EXTREMELY CONFUSED ABOUT THIS 1916 QUARTER

veryfine · October 26, 2005 11:53AM

Take a look at this PCGS 1916 quarter on eBay. Never have I seen a 1916 quarter with this kind of beading on the shield. Only 1917 type 1 coins have these distinctive, sharply impressed beads. Apparently PCGS certifies it as a 16, so who am I to argue. IMO, it is a very unusual 1916.
So what do you SLQ experts think?

eBay 1916 quarter

rsdoug81 · October 26, 2005 11:58AM

I think you can id it by the hair, right?

Edited to add: I'd almost swear that I see the base of a 7.

veryfine · October 26, 2005 12:03PM

Yes, there are several ways to spot a dateless 1916 quarter. But take a look at photos of the most sharply struck MS-65 or MS-66 1916 and the shield beads don't come close in sharpness to any 1917 example.

Actually, sharpness isn't the issue. The 1916 shield has mushy detail regardless of strike.

rsdoug81 · October 26, 2005 12:06PM

I see what you mean. I still think it looks like there is the bottom portion of a 7 in the date area.

sellsatan · October 26, 2005 12:14PM

It might be in a PCGS slab, but without the label showing I wouldn't bid a dime.

dbldie55 · October 26, 2005 12:21PM

If I was a betting person, I would not bet on this being a 1916. I always use the drapery to the left of the foot, and comparing this to numerous 1917 Type 1's and 1916's on Heritage's site (and they have a bunch), it looks like a 1917.

TomB · October 26, 2005 12:22PM

I'm no expert on SLQs, but I think that that is a 1917 pictured. The lower fold of the drapery, near the foot, looks just like a 1917 quarter and not like a 1916 quarter.

veryfine · October 26, 2005 12:47PM

Yes, you're all making good points. I like to focus on the shield because, this detail, even on the most worn specimens, identifies a 1916 from a mile away.

jdimmick · October 26, 2005 12:53PM

Thiers definitely something wrong here. The Hair as well as the Bottom of the gown and the taller shield indicate 1917. I can also see what appears to be the bottom of the 7. Its funny that they do not show the whole slab, I am wondering if the coin is not shown for a reason, or that its an incorrectly holdered coin (mechanical PCGS) error. If its a mechanical error, the buyer will be in deep sh!t as thier would be no guarantee to cover that?

Tonelover · October 26, 2005 1:01PM

Good catch. The gown line should curve slightly at the bottom and intersect with Liberty's foot. Instead it traverses up to mid-calf. Looks like they blew the attribution on this one.

zkcoins · October 26, 2005 1:48PM

<< It might be in a PCGS slab, but without the label showing I wouldn't bid a dime. >>

veryfine · October 26, 2005 1:55PM

Another good comparison is the sharpness of the obverse stars to the left and right of Liberty. No 1916 was ever made with the same sharply defined stars as a 1917, even on top grade examples. A well-worn 1917 would still show several clearly-defined stars, but not so on a 1916. Only a hint of star detail would be visible, if any at all.

BlindedByEgo · October 26, 2005 2:14PM

Strange seller, IMO. Lists a lot of high end coins for full dollar (ok, no problem there), sells few. Lots of listing fees w/ no 'Bay action - does he sell 'em offline? Also, in cursory check of closed and open auctions, states grade of TPG but no slab shown - weird, in my view. Lots of good feedback, most with low f/b counts. No negs.

All in all just unsettling enough that I wouldn't buy from his offerings, although in no way am I calling him crooked.

Just unsettling.

veryfine · October 26, 2005 3:04PM

Interesting comment jdimmick. That would be a very serious mechanical error, considering a 1917 in that condition is a worthless coin.

lloydmincy · October 26, 2005 4:20PM

Whatever year it is, it is worthless. Who the heck would buy a coin like that where you can't even read the date???

kranky · October 26, 2005 8:57PM

This is an interesting coin. The drapery fold at the foot indicates 1917, veryfine says the shield detail indicates 1917, but the head into the border indicates 1916. I'd have to see it in-hand to say whether there is a shadow of a 7 visible in the date.

Looking only at the head/border it absolutely seems like a 1916. This feature has been widely claimed to be a foolproof way to identify a dateless T1.

This coin seems not to fit with everything I've read about the diagnostics of 1916 vs 1917 T1 SLQs.

What if this coin is a 1917 but has the head-extending-into-the-border feature of the 1916? Now that would be something.

PerryHall · October 26, 2005 9:04PM

Will PCGS slab a coin without a date provided the date can be determined by other features of the coin?

Steve27 · October 26, 2005 9:18PM

1916, 1916 eBay coin, & 1917

BigD5 · October 26, 2005 9:19PM

At the grade presented, it's tough to look at a scan and be 100%, but if you look at the head and notice how it cuts through the reed, that's a dead giveaway for a 1916 dated coin.

As for the other diagnostic's, I can't tell from the scan, but with the reeding cut in half at the head, that would confirm it for me.

THEONLYTBONE · October 26, 2005 9:26PM

<< Good catch. The gown line should curve slightly at the bottom and intersect with Liberty's foot. Instead it traverses up to mid-calf. Looks like they blew the attribution on this one. >>

I dont understand what your saying with the gown

, I have 3 undated TY1 coins that are pretty worn, I know I need some pics to share, but I am pretty lazy...................LOL Thanks in advance....

Steve27 · October 26, 2005 9:40PM

1916 head/1917 head

Steve27 · October 26, 2005 9:44PM

IMO the eBay coin is a 1917 (the relationship of the head to the beads and the remnant of the "7" are the indicators I see).

veryfine · October 26, 2005 10:20PM

Look carefuly at the photos Steve generously provided. Compare the outer shield detail and obverse star detail. A "sharp" XF 1916 would show less of these details than on a well-worn AG 1917!
The 1917 has a significantly redesigned shield, with sharp, round beads. A 1917 dateless example would still show this sharp detail on the right rim of the shield.
Look at the drapery too. In my humble opinion, The coin in question is most certainly a 1917 T-1.

TwoSides2aCoin · October 26, 2005 10:31PM

it is a 1917 in my opinion.

The seller has lots of awesome coins, but this one doesn't rate up there with them. It is suspect, at best.

kieferscoins · October 26, 2005 10:35PM

Maybe the Seller put the wrong date in the auction and PCGS got it right. We won't know until someone actually contacts the seller and asks for a label shot or just straight up asks what date the label says.

Cameron Kiefer

veryfine · October 26, 2005 10:38PM

<< At the grade presented, it's tough to look at a scan and be 100%, but if you look at the head and notice how it cuts through the reed, that's a dead giveaway for a 1916 dated coin.

As for the other diagnostic's, I can't tell from the scan, but with the reeding cut in half at the head, that would confirm it for me. >>

I understand your point, but if you take another look at the scan, you'll notice that the head really does not cut into the reed.

kranky · October 26, 2005 10:45PM

<< 

<< At the grade presented, it's tough to look at a scan and be 100%, but if you look at the head and notice how it cuts through the reed, that's a dead giveaway for a 1916 dated coin.

As for the other diagnostic's, I can't tell from the scan, but with the reeding cut in half at the head, that would confirm it for me. >>

I understand your point, but if you take another look at the scan, you'll notice that the head really does not cut into the reed. >>

I couldn't tell from the pictures, but if the head does NOT cut into the reed (I thought it did), then that seals the deal for me. I wonder if the slab really says 1916. Could be listed wrong.

coinguy1 · October 26, 2005 10:50PM

I have contacted both the seller and its affiliated company.

Aethelred · October 26, 2005 10:51PM

I'd love to see a really big, hi res photo of the coin and slab! My money would be on this one being a 1917.

Barry · October 26, 2005 11:58PM

Why would someone slab such a low grade 1917 (Unless they thought it was a 1916 and worth a shot)?

BigD5 · October 27, 2005 12:41AM

I don't know. Still looks like the head cuts into the reed to me. I guess we'll have to wait for someone to hear back from the seller or if someone could blow up the images............

ziggy29 · October 27, 2005 1:10AM

<< Why would someone slab such a low grade 1917 (Unless they thought it was a 1916 and worth a shot)? >>

I'd have to think that was it. Someone decided to put a few bucks on 16 Black and hit it.

UncleJoe · October 27, 2005 1:16AM

So what do you SLQ experts think?

No expert but IMO that is a 1917.

Bottom of the gown is not right, head does not go through IMO and the scan has IMO actually picked-up on the remnants of the 7.

Joe.

Steve27 · October 27, 2005 6:00AM

Anyone hear from the seller?

BuffaloIronTail · October 27, 2005 6:06AM

I want to tell you...............this coin comparison gave me a BIG headache!

I finally looked at the PCGS book on Counterfiet detection and I believe that the coin is a 1917.

We need to see the holder first to tell if PCGS fudged it.

On the genuine 1916......when you inspect the head in relation to the rim.....I noticed one glaring point:

The inside star closest to Liberty's head is very faint and not struck up. Look at the pic in this thread of the 16 provided. You'll see one star to the right of the head.

Look at the pic of the 17....you'll see 2 stars clearly.

Look at the coin in question: There are TWO stars showing.

I think we have all been mislead by the fact that on the coin in question, the top hair strand is not there. If you notice on the 17 coin, that strand is not very prominently incised, and may have just worn away on the subject coin.

That......and the shield detail lead me to my conclusion.

WHEW..........I love a challenge..........and this was definitly that.

Hope this helps.

Pete

sinin1 · October 27, 2005 7:41AM

they pulled the auction

if a mechanical error, who eats the 2K?

do they follow ownership back to original submitter? (in case the current seller bought it for big bucks)

ziggy29 · October 27, 2005 8:26AM

<< If a mechanical error, who eats the 2K? >>

If this really is a 1917 and it's in a PCGS 1916 holder, I believe the party that would eat the $2K is...PCGS.

D · October 27, 2005 9:15AM

+1

-Daniel

coppercoins · October 27, 2005 9:24AM

I don't know SLQs all that well, but I do know detail and I know how to compare details. The coin in question is a 1917, no question about it for me.

TomB · October 27, 2005 10:14AM

On a mechanical error, as this slab and coin would be considered, PCGS does not eat the buyout. Whomever gets stuck with the coin is stuck with the loss.

jdimmick · October 27, 2005 10:22AM

Thats my understanding, whoever is holding that coin in the incorrect holder is eating a big one.

jim

CarlWohlforth · October 27, 2005 10:24AM

Interesting thread. That coin had too little detail for a generalist like me to venture a guess as to date.

<On a mechanical error, as this slab and coin would be considered, PCGS does not eat the buyout. Whomever gets stuck with the coin is stuck with the loss.>

Perhaps there is a need for a service to identify coins such as this? The service would have a guarantee that the label is correct. Naturally it would cost money. Clearly most very hard to identify coins would not be worth the service... ???

kranky · October 27, 2005 11:17AM

First, I don't even know if the coin is slabbed as a 1916. We're only going by what the auction text says.

Kind of off-topic, but I feel a mechanical error can only be justified when it's obvious there's a slab label mistake. In this case, it wouldn't be defensible - the date is gone, and it's reasonable that the TPG would use its expertise to determine whether it was a 1916 or a 1917.

To me, a mechanical error is labeling a 1921 Peace dollar as a Morgan, or putting the wrong date on a label when the date is easily read on the coin. If this coin is slabbed as a 1916 and it turns out not to be, that's not a mechanical error, and I don't think PCGS would claim it was either.

veryfine · October 27, 2005 12:16PM

I started this thread because I always pay careful attention to the details on Standing Liberty quarters and the coin in question was not typical of a 1916. As some of you might know, it is my favorite series. Those of you who feel the same way can always tell a 1916 from a 1917 T1 very quickly. Just as Barber coin lovers obsess over original color, luster variations, and differing striking details, we SLQ fanatics know "the look" of genuine 1916. The absolute best struck 1916 quarter doesn't even come close in sharpness to any 1917 T-1.
I am well-aware of the bisecting top reed, hair strands and drapery comparisons. But for me, it's the outer shield sharpness that is a dead giveaway. Take a look at any circulated 1916 below AU and you'll see what I mean.

IwantNonCCs · October 27, 2005 12:49PM

Ok, question from someone who knows alot less.

How do you tell t1 from t2 one the dateless ones.

I have 180 dateless in the junk pile. Have a empty space for
t1 in the type set album. Would love to be able to attribute
1 of the 180 as a type 1

thanks

dave

MikeInFL · October 27, 2005 1:29PM

<< Ok, question from someone who knows alot less.

How do you tell t1 from t2 one the dateless ones.

I have 180 dateless in the junk pile. Have a empty space for
t1 in the type set album. Would love to be able to attribute
1 of the 180 as a type 1

thanks

dave >>

The easiest way is in the Type 1 Lady Liberty's right breast is bare. On the Type 2 she is wearing a chain-mail wife-beater.

Take care...Mike

IwantNonCCs · October 27, 2005 2:29PM

Thanks. Would have been quicker, but the 180 dateless were in a bag of 4000
silver quarters.

Found 6 types one. Really easy once you know what to look for. I just checked the star
arrangement on the back. With luck, one happened to be a denver. Filled in 3 spots tonight
I didn't expect to, 1917P & D in the old whitman album of SLQ, and type 1 in the type set
album. And 3 to spare for ebay.

For the fun of it,

dave

BuffaloIronTail · October 27, 2005 2:44PM

NONCC..........read the entire contents of this thread and you will get the 'gist" of how to make the comparison.

Pete

PerryHall · October 27, 2005 5:06PM

<< 

<< Ok, question from someone who knows alot less.

How do you tell t1 from t2 one the dateless ones.

I have 180 dateless in the junk pile. Have a empty space for
t1 in the type set album. Would love to be able to attribute
1 of the 180 as a type 1

thanks

dave >>

The easiest way is in the Type 1 Lady Liberty's right breast is bare. On the Type 2 she is wearing a chain-mail wife-beater.

Take care...Mike >>

Its easier to check the reverse. The Type 1 has no stars under the eagle while the type 2 has 3 stars under the eagle.

Steve27 · October 27, 2005 8:53PM

If it turns out to be a 1917 in a slab which says 1916 (which I doubt), then it would be an authentication error and PCGS would be liable.

coinguy1 · October 27, 2005 9:19PM

I spoke with a representative of the seller's affiliated company, here at the Las Vegas show yesterday.

I was told that they had received a number of inquiries - I wonder how THAT happened? : ) - checked the coin out, and confirmed that it is correctly attributed as a 1916.

EXTREMELY CONFUSED ABOUT THIS 1916 QUARTER

Comments

Leave a Comment