Collecting and Grading

Rusty,

You just made me feel really bad. I made a post earlier this week about the FH designation on SLQ's. I noted that there are different rules for the FH status for the 1916 and the 1917 T1 coins, but did not elaborate because the prices are so high that they are really unattainable to the general public. For the record, here are the requirements listed for 1916 FH status by PCGS from THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFIET DETECTION.

"The minimum head and cap detail required for the 1916 SLQ 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 full intended detail but have some slight overall mushiness and still qualify for FH status. Others may have bolder lines without the 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 inot Miss Liberty's head or cap, the coin will be designated Full Head. Note: 1916 SLQ's 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."

In short, you can't apply the same FH requirements that exist for the 1917 Type1 to the 1916 SLQ. Please see my other thread for the 1917 T1 requirements for FH.

I find it comical that PCGS notes that supreme FH examples will drive a premium to what is already and incredibly expensive coin. I guess this would be an example!

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=454&Lot_No=2805

Paul

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

that the FH designation is not the same standard for all the SLQ type I's is just a validation of how bad the PSGC standards for grading are. It's really badly thought out and doesn't inspire confidence.

Ruben

 

Ruben,

The reason for the different standard is that there was a slight modification done to the design, but not enough to call it a different type. The mint realized they had a strike problem and made a minor modification to the design in order to correct the problem. I don't think we can fault NGC or PCGS for a design change.

Paul

 

It depends on what the modification was. It doesn't matter if A) it wasn't a change to the head B) whether it affected the strike or not...

FH status is not grade, its a visual and real fact. Either the full head is there or not, in complete detail.

If they say, tilted the head left instead of right, they'd need a different description. If one hub had 2 eyes and the newer hubs had a design with no eyes...ditto.

but as to if the head is full or not, the full design needs to appear on the coin.

Ruben

 

PCGS states that in order for the 1916 to get the FH designation, all intended detail must be present. The design change was to the head itself. The 1916 only had a cap and some strands of hair underneath the cap behind the neck. The 1917 replaced the strands with cords of hair that are present under the entire length of the cap. I have provided a photo that compares the two designs so that you can decide for yourself whether the design change is significant enough to warrant a different standard for the designation.



FWIW, I don't think I will ever have enough money to purchase a 1916 SLQ so the designation is almost meaningless to me, hence the omission in my post about it in my other thread.

 

seems like they contradict this

 

now back to the dead poets society...

 

You really can't compare the 1916 and the 1917, different beasts, different designs. There's pretty substantial differences between a 1916 and a 1917 (Type 1 that is) that are well worth knowing, the easiest ones to spot are the distance between Ms Liberty's head and the rim and some design elements of the bottom of her gown by her feet. The easiest and quickest test is on the head, on a 1916 Ms Liberty's head is running into the dash that's between the dots and dashes of the design inside the rim. On a 1917 (Type 1 of course) the dash above Ms Liberty's head is about equidistant between her head and the edge of the rim. This is how a clever 10 year old snagged 2 1916s by looking through those "bargain" dateless SLQs at shows

Heritage has sold several Low Grade 1916s with the dates worn off that were slabbed as 1916s because of this. 1917 Type 1s were from totally redone dies and tend to come better struck than any other coin in the series, 1916s were struck like garbage, however they were only in production for 2 weeks maximum and only in Philadelphia so this is why I assume they never bothered to rework the dies, they were probably already working on the 1917 dies by then.

That coin that did $51,750 is about the best strike of a 1916 that I would think exists. Was it "worth" $52k? Not technically, but like has been pointed out on here lately, that's a coin that was a condition rarity. You likely had several big collectors with deep pockets on that coin and I bet it doesn't surface anytime soon. Or, to quote a friend of mine, "Go find another".

 

Thats still no reason for the standard to accept non-FH as such just because they are 16's

Its perfectly acceptable for there to exist no FH '16s at all, or just 1 or a dozen.

BTW - thanks for the wonderful post.

Ruben

 

Ruben,

The dies on the 16s are very different, a fully struck 16 is going to appear much "weaker" than a 17 because the 17 dies have far more detail.

Truthfully, the 16 and 17 Type-1s are quite different coins.

 

I don't want to beat to this to death but your wouldn't describe a O morgan was full breasted when its not. As I quoted, they allow for "mushy" head strikes and clear ones. So its not just an issue of the die and design, but the designation itself.

Also, in a similar vein, if a Jefferson Nickel design was released with no stairs...no stairs at all on the design...would you designate them as Full Steps? No, it would be silly. And if the stairs were just different and less detailed, but possible to get full stairs, yet will less detail, would you pass nickels without the detail as full stairs just because the design makes it harder? No you wouldn't. But that is what this standard is saying.

Look, regardless of the design, you can either see the full head or you can't/ This has nothing to do with the grade. You can have a MS-68 without a full head.

Ruben

 

Paul I had no intetion of making you feel bad and apoogise for doing so , I know the '17s are the best struck of all SLQ , and I think all designated FH coins should be equal , as far as '16s these are some of the best I've seen , and that I would love to own , If you ever get Coin Values Magazine , the '16 in Jack Clines add is what a FH should look like , and if you like the coins my opinion means nothing it's your opinion that matters .
Rusty

 

Ok - I'm following but look at how I see it.



If the a 1930 SLQ doesn't have head detail on the die how many quarters off that die can get FH desingation?

This is real, right? There are later SLQ dies without such detail as the masters wore.

Ruben

 

Ruben,

The 1916's head has a different, and somewhat simpler design than the 1917. This is why a 1917 that's a full head will always show more detail than a 1916, the original dies for the 1917 T1s have more detail on them than the 1916 dies. Some years come weakly struck, some come quite well struck. On top of all of this, the 1916 tends to come weakly struck and the 1917 T1 tends to come well struck, more so than pretty much any other SLQ.

But if you look at a nice crisp 1917 T1, understand that there is likely no 1916 on the planet that is as well detailed as that coin.

Bill

 

Oh man, you beat me to it!

Ruben,

FHs exist in every year and mint mark of the SLQ Series (I have never seen an FH 1917/8 myself but I think they exist). Some come nicer than others but they all exist.

 

I spoke too soon.. you think an FH 1916 is pricey....

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=336&Lot_No=2068&src=pr

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=218&Lot_No=6699&src=pr

 

Years, but there were dies that never had that detail. No? Later years many of the dies missed a lot of detail.

My only two points is:

A) You can't use a designation for something that doesn't exist

B) The 1916 designation has a mushy and non-mushy FH's which to me is completely inconsistent. Mushy means loss of the detail of the head. Only the ones with full detail, bad dies or not, should be full heads by the 1916 standard...forget the 1917 standard.


Ruben