1925 SLQ: Opinions?

excellent points, Ruben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not a pro grader either but it is a very pretty coin. Some details are weak but it is from the photos a full head SL, which makes it attrative by that alone. This is a tough series because of the weak strikes in general due to the high relief. Nice coin overall tho and very satisfying.

 

The center ring of the shield is non existant on the top in the HA piece, but in the OP's coin it is complete. Therefore, more detail in the OP's coin for the shield. (although it does look odd there, a football shaped area that does not show the same toning as the rest of the coin)The center ring and shield are always a better indicator of subtle wear than the rivets which don't usually show wear unless very worn. So counting the number of rivets to claim it as wear in these examples is not accurate. Besides if you look at the rivets on both coins they are almost the same on both, the bottom one at the 6 O'clock position is strong, the next 2 clockwise are weak and a couple weak at the top, that is characteristic of the dies, not wear.

There is no sign of wear that I can see where you would expect it to be in the OPs coin, on the breast, the center of the shield and the thigh. (though the toning can hide some of the signs like a break in luster). In order for there to be wear where you are pointing it out, rivets, gown, etc there would be considerable wear on those high points BEFORE you would see wear in those areas. Which is why when you see flatness in many areas you look at the high points to see if there are signs of wear.

Did you look at the elbow where it meets the drapery in the two pieces? In the heritage example the elbow acutally merges with the drapery. There is almost no detail there, no seperation, in the OP's piece the difference is clear. I can't copy the enlarged image from the HA piece but here is a copy of the section from the OPs piece, compare that to the HA auction and tell me which one has more detail. Clearly the OPs coin has more detail than the HA there. Since that area doesn't merge except on heavily worn coins we know that the HA coin exhibits a weaker strike at least in that area, but there are several more areas. Clearly the OPs piece has more detail in that spot. Neither coin has what could be considered a strong strike through most of the coin except the heads which show a lot of detail. That is what you asked for, another example that showed a FH but had a lot of other weakness in the coin. You also see this a lot on the SLQs from the 30's as they did not produce new dies since the coin was going to be phased out, but you have some of the highest FH % of any dates, near the % of 1917 TI, in the 30's, as much as 20% or even more.

I know it sounds odd and it took me a long time to recognize it too, I saw several MS coins that looked to me like AU or even XF until I understood more about the different dates and what was normal for them. Then I learned the difference between flatness and wear. I have personally seen several slabbed SLQs that have had FH and weakness the same as these two coins.

 

Words at this point are obscuring the facts. Your making the case that the OP's weakness pattern appears normal and further the shield has more detail than the Heritage example. I'd argue that this is in fact not the case. Counting rivets are perfectly legitimate way discuss shield wear and strike weakness. Look at the two right next to each other:




If your arguing that the second example is a more detailed shield, I strongly disagree with you.

 

Edited Pics!

I dropped in for a few minutes and thought I would help by editing the pics! Definitely a mushy strike and hard to grade due to the toning but a beautiful coin.


Frank

 

and its not just rivets, but stripes, the hanging drapery from the shield, the sharpness of the points on the shield design, and this pattern isn't even limited to the shield.

I still see nothing that can explain that head on the top example on that coins strike unless either A) The head was carved, B) the Body saw wear

 

Ah Frank, you just saved me the trouble of doing what you just did. Because that is the other big problem in explaining this coin as just weak strike. The midline of the body of Miss Liberty is also completely inconsistent with the startling detail of the head. The head, on a high point of the coin, you can see eye lashes. The midbody has no detail at all

 

Of course that looks different. And I would agree that the HA coin you pictured here has a more defined shield than the OPs. That is because it isn't the same coin from HA we have been talking about the last few posts. I have been talking about the last one I posted which you responded to, the 1929 MS65 FH, the HA coin you have here isn't even FH. Here is the link again. http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=29042&Lot_No=22617#Photo

Compare those two and tell me which one has a more complete shield? It's completely missing at the top! Rivets are NOT an indicator of wear unless it is a heavily worn coin. Especially when the typical high points that are checked for wear, (breast, knee, thigh etc) do not show evidence of high wear. Here is the qoute from Cline's book for you on 1925 and up SLQs. See what it says about the shield and rivets. Anyone looking at a weak shield and rivets as a sign of wear in a 1925 and up coin isn't grading the coin accurately. It can be an indicator of strength of the strike, but nearly all of these coins have weak shields and rivets so it isn't a good indicator when you can have a FH and weak shield and rivets.


"wouldn't it be nice if the mint could get it all together? How about recessed date; strong sharp date? What about shield lines, rivets, toes, head? This (1925) is the beginning of the no shield lines through 1930. Both verticle and horizontal lines are almost non existent. Most have Mushy toes. Second, third, and sometimes fourth rivets are missing or are very flat. "

Later on the 1926;

"Again, few if any shield lines, missing or flattened rivets two, three and four"

 

If I'm confusing you, its my mistake, but I just clicked on what i thought was your last link. The one you point out above I will now comment on.

CNC - I agree that the HA your now telling me about is also weak, but it is also less weak that the OPs shield. It is sharper all together with 3 sharper points, all its stripes, but more importantly the head details is consistent with the shield details with a less detailed head. The head op the OP's coin would require a fantastic overall strike. The head rivals my own SLQ, which has a class I full detailed strike

 

Ha, that's OK, What you need to understand is that there can be a great variance in the strike quality of different features in the SLQ because of its design and numerous other features, how far apart the dies were set different die wear etc. Anyone that has examined numerous examples of MS SLQs knows that you can have mushy and outstanding in the same coin, it isn't all or nothing. Look no further than these last 2 coins. They both have strong strike features in some areas and weak in others. Did you compare the elbows yet? The OPs coin has a sharp elbow with a clear seperation between it and the gown, the HA FH coin (which was graded higher) does not, but the OPs coins has, I agree a slightly weaker shield. BUt the weak rivets are in the same positions, 2 and 3, just like in cline's book, so that does not indicate wear. There would be little doubt from anyone that the HA piece is mint state but if you wanted to compare just that elbow portion one might think the OPs coin is the higher grade because it exhibits more detail.

 

oh, BTW, very, very nice T1 you have there. You should be proud to own it, I can see why looking at your coin you would see problems with T2 coins. The T1's were fantastic strikes all around, and one of the highest % of dates with FH. But it is totally unfair to compare later T2 and 1925 and up SLQs to a 1917, they cant compare.

 

I gotta say I am not usually enthralled with the SLQ series as I've always thought they just wear bad and turn into crappy looking coins real quick, but that coin is absolutely stunning, I think mushy strike or not and FH in that condition you should be proud to have in your collection.

 

I really like the OPs coin. It looks MS to me, and I think the obverse toning is really attractive.

 

Hi folks, just got home from the office, and I'm really glad that my o.p. has led to such a spirited discussion about my quarter and SLQ's in general! I think that some of the disagreement about strike and wear derives from my photos, which while decent did not show some elements that are in fact present. For that, I apologize. With the coin in front of me, and the ability to rotate it under a point source light with a 10x lens, I can say with some certainty that there is no displaced metal on the high points. With regard to the detail visible on the shield and center of the body, these show up a bit better on the second photo of the obverse that I posted, but not great- so I'll try to describe these details: small shield: full circle around it, stripes to the left not sharp. Large shield: full sharp outlines, but 2 rivets (3 and 4) weak although 4 is visible. All of the drapery in the midsection is visible (but not hammered!) which did not show up well in my photos. You can also see where the drapery lines cross the right thigh above the knee. I count 4 toes on the foot. On the reverse, the eagle's breast feathers are visible but not strong. The tiny feathers on the leading edge of the right wing are visible but not strong. No sign of any displaced metal. The toning is a sort of pale champagne, not as dark as in my photos. In my very humble opinion, it looks MS64 but I'm no pro! In my opinion, the color looks natural. Please post any other questions you have about the coin, I'll try to answer them. I don't recall what I paid for it, that's in a giant pile of receipts in the file cabinet! Again, I appreciate all the opinions and am glad that some of you like the look of the coin, it was one of my first buys when I started collecting about 2 years ago.

 

Yea, you have a really nice coin, it wouldn't be for me because of the toning, I like crisp white coins, but for that date full toes and a complete ring around the center of the shield are outstanding! The 25 is one of the hardest to find with a full strike 70-80% FH for that date do not show that detail, which is a whole nother discussion. It is similar to a merc getting FB but can still have a weak strike on the obverse and other details. You see the same thing in other coins of the era like the walkers. definitely hold onto it! BTW, if you or anyone wants to get really into SLQs read cline's book, it gives you the characteristics of each date and what to look for in strike quality and populations of FH.

 

Here is a nice 1925

 

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=434&Lot_No=587&src=pr

 

This is an MS64 FH

 

don't you wish those coins were yours, Ruben? I surely do!