GTG - 1924 Standing Liberty

Opinions are pretty quiet now, so I will reveal all.

I got this on eBay from an auction entitled:
1924 Standing Liberty Quarter PCGS Genuine UNC Details (92 - Cleaned)

The seller sounded a bit wounded by the grade from PCGS.

Beautiful coin! Was hoping for a straight grade. I've got $110 into the coin considering price I paid plus grading fees, so I'm starting the auction as such. Please message me with any questions you may have. May be worth re-submitting! ​

And was probably more wounded when only two bids came in.

I walked away with it for $118.27.

So, when I say I do not know the grade, I would prefer that PCGS actually give its opinion as "MS 64, near FH, full rivets, lightly cleaned" than just body-bag it as Genuine UNC Details (92 - Cleaned).

Here's that certification link. https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36496306

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In hand, do you see evidence of cleaning? You've shown us at least 3 sets of photos now, and I don't see it.

 

How is the cartwheel luster in hand? I'd have given it MS-63 from these images.

 

The coin in-hand is both shiny and has the cartwheel luster that shows in the photos. The coin pictures I saw at Heritage of 66’s looked more frosted than shiny, but they also had poor strikes compared to this one, as if they were late die stages.

Because of the fine die lines on the reverse I just can’t imagine it ever being touched. I thought I saw some lines around the leg, but those disappear under the leg and have to be polish marks.

In all honesty, I can’t imagine how you harshly clean a coin yet leave those fine original markers intact. I think it was struck shortly after the dies were polished and the myriad lines were transferred to the coin, along with the glossy look.

I’m with the seller here. I don’t know why this got detailed. It sure looks great to me. I kinda wish I could put a number to it, but the online examples seem all over the map to me.

 

Before seeing the reveal I was in the MS 63-64 range (and would have probably guessed MS 63). I'm not seeing an obvious cleaning from your images and think the seller may have been right.

Now is it worth resubmitting? An MS 63 sold on ebay for $245 and 64s went for $265 & $300. I wouldn't send that coin in by itself, but if you have several items to send in, this one seems worthy of a second try.

 

I think the graders, in their haste, may have mistaken die polish for cleaning marks on a bright coin.

 

I wanted to post one last time to thank everyone for their contributions. This helped me understand this coin quite a bit.

I followed the link to PCGS again because the TrueView I downloaded from the seller's ad didn't seem big enough. I was right, and I saved the full TrueView. It's too big to post full-size here, but it is very interesting to look at.

Here, for example, is the section around the legs that I originally thought was cleaning scratches. It's not, but it's not your usual die scratch either. This looks like something accidentally engraved while reducing the die from the master hub. The marks are circular and survive near the leg, the step, and around the rim - even to the 2:00 position and with traces near Liberty's head and through the ER. (Please expand this image if it isn't already full size.)



Feel free to download the full image from https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36496306.

 

With TruViews I resize them to 95% or so of the original image and then they fit. They tend to be just over the limit at full size.

What do you intend to do with it?

The only thing I see that’s indicative of alteration is the tiny bits of toning (or residue) hanging on here and there.

Since it was probably already dipped I’d lean towards letting it breathe and tone over for awhile... I prefer to enjoy coins like this raw and let them live in an envelope in the kitchen or on the desk than with a sign that says “I have a problem” above them, but I know not everyone feels that way.

 

I missed out on guessing on this one. I would have been in the MS-63 to MS-64 camp and probably would have guesses MS-63+. There are coins that get the "Cleaned" designation that don't rightfully deserve it. These can be bargains if you can find them. I think you got a good coin at a good price. At this point, there is nothing to risk with freeing it from it's plastic tomb.

 

I was of the opinion ms details. 63 I’d say and a lightly cleaned spot on the reverse. As toughcoins said. Pcgs has been absolutely brutal lately so I could see a resubmit or a trip to ngc. I think at a second tier grader it would straight grade

 

I tend to buy raw coins and often remove graded coins from their holders. I usually take out coins that I feel are undergraded, and would regrade easily if they need to be resold. For example, I freed a 1930 SLQ that was MS 62 because I feel it can always get at least that again. I leave CAC’ed coins alone, though.

This is my first coin with a Details grade. I prefer to use the plastic 2x2’s with the black foam inserts and keep the coins in trays. Since I don’t like the bulky size of TPG holders, and don’t like taking photos through them, this will probably be hacksawed free and join its peers in the tray.

@Lehigh96 has suggested that I might have some very high-end raw nickels that might be “worth thousands”, and I take anything he says about Jeffersons as gospel! So I have information from NGC at hand and have identified 10-15 candidates to submit.

This might be my next frontier - to see if I can rescue some coins from obscurity and return them to the market. At this point I think I like photographing them more than keeping them.

We’ll see. I’m not in any hurry.

 

Nice coin that has been dipped one too many times = looks washed out. That's why it came back as cleaned.

The fine, curving lines noted are likely machining lines left on the die body prior to hubbing the die. These are supposed to be polished off, but they don't always get all of them. I've seen them on every year and denom from an 1804 half cent up thru Kennedy halfs. Some coins are famous for them.

 

Bust it out and place in a type set.

 

Very interesting thread; thanks everyone!

I saw a 1916 SLQ in an auction recently (forget which one) in TPG plastic (NGC I think) with a FH designation. But your 1924 was far more defined than the 1916, IMHO. So, did they give the key date a free ride? It’s these examples that make a FH designation a crap shoot, again IMHO.

Steve

 

Nice thread!

 

Sorry to wait a month before replying!

From the PCGS link posted earlier in this thread, the 1916 has a unique head design that has its own Full Head criteria.

1916 Style Head
The minimum head and cap detail required for the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is the most difficult to verbalize. Since there is not a great deal of detail in the original head design consisting mainly of very fine lines or strands of hair, one must look for overall sharpness in this area to determine FH status.

Some coins of this date will have the full-intended detail but have some slight overall mushiness and still qualify for FH status. Others may have bolder lines without the general mushiness, but with slight weakness in several strands and still attain the FH designation. As long as the hair is distinct and the strands do not blend into Miss Liberty's head or cap, the coin will be designated Full Head.

Note: 1916 Standing Liberty quarters with both exceptionally bold strands of hair and no mushiness or blending of the hair detail are the exceptions and may command a significant premium.


The photo at far left illustrates a totally Full Head for a 1916 issue. Note the complete, though slightly mushy detail in the hair behind the eye. The hairline behind the cheek is complete, though again, not sharply defined. The middle photo illustrates the minimum detail necessary for a Full Head on a 1916 issue. Some flat spots appear in the hair, but the hairline is still barely visible. The photo on the far right falls short of a Full Head. There is no hairline visible as the forehead merges with the hair.

 

I was getting ready to put away this coin and the others that arrived in the last month, when I decided to try something new with the photos. I haven't really tried to animate close-ups of the details before, so here it is.

The top photo, obviously, is the head, where we can see some dishing at the temple. However, there is a closer to full-head evaluation than we discussed earlier. (More thoughts follow the animation.)

At the bottom is the domed area in the reverse field in the 9:00 region. It still doesn't have much luster, but at the extreme angles of lighting we can see die scratches that are undisturbed and run in two directions.


The PCGS web site gives these photos for judging full head. https://www.pcgs.com/news/Tips-From-The-Grading-Room Part 1



It was stated earlier in the thread that an ear hole was necessary, and it is, at minimum. However, the ear hole is a less full condition than seeing the separation of the hair braid and the hair that curls around the ear. ("the lower hair curl, or in the case of a slightly weaker strike the ear hole, must be visible") Although my photos won't show it very well until I get rid of the slab, the detail above shows a separation in this area rather than just a hole.

I suspect that the separation of the three sprigs may be just a bit weak for FH designation. They look more like the rightmost of the three photos from PCGS. And although the light is not great, I think the hairline is, in fact, separated from the forehead. It shows up best when the light flashes off of it in the animation.

So I don't know if this makes FH, but I think we still have a heck of a chance for this coin to be uncleaned, MS 65 FH, if I get a bit of luck in the grading.

 

Thank you, Ron, for the information about the 1916 FH grading criteria. New to me: it’s why I remain a CT Supporter.

Good luck with the coin/submission; please post what happens.

Steve

 

After I posted yesterday's animated closeups, I started feeling that these might be really useful for forensic analysis of any coin. First, since this was given a Details grade, I had nothing to lose by taking it out of holder. After a few minutes with a hacksaw and some small picks, I had the coin free of the holder. Then, I recreated yesterday's shots. I tried to adjust the lighting to avoid reflections. With the plastic case gone, the results are easier to see.

For the obverse, I stand by yesterday's analysis. There are 3 sprigs, but they aren't very full. There is a visible curl of hair around the ear (not merely a hole). And while the cheek is clearly separated from the hairline, I can't say I have a complete hairline along the forehead.

The grey spot on the reverse is shown here. You can see that the texture of the surface is original, but that it has some natural variations in texture that join together to give the impression of dullness. It may be that they just scatter the light in a slightly different direction and don't appear as bright as adjoining areas. The criss-cross of polish marks show the originality of the surface.

There is no evidence of furrows starting from metal flow on this die. Soon, I would expect, this fine texture of polish marks would give way to radial lines from usage. How new does a die have to be to still display this kind of surface?

Finally, there is slight die rotation. The reverse is straight in its new holder.

 

Would love to see images out of the holder if you have any of the full coin!

Also, where do you get those square holders? I prefer the look of those to capsules.