Liberty Quarter - Grade Opinions (CAC Update)

Comments

Leave a Comment