Home› U.S. Coin Forum

A couple of raw and well struck Denver mint SLQs I thought I'd share..

clarkbar04clarkbar04 Posts: 4,961 ✭✭✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum

Please excuse the shoddy phone pics, but it actually comes out better than my point and shoot camera does, if nothing else at least with the camera my digits don't get in the way.

Anyway, great luster on these both, and the dies are new enough that neither have been abraded to remove damage from clashing.

Nice bookends for type 2 Denver quarters.



MS66 taste on an MS63 budget.

Comments

  • AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 24,801 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice circulated examples.

    bob :)

    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  • clarkbar04clarkbar04 Posts: 4,961 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @AUandAG said:
    Nice circulated examples.

    bob :)

    Neither are circulated.

    MS66 taste on an MS63 budget.
  • crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 13,996 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Appears to be a full head on that 29-d and the luster looks above average.
    Both coins look ms to me.
    64 FH
    64 FH
    Well done

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
  • abcde12345abcde12345 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Genuine. The luster and mint mark are the dead giveaways.

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Bother coins are nice, circulated Denver Mint products. Fine pieces for any collection.

  • metalmeistermetalmeister Posts: 4,587 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My favorite quarters, besides the Bust quarters of course.

    email: ccacollectibles@yahoo.com

    100% Positive BST transactions
  • crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 13,996 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @abcde12345 said:
    Genuine. The luster and mint mark are the dead giveaways.

    Please do tell where you see the problem. I’m curious.

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks like our host isn’t the only one being tight on grading these days..... both look like choice Uncs to me, even seeing them on my phone.

    Successful BST transactions with 171 members. Ebeneezer, Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • sawyerjoshsawyerjosh Posts: 416 ✭✭✭

    Hard to see real grade w/ pics. Pics appear to show nice au+ coins w/ luster and wear on high points.

    As a seller: USARarities, acloco, coindudeonebay, Twinturbo, MICHAELDIXON, blu62vette, mothra454, LukeMarshall, USARarities
    As a buyer: QualityCurrencycom, tychojoe, AurumMiner, Collectorcoins, perfectstrike, ModCrewman, LeeBone, nickel, REALGATOR, MICHAELDIXON, pointfivezero, Walkerguy21D
    Trades: georgiacop50
  • TomBTomB Posts: 21,487 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They both appear to be Ch AU coins to me. Look at Ms. Liberty's right leg (the left leg in the images) and one can see what appear to be light circulation abrasion marks (wear) down the leg from around the mid-thigh to the foot.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • clarkbar04clarkbar04 Posts: 4,961 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think what is being construed as wear is due to the ligting angle (6 o clock) and the way at which the shin reflects light directly back at the camera in a very narrow swath.

    MS66 taste on an MS63 budget.
  • BruceSBruceS Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The luster looked to be beaming from the pic angle, very little noticeable wear, low MS if I had t guess


    eBay ID-bruceshort978
    Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager.
  • DoubleEagle59DoubleEagle59 Posts: 8,342 ✭✭✭✭✭

    On the very worst grading day of anyone, these coins are an au58, but I would think they are MS for sure.

    "Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)

    "“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)

    "I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
  • TreashuntTreashunt Posts: 6,747 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like them

    Frank

    BHNC #203

  • abcde12345abcde12345 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @crazyhounddog said:

    @abcde12345 said:
    Genuine. The luster and mint mark are the dead giveaways.

    Please do tell where you see the problem. I’m curious.

    Fakes, dem don't look like that. Do you think they're counterfeit? Please do tell where you see the problem. I'm curious.

  • crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 13,996 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @abcde12345 said:

    @crazyhounddog said:

    @abcde12345 said:
    Genuine. The luster and mint mark are the dead giveaways.

    Please do tell where you see the problem. I’m curious.

    Fakes, dem don't look like that. Do you think they're counterfeit? Please do tell where you see the problem. I'm curious.

    That’s just it! I don’t see any problem that’s why I was asking you. So your saying they’re fake? If that’s the case you need to go brush up on your grading and read a book on US coins because your dead wrong :)

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
  • crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 13,996 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2, 2018 9:43AM

    @TomB said:
    They both appear to be Ch AU coins to me. Look at Ms. Liberty's right leg (the left leg in the images) and one can see what appear to be light circulation abrasion marks (wear) down the leg from around the mid-thigh to the foot.

    I’m not going to pretend I’m a SLQ expert but from what I remember from grading these in the past is;
    Before you’ll see rub on miss Liberty’s leg you’ll surely see rub on the shield and her head . So maybe it’s a weaker strike on her leg. That’s just my take. I also find it strange that I don’t see any bag marks or blemishes on either side of the coin. Nor do I see rub on the eagles breast or wing. So in my mind a coin does not only wear on one side.
    Happy hunting my friends :)

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
  • BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 7,485 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is just one example of how difficult it can be to grade coins from pics. The reverses of both show no wear, IMHOP.

    The obverses look like they came from different coins. Both look like they have weak central details.

    The date on the 1917 looks either weak or has some abrasion. At least that's what I'm seeing.

    I see earholes on both, the second coin struck weaker.

    OK.........no better than 63FH on both.

    Pete

    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 13,996 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2, 2018 11:44AM

    @BuffaloIronTail said:
    This is just one example of how difficult it can be to grade coins from pics. The reverses of both show no wear, IMHOP.

    The obverses look like they came from different coins. Both look like they have weak central details.

    The date on the 1917 looks either weak or has some abrasion. At least that's what I'm seeing.

    I see earholes on both, the second coin struck weaker.

    OK.........no better than 63FH on both.

    Pete

    I agree 100% that the periphery is strong with the central regions are a bit weak, thus full head and like you said, ear holes. I like them both and if the luster is there I see a 64 full head on the 29-d.
    Joe

    Maybe the OP can add some new pics :)

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 28,579 ✭✭✭✭✭

    nice slq's.

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    not to offend the OP, but I think all the disagreement is due to the lousy pictures. :)

  • clarkbar04clarkbar04 Posts: 4,961 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    not to offend the OP, but I think all the disagreement is due to the lousy pictures. :)

    Not offended, in fact I 100% agree. I think it is time to blow the dust off the ol' point and shoot.

    MS66 taste on an MS63 budget.
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Very nice SLQ's.... clean and with luster......Seems to be a bit of wear on the obverse of the '29.... Cheers, RickO

  • abcde12345abcde12345 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @crazyhounddog said:

    @abcde12345 said:

    @crazyhounddog said:

    @abcde12345 said:
    Genuine. The luster and mint mark are the dead giveaways.

    Please do tell where you see the problem. I’m curious.

    Fakes, dem don't look like that. Do you think they're counterfeit? Please do tell where you see the problem. I'm curious.

    That’s just it! I don’t see any problem that’s why I was asking you. So your saying they’re fake? If that’s the case you need to go brush up on your grading and read a book on US coins because your dead wrong :)

    I may have failed you with my communication. I think they're REAL. It's why I stated "Genuine" in my first post. The luster and the mint mark are the dead giveways as to why they are REAL (Genuine). Usually counterfeits have a weird looking mint mark and usually the luster on fake coins is poor.

  • crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 13,996 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @abcde12345 said:

    @crazyhounddog said:

    @abcde12345 said:

    @crazyhounddog said:

    @abcde12345 said:
    Genuine. The luster and mint mark are the dead giveaways.

    Please do tell where you see the problem. I’m curious.

    Fakes, dem don't look like that. Do you think they're counterfeit? Please do tell where you see the problem. I'm curious.

    That’s just it! I don’t see any problem that’s why I was asking you. So your saying they’re fake? If that’s the case you need to go brush up on your grading and read a book on US coins because your dead wrong :)

    I may have failed you with my communication. I think they're REAL. It's why I stated "Genuine" in my first post. The luster and the mint mark are the dead giveways as to why they are REAL (Genuine). Usually counterfeits have a weird looking mint mark and usually the luster on fake coins is poor.

    My apologies. When ever I hear someone say genuine I think problem coins.

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...