@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
I'm not aware of a "specific grading standard" to differentiate earlier quarters from later ones, but once you become experienced with the series the differences are definitely noticeable, and the weaker dates should always be graded by retained luster, and not by detail (in grades above VF).
@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.
Sorry. I knew I started this thread. Just didn't remember I started it in the US Forum. I believe for future purposes I am going to use my Making The Grade book my primary grading source. At least from my perspective it offers the clearest grading difference and I will just always make note to recheck strike differences between the decades. It is true though, there seems to be conflicting information as to how you are suppose to weigh strike. James
I think you could still test it with lower grades that have full rims and in roughly the same condition. I'm thinking 10 in VG from both eras would be enough to test the contention that 21 stack the same as 20. @samclemens3991 It may be worth pointing out that there were actually 3 obverse hub types. When the literature says "obverse II" they probably mean the third obverse, which was exclusive from 1901 on. During 1900 there was an intermediate hub used, likely June-Sep 1900. While short-lived, my census estimates that over 5 million coins were struck with that hub. For the third type WE TRUST was only re-engraved, so we can assume that the contention about grading before and after 1901 differently applies to both obverse 2 and 3. The denticle count changed going from Obv1 to 2 and 3 so that's likely where the relief etc changed as well. Because all three hubs were used in 1900, you could examine coins in the same grade for 1900 from the same mint with the different hubs and see if the contention holds water. It would be difficult to rule out differences in strike however. Here are my 1900 (P) for Obv1 and 2, both AU58. Honestly I can't see much of a difference in the hair and Liberty. Note that the reverses are also different hubs - these are the most common I/II and II/III combinations for P mint. I/III, II/II and III/III also exist. I have the I/III and III/III; still hunting for the II/II.
I think we're both assuming that the difference is strictly due to rim height/thickness. Any chance that the devices contribute? Do the earlier ones wobble at all when stacked?
