Let's see your best Type 2 Standing Liberty quarters

Comments

• LanLord Posts: 11,726 ✭✭✭✭✭

  December 12, 2009 11:54PM

  My comment may be a bit tangential, but I think the "type 1", "type 2" stuff is useless unless all types are declared. For instance, in SLQ the 1916 is fairly different enough from the first type 1917 (should be type 2) that I consider them different types. The second type 1917 is actually type 3 and post 1924 is type 4. It does no service to declare "type x" when all types are note declared.
  
  There's also a similar issue in Seated coinage if you go by the "7070 standard" for types.
  
  The no motto post 1855 seated coins are considered to be the same as the same type as the no motto pre 1853 type, yet they have different silver content. The content was different enough that the mint saw fit to place arrows for 3 years and rays for one of those years, why don't we consider them to be different types?
  
  Awww it goes on and on!

  0
• barbershopper Posts: 1,201

  December 13, 2009 12:13AM

  My favorite at this time.
  
  
  
  JT

  It is health that is real wealth, not pieces of gold and silver. Gandhi.
  
  I collect all 20th century series except gold including those series that ended there.

  0
• QuarterCollector Posts: 1,384 ✭

  December 13, 2009 1:03AM

  My top 2. Not sure which one is my best.
  
  
  (I love the smokey toning on this one)
  
  
  (Best example of a ful head I have seen)
  
  Tom

  0
• Broadstruck Posts: 30,497 ✭✭✭✭✭

  December 13, 2009 2:24AM

  

  To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
  

  0
• Stuart Posts: 9,831 ✭✭✭✭✭

  December 13, 2009 2:45AM

  1918-S PCGS MS-64 FH Standing Liberty Quarter
  
  
  
  

  
  Stuart
  
  Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
  
  "Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"

  0
• jsf Posts: 1,889

  December 13, 2009 3:15AM

  bare breast vs. covered breast?
  t vs nt?
  
  wait, that won't work either...

  0
• drwstr123 Posts: 7,049 ✭✭✭✭✭

  December 13, 2009 3:19AM

  

  0
• veryfine Posts: 1,763 ✭✭✭

  December 13, 2009 3:27AM

  
  

  0
• TomB Posts: 22,097 ✭✭✭✭✭

  December 13, 2009 6:43AM

  You likely mean the 1917-1924 chain mail issues as Type II. However, some collectors of the series consider the 1916 to be the only true Type I and then the 1917 without chain mail as the only true Type II, which leaves the 1917-1924 with chain mail as the Type III and the 1925-1930 recessed date as the Type IV. My contribution to this thread isn't MS, but if you know the series you will know how hard it is to find an original skin AU58 1923-S with strong date and good eye appeal.
  
  

  Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography
  
  In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
  
  

  0
• veryfine Posts: 1,763 ✭✭✭

  December 13, 2009 1:25PM

  
  
  << <i>You likely mean the 1917-1924 chain mail issues as Type II. However, some collectors of the series consider the 1916 to be the only true Type I and then the 1917 without chain mail as the only true Type II, which leaves the 1917-1924 with chain mail as the Type III and the 1925-1930 recessed date as the Type IV. My contribution to this thread isn't MS, but if you know the series you will know how hard it is to find an original skin AU58 1923-S with strong date and good eye appeal. >>
  
  
  Tom,
  I've always considered the 16 to be a separate subtype and should be the only Type I date in the series. I also completely agree with your Type III and IV explanation. However, considering the more dramatic differences between the "bare breast" and "chain mail" designs, we often generalize with a simple Type I and Type II distinction.
  Oh and by the way, your 23-S does not have good eye appeal; it has SUPERB eye appeal!
  

  0