Grading Barber Quarters Hub #2

@KBBPLL . I know this is your specialty but I have a specialty question. I was reading the book you gave me last night and came across an extrodinary quote. I will parapharase from Pg. 179 of "The Guide Book on Barber Coins": The book has a quote from David Lawrence saying that all Barber Quarters struck from 1901 on must be graded using a different standard. It goes on to claim the "bands" under the word "Liberty" might be missing and that the entire head design will be much flatter than on earlier coins.
I am in the middle of preparing to buy my first Barber Quarters. I can't find any other mention of this in my usual grading guides. Is there a specific grading standard and if so where do I find it? Anyone who knows about tis; please feel free to enlighten me. James

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@samclemens3991 My specialty if I have one is definitely not grading. The quote on page 179 confuses me because on page 170, Bowers seems to say the opposite. "The lowering of the relief [presumably in 1900] resulted in LIBERTY not wearing away as quickly in circulation." Lawrence claims post-1900 there is less detail, but Bowers claims it doesn't wear as quickly, so it seems like a wash to me! Bowers says the same thing about dimes on page 84 regarding the supposed lowering of the relief.

Bowers also says about the quarters that post-1900, 21 coins stack to the same height as 20 from pre-1901. I've always wondered if there's a "silver stacker" with enough raw Barber quarters from both eras to prove whether that's true or not. When I first read that, I thought he might be mixing up the 1900 changes with the 1892 quarters - the 1892 design was quickly changed because the coins wouldn't stack properly. Both can be true of course.

If you look at Photograde (https://www.pcgs.com/photograde#/Barber25/Grades) the VF35 is an 1896 with a full lower band, and the XF40 is a 1914 where the lower band seems less distinct. But if the 1896 wore more quickly because of the relief, seems like it deserved an XF40, and if the 1914 wore less quickly, that one should be the VF35. But if Lawrence is correct and there was less detail to begin with, then the 1914 gets the grade break. It's confusing. But it's also subjective, and you have to look at the rest of the coin too, not just the Liberty stuff.

 

Or someone with a few unworn examples from both eras, and a good micrometer?

I'd be all in on this, except I can't hit the "unworn" target.