1925 SLQ: Opinions?

How in the world did I miss this thread. I agree completely that strike variations are pronounced from date to date for this series. It is entirely possible to have a full head coin with extreme strike weakness in other areas of the design. It is also very possible to have a razor sharp struck SLQ without FH.

I also look at Liberty's right leg for wear, because that it is where it shows first. I don't see any wear on the OP's coin. However, I will admit that the toning along with the photo could be hiding the wear. I am more inclined to think this is an uncirculated coin with a real nice head and sorry for being blunt, ugly toning.

And Bill has seen FH 30's with incomplete shields. Well now everyone can say they have seen one. Here is an obverse photo of my SLQ 1930-S NGC MS67 FH. Take a look at that shield.




Sparrow, I need to ask you a question. You are the first collector that I have ever seen that likes toning that results in muted luster. What is it about muted luster that appeals to you?

I know that each collector has his own opinion about which elements of grading are more important. Personally, I rank them in this order: Eye Appeal, Luster, Surface Preservation, and strike. Eye appeal is the result of the culmination of the other 3 elements in combination with toning. However, the most important (IMO) element with regard to eye appeal is toning. I have seen really pretty coins in the lower MS grades due to surface marks, and have seen many gorgeous coins with below average strikes, but I have never seen an eye appealing uncirculated coin with muted luster.

Please know that I am not criticizing your collecting preferences. Rather I am fascinated about your approach and would like to further understand it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

the differentiation in the strike between the head of your coin, Paul, and shield is much less than the OP's coin. The shield is much sharper and the head isn't nearly as sharp. Your falls into what my expectations might normally be.

Ruben

 

ALso, your mid section and chainmail are much more defined.

Ruben

 

I won't dispute that at all, but my coin is also an MS67. If an MS67 is allowed to have that much weakness, what can an MS63 have. I understand your point that the strike weakness is not consistent with the level of head detail. However, if there was wear on the coin, you would see it first on Liberty's right leg. I don't see any wear on her leg. It is not out of the realm of possibility that you are correct that the coin was AT'ed to cover the wear, but it is unlikely. The reason it is unlikely is that PCGS graded the coin MS63 and the current owner of the coin who has seen the coin in hand has stated that he sees no breaks in luster associated with wear.

Ruben, I know you like more subtle original toning on your coins. Does toning that subdues luster bother you?

 

anything that subues the luster makes the coin less desirable, IMO, but I wouldn't go as far as say bother me. If this coin was blast white I wouldn't like it at all.

When a 250 year old coin naturally tones, does it retain luster? I would think it would.


Ruben

 

BTW - did you get that PM from me? I want to get those great shots into the Museum.

Ruben

 

I did. I will have to put some thought into it and probably won't have time to do it until Monday or Tuesday.

 

Thats nice too, I would have bought it. There are a couple of problems with your retooled and AT theory, many other points are sharp on the coin, (at least according to the OP, but from what I can see too) so, not only would they have to retool the head, but the chainmail over the breast, the toes, the arm and elbow and that is just on the obverse. Why all that work for a relatively available FH coin? That kind of minute retooling would leave evidence of tool marks somewhere, plus there is no guarantee of what their AT would turn out to be. I am not good at all on toning but it appears natural to me. It all seems like too much work and too much of a gamble to be worth it to me. If they have that talent they would retool the head of one that would bring $20-30K. PLus we have to believe that the original owner, PCGS and the current owner missed AT and retooling on various parts of the coin. I have a hard time seeing that.

I have seen other examples, but the problem is we can only look at pics at places like heritage, typically they would offer better strikes for the grade anyway, take a look at them at a coin show and you would see coins like this with dealers trying to sell the slab instead of the coin.

I can see why you would pass on that coin if you are used to looking at Ty1's! There is a world of difference in a TY1 where 70% are FH and later coins where 1-5% are FH.

Glad Bill came in so now I know who he is, I am sure I will pick his brain in the future.

 

Nice! I didn't know you were into SLIBs too! We keep running into each other! Nice one you have. That's a salivating slib, cause it makes me drool! I have never had anything over a 65 in my posession, but I have had 2 1916s, but I foolishly got rid of them when I had an emergency and needed $$ :headbang:

You find me a white 45-P to trade yet? hee hee. I think the more I look at the coin the more I appreaciate it, its growing on me. I am going to get a good photo setup sometime soon so I can get you some more pics, sorry to go off message for the thread but do you have a site that gives tips for capturing toning acurately?
B

 

Well, I think "ugly" is in the eye of the beholder, Lehigh. I believe you were stating your preference for a particular appearance, although I think you might have been a little more tactful.However, I understand that opinions are strongly held and often strongly expressed, so I didn't take it personally. I do appreciate you inquiry into my preferences as to toning and luster. By muted luster, I did not mean to imply "lackluster" or flatness. I just don't particularly care for coins that come out of the gate screaming. I have in front of me an MS Morgan, it is lustrous and cartwheels like crazy, and next to it my slq looks rather drab. However, I find that the quarter invites closer scrutiny, because the gradations in the golden tone highlight some areas of the design and add shading and mystery to others. There is a sense of things emerging from a background. I also have a feeling of antiquity when I examine this coin with its patina that ranges into a russet brown in some areas. On the reverse there is a very subtle halo of rose that surrounds the eagle, as you tilt the coin in the light it appears to be flying through an evening mist.

I originally trained as an archaeologist, and became used to studying the patination on objects as they emerged from the ground on 17th and 18th century sites in the Mid- Atlantic area. Browns, yellows, golds are what you typically see, and some blue. I relate these same gradations of color to artwork like Paul Klee's, platinum/palladium photographs by Strand, Curtis, Stieglitz- they have a subtlety and depth that appeal to me. So, from a purely aesthetic perspective, I would rather have this one lowly quarter in front of me than 2 or 3 bright white specimens, even if they had vibrant colors. I can appreciate their sculptural beauty, their color and the natural processes that created it, but they don't resonate for me.

 

Sparrow,

I couldn't think of a tactful way to say it so I expressed my opinion bluntly. However, I did preface it with an apology before doing so. Your background as an archeologist goes along way to explaining your preferences. My guess is that you love the earlier US coinage as well, Capped Busts, Draped Busts, Flowing Hairs, and Colonial.

Personally, I like high grade, booming luster, and monster eye appeal on my coins. The older coins and your SLQ have a much more subtle attraction. At first glance they seem unimpressive, but the more you look at them, the more you come to appreciate their beauty.

 

Luster means a lot with regards to TPG grading of SLQs, these coins don't have big areas on the obverse where marks can detract, and due to their size bag marks aren't as big of an issue as they are with, say, Morgans.

What is an issue, is subdued or impaired luster from these guys going swimming in dip too many times, these coins DO tone, but have a bad tendency to tone in ways that, shall we say, lack eye appeal of other issues. So you'll get them with nasty toning, they get dipped, and dipped, and dipped. I have 62s and 63s that, if they weren't overdipped would be 65+s. I have a 1919 in a Gen holder that comes to mind, it's a really nice coin, no rub, and a neat reverse lamination on the wing of the eagle and it should be at LEAST a 64FH, really a 65FH, but it's so overdipped that there's no cartwheel luster left.

So if you see one with blazing luster, no marks... and even if it's a weak strike, you can see them in 66+ holders, the market assumes SLQs to be weakly struck and that the razor sharp coins, especially on dates that are notrious for lousy strikes (27-S) bring HUGE premiums.

The 27-S is a great example, not only is it a key date, ESPECIALLY in higher grade, but they are also probably the most poorly struck coins in the series, I don't ever recall seeing a pic of one that was truly a fully struck example, the handful of known FHs have crappy strikes on Liberty's torso and the eagle's wings, etc...

It's like I said earlier, a weakly struck 17-P T1 will get savaged by, say, PCGS, and that's as it should, those coins come VERY well struck as we all know, heck, I want to buy a non-FH example and can't seem to find a weakly struck one. Meanwhile, take a 27-S... if a 65FH that was FULLY struck showed up, I could see that being a $250k+ coin easily and I would expect that it would be a 63 or 64 coin in a 65 holder.

Besides that, except for the SLIGHTEST HINT of rub, these coins are pretty easy to spot with rub on the leg, it's such a small device on the coin and so well rounded that any slight wear is pretty easy to spot if you're familiar with them.