My collecting philosophy is if I can't afford something decent, I would rather have none at all. At dateless 1916 quarter would be of no interest to me at all. >>
>>
I agree, too.
I'd want to be able to see the feature I'm paying for.
<< <i>I would rather have a dateless 1917 quarter as such a quarter would be at melt value. There would be no question as to date. >>
The 1916 SLQ has specific die markers so "there would be no question as to date."
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
If I had, say, $2500 to spend on a low grade 1916 25c, I would much prefer a VG with a minor problem (cleaning/scratch/etc) and a clear date than a problem-free AG-G with no date. I think the 1916 25c is a very cool and important issue being one of the lowest mintage business strikes of the 20th century, and they are easy to distinguish even without a date, but I think the prices right now for dateless examples are a bit too high.
And by the way, hiijacker - that's a sweet coin (and not totally dateless) and without a doubt undergraded! I've had ones grade G-6 without that much of a date.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Rare is the dealer indeed who has someone to go to with a coin like a dateless 1916 SLQ.For my money,I would rather have a few 1916 D dimes in low grade than one of these.
A dateless coin to start out my date/mint set of Standing Liberty Quarters?I don't think so.Coin needs to be at least G-4 for my taste.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
My collecting rule is if I can't afford a decent example of something, I can do without it. A dateless 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is not what I would call "a decent example."
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 ... ?
<< <i>My collecting rule is if I can't afford a decent example of something, I can do without it. A dateless 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is not what I would call "a decent example." >>
You said almost the exact same thing 2 months ago (earlier in this thread)
Good to see you agree with yourself. Many don't.
I would like a dateless 1916 quarter as an interesting piece, not as a collector coin. I don't think I could bring myself to pay more than a few bucks for it. If it could be bought cheap, it'd be one of those inexpensive things that I wouldn't have to keep in the safe box. But for several hundred dollars I think my collecting budget would be better spent on something else.
<< <i>My collecting rule is if I can't afford a decent example of something, I can do without it. A dateless 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is not what I would call "a decent example." >>
No way----I firmly agree with Bill. If I can't afford AT LEAST an XF example----I don't want it.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
<< <i> << I would rather have a dateless 1917 quarter as such a quarter would be at melt value. There would be no question as to date. >> The 1916 SLQ has specific die markers so "there would be no question as to date." >>
Well, yes that is true but it is equally true that I cannot buy a dateless 1916 slq at melt unless I cherrypick it. LOL.
My point about certainty of date is that when it is that worn many potential buyers of the dateless 1916 quarter would be hesitant to buy it as a 1916 unless it was slabbed.
<< <i>My collecting rule is if I can't afford a decent example of something, I can do without it. A dateless 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is not what I would call "a decent example." >>
No way----I firmly agree with Bill. If I can't afford AT LEAST an XF example----I don't want it. >>
Given what I collect I can't be quite that picky. The most expensive lower grade coin that I have purchased was a 1796 half dollar in Fine-15. It is the same piece that illustrates the grade on the "Coin Facts" site. I would have preferred one in VF-25, which would have matched my 1796 Quarter, but Fine-15 was what was available.
There was in EF-45, 1796 half dollar that returned to the market a year or so ago. The first time I'd seen it, it had been priced at $155,000. The second time it was at $175,000, which was beyond my budget for that coin on both occasions. I did pass on a piece many years ago at $8,900. It was holed, polished and had the sharpness of a Fair-02.
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 ... ?
<< <i>And by the way, hiijacker - that's a sweet coin (and not totally dateless) and without a doubt undergraded! I've had ones grade G-6 without that much of a date. >>
I thought it was undergradrf as well, but CAC only green beaned it. If I send it back to pcgs for regarding do you you recommend I peel off the sticker?
<< <i>And by the way, hiijacker - that's a sweet coin (and not totally dateless) and without a doubt undergraded! I've had ones grade G-6 without that much of a date. >>
I thought it was undergradrf as well, but CAC only green beaned it. If I send it back to pcgs for regarding do you you recommend I peel off the sticker? >>
For some reason, CAC doesn't like gold-stickering low grade coins, even when the coin is blatantly and obviously undergraded, as here. If you were sending it back to PCGS in the holder, I'd leave the sticker, as I don't think it would make much of a difference either way. You could always crack it and send it in raw, but again, I don't think that would make too much of a difference either as it is clearly a Good and PCGS should correct it no matter the packaging. So I'd leave it as is. By the way, is it OGH?
<< <i>No sent it in once raw they secure plus for my free membership submission.
Maybe crack out is the best option. >>
Interesting that was graded recently. They really have gotten tough lately. I guess it couldn't hurt to crack it and try it again. There's a pretty good price jump to G4 and I think it should CAC again at that grade. Although, the AG3/CAC packaging is pretty cool too since it's a pop 1 at CAC in that grade. Totally up to you
By the way, here's what an AG 1916 should look like (from Coinfacts):
I own one.....A P01 for my lowball 1792-1964 type set, Pocketpiece. Its good (for me) for several reasons......not going to find one for cheaper than P01 grade. Its an "MS70" equivilent for a lowball set, and I got the coin for what I consider to be a very reasonable price. A trifecta (for me). If I was a "normal" collector of higher graded pieces, I wouldn't want a dateless coin just to have one.......
Craig If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
Nor would I choose to buy an 1822 or 1828 25/50c. quarter with the denomination illegible from wear or damage (but identifiable by other die characteristics). Nor a chain cent without a date, nor a 1796 or 1797 half dollar that was missing the date or denomination, etc.
I'd want to be able to see the feature I'm paying for. >>
I think Baley has summed up my opinion in the last line. I want to see the feature that makes the coin special.
Similarly, I would not buy an 1847/6 half in the late die state, where no trace of the underdate is visible. Yes, it can be identified by the shield, but to me it is not a coin I would want nor one I would recommend.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>The date on ANY coin is typically the first thing you look for so if I cannot see a date, I'm really not interested. >>
.......unless it's been slabbed where the slab label is the first thing that most people look at.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Yeah, I look for them all the time. I'd never actually BUY one though, just pick it. I don't mind dateless, I've picked some of the ugliest dateless garbage. About the 1796/97 half dollar question, YES, I'd buy even an example with half of Miss Liberty, the eagle's head, and nothing else on the coin. That is a coin you don't pass up in any grade. Who cares if it doesn't have a date, the date carries no premium either way! I have one of em!
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>No.
My collecting philosophy is if I can't afford something decent, I would rather have none at all. At dateless 1916 quarter would be of no interest to me at all. >>
I agree, too.
I'd want to be able to see the feature I'm paying for.
I agree.
<< <i>I would rather have a dateless 1917 quarter as such a quarter would be at melt value. There would be no question as to date. >>
The 1916 SLQ has specific die markers so "there would be no question as to date."
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
And by the way, hiijacker - that's a sweet coin (and not totally dateless) and without a doubt undergraded! I've had ones grade G-6 without that much of a date.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Yes and I would use nic a date on it. >>
Doesn't work on silver.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
A dateless coin to start out my date/mint set of Standing Liberty Quarters?I don't think so.Coin needs to be at least G-4 for my taste.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes and I would use nic a date on it. >>
Doesn't work on silver. >>
I would still use it on it.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>My collecting rule is if I can't afford a decent example of something, I can do without it. A dateless 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is not what I would call "a decent example." >>
You said almost the exact same thing 2 months ago (earlier in this thread)
Good to see you agree with yourself. Many don't.
I would like a dateless 1916 quarter as an interesting piece, not as a collector coin. I don't think I could bring myself to pay more than a few bucks for it. If it could be bought cheap, it'd be one of those inexpensive things that I wouldn't have to keep in the safe box. But for several hundred dollars I think my collecting budget would be better spent on something else.
I have 2 rolls I received last month from a 91 year old collector?
Regards, Larry
<< <i>My collecting rule is if I can't afford a decent example of something, I can do without it. A dateless 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is not what I would call "a decent example." >>
No way----I firmly agree with Bill. If I can't afford AT LEAST an XF example----I don't want it.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
<< <i> << I would rather have a dateless 1917 quarter as such a quarter would be at melt value. There would be no question as to date. >> The 1916 SLQ has specific die markers so "there would be no question as to date." >>
Well, yes that is true but it is equally true that I cannot buy a dateless 1916 slq at melt unless I cherrypick it. LOL.
My point about certainty of date is that when it is that worn many potential buyers of the dateless 1916 quarter would be hesitant to buy it as a 1916 unless it was slabbed.
<< <i>
<< <i>My collecting rule is if I can't afford a decent example of something, I can do without it. A dateless 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is not what I would call "a decent example." >>
No way----I firmly agree with Bill. If I can't afford AT LEAST an XF example----I don't want it. >>
Given what I collect I can't be quite that picky. The most expensive lower grade coin that I have purchased was a 1796 half dollar in Fine-15. It is the same piece that illustrates the grade on the "Coin Facts" site. I would have preferred one in VF-25, which would have matched my 1796 Quarter, but Fine-15 was what was available.
There was in EF-45, 1796 half dollar that returned to the market a year or so ago. The first time I'd seen it, it had been priced at $155,000. The second time it was at $175,000, which was beyond my budget for that coin on both occasions. I did pass on a piece many years ago at $8,900. It was holed, polished and had the sharpness of a Fair-02.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>And by the way, hiijacker - that's a sweet coin (and not totally dateless) and without a doubt undergraded! I've had ones grade G-6 without that much of a date. >>
I thought it was undergradrf as well, but CAC only green beaned it. If I send it back to pcgs for regarding do you you recommend I peel off the sticker?
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
<< <i> for this much ? >>
That would have been a mega bargain, but it's not a 1916.
See here.
<< <i>
<< <i>And by the way, hiijacker - that's a sweet coin (and not totally dateless) and without a doubt undergraded! I've had ones grade G-6 without that much of a date. >>
I thought it was undergradrf as well, but CAC only green beaned it. If I send it back to pcgs for regarding do you you recommend I peel off the sticker? >>
For some reason, CAC doesn't like gold-stickering low grade coins, even when the coin is blatantly and obviously undergraded, as here. If you were sending it back to PCGS in the holder, I'd leave the sticker, as I don't think it would make much of a difference either way. You could always crack it and send it in raw, but again, I don't think that would make too much of a difference either as it is clearly a Good and PCGS should correct it no matter the packaging. So I'd leave it as is. By the way, is it OGH?
Maybe crack out is the best option.
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
<< <i>No sent it in once raw they secure plus for my free membership submission.
Maybe crack out is the best option. >>
Interesting that was graded recently. They really have gotten tough lately. I guess it couldn't hurt to crack it and try it again. There's a pretty good price jump to G4 and I think it should CAC again at that grade. Although, the AG3/CAC packaging is pretty cool too since it's a pop 1 at CAC in that grade. Totally up to you
By the way, here's what an AG 1916 should look like (from Coinfacts):
If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
<< <i>I would not.
Nor would I choose to buy an 1822 or 1828 25/50c. quarter with the denomination illegible from wear or damage (but identifiable by other die characteristics).
Nor a chain cent without a date, nor a 1796 or 1797 half dollar that was missing the date or denomination, etc.
I'd want to be able to see the feature I'm paying for. >>
I think Baley has summed up my opinion in the last line. I want to see the feature that makes the coin special.
Similarly, I would not buy an 1847/6 half in the late die state, where no trace of the underdate is visible. Yes, it can be identified by the shield, but to me it is not a coin I would want nor one I would recommend.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>The date on ANY coin is typically the first thing you look for so if I cannot see a date, I'm really not interested. >>
.......unless it's been slabbed where the slab label is the first thing that most people look at.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>The date on ANY coin is typically the first thing you look for so if I cannot see a date, I'm really not interested. >>
.......unless it's been slabbed where the slab label is the first thing that most people look at. >>
Especially if it's a PO01.