Dateless Type 1 Standing Liberty Quarter

Well, the slab doesn't look fake to me, but I'll wait for someone more knowlegable to comment on it. There is a good chance that PCGS just completely screwed up. I would be on the phone with them right away to negotiate compensation for your loss.

Another question, where did you purchase this coin? If it is from a trustworthy dealer, you might be able to return it to him. I'm really sorry man. Let us know what happens.
---------------
Johnny,

I had my Fr-2 Standing lib checked out by a PCGS grader today and was verified as authentic.
Could you have swapped the (1916/1917) dateless images? The bottom center of the 1916 drapery by the right leg should essentially touch the base (which mine does), while the 1917 drapery bottom center has a small (sub-mm) but noticeable gap.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nope, sure didn't. I only got one picture from you, and the latest one you posted with the coin in the slab I posted up today for people to check the authenticity of this slab on PCGS forums(it's obviously the same coin you posted earler). It is definitely the same coin in both pictures, and it appears there is a 1917 slq in a "1916" slab. Please Check out this thread to verify that the pictures I posted were the same ones you posted here:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=769166

I find this all really odd since I can see multiple diagnostics for a 1917 slq on your coin, and obviously dozens of other folks can too, including Mark Feld who was a grader at NGC for quite some time.....so I'm just confused There is a large difference in the overall look between the two coins. If the PCGS grader is confident it's a 1916, I would sell your coin to him and be done with it to be safe.....but that's just me. They owe you anyways imo.

Anyone else feel free to chime in, cuz I'm at a complete loss as to what is going on with PCGS on this one...

 

Well I'll be keeping tuned to which way it ends up...

 

How was it examined - in person or via the images? And who was the grader that supposedly checked it out? Did he say the coin was authentic, or that it was an authentic 1916? There's a huge difference.

I don't think there is any way that it's a 1916, and either PCGS made a mistake (for which you need to get compensated) or someone placed the coin in a counterfeit holder.

But, If PCGS has examined the coin in person and declared it to be a genuine 1916, in order to try to protect yourself, you need a letter from them, detailing their conclusion and mentioning your specific coin and its unique ID number.

 

The coin was examined in person and compared to a 1917 (granted, a higher grade 1917). I don't have the grader's permission to mention his name, but he has over 30 years experience as a dealer and PCGS grader. There was no concern about the holder having been played with. The primary diagnostic was the drapery to the right of the right leg. The difference was small, but obvious. I feel comfortable with its attribution as an 1) authentic standing liberty quarter and 2) its attribution as a 1916.
Your suggestion as to getting a letter from PCGS is good. Next time I talk to them, I'll ask.

 

Thanks for the reply and please be sure to get that letter.

 

I and many others are convinced that the coin is a 1917. The position of Liberty's head relative to the border appears to be a dead giveaway. And that is a far easier to verify than the drapery diagnostic that was mentioned.

 

Well, though I'm in total disagreement with PCGS, it sounds like they may be willing to back it up, hopefully with a letter or financial compensation....so this is very good news :thumb:.

I've never heard of the "bottom center drapery touching the base" diagnostic before. I know that the fold of drapery on the 1916 is narrower in scope and attaches to Liberty's ankle, but I'd be interested in learning more about the one you mentioned. Maybe if you get a chance you can take a closeup and show us the diagnostics you are talking about.

 

There was no indication of financial compensation from PCGS.

 

True, but PCGS seemed convinced it was authentic, which is why I'm being hopeful that they will back it with more than talk. I'm trying to be optimistic because I'm truly baffled by what's going on here. He wants to sell the coin soon, and I would be scared to sell this coin in an auction house(Heritage/ebay/etc...); so what would you recommend he pursue being into this coin over $1,300? If they write a letter, does that mean he should be able to sell it in an auction? What kind of protection does that offer? I guess I assumed it means that they would back the authenticity of the coin financially if necessary.

 

Mark Field said:
There was no indication of financial compensation from PCGS.

I didn't ask for compensation. I feel comfortable with the coin and PCGS and plan on keeping it for a while as part of my 20th century year/mint set.

 

I think this will forever remain a mystery to me, soooo Alrighty then.:smile I'm sorry to have hammered on you Cringely.

I kind of derailed my own thread....so back on topic with the original coin if anyone has additional comments.

 

Congratulations; you have a 1916. Besides the other reasons, offered above, are these 3. First, the little rivets atop Liberty's shield stand out on a dateless 1917 Type I; they are not visible on the 1916. Second, the deepest fold in the horizontal drapery that extends to Liberty's right hand appears over the wall, just above and beyond the D in GOD. On the 1917 Type I it is nearer her waist. Finally, on the 1917 Type I, the symmetric rectangular design on either side of the gangway in which Liberty stands is incuse -- carved into the surface of the coin. Consequently, usually part of these appear on a dateless 1917 I. In contrast, this area on the 1916 will be -- as it is on your coin -- completely flat.

Best,
John G

 

I better go check my junk box!!

 

John G.

I was aware of the first 2 diagnostics you stated, but not the 3rd. I looked back at my type 1s, and you are absolutely correct! Thanks for the info. Now I know a total of 6 distinguishing differences between the 1916 and 1917 type 1s(outside of the date).

 

Characteristics of Dateless 1916

Thanks, Johnny! I like the incuse rectangles criterion because they can be seen even on very small, virtual images. You probably also are aware that the folds in Liberty's garment beneath the shield seem fewer on the 1916 than 1917 Type I. Finally, there are two distinct folds in Liberty's garment at her shoulder on the 1917 I. (This extends vertically down toward her feet and passes beneath the horizontal drapery). On the 1916 these shoulder folds are far less distinct.

JH Cline's The Standing Liberty Quarter is the classic reference on this coin. He has a few more interesting distinctions listed there. These helped me to find a dateless, cull 1916 SLQ in 2003 that was certified FR2! It is interesting that some are still out there.

My favorite US coin is the Mercury Dime -- the nearest to the classic ancient coins of any US issue. In fact, my only tatoo is of the Proof Matte 1916 that appears on the cover of David Lange's Complete Guide to Merucry Dimes. I always hoped to find was the 1916-D Mercury Dime in a dealer's junk bin. But after years of searching I have found none. Indeed I have only found one 1921 and cannot determine whether there was a mintmark. All other dates 1926-S, 1931 D&S etc can be found with some patience.

From my experience, the Buffalo nickel offers lots of good, smaller finds, on a fairly regular basis. For example, the knot on the Indian's braid has a distinctive look unique to that year. Further, something that was told to me, but is not generally known is that the famous 1918/17-D nickel has a reverse that is significantly rotated (perhaps 15 degrees or so). Anyway, good luck and may you find some cull coin treasures among your horde!

Best,
John G

 

thanks John. It does amaze me that these coins haven't all been cherry picked yet. I was thinking mine would grade FR-02 as well. Is it similar in detail to the one you found? I plan to send it to ANACS. I am aware of those other diagnostics, and I made several diagrams highlighting the difference back several pages in this thread. I need to update it with the rectangle diagnostic you mentioned.


It sounds like you have made some great finds!! I've found a couple 21 slqs as well in junk lots, and some semi-keys(20-d, 17-s etc..). These finds motivated me to complete my slq set, since the most expensive one is already out of the way. I am now awaiting shipment on the 19-d, which is the last piece!

BTW WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!!

 

After spending an hour,I am sorry to say without a shadow of a doubt,that is a 1917 standing liberty quarter.Graders make mistakes,and photo technology does not.Give me another hour,and I will show the proof.But I will need someone with an unlimited bandwidth photobucket account to host it.

 

I can only help people that want to help themselves.

 

Mad.Outcast:

Just to clarify, this thread is actually addressing 2 different coins. The one that I posted initially(the raw dateless 1916), and the one that Cringly posted later on in the thread.

I assume that you are addressing the one that Cringly posted in the PCGS slab? If so, everyone that has commented agrees that it is a 1917, but he is convinced otherwise and I'm not sure we will ever convince him.....Feel free to try though.