why I love the 1916 standing liberty quarter

veryfine · May 10, 2005 2:35AM

Of course, it is possible that a 1916 Standing Liberty quarter can go down in value, like any coin, but this particular issue has so much going for it. It is the first year of a beautiful and popular series and has an extremely low mintage. Despite this, not as many high grade samples were saved as once thought. Furthermore, no other minting facilities, San Francisco or Denver produced this date. There is something special about that. This date, along with the initial 1917's is in the Type one category. I believe, however, that the 1916 alone should really be a separate type since it is significantly different from the 1917 type one variety. The hair, shield, gown and overall softness of hub detail give the look of a different design. Compare an unc. 1916 and unc.1917 type one and note the obvious differences. I suspect that many collectors already consider it a subtype in the series. If it ever does become its own type, what do you think will happen to the values then? Yes, other coins are rarer at every grade level, like the 1901-s Barber quarter, but think about this: Currently, a vg 1901-s Barber quarter is valued at about the same price as an XF 1916 Standing Liberty. For me, an XF Standing Liberty is the obvious choice. I am sure many would disagree, but the 1916 is so much more captivating and interesting, so much so, that its appeal reaches beyond the date and mintmark collector. I know that the 52,000 mintage figure does not directly relate to survival rates but it is nice to know that a circulating coin has a such a low, finite mintage. With the exception of the St. Gaudens gold coins, the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is THE 20th century key.

nwcs · May 10, 2005 2:39AM

Well, i for one want one.

TheRaven · May 10, 2005 2:41AM

Never really thought about it or Standing Liberty Quarters all that much really.....

I would say the Barber Quarter would be the key if a VG Barber Quarter and an XF SL Quarter have the same value, which looks rarier.....

I have 1 1927 Quarter in VG condition and I am content with that.....

nankraut · May 10, 2005 2:43AM

"The hair, shield, gown and overall softness of hub detail give the look of a different design".

IMHO, It's the "headlights", man!

Dave99B · May 10, 2005 2:55AM

The 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is THE 20th century key.

First of all, welcome aboard!

Second of all, PLEASEEEEEE...... the 1901-S quarter is THE 20th century key (and the price reflects this!)

Dave

vega1 · May 10, 2005 3:10AM

Good for you. I may disagree with the "20th century key" statement, but I respect and appreciate your opinions of it. Way to advance an opinion and back it up.

BuffQuarter · May 10, 2005 3:20AM

Nice write up. You can tell by my username that I like them too. Welcome to the boards.

mgoodm3 · May 10, 2005 3:23AM

Welcome.

downhome · May 10, 2005 3:36AM

As far as I'm concerned, it's the ultimate Quarter of the 20th century. One of these days it will be the finishing touch to my SLQ collection.

ER · May 10, 2005 3:41AM

Nice first post. SLQ is the best designed quarter.

ARCO · May 10, 2005 3:45AM

The 1916 SLQ is a great date and in one of the most popular series. In overall rarity it falls fall short behind the 1896-S, 1901-S and 1913-S Barber quarters. In fact, the 98-S, and 1909-O quarters in MS and AU respectively, beat the 1916 to a bloody pulp in rarity VS price. Not only are they exponentially scarcer, but they cost far less.

Nonetheless, owning a nice 1916 SL quarter is a great goal.

Tyler

sellsatan · May 10, 2005 4:34AM

Welcome to the board. Great first post.

veryfine · May 10, 2005 5:05AM

I agree that certain Barber quarters are rare and undervalued. If you were a date and mintmark collector wishing to complete a set, clearly, finding the Barber quarter keys would be a greater challenge. However, the 1916 quarter stands by itself as a unique coin for the reasons I mentioned. For date and mint mark collectors, type 1 and 2 quarters from 1916 to 1924 are generally acceptable in grades above fine, usually a vf with a sharp date. Considering the raised date problem, so many lower grades are worn off or barely visible, forcing the collector to acquire higher grades, narrowing the availability of this date. The 1916, in particular, has such delicate details, that even the slightest trace of wear makes it look heavily worn. Barber coins can have clear dates and mintmarks in very low grades, making them more acceptable in a circulated collection. Aside from that, the 1916 slq is in a class by itself, as the design is unique and its history and popularity keep pushing the values higher and higher. A 1909-o Barber quarter, for example, is certainly a scarce coin, but if you could have only 1 coin to own, would it be the au 1909-o or au 1916 slq? Your Barber Quarter examples are good ones and I cannot argue with your logic, but I am also giving you my response based on personal aesthetics. I believe that others have the same gut reaction concerning a 1916 slq and the prices reflect that reaction. Thanks for your response

Cam40 · May 10, 2005 5:13AM

Dave99B · May 10, 2005 5:39AM

It’s clearly personal choice as to which design you prefer, but the 1916 is relatively common in all grades when compared to the 1901-S quarter. This if true even though the Standing Liberty quarters are much more popular when if comes to series and type collectors. Again, the price of similar grade 01-S vs 16-P clearly depicts this.

BTW, if you could have only 1 coin to own, would it be the AU 1901-s or an AU 1916 SLQ? I imagine most would prefer the 01-S based on scarcity alone…

Dave

veryfine · May 10, 2005 6:06AM

Actually, the price does not accurately reflect this. Based on scarcity, a 1901-s barber quarter in fine, for example should be at least quadruble the value of the 16 slq in the same grade, but your point is well-taken. However, for the price in au, I'd still go for the 1916 slq, even knowing the 1901-s is much rarer. But, that's me. thanks

BigGreek · May 10, 2005 6:38AM

Welcome to the forum:

the SLQ is one of the four designs that I want to own complete sets of
the others are the Peace Dollar, the WLH and the Merc

Dave99B · May 10, 2005 6:43AM

Based on scarcity, a 1901-s barber quarter in fine, for example should be at least quadruble the value of the 16 slq in the same grade

And how did you determine this again? I'm lost.

Dave

veryfine · May 10, 2005 6:56AM

Obviously, I loosely used the word quadruple. How about 5 times or 10 times rarer? To drive the point home, how about much, much rarer in the grade example I stated. As an educated guess, would you disagree?

Dave99B · May 10, 2005 7:31AM

I would agree that the 01-S is clearly much rarer. By how much, who knows? I have no clue. 5x? 10x? Probably depends on the grade.

Is the 01-S overpriced when compared to the 16-P. Now that’s a good question… My feeling is their are many 16-Ps rattling around, especially in UNC, since it was a first year issue. Similar situation with the 16-D Mercury dime.

Dave

D · May 10, 2005 9:02AM

Welcome,

Although, I have to disagree. I think the 1916SLQ has far too many specimens and is often way high priced for the population.

-Daniel

DorkGirl · May 10, 2005 9:28AM

pharmer · May 10, 2005 9:50AM

and well put.

Barberman55 · May 10, 2005 1:02PM

Welcome to the boards!

I'm enjoying your thread, especially since you're getting the blood flowing with some of my fellow Barber collectors.

TheRaven · May 10, 2005 1:15PM

Ya make the point that a little bit of wear and so forth kinda kills the standing liberty quarters, maybe that is why I have a neutral opinion of that design/set.....

I simply can't afford to put together a nice looking set of these quarters, same would be true for walking liberty halves.....

This is also why I like Barber coinage.....

ericj96 · May 10, 2005 1:43PM

I agree that the SLQ is the finest quarter design the US has ever come up with. The type one coin is exceptional as a type. I would rather have it than just about any other quarter if they all had simmilar prices.

Thats a complement form me because I don't collect quarters.

Eric

veryfine · May 10, 2005 2:49PM

I do not agree that the 1916 slq is overpriced. For example, take the 1907 high relief double eagle. One might argue that there are far too many specimens to justify that high price as well. Again, the appeal of this issue far outweighs population reports and rarity. It will always be desirable, even if collecting gold by date and mintmark goes out of style. Let us imagine that the 1916 slq is overpriced, resulting in a major slash in value. That is great, because more people can now add this date to their collections at an affordable price. Now what happens as the big demand continues? Naturally, it will shoot up to its so-called "overpriced" levels. In my opinion, there will never be enough of these to meet the demand. Even if one wants to reduce expenses by collecting standing liberty quarters by date only, the 1916 is still necessary to complete the set. And again, it really should be a separate type. Of course, what really matters is what we enjoy collecting, keeping in mind that it can also be financially rewarding. We can all come up with dozens of dates from other series that are overpriced or underpriced, but, in the end, popularity always wins. And for all you barber collectors out there, don’t misunderstand me; owning a 1901-s barber quarter would make me jump for joy.

jdimmick · May 10, 2005 4:39PM

Time for me to chime in on this one:

First of all, I like the 1916 SLQ, great design, first year coin, and a lower mintage coin from an extremely popular series. However, this coin is not rare by any standards. This coin is available in any grade on any given day, it just takes capital to buy one. Look at the population numbers compared to many other quarters. This coin has gone up so much in the last 18 months, that the market is currrently oversaturated with them.(way more than enough to satisfy the demand, and that is part of the reason why so many are always for sale) I saw so many 1916 SLQ's in St Louis in all grades from Good-Ms-65, that I lost count at over 50. IMO, the price is too high currently and with the exception of the "very nicest coins for the grade", I can see some potential correction coming on them down the road. Someone here locally has at least 20 hoarded!!!

jim

veryfine · May 10, 2005 4:47PM

It is nice to know there are many passionate barber collectors out there. I like them too, as I once had a complete collection of Barber half dollars. It was so frustrating finding a no problem matching set of fines that I gave up. You Barber collectors really have your work cut out for you. Original, attractive, fine or better complete sets of Barbers are a prize for sure. But for me, standing liberty quarters look even better as a complete set. With the exception of the 1916, it is possible to complete it without going overboard in price. A nice set of xf-au with maybe the tougher dates in sharp vf looks real nice. There is only one overdate and it is a relatively short series. The beautiful and intricate details, design changes and strike characteristics clearly make this my favorite series.

veryfine · May 10, 2005 10:10PM

A price correction is a possibility but that can be said for other coins as well. How about the 1917 type 1 quarter. There are probably thousands of uncirculated examples in existence. The market has always been "oversaturated" with them but it is still worth over one thousand dollars in ms65 fh. There are plenty of 1916-d mercury dimes in ag-vg. They are always available at auctions and in coin publications but they never seem to go down. How about the ubiquitous high relief St Gaudens or 1909-s vdb cent? Should there be a correction for those too? Thousands of dollars for ms 1932-d washington quarters? Overpriced? And you mention the population reports. For a first year issue, do you really think the mint state population is high? I do agree that the quick jump in prices results in a higher availability of these in the marketplace but again, the future price of this issue will be determined by an increase or decrease in popularity. In my opinion, if the price goes down, it will quickly go up again. If a coin like the 1901-s Barber quarter continues to increase in price, might there be a correction there too? It is so rare, so unavailable and so expensive that many collectors might lose interest in completing this date and mintmark collection. I believe it is already getting too high in a short period of time in the ag-vg grades.

DeepCoin · May 10, 2005 10:38PM

Gentlemen, it is all Economics 101 - supply and demand. SLQs are collected on a much wider basis and are "generally" seen as one of the most beautiful coins ever made by the U.S. Mint. On the other hand, the Barber coinage shares the same design on multiple coins and for some is not particularly attractive. That is why the prices are what they are.

When I say SLQs are collected on a much wider basis, I am including Type collectors. While some feel Barbers are underappreciated, that reduces the demand for "key" coins and the market reflects it. Being married to an economist, I believe in efficient markets and this is one of those instances. It is not a value judgement on the merits of either coin, it is just based on data, which in the end determines the pricing.

Dave99B · May 11, 2005 3:31AM

OK, so does all of this careful analysis mean that the beautiful and popular 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is 2nd most important 20th century key?

Dave

MFH · May 11, 2005 7:46AM

Collecting both types of quarters, the Barber and the SLQ, I have had the opportunity to have had eight choice 1916 SLQ's in grades from AU 50 to MS 63FH, and if I were wealthy enough to afford a better example, many would be available to me as I type this.

The first year of any coin is saved in quantities, regardless of the actual mintage. The first year of this design was slipped into general circulation along with the 1917 Ty 1's. However many people saved the new design as a novelty, without realizing that the 1916 was the actual rarer coin.

The 1901-S Barber was put into circulation immediately and there wasn't anything special about it, just another issue of Barber quarters from the San Fransisco mint. The 1900-S disappeared quickly into the channels of commerce, as did the 01-S and also the 02-S. What surprised collectors later on in the late 1900's was that the actual mintage of the 01-S was so low. By that time, most 01-S's had seen years of service and few were saved in MS. The 1913-S on the other hand had a smaller mintage than the 01-S but it was saved almost from the moment of issue as it was recognized as a mintage-rarity.

I have yet to find one 1901-S choice enough to call AU 55-58. They are just not available. At this very moment I can buy a 1916 SLQ in a PCGS AU 55 holder on ebay on a BIN with Ira S.
I wish I could say the same thing for the 01-S quarter.

Veryfine: Welcome to the US Forum.

veryfine · May 11, 2005 2:06PM

I agree with much of what you say. I am aware of the lack of availability of 1901-s Barber quarters for the reasons you've clearly stated. However, availability of a coin does not always relate to price. Given what you've said, why is the price of the 1916 slq so high? Supply and demand dictates that the more available than wanted, reduces value. Why is that not happening with this quarter. The answer is simple: Despite the availability, there are and always will be collectors and investors willing to pay the price. The piece is so special that many believe, as do I, that the existing coins in stock will dry up. How about au 1893-s, 1896-o or 1901-s Barber halves. Shouldn't they be worth a fortune? Unfortunately, they are not. There are "undervalued" seated liberty coins rarer than any Barber or Standing Liberty quarters and I politely say, so what. Anyway, thanks for your interesting and well-thought out response.

veryfine · May 11, 2005 2:13PM

A little analysis and a lot of emotion. That's what makes this hobby so much fun. For the price, I still have to go with the 1916.

Dave99B · May 11, 2005 2:37PM

Given what you've said, why is the price of the 1916 slq so high?

One more try...

The price of the 1916-P quarter is high because it's an extremely popular series, and date collectors need a 1916 example. There are many many SLQ collectors, my friend. The 1916-P is not expensive because it’s ultra-rare. Nice 1916-Ps are readily available in almost any grade.

Similarly, Mercury dimes are heavily collected, and therefore 1916-D dimes are expensive. They are not rare either. Pick any grade you want, and you can buy one this week.

Indian cents are heavily collected. The 1877 in Mint State is pricey. But I can locate 6 or 7 for sale by the end of the week if you're interested. No problem.

Barber material, and Seated material for that matter, is not popular. But even given this less than stellar popularity, key Barbers are very pricey, because they are not available in any numbers. As a test, go looking for an original XF 01-S, or an AU 97-S. How about a 14-S in XF?

Bottom line: Don't let this bother you, as the SLQ is easily one of the top three coin designs in my opinion. A truly classic design. But that doesn't make them rare, when compared to some other heavy-weights. It makes them great collector coins!

Dave

MFH · May 11, 2005 3:29PM

I should add just this one thing to my statement, the Standing Liberty Quarter is also my favorite coin. The run up on prices on the 1916 can be most recently traced to the beginning of last year, and I have noticed that there has been some reluctance to these new prices as many dealers have had 1916 examples in their inventory for quite some time now. I strongly feel that the 1916 has maxed itself out, for the time being anyway.

Recent auction results have proved somewhat lack luster on this coin, as many gem examples have remained unsold. Check out Heritage's "End of Auction" offerings.

Collecting the SLQ has been a passion of mine for decades, and my set is always under revision. I wouldn't trade this set for anyother that I can think of, it means that much to me.

However, I would trade my better 1916 ( PCGS MS 63FH ) for a 1901-S in PCGS AU 58 in a heart beat. I know I can locate another example within a few minutes. The demand for the 01-S is there but the supply is not (aside for a slew of AG3 to G8 coins).

Granted there are more SLQ collectors than Barber collectors, and the demand from the larger amount of SLQ collectors has kept the price up for alot of these coins. I know, I'm one of them. Yet, Barber collectors - as few as they are, or at least seem to be- have put a great deal of pressure on key dates ( as Dave mentioned) . Those who can afford gem MS coins of either series know all too well there are others who covet the same coins they want to add to their collection. The "registry game" has fed this competition.

Again I have to say that I don't think there is a more beautiful coin than the SLQ. Yet I fear a correction in pricing on the 1916 is in order; the demand for this date is extremely strong, but not at its current price levels. ( I certainly don't want the price to slide but I think its really inevidentable.)

veryfine · May 11, 2005 4:29PM

I think you both make very good arguments. I agree that the 1916 could slip, but as stated earlier, I suspect that reduction would be temporary. As far as the exhaulted 1901-s quarter goes, I would also take this date in au-58 over an ms63fh 1916 slq too. However, since Barber quarters do not appeal to me quite as much, I would only do so to make a quick sale. It is almost non-existent in the higher grades with demand far outweighing supply. This leads me to another point. To complete a fine 12 grade set of Barber Quarters, you need about $15,000 or more just to acquire the 1901-s, if you could find one. Isn't it plausible that the coin is too rare and expensive, forcing collectors to shift to Barber Halves or Barber Dimes? Might that cause, in a matter of speaking, a correction in this case too? Of course you can spend a few thousand on the more available ag-g 1901-s examples but, with Barbers, we all really want that incredibly difficult fine or better grade, don't we? A fine or vf collection with one ag is not a pretty sight but most of us do not have a choice. I, for one would be dreaming about an upgrade or having nightmares about it. The 1916 standing, 1877 indian cent and 1916-d dimes are always available but scarce enough to warrant a decent price appreciation. After the small handful of lucky and well-heeled Barber quarter collectors complete their date/mintmark sets, who would even dare to take on this frustrating endeavor? Another question: If the 1916 slq slides in value due to an oversaturation of price and abundance, will most of them be eaten up by the hungry collectors who eagerly want them? Time will tell.

MFH · May 11, 2005 11:40PM

The one stumbling block, as you realize, to the Barber quarters is the 01-S. As you mentioned, why would anyone attempt to start this series, knowing that the 01-S is almost impossible to locate ? That's a very good question, I wish I could answer it with just one simple statement, but I can't.

I started collecting Barber Liberty Head Nickels first, then graduating to Dimes, and a few years later to the quarters, and finally to the halves. Knowing that I may never locate a 01-S quarter (or half dollar for that matter in AU 58) hasn't deterred me from at least trying. I guess that's what collecting is all about..."the thrill of the hunt".

When an AU 55-58 Barber coin I need for my collection is unavailable, I have been forced to acquire a MS example; this has been the case of my Barber halves, as I now have a 01-S in MS 63 and just this week located a gem 05-O in MS 65. It very well may never come to pass that I add a MS 01-S quarter.

Shifting to SLQ's, the stumbling block for that series has been locating a true FH example of the overdate and the 27-S. I feel that the 27-S in FH is harder to locate than a MS 01-S and its sold at multiples of what a 01-S would bring. With regard to the 1916 FH's, these coins should be in a seperate type unto themselves. They are now lumped with the 1917 Ty 1's ( which usually have incredible FH's) and it does an injustice to the 1916.

Interesting thread, thanks for starting it.

TheRaven · May 11, 2005 11:45PM

You say the price of the 1901-S causes people to bump to the dime and half dollar sets, that is likely accurate, as I started to collect Barber in the Half Dollar first because the set is completeable.....

I would note that I am working on a VG set of Halves right now, with a VG Quarter set to be started in the near future and then further expanding to Dimes (grade is not determined yet)..... Not sure what to do with the 3 keys either in the quarter set.....

With all that said it has been determined that the 1916 quarter is needed for a more popular set, which is true, it is needed for a date set which the 1901-S is not & with those two points the 1916 is still much more available and cheaper, althought still to expensive for me

, then then 1901-S, so how can the 1916 be the key 20th century non-gold coin.....

1040taxman · May 12, 2005 1:02AM

Good thread!! Does anybody know what the mintage on the 1901-S Barber is?

Dave99B · May 12, 2005 1:47AM

72K

Mintages - Key Dates

Dave

1040taxman · May 12, 2005 2:01AM

Thanks,Dave but if that's the case why would the 01-S Barber be worth more than the '16 SLQ?

Dave99B · May 12, 2005 2:18AM

Mintages can mean very little.

First year issues, because of the design change, are always saved in some numbers. That's the case with the 16-P.

Dave

veryfine · May 12, 2005 2:32AM

I stated earlier that the 1916 slq is THE 20th century key based on overall desirability; date set collectors, type collectors and to a certain extent, non-collectors. It is also a comment mixed with my emotions and personal aesthetics. As you can see from all the responses, the 1901-s Bq is rarer and more pricey but it doesn't seem to have the same fame or star-power that the 1916 slq does. If you were to say, "the 1901-s Barber quarter is THE 20th century key" based on rarity alone, I could not argue that point. Another collector might choose the ms 1921-s walking liberty half as THE key or 1918/7-D Buffalo. I could end the discussion with the 1913 liberty nickel but that wouldn't be fair to anyone. The main point is, the 1916 slq jumps out at me more than any other issue. Maybe another collector will proudly say "a mint state 1901 Morgan dollar is the key of all keys!" and he could easily justify that. One thing for sure, I notice there are many serious and well-informed Barber collectors and I do admire them. I have some Barber coins in my collection and love them too, but completing uncleaned, undamaged sets in fine or above are only for the most patient collectors. What if right now, 10 collectors wanted to start a nicely matched vf date/mintmark set of Barber halves? I know how tough some of those dates are, even in vg. How long would it take? At what point would you have to lower your standards and take that sharp fine with the big staple scratch across the cheek or giant rim bump? But as we all know, the hunt for quality is part of the fun.

Dave99B · May 12, 2005 2:45AM

I stated earlier that the 1916 slq is THE 20th century key based on overall desirability; date set collectors, type collectors and to a certain extent, non-collectors

In your mind, I bet this is very true!

Dave

PS Great thread. I wish the majority of the threads on this board were half as interesting...

TheRaven · May 12, 2005 2:54AM

<< <i>I stated earlier that the 1916 slq is THE 20th century key based on overall desirability; date set collectors, type collectors and to a certain extent, non-collectors. It is also a comment mixed with my emotions and personal aesthetics. As you can see from all the responses, the 1901-s Bq is rarer and more pricey but it doesn't seem to have the same fame or star-power that the 1916 slq does. >>

If this is your basis I would say that the key would be neither coin but the 1916-D Mercury Dime or the 1909-S VDB Cent..... Might have to toss in the 1955 DD as well.....

veryfine · May 12, 2005 3:23AM

Thanks, I am enjoying the discussion

veryfine · May 12, 2005 4:27AM

If this is your basis I would say that the key would be neither coin but the 1916-D Mercury Dime or the 1909-S VDB Cent..... Might have to toss in the 1955 DD as well..... Text

Great coins but the 16-d is a date/mintmark rarity and the 55 dd is a mint error. The 16 slq is its own unique type, significantly different from the 17 type ones. However, I love the 16-d dime too. Who in the world doesn't want one?

veryfine · May 12, 2005 4:33AM

<< <i>If this is your basis I would say that the key would be neither coin but the 1916-D Mercury Dime or the 1909-S VDB Cent..... Might have to toss in the 1955 DD as well..... Text >>

Sorry, I meant to quote your response and reply with:

Great coins but the 16-d is a date/mintmark rarity and the 55 dd is a mint error. The 16 slq is its own unique type, significantly different from the 17 type ones. However, I love the 16-d dime. Who in the world doesn't want one?

TheRaven · May 12, 2005 5:22AM

Ya keep saying there are many differences between the 1916 & 1917 what are some of them, refresh my memory.....

Something else that is reasonable to figure that if you are talking about the coins being referenced it is possible/likely you are into gold to some degree and then you are into another animal of keys.....

why I love the 1916 standing liberty quarter

Comments

Leave a Comment