Would You Send This In For Grading?

I'm new to this level of the hobby and am interested in your opinions on the value of sending this SLQ in for grading. I would also like your opinions on what grade it might get.

My wife is the photographer so if better pictures are needed, I'll ask (beg). It's like pulling teeth, I should probably learn to do it myself but just haven't been able to muster the motivation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No, it does not look "original" and frosty white.

 

Looks like it might be a tad polished.........

 

It's unfortunate, this coin has incredible detail.

 

Often 1917 T1 SLQs are amazingly struck.

 

This strike would easily get a FH designation, yes? I know little to nothing about this series. I've yet to own one, but I'm sure that'll change.

 

That's a full head, IMO

 

Yep, full head, but looks polished. You could send it to ANACS for authentication, and they'd likely slab it as "MS details" -- don't know if they give the FH for details coins. You might actually have better luck reselling it raw, though, if that's what you eventually intend to do.

 

Based upon PCGS' CoinFacts, this coin would not receive a FH designation, even if it weren't polished. There's too much chatter in the hair, though the brow line appears full and strong, and the missing writing on the plaques, to qualify. Remember, the Type I coins were very well struck to begin with, so the standards are higher.

Edit: added photos

Non-FH

FH

 

I disagree. The amount of detail on the head is the SOLE determination of that designation - not any bag marks that my be present. As with anything else posted (CAC and PCGS FBL coins that are NOT!), they may leave a little wiggle room.

Also, I am not aware that standards for FH are higher for well-struck coins but that does seem to be something the "Big 2" would do. Let's all "date grade" a 1930-S SLQ FH even though is not full by the standard of other dates in the series.

 

Then you'd be in disagreement with the ANA's definition of the designation (as summarized by NGC):

"All details in hair are well defined; hair line along face is raised and complete; eyebrow is visible; cheek is rounded."

If there is enough chatter in the hair, it will fail to attain the FH designation, as the detail would be corrupted.

Edit: And, of course, PCGS has its own standard:

"display a complete three leaves on the headpiece, as well as an unbroken hairline from over the forehead to the ear and ear opening"

 

That is a very nice looking coin. I too get the feeling that it's been polished by the way it looks in the photos though. Does it appear to be polished in hand?

 

Please enlighten me. Is this (If there is enough chatter in the hair, it will fail to attain the FH designation, as the detail would be corrupted.) a quote from the NGC, ANACS, or some grading guide? Or is that just your PERSONAL observation (which is OK as grading is subjective and WE have a lot to learn).

 

Maybe just the images but I'm not seeing any luster. I'm thinking the coin has been messed with and not worth adding the cost of grading. Looks like an easy FH.

 

Doug and I have a huge disagreement on that word "luster."
IMO, the OP's coin is LOADED w/luster (reflection of light from the polished surface); however it is not the same quality of frosty white LUSTER found of an original coin. @ldhair Am I being a moron?

 

Can anyone actually see chatter in the image? Maybe I'm blind.

 

How can you discern "chatter in the hair" from an image like this, in which the highlights are overexposed?

 

It does not look like original surfaces to me but does appear to be an excellent strike that would likely warrant an FH designation.

 

I think it's all about what we grew up being taught. Folks I knew thought of mint luster as what bounces off the flow lines on the surface of the coin. Polished coins are shiny and proofs have mirror fields. Some folks call mirror finishes luster. It's just opinions on what to call it.

I wonder what dealers and collectors called it a 100 years back? I don't have any material that old to check. I'll bet Doug does. He was around back in those days.

 

I didn't know what else to call it but chatter. I don't mean necessarily bag marks, but moreso chatter... umm, it could originate from poor resolution, bag marks, polishing, etc.

If you added the statement right before the one you purple quoted, you would be able to answer your own question: "All details in hair are well defined" -- if there is interference which would cause definition to break down, you would no long have all details well defined.