20th century type set

Good point you can certainly tell a difference in the strikes of the two .
rzage

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

May god rest ther souls. RIP

 

It is true that NGC requires three different types, but breaking out the 1916 from the 1917 T1 would actually create a 4th type. I can only think of one really good reason why they are not separate. The 1916 SLQ due to its mintage and extreme rarity is not really a collectible coin. By making the 1916 it's own type, the likely result would be many incomplete collections.

Having said that, NGC recently added the 1792 Half Disme to the USA type set which is ludicrous. The 1792 Half Disme has an unknown mintage of less than 2000 and is exceedingly rare costing over $10,000 in the lowest possible grades.

So if they are going to include that coin in the type set, there should be no reason not to have the 1916 SLQ as it's own type. Although they have the right to construct their type set requirements anyway they want, I just want them to be consistent.

 

Great Discussion here. I am personally working on a full Dansco 70/70, including the gold page. I am probably about 75% of the way through, though I have a few high dollar pieces left. There are a few of the gold coins that I think they left out that I would like to include in my set, so I will probably get the coins slabbed and velcro the slabs to the back of the Dansco binder so they are included with the set. This is my plan.

 

A Im also thinking of doing a 70/70 set . Congrats on that bro that's a lot of time and money you got there.

 

Even I have to say there is a clear difference in the strikes a good point still.

 

I think that might be a bit steep for the IKE

 

I think PCGS requires just the 3 as well. Generally one does something and the other runs and copies it.

IMO it should still be 4.. 1916, 1917, 1918-1924 and 1925-1930

 

Yea that's true.

 

Just a bit but he's not too far off.

 

Be sure to post some pic's of that when you get it done.

 

That strikes a good point it would surely be costly to add to the set and might be hard to even find one that fit's your budget.

 

Why?

 

I don't think we need wait for rld14 to answer as there is only one answer to the question.

There was a slight design change/modification from 1916 to 1917. He considers the design change significant enough to warrant a different type.

 

Sorry to be repetitive but what was the change(s) between the 1916 Type 1 and the 1917 Type 1? Or is it Type 1A and Type 1B?

 

well put bro.

 

Forgot to answer, my bad. There's quite a few differences, but this becomes another "Bill nitpicks insane tiny details" trains of thought.

So I ask for your forgiveness upfront Best I can do picwise is steal some off of Heritage's site, I can't take coin pics to save my life as you may have seen and 9pm on a Saturday night is not a good time to get into my safe deposit box to grab mine anyways.

1916: Notice that Liberty has a different face, it's very slight, but you see it in her nose.

Notice also that Liberty's head hits the denticles, on the 1917 the denticles clear her head

Olive branch that she's holding is different

The letters "L I B E R T Y" are smack up against the denticles on the 16, there's some space on the 17.

Her right leg is fatter on the 16, on the 17 she has ankles.

Her gown has numerous differences, look at the pictures, easiest places to see the differences are above the "E" in "WE" and to the left of her bare foot, or to her right of her right foot, you'll see substantial differences in the lower folds of her gown.

An awful lot of people are of the opinion that the 1916 was really a Pattern that they ended up striking a number of. The rarity of the 1916 is that the Philadelphia mint only started striking them midway through December, 1916. On top of that, these coins weren't even released until mid January 1917.

Take a close look at the pics, you'll see what I mean.

 

Very good explanation. I never even considered that there was a difference and always accepted that the Type 1 was one thing and the Type 2 was another, well Types 2 and 3. Since my self-described definition of my type set only included three SLQs, maybe I have to re-think it and make room for a separate Type 1.

 

Nice 17

Ruben

 

I think what keeps a lot of people away from adding in the 16s is rarity and cost. Well struck 16s are tough, the one I posted a pic of is indeed a FH example, and quite well struck for the date. Now look at the 17 below it, it's pretty good for the date. I would hold off if it were me though, after seeing the last few larger auctions, I'm holding off from buying any high dollar stuff right now and buying a 1916 in anything other than a high grade is insanity as the coin carries hardly any substantial premium for condition.