Guess the grade.... 1916 SLQ.... GRADE REVEALED... PCGS AU55
commoncents05
Posts: 10,096 ✭✭✭
commoncents05
Posts: 10,096 ✭✭✭
Comments
Guess I didn't read that well this time.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
But most circuated Standing Liberty Quarters are over graded IMO, so the "official" grade is probably higher.
<< <i>My guesstimate is 25. I'm not seeing what some others are seeing. >>
I agree. The 1916 was not a poorly struck issue like the later coins. There is no way that this coin could be an AU.
(Definitions jump from 12 to 30.)
VF-30:
Obverse: Both subtypes wear spots show in Liberty's breast, shield and leg, gown line crossing leg is partially visible. Circle around inner shield complete. On Type 1, wear also evident on Liberty's head. Right leg is rounded but worn from above knee almost to foot.
Reverse: On both types, eagle's feather ends and folds are visible in right wing.
High points on the obverse are the center of the shield and the right knee. For the reverse it's the eagle's breast and right-center of the right wing.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I see big $$$ sign's !
Barrytrot(2),Stupid,Savoyspecial,docq,ecoinquest, halfhunter,snman,Coll3ctor.
wondercoin. Blue594. internetjunky.
keepdachange. Scrapman1077.Ahrensdad, mrmom, mygrandeoso, blu62vette, Clackamas,giorgio11, adriana, cucamongacoin,
PCGS graded it AU55. I think it is grossly overgraded.
-Paul
<< <i>Link to coin at Stacks.
PCGS graded it AU55. I think it is grossly overgraded.
-Paul >>
And a sticker....woah............MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Buying from Stack's via the web based on a photo is a real crap shot as their imaging department failed Picture Page with Bill Cosby.
Their cartoon-ish crayola renderings do not even marginally reflect what a coin actually looks like in hand.
Here's just an example of a HT-65 hard times token with the Stack's images and my own to prove my point as they are like day and night.
Bowers and Merena was just as bad, but recently made huge improvements in their images... Hopefully Stack's soon will too
Stack's -
Mine -
As for the grade- I really need to see that one in hand before making any opinion.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>EF40 but I would give it a sticker >>
I would have to agree with you.
At best its an XF 40 - and, its a solid 40.
I've owned several - 53FH, 58FH and 63FH.
Still a really nice coin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
EAC 6024
The problem with 16 SLQs is in the original hub design and rushed production. Strike has very little to do with the lack of clarity evident. There are some better struck 1916 SLQs out there, but they never come close to the sharpness of a typical 17 Type 1. I suspect that some of you might be comparing it to other dates in the series; apples and oranges for sure.
Based on the image, it's hard to examine the surface quality, but overall, it's an attractive example of this date. I'm not the least bit surprised that it graded AU-55.
<< <i>Broadstruck wins 1 million internets points for a Picture Pages reference. They can be redeemed at the counter for a Best of Heathcliff VHS and Best of Raffi cassette tape. >>
The shield and drapery detail is "mushy" as usual, but I'm sure it looks a bit sharper in hand. The date looks very sharp; one of the first areas to receive wear, even in VF-XF grades.
Luster? Can't tell from that image, but I'm sure it exists to some degree.
Browsing the entire Stack's Nashville auction it look's like another "Island of Misfit Toys" sale!