I am glad you are sending it in to be graded and Authenticated. The 1916 SLQ quarter has one hair curl and the 1917 SLQ has two hair curls. Yours look like only one curl. The TPG services with know for sure.
I sent mine to ICG on the CoinTalk special - came back authenticated as 1916 graded FR02, Details- Damaged. I may cross it over someday to PCGS, but I’m actually very pleased with ICG (repeat customer now) though opinions do vary - some folks turn up their nose if it’s not PCGS (and if you’re going to sell it, their’s is the most valuable slab usually).
So this got me thinking. I pulled out my dateless SLQ's - I have 1 dateless type 1. Does anyone know where I'd find the diagnostics to compare a 1916 to 1917?
The biggest 2 are if you can see the rivets its a 17. Also, if you can see the lines under in god we trust. It's a 17. You won't see either on the 16. And I have seen a 1917 misattributed as a 1916 in a pcgs holder. I can't find the picture right now. But even the top TPG makes mistakes. That might be why NGC won't do them. In case...
UPDATE: just received a PO 1 from ANACS. Couldn’t be happier. At a later date I’ll try send it over to PCGS to see if they’ll be able to crossover grade it. First time using ANACS and I’m satisfied with it. I used the 5 day service and today marks exactly 5 days since they received it. I will post once I receive it back
I really like the Standing Liberty Quarters. I only have one and it was a 1942 graded NGC MS 61. I did buy the gold Liberty Standing. It's still in the box from the Mint. I bought a 2 ounce Silver Replica without a date. It look really nice. I'm sure many collectors like the early Liberty Standing Quarters, but I found that there are so many other coins, that I have many other coins I want to put in my collection.
That's awesome. Yours is a lot worse (i.e. better?) than the PO01 posted above. Why bother sending to PCGS? Just curious what your reasoning is there.
From what I’ve read and seen people seem to be willing to pay more for PCGS coins. In my opinion, it might add a little more value to the coin. However, this is my first ANACS coin so I just might keep it as is.
Maybe a lowball collector will weigh in on that aspect. It's authenticated as a 1916 and clearly about as low grade as you can get, which is why I was curious. It's not like a resubmit would get you a lower grade (which seems to be the goal with these). But I'm even more confused by the PO01 coins that get a CAC sticker...
You and me both, brother. I get the idea that it confirms the coin is purely worn, but otherwise problem-free -- but does a green bean mean it's not as worn as other examples, or that it's more worn (and thus "better for the grade" for its target audience)? Maybe this is where we need the fabled CAC Brown bean...
I collect lowball. The bean basically confirms its problem free. Although I have seen some lowball with beans that I believe have problems. But if I bought it I would submit it to pcgs. I don't like anacs holders. I like to have truview. And yes marketability later is better in a pcgs holder. If I kick the can my daughters would inherit. And they don't know much about coins. In today's markets the pcgs holders will bring more money.
For this particular coin my question remains - why? I guess the answer is no reason other than people would pay more because other people say people would pay more. In other words, marketing.
I think @johnmilton could at least identifies old copper dates But not to grade. Its grade is going to be in the zero range.