1925 SLQ: Opinions?

No doubt in my mind that the coin you posted was a better strike and overall a nicer coin..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Did you pay a decent price for that coin?

Ruben

 

I think the details in the head carried this coin in the minds of the graders.

Ruben

 

also the vertical line on the right thigh (left side of coin) in the drapery is visible and that is a sensitive spot for these coins and not always visible.

Ruben

 

Quoi? I don't have any SLQ's even approaching the quality of the AU-55 you posted..most of mine are G-4's...

I recently inherited the coin collection I have..so my cost basis is effectively zero..I have however invested several hundred dollars in coin supplies so I can preserve the collection properly..

 

Sorry - I meant that for ksparrow.

 

Forgiven..I won't torment you by posting a picture of one of my G-4 SLQ's..

 

Post them away

 

Not right away..I've got a few other denominations & varieties that I think would be on the whole more interesting to the forum members..

For now..gotta sign off..

 

Here's something many miss. Weak strike on a coin does NOT equate to an AU grade, only wear. If the coin is weakly struck it is low-end MS, if it has wear, it is AU, plain and simple.

One is worn, and one is Mint State. How well it is struck speaks to what grade it receives in the MS-range. Wear precludes it by definition from Mint State.

 

Right on, I was thinking 63-FH when I saw it, but wasn't sure how they factored the toning in, which to me is unattractive because it darkens the coin so much and is hard to determine the overall luster. 1925 is notoriously weak in the shield with many features missing on most MS coins, same with the feathers, which can easily be confused with wear. even with that weakness in the shield about 5% were FH coins, which is a little below average for later SLQs. Nice coin.

 

I'm aware of this but the weakness pattern of this coin doesn't correspond with the what you expect to see with weak strikes. That would mean that this coin has wear. I'm been avoiding saying this because I didn't want to dampen anyone's spirit with regard to SLQ or their coins but this coin, to my eyes, is an example of a coin with wear that was artificially toned to cover up the imperfections. The motivation for this was probably because the coin has a very sharp head, although the head itself might be tampered with. They got it past PCGS, but I believe that is an error. But the wear pattern is inconsistent with strike weakness.

If others can show me similar weak strikes, I'd be happy to change me mind with conclusive evidence.

Ruben

 

Heres a 28S that shows less detail than this 25 and is PCGS MS66.

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Inventory_No=182474006#Photo

 

Its not an issue of a lack of detail but the PATTERN of detail

 

CNCMAN - the coin you pointed to has perfectly normal detail A weaker head and a weak shield. Not a nearly perfect head and almost no shield or clothing. It is a completely different pattern.


Also - observe the lines in the stone on both coins.

Ruben

 

The weakness in the shield and thigh are the same, it is not only possible but somewhat likely (relatively speaking vs FH population in general) to see that same weakness with a FH especially in a 25, weak strikes in SLQs may not show the same level of weakness in all areas. So I don't agree that since the shield and other areas are weak that the head necessarily has to be weak too. I have seen several coins like this that are slabbed MS. Another key to me that this does not show wear is that the figure's right breast has detail, if you look at the other circulated examples you posted you will see a rub on that breast that you don't see in this coin.

 

Here is one that is pretty close. It is a 65 FH, The top curve of the inner circle on the shield is obliterated and overall very weak, flat even. Weak in the drapery, Look especially at the detail of where the drapery meets the arm and elbow in the two coins. This coin actually shows LESS detail than the OP's in many areas but is a 65 and has a FH.

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=29042&Lot_No=22617#Photo

 

The extreme differences can't be explain by strike, IMO. There is almost no detail to the shield

 

In that example it has 14 visible rivets. I think the two examples don't compare.

Ruben

 

Also, the head of the OP's coin is much more detailed, even with eye lashes, and the garments on the HA example you linked to is more detailed by far than the OP's coin. As a sum, the differences in detail with the OP's coin and the one on heritage is great. The high detailed areas versus the low detailed areas are much greater on the OP's coin, and still, IMO, not explainable with strike alone.

Ruben