SLQ... Guess the grade

Here's the guide I found on it, but the picture of the Large S variety was missing so I had nothing to compare it against. That was my basis for thinking it could be the small S. I'm thinking the distinction between the two is REALLY minuscule, so I'm probably mistaken

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well one thing is certain, it is not the small S variety from what I can now see.. There are some OMM's so carefully check if there is any indications of such. Probably not, but the TPG's have been known to completely miss these during the grading process, especially if a variety service was not requested on the submission form. If you are a collector of this series, I would urge you to spend a couple of dollars and buy yourself a copy Of J. Clines SLQ book. You may also be able to use Google books to read segments from the book. Happy New Year.

 

Weakly struck 45 or 50. Too much luster to grade lower, IMO.

 

Are you sure? Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I can't help but think this 'S' is distinctly smaller than the large 'S' variety. According to the guide above, the large S top is either flush or slightly above the northeast point in the star. Here is a picture of what I believe is a large variety:


In comparison, my mintmark is definitely no where near being above the northeast prong of the star, and looks rather to be below it:




I'm probably wrong though, perhaps it's just a small variation in the placement of the mintmark, weren't they placed 'by hand' back then? Or is that only for other denominations? Either way I find myself having trouble distinguishing between large S and small S if this is not a small S; are there other things I can look for on the MM to distinguish them? When you say it's certainly not a small S, what gives you such certainty, and do you believe this to be a large S? Thank you coinman for contributing this information to my thread I really do appreciate it.

 

In all honest my eyes are about shot , and it's always better to see the coin in hand. You might want to have a dealer look at and get an opinion, it's to difficult for me with just a few photo's. Let us know how you make out if you do get another opinion. Good Luck. BTW you can e-mail J. Cline as well .

 

I have never understood the fascination with the small "S" mintmark on this date. The small "S" is the standard mintmark used for the entire series. For whatever reason, a different (larger) punch was used on the SLQ in 1928. NGC does attribute both the small and large "S" varieties and they describe the large "S" as the result of use of a leftover punch from the 19th century. I know that the small "S" is more rare, but I would rather have the large "S" since it is a variation from the other "S" mint coins of the series.

From Cline:

The small mintmark is further to the right and down toward the date and does not touch the star. It is more rare than the large mintmark and has probably gone unnoticed by most collectors until about 10 years ago. This variety was added to the Guidebook in 1976. Some varieties have the mintmark setting below the point of the star. There seem to be only one or two dies of the small mintmark of this date.

I searched the Heritage archives and pulled some photos to show the difference between the two mintmarks with the large "S" on the left and small "S" on the right. Note how the small "S" sets below the point of the star.



From your photos, it looks like you have a small "S" variety. Having said that, I don't believe that there would be any premium for this variety in this condition.

 

Thank you for investing some of your time into answering my question. I wanted to attribute this coin regardless of whether or not there was a premium for the variety, I simply found that my coin probably had a unique variation that I had never heard about. Very cool to know; thinking presently it would probably be a good idea to check back through some of my older purchases and compare it against the CPG (which I didn't have until several months ago) and other resources.

As usual learning for me is slow but at least progressive, thanks again to everyone who helped me out!

 

Vf-20

 

I was off by quite a bit. Purposely didn't read the rest of the thread to see how I'd do. If that's an XF-45 it must be a weak strike. Most XFs I've seen have more detail in the border on the rim, and also in the gown lines and shield. Still a fun drill though. Thanks for posting.

 

Guessed 30 was way off as well, but it just goes to show you it,s hard to grade from
A picture seeing detail,s and ware including luster can be very difficult indeed!