Nearly Flawless Love for SLQ

What do you guys this for this SLQ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think I'm in love.

 

Forget that one. I like this one better as a 62. i think this is the best 62 I've seen





This is full nipple

 

Now I'm in love and embarrased.

 

Ruben, I don't understand your question but I love the coin and hate the photo. I have never liked their photos. Too bad the reverse drags the grade down, because I think the obverse is MS67 FH quality.

 

I would rather discuss the first coin.

 

I'm not an SLQ guy at all...but I love the first coin. It is a prime example of an SLQ. I only wish the photos were better...especially of the reverse.

 

That is 100%. The scratches on the wing are relatively hidden on the photograph. And then the shield wasn't good. It has a full head, and a clean obverse but with the broken shield I'm not buying it.

 

That strike on the 62 is truly awesome. Look at that shield and check out the folds in the drapery around the left arm. Its one of the best strikes I'd ever seen.

Ruben

 

I agree with you...it has a superb strike. I believe that is why it graded 62. The coin has a bunch of marks on it in high focal areas. If it wasn't for the strike, I could see this coin being MS60.

 

62s have scratches on focal points but that one is a good gash on the leg

 

OK someone put the 1930 on hold. I should get a commision

 

Yeah the 1930 is the one I'd go with for 3 reasons. The toning is super nice, the reverse looks nicer than the 1917 and I already got a 1917 and I need a great looking 1930. I guess there's 4 reasons or at least 3 and a 1/2.

 

Are you sure about the reverse? Look closely at the wings.

 

Even with the hit (folds below shield) and strike weakness? Honest question. Overall I am having trouble seeing this as a 65. No doubt its a nice coin.. maybe the photos just are not doing it for me.

 

On the '30: What a crappy strike. :hail:

On the '17 T1 - It's really a market-graded AU coin. Where's the outrage?

(jokes )

Very nice coins, Ruben.

 

I don't own them. I'm just window shopping. I wouldn't mind the 1917 t1 though. Look at the leg detail with the knee cap fully sculptured on the coin, the fabric between the shield and her body is flowing and detailed, and I think this coin puts to rest any theory that no nipple was designed on the coin. It is definitely there. Also, her left foot is clear and well defined, The walls stripes are perfect, much better than full steps. The shield is perfect, the fingers on the right hand are distinct and I bet that it has eye lashes. There is just some weakness in the date, which is very strange.

 

I'm not liking the 1930 at all. The toning is a rustic orange. It simply looks like rust.

 

There isn't a single significant mark on the obverse of that coin. By 1930 standards the strike is a little weak but I don't think that the shield weakness should limit the grade in this case as long as the luster is there. You just can't judge luster at all from their photos which is why I don't like them. If the luster warrants, I think the obverse would be MS67 quality. However it is moot since the hits on the reverse will certainly limit the grade to MS66 FH.

 

Personally I hate the 30. Horrible strike. I like the 17 but agree is most like an AU in an overgraded holder. If I had to buy either it would be the 17. Just my opinion, and for full disclosure I hate weak strikes. Why should a coin get a high grade when detail is missing because of a weak strike? To me, detail is detail, so I much prefer a nice well struck AU over weakly struck MS coins.

I know, I am weird, and maybe why I am in ancients now.