Calling all Standing Liberty Experts

I've been wanting a nicely toned standing liberty for quite some time. Since I had some EBay bucks, I ended up buying this for a little over list price, primarily because the color appears attractive/original and the luster looks to be quite nice as well. I don't normally buy 64s, but thought it might upgrade to a 65 despite some surface issues (see reverse left field and obverse lower left in particular). It seems in line with recently graded 65s on coinfacts even with the surface hits. I'm definitely going to send in, but am debating the best strategy.

I am considering cracking, but worry about losing the FH designation. Do you think this is a lock for FH if cracked, or borderline such that it may not receive FH designation if submitted raw? Based on PCGS's guidance, it does appear to be correctly graded at FH. But if not a lock for FH, I would probably send for reconsideration rather than cracking, even though it will be less likely to upgrade first time around.

Any other thoughts from the experts?

Here are the seller's pix. I have not reviewed in hand yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I am a hobbyist and far from an expert. I do own two SLQ's with the "Full Head" designation. I feel confident that yours has the detail to keep the "FH". Nice SLQ.

 

Just leave her as is

 

Keep it in the current holder. Your chances for upgrade are slim. You may want to submit to CAC as it appears from your photos that it will get a green bean.

 

Beauty, but I think I'm in the "submit to CAC" camp. Nice FH!

 

Agreed. It would still get FH designation, but it likely wouldn't get higher than 64 and could drop to 63, due to the number of noticeable hits/bag marks throughout the obverse and reverse. It's a nice coin in a nice MS grade slab. Leave as is.

 

Thanks everyone.

No matter what I am going to send in to PCGS because I would like to get it trueviewed. But based on feedback from the members, I won't crack. I will likely submit for regrade so I will be guaranteed of it remaining at least 64.

Note that I've had good success on most Mercury dimes I've recently cracked (e.g., cracked a 1920 NGC MS64FB and it went PCGS 66FB), but it will take me some time to develop the same level of grading expertise for Standing Liberties. It probably took me a solid four years of learning (and trial and error) to be able to consistently grade and successfully submit high grade Mercs.

 

I'm just curious as to why you want to resubmit it? From your initial post, it sounded like you really liked this coin, so you bought it. Are you now going to resell it and want a higher grade to bring a better price? I'd be happy to keep it just as it is and enjoy looking at it.

 

That is an excellent question that nicely highlights how collectors view the hobby in different ways. I do understand your perspective, even though I have a very different viewpoint on coin collecting.

There can certainly be disagreement about whether a coin will or should upgrade upon resubmission. But that is a separate question.

First, from my perspective, assuming a coin will upgrade (again, big assumption that is a separate question) resubmitting is the only economically rational position to take, even if you have not current intent to sell. Tastes changes, upgrades come along, etc. so it is always makes to maximize value if possible. Even if you NEVER sell, you don't live forever and you can't take it with you. Every coin is ultimately sold. At best, collectors are merely "leasing" coins for a lifetime. And I personally prefer to get the best deal out of my lease, ideally not paying anything or ending up in the positive.

But much more importantly, merely owning and admiring a coin gets a bit boring for me. That is not why I collect coins. What I enjoy most is the thrill of the hunt: finding an undergraded coin, recognizing it, and having validation that I was correct under current grading standards, all while increasing the market value of my collection. It also helps me improve my grading skills. It is through trial and error that I consider myself one of the better Mercury Dime graders in the market. To me, this process is what makes coin collecting fun and intellectually stimulating.

Finally, as an aside, I would like it TrueViewed, so one way or another I am going to submit it to PCGS and pay for it to be reholdered and photographed. So I may as well pay a little bit more for reconsideration. I keep all my coins in a safety deposit box which I only visit every month or so, so my day-to-day enjoyment derives from viewing the photographs.

 

Sometimes an example works best to explain my perspective. I purchased this 1920 in a 64FB old NGC holder for $85. I had no intent to resell. I cracked, submitted to PCGS and it went 66FB. And I still have no intent to sell. But my enjoyment has increased because:
(1) I enjoy viewing the Trueview whenever I want.
(2) I enjoyed the validation of being correct about how PCGS would grade it (I actually was hoping for 65FB)
(3) I have a more personal stake in the coin as part of my collection. I have a greater sense of pride and history in it.
(4) I more than quadrupled the value of the coin.
(5) I continued to increase my grading expertise.
(6) If I ever DO sell because I find a nicer 1920 or my tastes change, I will have a positive ROI.
(7) If I never sell, one of my two sons will inherit a more valuable coin to keep or sell as they please.

 

Not to open up a can of worms, but to my knowledge, there are no SLQ experts on this forum. That said, the FH designation looks pretty solid on this coin. The three sprigs are well defined and the hairline and earhole are both present. As for whether the coin will upgrade, I think both the surfaces and the luster would limit the coin to MS64. When you combine that with the fact that the price spread between MS64 & MS65 is rather small for this date/mm, I don't see much of an upside to try to upgrade it.

But as you said, if you are going to get it TrueViewed anyway, then crack that sucker out, send it in, and hope for the best. At worst, you get the same grade, a Trueview photo, and an updated prong holder.

 

Thanks, excellent advice Lehigh. I do still run the risk of a 63FH with cracking, but I think the chances of this happening are relatively low. I will wait to see it in hand and then make the call depending on the luster in hand.

 

I’m by no means an expert on the Liberty Standing series, but the coin in the OP looks to have a sharp enough strike and face detail to be a no-brainer FH designation from my experience.

 

I may be off base, as I am also no expert but I like this series and spend as much free time as I can spare looking at these (disclaimer: mostly photos and mostly grades 65-67). That said, it looks to me like this coin exhibits wear and not just strike weakness. Look at the breaks in the toning along the hair above the face, cheekbone, right breast, etc. Even more odd to me is the inner shield design. The top and bottom of the inner shield are almost entirely flat but the vertical lines in the middle are very well struck. Weak strikes, in my observation, usually don't have that strong of vertical lines with so little detail in the other parts of the inner shield design (this pattern of "weakness" also looks like several of the AU coins I have seen).

Anyone else suspect this is an AU that (was maybe dipped, retoned, and then) slipped past the graders or am I alone on this one? I know market grading sometimes means AU coins get low MS grades, but I thought sliders usually top out at 62/63 (?). That said, I do like the color.

 

I gather you are used to viewing early or mid dates?

Most high grade late date SLQs have significant weakness /mushiness in the inner shield. It is the rare exception, even for FH examples, that have a well struck inner shield.

 

Pretty coin. I'm not a big fan of changing holders unless I'm selling the coin. Too many things can go wrong.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I try to look at all dates and understand that most years a mushy strike is as best as can be expected (with exceptions for 1917, 1921, and maybe one or two others). I love sharply struck coins, which makes my preference for SLQs Nd Peace Dollars very frustrating.

That said, the pattern of the missing inner shield details (ie the shape, location, and size of the weak spots) and the sharp contrast of what appear to be very sharp inner shield verical line details next to totally flat areas seemed odd to me and similar to some wear patterns on AU pieces of that year I have seen (usually the whole inner shield area will tend to be lacking details on a weak strike, no?, but look at the sharp). Maybe it's the toning playing tricks with my eyes and making the vertical lines clearer than they are in reality. In any event, I'm not conceited enough to think that my opinion from a couple photos is more valid than 3 PCGS graders; it just looks a bit shy of a 64 to my (admittedly amateur) eye.

Good luck with the grade if/when you resubmit.

 

I have been collecting SLQ's since the 80's. I wouldn't call myself an expert but, I don't think anyone is in any coin series. After all, The PCGS guy's are supposed to be yet, when a coin is re-submitted, they give it a different grade. Having been said, I think that you should leave the coin the way it is, beautiful.

 

Not an SLQ expert, but I see a strong FH and strike for sure, along with some grand toning. I’d either leave it alone or try to CAC it.