Standing Liberty - Questionable Full Head

bcdeluxe · September 23, 2015 11:17PM

First, sorry for the crappy iPhone photos. I've not gotten around to setting up an appropriate copystand.

Without saying what the date/mm is, I will say this is a tough one to find with a FH designation.

What do you think?

grip · September 24, 2015 12:07AM

I don't see the ear hole.

oih82w8 · September 24, 2015 12:11AM

Whaaaat? Huh? I don't see the ear hole either.

MFH · September 24, 2015 1:08AM

Aside from the ear hole - the hair line must be complete to her jaw.

Its not.

oih82w8 · September 24, 2015 1:16AM

<< Aside from the ear hole - the hair line must be complete to her jaw.

Its not. >>

Great reminder Mike,

Per PCGS guidelines;

FH: Full Head | Close
Standing Liberty Quarters.
1.Three leaves must be clear and distinct in Liberty’s hair.
2.Earhole must be present.
3.Hairline must be distinct from top of forehead to back of neck.

Note: PCGS may designate 1918/7 Quarters as Full Head in grades of XF40 and higher.[I/I]

FH Designation

lasvegasteddy · September 24, 2015 2:54AM

the 1st image displays the 3-d better of the elevation off of her face
i could see this supporting the lower end of fullhead
sliding in if one prefers

ok
so why the mysterious hiding of the date here?
some coins within a series have date specific strike issues

is this a tough date for the designation?

Treashunt · September 24, 2015 3:28AM

not FH

291fifth · September 24, 2015 3:32AM

Full head should mean just that. That coin does not make it.

johnny9434 · September 24, 2015 5:33AM

no full head there. (fwiw)

winky · September 24, 2015 8:28AM

Not for me either.

bcdeluxe · September 24, 2015 8:53AM

I would not call it a full head. But I've seen others holdered with less detail.

This is a 1929-D which typically had a very poor strike.

The premium for a FH designation on this coin is significant.

I'm happy with this one.

clarkbar04 · September 24, 2015 8:55AM

You have a nice one there.

luckybucks · September 24, 2015 9:45AM

Very nice coin. I would call it a near FH.

TopographicOceans · September 24, 2015 12:53PM

You have a nice 3-D photo on top

but you don't have a full head.

TopographicOceans · September 24, 2015 12:54PM

<< Very nice coin. I would call it a near FH. >>

Maybe there's a sticker for that?

bcdeluxe · September 24, 2015 11:14PM

I'd say this is a very tough date for a FH designation, based on date/mm.

This is an NGC 63, but for reference PCGS price guide shows a value of $225 in 63 and $1,500 in FH.

ricko · September 24, 2015 11:49PM

Nice coin.... from the pictures I would say no FH.....with that price difference, I can see why you are hopeful...

Cheers, RickO

bigjpst · September 24, 2015 11:55PM

<< 

<< Very nice coin. I would call it a near FH. >>

Maybe there's a sticker for that? >>

I think there may actually be.

For those that just missed

clarkbar04 · September 25, 2015 12:33AM

That looks pretty darn good for a 63.

Broadstruck · September 25, 2015 12:38AM

For a 29-D that's good head detail and there are some out there designated FH in AU55-MS62 with that amount and you gotta scratch your head.

Although a considered a major rarity in FH it can be found with monsterous ultimate detail.

Wabbit2313 · September 25, 2015 12:40AM

In the full image, it does not even look close to FH. NGC says no so I am guessing it is not.

bcdeluxe · September 25, 2015 11:14AM

<< In the full image, it does not even look close to FH. NGC says no so I am guessing it is not. >>

Yeah, it's a crappy iPhone image. It looks better straight on.

Not FH, but I never said it was.

I'll re image at some point.

veryfine · September 25, 2015 3:57PM

Hard to be sure but it appears to be incredibly close to a full head. The ear "slit" for this type 3 might be faintly visible. This could pass for what is commonly referred to as the minimum detail required for a full head. Better photos at different angles would give a more accurate answer.
Some of you seem to resent the more modern full head requirements with your resounding "no way" full head responses, but based on the images, it really isn't that obvious. If not FH, it's still a great way to acquire a tough date with a lot if head detail.

lordmarcovan · September 25, 2015 5:03PM

<< Very nice coin. I would call it a near FH. >>

Ditto. So maybe it's not all the way there to FH, but it's definitely a well-struck example.

PS- what's the NGC label grade, just outta curiosity?

bcdeluxe · September 27, 2015 7:14AM

<< PS- what's the NGC label grade, just outta curiosity? >>

NGC graded it 63 in the traditional older style holder, no prongs.

bcdeluxe · September 27, 2015 7:18AM

<< Hard to be sure but it appears to be incredibly close to a full head. The ear "slit" for this type 3 might be faintly visible. This could pass for what is commonly referred to as the minimum detail required for a full head. Better photos at different angles would give a more accurate answer.
Some of you seem to resent the more modern full head requirements with your resounding "no way" full head responses, but based on the images, it really isn't that obvious. If not FH, it's still a great way to acquire a tough date with a lot if head detail. >>

This is exactly why I now own this coin. I like this thinking.

Also, I'll get the copy stand set up at some point and get some better shots. My iPhone photos are not helping much in this case. As noted, I would not in fact call it a full head, it's just a bit shy, but I've seen this designation on NGC holdered coins similar to this. I do think, at least in the past, NGC was a little more generous with their FH designation.

Standing Liberty - Questionable Full Head

Comments

Leave a Comment