1925 SLQ: Opinions?

I bought this a while, back and am interested in your opinion as to grade. It has (to me) lovely golden-rose coloring, and full luster when tilted in the light. I can't see any marks with a standard hand lens. There is a spot next to the left-hand eagle's wing. Your honest opinions, please. I can handle it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

MS-61? not a FH either, IMHO

 

Overall, weakly struck. Not a lot of detail on the shield rivets or the folds in the gown crossing Liberty's body.

Grade, that's a tough one. Mainly, because I don't have a lot of experience!

Based on what I see, I'll go with AU-55..

 

Apologies for the photos. Looking at it in hand, there is good detail where the gown crosses the body. The small central shield and 2 rivets are somewhat weak.

 

I don't see any marks, but I can't go higher than a 65 with that kind of strike. I would say 64 or 65.

 

65 is a great score regardless of strike. I'm starting to feel stingy with my AU-55 rating in an earlier post but I'm new at this...

 

Very Nice SLQ - and I'll get you a grade a little later. Nice detail.

Ruben

 

Officially, it has a mint state grade, but I just studied it closely again under good light, and I'm satisfied that there is no wear. Looking at Cline's book, it appears to be about average strike for this issue. Not much detail in the eagle's breast, as in my photos, but the detail in Liberty's midsection is better than in the photo. It also meets the minimum criteria for FH as set forward in Cline's book (again, my photos may be part of the problem here).

Any other opinions as to how you would grade it? I'm genuinely interested in the opinions of forum members. Thanks for the input so far.

 

No grade opinion, but the obverse toning is outstanding to me! That's a beauty!

 

Looks like a FH from here, or, shall I say, a real TPG will probably call it a FH, it's got the 3 leaves separated and a hole in the ear along with a distinct hairline.

64FH on a guess.

 

Looks great, love the color. I would never try to outguess Rld on a grade tho, so no guess from me.

 

OK - I've looked at this coin and I can't go with it being in MS state. First of all, I think I see wear on the left knee. I'm familiar with the design of this coin and either it is one of the weakest strikes I'd ever seen for a 1925 or the tone is totally obscuring the delicate features of the drapery on her. And the shield is very week. I don't think I can rule out that this coin has been artificially toned. The chainmail is almost invisible. The shield has little detail. The Eagles breast is nearly featherless. If this is mint this is unlike any other I'd seen. Meanwhile you have a full head, clear and bold stars, fine sculptured of the legs.

To me it looks like a very solid AU52 if such a grade exists.

For comparison look at my 1925 which is definitely not MS or even AU



Now look at this raw 1930



It is nearly the same grade as yours, but more detail. Lets just see how toning looks on these coins

This is a TONED 1920 - orange tone and AU55

 

I would like to know what PCGS graded the OPs coin

 

You guys are tough!

I'd go MS-63 FH.

 

Thanks for all the replies and opinions. here is another pic of the obv, lit differently to try to show more detail (maybe I can convince Ruben it really is MS?). The toning makes it hard to show the details with my standard twin lights. It is a little darker than actuality, also.

 

Very Nice coin and sweet toning. Could be just the pics, but there might be a little wear on the shield and the drapery over Liberty's left leg. Regardless that is one NICE COIN.

 

not to disagree with rld, and maybe I just don't see it, but I don't see the ear hole. I can see what I might consider to be three sprigs, but I just don't see the ear hole, and in a later date SLQ, I believe that it should be even more obvious than this one unless I just can't see it in the photo.

sweet coin, BTW and I am STILL waiting to see how close I was.

 

On the last (largest) photo I posted, you can see a little black dot where the ear hole should be. Actually, it IS the ear hole. Here is how PCGS graded it:



You guys are really astute observers, I just went back with my 10x lens and to my relief the luster is intact on the high spots. I am sort of wondering now why it didn't grade 64, unless it was felt to be unappealing, or the strike cost it some points. I'm not complaining, I bought it as a 63 and there it shall stay in my type set.

 

I see Mr. Brooklyn's point. I'm sticking with my AU-55 grade in an earlier post. This is either a weak strike or there's wear on certain high points.
And then there's the variable of trying to grade a coin from a photo...I definitely feel more confident grading with coin in hand.

Still a nice coin..

 

I don't know. We have seen some strange coins in the last couple of weeks and this one is right up there with the best of them. I can not explain the exquisiteness of the head on that coin with the weakness of the rest of the strike. Nor can I reconcile the toning which seems to be be problematic for a SLQ. I sincerely believe that PCGS made an error here, but most people including Bill think the coin is acurately graded so I'm in the minority.

I don't think there is any doubt that the AU55 that I posted looks more natural look and which has sharper overall detail with similar looking tone.

I'm not good at seeing wear in photo's anyway.

Ruben