1925 SLQ: Opinions?

I like the top one but I'd be hard pressed to find $3000 to buy it. The bottem one is nice also and far more affordable

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=390&Lot_No=21272&src=pr#Photo

I tend to buy coins based on their artistic qualities so that if a date is very expensive, I won't buy it. I'm not the type of collector to buy a 1916-D Merc if i can find a nicer 1917

Ruben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

don't be a fool, Ruben, take the key date every time! It will almost always appreciate better.

 

thanks, cncman, I appreciate the compliment and the information about the date. I just bought Cline's book, and it's interesting reading. I'm not planning on purchasing any more MS Slq's, but I am starting a set in vf-xf; it's one of those series that look great mid-circulated, I think. Toning is definitely a matter of taste, I like the muted kind mostly. In hand, the details on my coin closely resemble those of the MS 64 Ruben posted above.

 

I'm aware of that Mike but I'm not purchasing investments.

Ruben

 

I agree with you about toning. I generally like natural looking toning, muted but evidence of the age and authenticity. ANd SLQ in MS63/64 are relatively affordable except that '29-S.

Ruben

 

Both of those are truly spectacular, especially for a 25. World class actually which would explain the prices. That is the difference between a high end unusually strongly struck 64FH and a lower end 63FH with a weaker but more typical strike like the OPs coin. I am sure we have all seen a HUGE difference in two coins that are only 1 point apart. Note that even this exceptional coin has missing rivets where you typically see them like I was talking about before. I doubt anyone would claim that this coin has wear on it, but it clearly has very flat and almost missing rivets.

 

From my experience, buy the highest grade you can afford, even if it takes you forever. Otherwise, as you learn more and see more nicer coins you will always be frustrated when you go back and look at your set! I have totally torn down and rebuilt my set over again a few times. the SLQ is one of the most rewarding sets you can get and one of the most frustrating for the amount of money you spend to get decent coins. You can do a good circulated XF-AU set, the problem for before 25 will be the date, stick to ones with good clear dates and you won't be sorry later. Good luck with the set!

 

The second one I posted was an MS-63 and only a few hundred dollars. Not ban. That being said

I still disagree that you can explain the OP's coin with stike weakness. I've looked at thousands of SLQ over the last year so I'm working with some context, although admittedly not the context of NCG or PCGS.

Ruben

 

BTW and FWIW, the second hand information I've seen from Cline and from looking at his website, I'm not a fan of his opinions or expertise. Now maybe I should get a hold of his book and read it and I might change my opinion, but from what I've seen, I have more trust in other opinions, including Doug and even Raze and Bill Bill is an absolute SLQ nut who has deep and very analytical knowledge of this series.

Ruben

 

Sorry, you are loosing me again, the second one you posted most recently was that awesome 67, the one with just the link right? The one I quoted you on before was the 64FH right? Not a 63? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am, I am not always right. That's one of the nice things about our passion, it isn't an exact science. I base my opinion not just on my observation of many coins but on knowing where the high point wear usually is seen on a SLQ (breast, knee etc) which I can't see any evidence of on the coin. In order to get the level of wear on the lower areas you have been noticing, those high points would exhibit a high level of wear. Maybe you could explain what you think happened to it? How did the lower areas get so much wear without the high points like the breast and knee getting obliterated? a misformed planchet perhaps? It is also based on the fact that this year is notorious for being a horribly weak strike, that I have seen several slabbed FH coins similar to this for these dates, that the pictures probably aren't very true to what the coin looks like in hand and probably hide some of the detail, as well as the toning probably reduces some of the contrast. The OP says the coin has toe detail which is a sign of a better strike and says the other details are very close to the one you said was a 64, and I have no reason to doubt his word. I would imagine it would look better in person and if it wasn't toned. My possibility for error could lie in the fact that I don't typically examine the heavier toned ones like this, it could be throwing me off. I honestly don't see how someone that has looked at thousands of SLQs could think that the flat or missing rivets in the shield in the spots we have been talking about are a sign of wear, especially when all of the examples you have shown have the same missing rivets, I mean certainly you don't think that the examples you have put up with the missing or flat rivets #2 3 are circulated do you? Surely you have seen missing rivets on many of the later date SLQs you have looked at right? Anyway, I think we both expressed ourselves to the fullest on this topic, thanks for your input.

 

Guys,

You can't apply the same grading principles to all SLQs, strike can vary quite a bit by date, what's well struck, for, say, a 1927-S is a noticeably weak strike for, say, a 1919.

I have a nice AU 1919 that's a debatable FH (It would probably get slabbed as such if I cracked it out and resubbed it). It has a weaker head than a number of other FH SLQs that I have, and yet the rest of the strike is razor sharp, the shield is super strong in particular.

I've seen 29s and 30s with Ultimate full heads where the outer rim of the shield wasn't fully struck, let alone rivets. Also, look, in hand, at the heads on a half a dozen Uncs and you'll see that strike weakness varies even in location. Case in point: I have a 28-S in PCGS 63FH that I have handy, and an AU58 27-P. The 27-P has weakness in the head near the leaves but a nice cheek, while the 28-S has weakness in the usual spot on the cheek but pretty clearly defined leaves.

Heck, you even see strike strength variations from die pair to die pair. I think that a lot of it boils down to a highly complex design, probably improper die basining and lack of quality control (Why that would matter I have no idea as they rarely made an awful lot of them).

Also, looking at these little buggers in hand gives you a VERY different perspective when compared to looking at them in photographs.

Oh, I don't see any wear on the OP's coin, the first place I look for rub is on Liberty's right leg (Her right, not yours).

 

Oh,

Sorry I havent been posting much lately, new job has me very busy and the computers at work block cointalk from time to time

 

neither am I, but if it comes to me by itself, then why not?

 

Thats one of the amazing realizations of grading, especially with TPG, they don't weigh strike as much as they should, except for on certain key designations like FB, FS, FH etc. But even then they don't look at the overall strike of the whole coin. I have seen plenty of strong strike AU-58s I would have over poor strike 63s. I have seen FB mercs with horribly weak obverses that had the same grade as a full strike obverse and reverse. I think they probably won't admit it but I bet they are looser with a FH desgination on a 25 up than on a high FH pop coin like a 17ty 1.

 

Gads..this thread is still running..the SLQ that launched a 1000 posts.

I'm still in Mr. Brooklyn's corner here..even if we are on opposite ends of the country...BTW you guys are on East coast time..do you always stay up this late?

But I digress...the coin that started this thread is in my opinion weakly struck and overgraded. I like very much the price and quality of Mr. Brooklyn's SLQ. The difference between the two is not quite day and night, but given a choice, it would not require a coin flip on my part to make a decision.

 

I tend to work overnights so I'm often up late, and I like west coast guys.

Its not fair to compare my SLQ 1917 to the one the original poster posted, they are apples and oranges. I only posted it to show that coins with heads that detailed usually also have clear strike across the coin. There is a certain pattern to the variation that I expect to see with coins and when they don't jive right, I have big questions about it. Cman is saying that this level or variation is common on SLQ's, and especially 1925's. I haven't seen any yet, and certainly none that I would not also question. I'm prepared to change me mind if I saw a half dozen of so examples of reliable coins that possess this kind of spread in details, but the dies need to be aligned reasonably well or the die with split in half in seconds. And all coins have identifiable patterns when weakly struck, and this coins pattern I don't recognize.

Ruben

 

My pattern is definitely different..during the week I turn in at 10, up at 4:30am, hit the office about 6:15 before the NYSE opens, exit office at 3:30, repeat as needed until weekend.. If we could move that NYSE operation to the West Coast or least to Kansas, a different sleep pattern could emerge.

I understand the previous discussions about weak strikes not affecting grading and also strike variations within certain years...however all that being said if I'm "buying the coin & not the holder"..there's no doubt which coin has the most appeal TGC or not.

 

Meant TPG..not sure where TGC came from..

 

Sorry for the confusion again

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=390&Lot_No=21272&src=pr#Photo

This one is an MS 64 (not 63) and sold for $460 at auction on heritage which I think is a great value and affordable.

I agree. I think it might be tooled and then artificially toned in order to cover up the handy work.

Indeed, your right about strikes on this date. That is one of the reasons why I posted the 1925's from the Heritage archive just to show that although there are weak examples, none that I saw had this specific pattern and the later ones I posted just to show what the full pattern looked like and the last one to show that good strikes are still available for this year at reasonable prices.

That is the wildcard in this conversation. The original poster is a reliable or at least an honest source of information, IMO based on past discussions with him on cointalk, and he is saying that in the hand he has seen better detail and can't find frost breaks on the coin. We have to take him at his word but I would like to see if he brought that coin to an SLQ expert what they would say. Because I still have questions about the coin

no - the shield usually flattens out. I think the coin was tooled. Its not just the rivets. We're confusing two points. One was that I think the coin had wear, either that or that it is an incredibly weak strike that was tooled and AT. The second point is that the weakness of the stike, to me, isn't consistent with the head details, which are extremely well defined.

That being said, despite my skepticism, Bill just posted that in his opinion this strike combination is a known combination of coin strike. I'm still skeptical but I defer completely to Bill's experience in this matter. I'd still like to see examples of common coins with this strike pattern.

Honestly, I focused mostly on higher end Type I's although I looked over a lot of type IIs as well and considered buying them. If I saw this coin among 50 others I wouldn't have even noticed it because I'm very big on strike and the lack of strike would have made me pass right over it, regardless of its grade or price or cost. I'm not a series collector and have no compunction (sic) to fill a whole with a 1925 specifically. I would have purchased a Type II without a FH and with a strong shield and great strike on the body, with a clear Eagle on the reverse in a heart beat. In fact, I would have viewed that as a huge bargain, because without the FH it would cost a lot less for a more attractive coin.

Ruben

 

Bill

Do you have any resources that show a coin that has a head like that with not only missing features but mussy details like the points and stripes in the shield that you can point me too? Because from what I see of this coin, not only is the strike weak, but it is also not sharp, almost like it is out of focus.

Ruben