Is a 1916 STQ worth it?

Halfhunter06 · October 25, 2008 5:43AM

For the past couple of years I have been assembling a key dtae set of every popular type, but ive always avoided the 1916 SLQ. Ive heard stories how the mintage may be higher, you can find at least one at any show, and ofcoarse its expensive. Is the 1916 worth it? or should i just get a nice 1917 FH MS for my Type I piece?

doh · October 25, 2008 5:48AM

Go for a 1917 Type 1 in MS. It's by far a better looking piece than a circulated 1916. IMHO, the 1916 isn't anything special and is dreadfully overpriced. Now, Veryfine will post to this thread and he'll say different, but I'm just giving my two cents.

TomB · October 25, 2008 6:11AM

Is the 1916 worth it? That depends on what qualities you value. Certainly, it is expensive, has gone up in value substantially over the last fifteen years and can always be found at a larger show, but does that mean you shouldn't buy it? Regardless of your answer, you should also keep in mind that it is firmly entrenched in the ranks of key date coinage, it is a first year of issue, the series may be the most attractive issue of the denomination from the US Mint, there seems to always be heavy demand and that it is not an optional variety to complete a set, but rather is required.

RWB · October 25, 2008 6:13AM

1916 and 1917 Type 1 quarters differ in details although the overall designs are similar. The 1917s implement several corrections suggested by the mint director in November 1916.

52,000 1916s were struck, but mixed with 1917s when they were released in mid-January. Thus there were no original “rolls” of 1916 quarters and collectors had to pick out uncirculated pieces from new coins bought from banks.

Both dates were actually designed by engravers at the Philadelphia Mint and did not match the last-approved design made by Hermon MacNeil.

coolest · October 25, 2008 6:24AM

I am in your exact position. Currently I have a 17-S FH as my Type 1 example but when the day comes that I can afford a nice looking 1916 example I think I will go for it. I do consider it the key to the series and have no reason to think the published mintage of 52,000 is not correct.

And the same scenario with the Copper-nickle small cent. I have an uncirculated 1857, but I really want the 1856.

joecopper · October 25, 2008 6:26AM

I think that it is overpriced compared to the overdate

Halfhunter06 · October 25, 2008 6:27AM

thanks, your right, ive also avoided the 1856 Flying Eagle. Maybe if they were both in the middle of the series they would be more desirable.

veryfine · November 7, 2008 6:44AM

<< Go for a 1917 Type 1 in MS. It's by far a better looking piece than a circulated 1916. IMHO, the 1916 isn't anything special and is dreadfully overpriced. Now, Veryfine will post to this thread and he'll say different, but I'm just giving my two cents. >>

Ok, I took the bait. You are right; I do have a different opinion, but I do respect your opinion.
As a huge fan of this short but fantastic series, I come to the defense of the 16 and its unique attributes.

However, you can scroll up to read the excellent response from TomB. I couldn't have said it better myself

mojorizn · November 7, 2008 6:49AM

The 1916 SLQ is in the same category as the 1909-S VDB Lincoln, but who doesn't want one? Demand will guarantee a market and price appreciation.

mojo

timcoin · November 7, 2008 6:59AM

I always look at it like this: Would you rather have one 1916 SLQ, or multiple 1917 SLQ that add up to the same value? In other words, if someone came up to you and said, I'll give you one 1916 SLQ valued at $16,000 or multiple 1917 SLQs that add up to $16,000, which would you choose? Personally, I'd choose the 1916 valued at $16,000; easier to brag about and you would be in a more exclusive club

BECOKA · November 7, 2008 7:08AM

RWB, thanks for that background info. Helps me with perspective on why it is hard to find and why there are not that many in the higher grades.

collegecoincollector · November 7, 2008 7:20AM

don't forget this coin has history to it.... at the time the bare breast of liberty was very controversial, thus why it was almost immediately changed. SLQ fans that also happen to be history nuts, they'll be the ones to pay the high price

veryfine · November 7, 2008 7:24AM

<< The 1916 SLQ is in the same category as the 1909-S VDB Lincoln, but who doesn't want one? Demand will guarantee a market and price appreciation.

mojo >>

The 1909-s VDB Lincoln was practically hoarded in comparison to the 16 SLQ. The 16 is much scarcer than the 1909-s VDB. Keep in mind that the 1916 has unique hub characteristics that set it apart from the typical 1917 T1 examples. In addition, the dates of the 16 are often worn off in lower grades, resulting in reduced collectibility. And finally, almost everyone, young, old, rich and poor could afford to set aside at least one 1909-s VDB, if they could find one. Not so with the 16 SLQ.

mojorizn · November 7, 2008 7:29AM

I certainly won't dispute the survival of the Lincoln as opposed to the SLQ or the strike characteristics. I was simply stating that the mintage in relation to the demand would guarantee a market for the coin.

mojo

MikeInFL · November 7, 2008 7:41AM

<< Ive heard stories how the mintage may be higher, you can find at least one at any show, and ofcoarse its expensive. Is the 1916 worth it? >>

And which 20th century key date coin would this NOT be true?

If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't.

lasvegasteddy · November 7, 2008 7:43AM

i'm in the if i was shooting for the 1916....i wouldn't stop at a ms example as why not just pony up and hunt a 16 or 17 proof or pattern

the ms example 16's just aren't rare but those proofs and patterns are

WithArrows · November 7, 2008 9:26AM

<< << Ive heard stories how the mintage may be higher, you can find at least one at any show, and ofcoarse its expensive. Is the 1916 worth it? >>

And which 20th century key date coin would this NOT be true? >>

Which 20th Century key date is a MINIMUM of $5K? All the other keys of the 20th century - with the exception of the 01-S Quarter I suppose (but it's a far rarer coin) - cost nowhere near what a 1916 quarter brings. The other biggies, S VDBs, 1916-D dimes, 1921 halves, etc all cost far less than 1916 quarters. It's an interesting coin to be sure, but if you're doing a type set it seems like a waste of money.

AU58WALKERS · November 7, 2008 11:05AM

when I started collecting SLQ, I had a chance to buy avery nice PCGS ms63 1916 for $8900, I passed for the reasons mentioned
here, I wish to hell I had bought it. All of my SLQ' have since been sold.

If you can afford it, go for it.

RWB · November 7, 2008 11:09AM

...don't forget this coin has history to it.... at the time the bare breast of liberty was very controversial, thus why it was almost immediately changed.

Rubbish!
The only contemporary controversay involving the new quarter was about the eagle. The 1917-II was changed by MacNeil and the chain mail added due to impending war.

veryfine · November 7, 2008 11:27AM

<< 

<< << Ive heard stories how the mintage may be higher, you can find at least one at any show, and ofcoarse its expensive. Is the 1916 worth it? >>

And which 20th century key date coin would this NOT be true? >>

Which 20th Century key date is a MINIMUM of $5K? All the other keys of the 20th century - with the exception of the 01-S Quarter I suppose (but it's a far rarer coin) - cost nowhere near what a 1916 quarter brings. The other biggies, S VDBs, 1916-D dimes, 1921 halves, etc all cost far less than 1916 quarters. It's an interesting coin to be sure, but if you're doing a type set it seems like a waste of money. >>

Many collectors prefer first year issues for type sets, therefore the 1916 would be an absolute necessity. The 1916 characteristics significantly differ from the 17 T1 coins. Examine these coins in person or by viewing sharp photos, and the differences will be very obvious. A picky and knowledgeable collector would want both the 16 AND 17 T1 as part of a complete type set. Of course, money is an issue and it's perfectly understandable to only include the 17 T1.
But is the 1916 a waste of money? Not in my book.

Gription · November 7, 2008 12:27PM

i've noticed all of the 17's going up in value very quickly, they're probably a great buy if you're talking long term/personal.. they have a relatively new demand because of the type set 'trend' going on

but that 16 is exotic, and you'll always wish you had one.. seems the price is always the same give or take, but you can't deny the signifigance of what it is.. and what it'll always be. a lot of those major keys seem to have hit a wall haven't they... what it comes down to it it's up to you isnt it...?

Moonbiter · November 7, 2008 12:41PM

I purchased a 1917-S PCGS AU55FH at the last show I was at. I went for that because I don't have the bucks for a 1916 yet. Maybe someday, but I'm satisfied with my type I that I picked up.

I think the '16's would be worth it to pick one up, if you have the cash for one. I know I would have gotten one, then a nice '17.

veryfine · November 7, 2008 2:00PM

Do you ever have a strong feeling about something that defies logic? If you have a passion for collecting, you know what you really desire, yet it is not easily articulated.
For example, you love a certain coin series. It is "your thing." After carefully studying the series, you try to make informed decisions. When a coin such as the 1916 SLQ is up for discussion, the strong opinions emerge from both sides of the aisle. It is the "celebrity" coin that becomes an easy target of criticism. If you have seen the coin in person, have done your research, and respect the series as a whole, it will be crystal clear to you why this coin is so special. It is worth every penny that current values dictate. That is my humble opinion.
If you collect Large cents, you have your "special" coins too. I can easily argue the point that certain rare date Large cents are "overrated." Why? Because I am not interested. Even if only one example turns up every other decade, I would not pay a high price for it. A 1901-S Barber quarter is almost impossible to find. You say "rare", I say "big deal!" Am I wrong? No, because only I decide what's worth buying and what's worth ignoring. Barber collectors would have a completely different opinion.
Whatever coin floats your boat, it is an extremely weak argument to quote population reports and "availability at shows" to make your case. It is a myopic and simplistic view of coin values. Some of you sound like very logical Bookkeepers and Statisticians. Try FEELING more and THINKING a bit less, you stiffs!

CertifiedGoldCoins · November 7, 2008 2:57PM

veryfine wrote,

<< ... only I decide what's worth buying and what's worth ignoring. ... Whatever coin floats your boat, it is an extremely weak argument to quote population reports and "availability at shows" to make your case. It is a myopic and simplistic view of coin values. Some of you sound like very logical Bookkeepers and Statisticians. Try FEELING more and THINKING a bit less, you stiffs!

>>

Agreed. Emotion is what motivates a collector, and taken as a group, determines the market value.

For example, as joecopper wrote,

<< I think that it is overpriced compared to the overdate >>

Enough collectors want the 1916, and it does not matter that the available (certified, anyway) population is double that of the overdate. Demand overrides supply.

But since the OP wrote that he's assembling "a key dtae set of every popular type," he needs to buy both the 1916 and the overdate, and forget about the 1917, no?

Decisions, decisions.

Amigo · November 7, 2008 3:31PM

I own a lower grade PCGS 1901-s. I only do two shows a year as a fun thing to do. I stick it in the showcase just to show off. When someone asks the price, I inflate it by about 1000 over market value just because it's for show, not sale. The point being that some of those 1916s in the cases at shows may not be for sale neither. Several coins are in cases simply to show off. What may seem like plenty of them to go around - isn't necessarily the facts. At least IMHO.

Baley · November 7, 2008 3:57PM

Like others mentioned, I went with a full-details 1917-S type one until I can hit the lottery or something and get a not-crappy 1916

MidLifeCrisis · November 7, 2008 5:40PM

I used to collect "key date" coins like the 1916 SLQ. But once I realized that most of them are not rare at all and are available for a price any time you want one, these "key dates" became much less appealing to me. I would much more enjoy owning a truly rare coin (R-4 or better with an existing population estimated at 76-200, for example) for often a lot less money than a comparable 1916 SLQ.

For a type set, I'd go with a high grade 1917 Type I SLQ with nice eye appeal...and I wouldn't worry so much about the FH designation. I'd evaluate the whole coin.

veryfine · November 7, 2008 9:51PM

<< I used to collect "key date" coins like the 1916 SLQ. But once I realized that most of them are not rare at all and are available for a price any time you want one, these "key dates" became much less appealing to me. I would much more enjoy owning a truly rare coin (R-4 or better with an existing population estimated at 76-200, for example) for often a lot less money than a comparable 1916 SLQ.

For a type set, I'd go with a high grade 1917 Type I SLQ with nice eye appeal...and I wouldn't worry so much about the FH designation. I'd evaluate the whole coin. >>

I see your point, but it depends on the degree of specificity of your type set. The 17 T1 would not be a sufficient representation of the SLQ type. I would need the 16, 17 T1, T2 raised date and T3 recessed date to complete the set.
"Rarity" is a relative term. I own a few coins that fall into the R-4 or higher category, but I rather own the "available" 1916 SLQ any day. There are many coins out there that can classified as R-4, but the interest cannot justify a higher price. So they possess one positive attribute, "rarity" based on availability in a particular grade. They are often appealing to date collectors who specialize in a particular series. Beyond that, the appeal goes downhill from there.

The rarity argument can be taken further. What about coins with unique, but extremely subtle die characteristics. Hard to find, yes, but a very small group lay great emphasis on those traits. How about the condition rarity crowd? Available in MS-65, but very scarce in MS-66. That bores the heck out of me, but others feel differently. So the simple fact is that many R-4 and higher coins were overlooked by collectors during their existence in circulation. Important, yes, but it's not enough to lure me into buying that coin or becoming interested in your series.

"Rarity" based on relative low mintages should not be taken lightly. As a first year issue, many more mint state 1916 SLQs should be available, but this is not the case. The mintage is so low and the 1917 T1 coins were so common that the 16 got lost in the sauce. Given the low mintage in the series with all its unique traits, it is, indeed a “rare” coin.

As time goes on, I reflect on some of my R-4 or R-5 coins. I appreciate their rarity, but that's where the fun ends. There's something missing. A coin like the 1916 SLQ fills that void for many. There are no other twentieth century key date coins that can be compared to this date.

MidLifeCrisis · November 8, 2008 2:13AM

<< I see your point, but it depends on the degree of specificity of your type set. The 17 T1 would not be a sufficient representation of the SLQ type. I would need the 16, 17 T1, T2 raised date and T3 recessed date to complete the set.
"Rarity" is a relative term. I own a few coins that fall into the R-4 or higher category, but I rather own the "available" 1916 SLQ any day. There are many coins out there that can classified as R-4, but the interest cannot justify a higher price. So they possess one positive attribute, "rarity" based on availability in a particular grade. They are often appealing to date collectors who specialize in a particular series. Beyond that, the appeal goes downhill from there. >>

Your response illustrates the point that we all collect differently to suit our own interests and tastes. There is certainly nothing wrong with your desire to own such a specific type set...however, in my opinion that would be a waste of money and I would not call it a type set, I would call it a set that shows different die characteristics.

But let me clarify my earlier comments about rarity...I'm not talking about rarity based on availability in a particular grade or rarity based on subtle die characteristics. I'm talking about true rarity and owning a coin of which only 200 examples or less exist. To me, that is very cool. I'm not sure how many 1916 SLQs survive in all grades, but if it's anywhere close to the 52,000 minted, I don't consider it a rare coin. More importantly, I don't consider it worth the money...which was my response to the OP question.

Owning key date coins such as the 1916 SLQ, or the 09-S VDB Lincoln, or similar coins, is an interesting form of a popularity contest. Most of us started collecting as children and we learn very early on that these are the coins to own. Since SLQs and Lincolns and other such coins are popular among collectors, the prices for these coins are much higher. Sure, supply and demand principles account for these higher prices, but what causes the demand? Hype. Advertising. Lack of understanding of relative and true rarity. The desire to own a coin we wanted when we were kids. All of these factors combine to make such "key date" coins considerably overpriced for what they really are, in my opinion.

Is a 1916 STQ worth it?

Comments

Leave a Comment